#plantations

[fatehbaz]

Despite its green image, Ireland has surprisingly little forest. [...] [M]ore than 80% of the island of Ireland was [once] covered in trees. [...] [O]f that 11% of the Republic of Ireland that is [now] forested, the vast majority (9% of the country) is planted with [non-native] spruces like the Sitka spruce [in commercial plantations], a fast growing conifer originally from Alaska which can be harvested after just 15 years. Just 2% of Ireland is covered with native broadleaf trees.

Text by: Martha O’Hagan Luff. “Ireland has lost almost all of its native forests - here’s how to bring them back.” The Conversation. 24 February 2023. [Emphasis added.]

---

[I]ndustrial [...] oil palm plantations [...] have proliferated in tropical regions in many parts of the world, often built at the expense of mangrove and humid forest lands, with the aim to transform them from 'worthless swamp' to agro-industrial complexes [...]. Another clear case [...] comes from the southernmost area in the Colombian Pacific [...]. Here, since the early 1980s, the forest has been destroyed and communities displaced to give way to oil palm plantations. Inexistent in the 1970s, by the mid-1990s they had expanded to over 30,000 hectares. The monotony of the plantation - row after row of palm as far as you can see, a green desert of sorts - replaced the diverse, heterogenous and entangled world of forest and communities.

Text by: Arturo Escobar. "Thinking-Feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South." Revista de Antropologia Iberoamericana Volume 11 Issue 1. 2016. [Emphasis added.]

---

But efforts to increase global tree cover to limit climate change have skewed towards erecting plantations of fast-growing trees [...] [because] planting trees can demonstrate results a lot quicker than natural forest restoration. [...] [But] ill-advised tree planting can unleash invasive species [...]. [In India] [t]o maximize how much timber these forests yielded, British foresters planted pines from Europe and North America in extensive plantations in the Himalayan region [...] and introduced acacia trees from Australia [...]. One of these species, wattle (Acacia mearnsii) [...] was planted in [...] the Western Ghats. This area is what scientists all a biodiversity hotspot – a globally rare ecosystem replete with species. Wattle has since become invasive and taken over much of the region’s mountainous grasslands. Similarly, pine has spread over much of the Himalayas and displaced native oak trees while teak has replaced sal, a native hardwood, in central India. Both oak and sal are valued for [...] fertiliser, medicine and oil. Their loss [...] impoverished many [local and Indigenous people]. [...]

India’s national forest policy [...] aims for trees on 33% of the country’s area. Schemes under this policy include plantations consisting of a single species such as eucalyptus or bamboo which grow fast and can increase tree cover quickly, demonstrating success according to this dubious measure. Sometimes these trees are planted in grasslands and other ecosystems where tree cover is naturally low. [...] The success of forest restoration efforts cannot be measured by tree cover alone. The Indian government’s definition of “forest” still encompasses plantations of a single tree species, orchards and even bamboo, which actually belongs to the grass family. This means that biennial forest surveys cannot quantify how much natural forest has been restored, or convey the consequences of displacing native trees with competitive plantation species or identify if these exotic trees have invaded natural grasslands which have then been falsely recorded as restored forests. [...] Planting trees does not necessarily mean a forest is being restored. And reviving ecosystems in which trees are scarce is important too.

Text by: Dhanapal Govindarajulu. "India was a tree planting laboratory for 200 years - here are the results." The Conversation. 10 August 2023. [Emphasis added.]

---

Nations and companies are competing to appropriate the last piece of available “untapped” forest that can provide the most amount of “environmental services.” [...] When British Empire forestry was first established as a disciplinary practice in India, [...] it proscribed private interests and initiated a new system of forest management based on a logic of utilitarian [extraction] [...]. Rather than the actual survival of plants or animals, the goal of this forestry was focused on preventing the exhaustion of resource extraction. [...]

Text by: Daniel Fernandez and Alon Schwabe. "The Offsetted." e-flux Architecture (Positions). November 2013. [Emphasis added.]

