The multiple ways Anishnaabe people think about invasive species provide alternatives to native–non-native binaries that dominate much of the scientific discourse about invasive species.
The authors argue that planting and displanting humans and plants are elements of the same multispecies colonial endeavor. In contrast to those who equate native plant advocates with antiimmigrant nativism, they see native plant advocacy as part of a broad process of botanical decolonization.
This paper reviews the key criticisms of the native/alien construct, xenophobic associations, disjunct between promotion of a multicultural human society and the persecution of `foreign’ species. They advocate for an alternative framework based on a `damage criterion’ rather than arbitrary biogeographical origins.
Kimmerer, R. (2013). Chapters “Skywoman Falling” and “In the Footsteps of Nanabozho: Becoming Indigenous to Place” in Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions.
Hogan, L. (1999). Power. WW Norton & Company. (mention of kudzu)
Leopold, A. (1989). Chapter “Axe in Hand” in A Sand County almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, USA.
Martin, L. J. (2022). Chapter “Mood of Wild America” in Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. Harvard University Press.
Oladipo, J. (2011). “Porphyrin Rings” in Deming, A. H., & Savoy, L. E. (Eds.). Colors of Nature: Culture, Identity, and the Natural World. Milkweed Editions.