By Nick Routledge

Over the years, I have got the very strong impression that the insistence on legitimate chemical use appears to go hand in hand with exclusionary pro-nativist attitudes. I am categorically neither an expert on native ecology nor on herbicides, even as I feel keenly that chemical poisoning in the name of sound ecological stewardship is a significant disconnect. I'm sure I'm not alone. Do you think it's fair to say that non-poisoning, whatever the context, is a generally accepted axiom of permaculture? If so, this is something we would probably want to address at the gathering. What is the permacultural justification? Is there someone who could carry this flag?

On that note, here's a brief segment from "Healthcare as Peacemaking," the monograph on Taraxacum officinale I penned for the guild in May of 2005:

"There is much about this tale which resonates deeply with my own unfolding experiences around the garden just now -- in particular around my fast-evolving relationship with plants commonly labelled as 'weeds'. Goodness, how loaded is that word, eh? ("Weeds are bad. Everybody says so. Therefore it must be true.") I'm reminded of Pamela Jones' astute observation: "It is a curious fact that wild plants or herbs are gladly admired by the human race -- even protected, if need be, against possible extinction. But let them be called weeds, however erroneously, and even kind, gentle souls turn to violence ... I would like to see the word 'weed' abolished altogether for being one of the most intolerant, negative words in the English language."

What Pamela understands very well, is that our (in)ability to perceive the true nature of things is largely conditioned by the language we use to describe them. Put simply, when we call something by a name, we give that thing an identity - and it then responds to us according to the tone of its name. The danger, of course, is that when we name things in a small way, we cripple them -- and ourselves. More often than not, we embrace such "word-prisons" of reduced identity without even noticing. These "negative baptisms" blind us to the possibilities and potentials of life. We lock ourselves in a "thought cage." Our growth is arrested.

The good news is the flipside. As Confucius put it, "When you get stuck, rename things." Put another way, fundamentally shifting our understanding of life can be  as simple an act as rebaptizing a word cage (and all the consequential baggage that goes with it) with a name that is more worthy and spacious. This shift in perspective can be lightning fast -- an ah-hah! moment. It needs be said that such shifts can be disturbing as well as liberating. Disturbing because they prompt us to surrender habitual, comfortable "certainties," false as they were, and to look with fresh eyes at, eek, old challenges: and liberating because to liberate the truth is to liberate oneself.

http://www.seedambassadors.org/pdfs/dandelionpg1.pdf [1]

My strong sense is that the natives-non-natives "divide" is largely an issue of perception and epistemology. Which suggests that the way through (the herbicide story, for one) may well be much easier than first impressions would suggest. As Stewart Brand puts it, "When a design problem resists solution, reframe the problem in such a way that it invites solution."