---

At first glance, the statistics tell a hopeful story: Chile’s forests are expanding. […] On the ground, however, a different scene plays out: monocultures have replaced diverse natural forests [...]. At the crux of these [...] narratives is the definition of a single word: “forest.” [...] Pinochet’s wave of [...] [laws] included Forest Ordinance 701, passed in 1974, which subsidized the expansion of tree plantations [...] and gave the National Forestry Corporation control of Mapuche lands. This law set in motion an enormous expansion in fiber-farms, which are vast expanses of monoculture plantations Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus species grown for paper manufacturing and timber. [T]hese new plantations replaced native forests […]. According to a recent study in Landscape and Urban Planning, timber plantations expanded by a factor of ten from 1975 to 2007, and now occupy 43 percent of the South-central Chilean landscape. [...] While the confusion surrounding the definition of “forest” may appear to be an issue of semantics, Dr. Francis Putz [...] warns otherwise in a recent review published in Biotropica. […] Monoculture plantations are optimized for a single product, whereas native forests offer [...] water regulation, hosting biodiversity, and building soil fertility. [...][A]ccording to Putz, the distinction between plantations and native forests needs to be made clear. “[...] [A]nd the point that plantations are NOT forests needs to be made repeatedly [...]."

Text by: Julian Moll-Rocek. “When forests aren’t really forests: the high cost of Chile’s tree plantations.” Mongabay. 18 August 2014. [Emphasis added.]

[reasoningdaily]

My family has a museum on River Road in Gonzalez Louisiana. the history will make you run through the fields running and crying. the bloody river road will never leave my memory..

[probablyasocialecologist]

The plantation model, as oil palm historian Jonathan E. Robins points out, is a profound process of creating a “new nature” and “‘delocalizing’ a space by clearing vegetation; evicting human and animal inhabitants; and contouring, draining, and irrigating the landscape until it fits a universal model.” It only occurs within a broader economic landscape of input resources and markets for outputs. The plantation, as a uniquely modern and fundamentally colonial technology, transmutes entangled land and labor into private wealth.

Max Haiven, Palm Oil: The Grease of Empire

[artthatgivesmefeelings]

La Amistad, 1839 by unknown

This 1839 oil painting of La Amistad shows the ship off Long Island, New York, next to the USS Washington. The Portuguese were the first and the last to partake in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Spanish were also major transatlantic slavers and committed a genocide of the Native Cuban peoples when they colonized Cuba. The Spanish empire enslaved people of African origin and they often depended on others to obtain enslaved Africans and transport them across the Atlantic. Spanish colonies were major recipients of enslaved Africans, with around 22% of the Africans delivered to American shores ending up in the Spanish Empire. The story of the Amistad began in February 1839, when Portuguese slave hunters abducted hundreds of Africans from Mendeland, in present-day Sierra Leone, and transported them to Cuba, then a Spanish colony. Though the United States, Britain, Spain and other European powers had abolished the importation of enslaved peoples by that time, the transatlantic slave trade continued illegally, and Havana was an important trading hub. The Spanish plantation owners Pedro Montes and Jose Ruiz purchased 53 of the African captives as enslaved workers, including 49 adult males and four children, three of them girls. On June 28, Montes and Ruiz and the 53 Africans set sail from Havana on the Amistad (Spanish for “friendship”) for Puerto Principe (now Camagüey), where the two Spaniards owned plantations. Several days into the journey, one of the Africans—Sengbe Pieh, also known as Joseph Cinque—managed to unshackle himself and his fellow captives. Armed with knives, they seized control of the Amistad, killing its Spanish captain and the ship’s cook, who had taunted the captives by telling them they would be killed and eaten when they got to the plantation. In need of navigation, the Africans ordered Montes and Ruiz to turn the ship eastward, back to Africa. But the Spaniards secretly changed course at night, and instead the Amistad sailed through the Caribbean and up the eastern coast of the United States. On August 26, the U.S. brig Washington found the ship while it was anchored off the tip of Long Island to get provisions. The naval officers seized the Amistad and put the Africans back in chains, escorting them to Connecticut.

[guilbertjj]

[kemetic-dreams]

In 1860:

46,300 plantations (estates with 20 or more slaves) existed in the United States. Of these:  20,800 plantations (45%) had between 20 and 30 slaves.     2,278 plantations (5%) had 100-500 slaves.           13 plantations had 500-1000 slaves.             1 plantation had over 1000 slaves (a South Carolina rice plantation).

[stone-cold-groove]

Illustration detail from Shell Petroleum Corporation’s New Orleans and Vicinity Road Map - 1932.

[postcard-from-the-past]

Irrigating the coffee plantations near Brazzaville, modern-day Republic of the Congo

French vintage postcard

[andnowanowl]

One of my stepsisters got married on a plantation. How plantations aren't some of the most haunted, miserable places on this planet are a mystery to me because of the shit that went down on them, and how you could stomach getting married on one is an even greater mystery still. "Yes, please, I'd like to make my wedding avenue to be in a MASS GRAVE."

[fatehbaz]

About the lethal world-altering power of "legal fictions of property" and creation of laws in British imperial attempts to control the monsoon-flooded rivers and deltas of Bengal, described in Debjani Bhattacharyya's work (Empire and Ecology in the Bengal Delta: The Making of Calcutta, 2019). Other scholars have also come to similar conclusions about British treatment of Bengal. It's kind of a nice microcosm not just of British rule in South Asia, but also of imperial attempts to control ecology, communities, and imaginations across the planet.

In deltas, shorelines, seasonally-flooded rivers and riparian wetlands, mangrove forests, etc., there may not be clear distinctions between "land" and "water". The boundaries might change every year, every season, sometimes every day, depending on tide, floods, etc. So, if empires like Britain or the United States are to control such a place, there are two different challenges here. One challenge is, maybe more obviously, material, physical. The other is ontological, imaginative, etc., or what not.

---

The material or physical challenge is:

How does the empire tax or administer properties if the property changes seasonally depending on rivers, floods, precipitation, etc.? How does the empire "manage" local social/financial conditions if there isn't clear recognition of a stable title, landlord, authority figure? Where is the solid property boundary that can facilitate ownership transfer, zoning, revenue collection, etc.? How does the empire force people into industrial or plantation labor if the empire can't use the threat of home-loss or job-loss to coerce local people? How does the empire install development projects or extractive industries, like roads, bridges, monoculture/plantation fields, etc., if the land and water are always in motion, fluid, changing?

The ontological challenge is:

Part of the empire's power comes from its ability to conquer the imagination, to capture the future, to insist that there is no other way, there are no other options. Empire is inevitable. And the empire insists that borders are "real", definite, strict. But how can you believe the empire's claims about strict boundaries, about the inevitability of their future, when you can clearly see an alternative, when you are living in an ecosystem where land and water are in a kind of dance, influencing each other, fluid, impermanent?

And the empire doesn't appreciate physical, material challenges. But the empire especially doesn't want any ontological challenges. If you can identify other ways of being, alternative lives, other futures, you undermine the empire's claim to inevitability and inspire others to live otherwise. In a way, a river or a delta or an estuary, they are a provocation; as if they were alive, agents themselves, these environments are a direct challenge to empire's claims.

---

A summary of this imperial conundrum, from Natasha Ginwala and Vivian Ziherl:

'[T]his tropical coastal ecology is a site of continual refiguration: neither sea nor land, neither river nor sea, bearing neither salty nor fresh water […]. The Sundarbans covers an area of 10,000 square kilometers of intertidal zones between parts of southwestern Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal in India. The largest mangrove forest in the world […]. As a landscape, the Sundarbans is marked by unfixity, since its intertidal nature places it between appearance and disappearance – with islands being submerged overnight. […] [T]heir porous quality does not allow for clear border-making. [...] [W]e are met with the trembling instability of borders. [...] [H]ere the coastline becomes indiscernible as a single entity. The legal vexations of such amphibious and obtuse terrain become pronounced in sea-rights cases, wherein border-making becomes the necessity of tenure.' ["Sensing Grounds: Mangroves, Unauthentic Belonging, Extra-Territoriality." e-flux Journal Issue #45. May 2013.]

---

So, those "legal vexations", "wherein border-making becomes the necessity of tenure [ownership]"? That's what Bhattacharyya discusses, how laws become "technologies of property" in Bengal.

Basically, Bhattacharyya describes "the legal processes through which the mobility of the landscape was accommodated into the architecture of ownership" (p. 77); "drying a tidal landscape was as much an infrastructural project as it was an ontological endeavor in producing a dry culture with colonial law as its handmaiden" (p. 83)' "the materiality of the paper" functioned as "a legitimizing object of modern property" (p. 100); the British/US/imperial imagination of rivers were "characterized by a cartographic-mindedness that captures and fixes the spatial mobility. The colonial journey is one of reterritorialization that involves mapping, measuring and fixing" (p. 122).

---

In the tags of my post, I mentioned that the "legal engineering to conquer rivers in Bengal" is also the focus of two other scholars who examine the relationships with water, the creation of private property, and the power of colonial law-making in Bengal:

Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt and Rohan Ignatious D'Souza.

D'Souza authored Drowned and Dammed: Colonial Capitalism and Flood Control in Eastern India (1803-1946), which provides nice coverage from the East India Company, through the Mutiny and nineteenth-century expansion of finance and plantations, into modernist development of the twentieth century.

And I think Lahiri-Dutt sums up this whole situation nicely:

'Traveling through Bengal in the eighteenth century, […] [travelers] saw a highly sophisticated water-based economy – the blessing of rivers […]. Bengal’s essential character as a fluid landscape was changed during the colonial times through legal interventions that were aimed at stabilizing lands and waters, at creating permanent boundaries between them, [...] in a land of shifting river courses, inundated irrigation, and river-based life. Such a separation of land and water was made possible not just by physical constructions but first and foremost by engineering a legal framework. […] BADA, which stands for the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, a law passed by the colonial British rulers in 1825 […]. Nature here represents a borderless world, or at best one in which borders are not fixed lines on the ground demarcating a territory, but are negotiated spaces or zones. Such “[...] spaces” comprise “not [only] lines of separation but zones of interaction…transformation, transgression, and possibility” […]. Current boundaries of land and water are as much products of history as nature and the colonial rule of Bengal played a key role in changing the ideas and valuations of both. […] [R]ivers do not always flow along a certain route […]. The laws that the colonial British brought to Bengal, however, were founded upon the thinking of land as being fixed in place. […] To entrench the system, the Permanent Settlement of 1793 created zamindars (or landlords) “in perpetuity” – meaning for good. The system was aimed at reducing the complexities of revenue collection due to erratically shifting lands and unpredictable harvests in a monsoon-dependent area […]. From a riverine community, within a hundred years, Bengal was transformed into a land-based community.' ["Commodified Land, Dangerous Water: Colonial Perceptions of Riverine Bengal." RCC Perspectives, no. 3. 2014.]

---

Part of why I appreciate Bhattacharyya's take on it is that she focuses on what was lost, not just in terms of physical landscape, material accessibility, etc., but also what was lost culturally, emotionally. Stories, traditions, ways of being. This is why Bhattacharyya describes this process of British rule in Bengal "a history of forgetting". She says: "And because we forget, it is harder for us to imagine alternatives".

Basically, British legal maneuvers to strictly define borders between land and water in Bengal, achieved several things: Yes, faced with frequent seasonal/annual changes of where shorelines and islands, etc., were located, part of the benefit of this legal defining and clarification of solid land was allowing the empire to map and administer stable segments of property for purposes of taxes, records, and development projects (roads, bridges, canals, etc.). This "permanence" of property then allowed for the opening of the door to financialization, so that investors in London or Calcutta could participate in financial speculation on the real estate market.

Another benefit was the installation of "private" property and strengthening the power of landlords, enforcing a social hierarchy, detaching poorer people from land access, resulting in conditions of indebtedness. Of course, the precarity of debt and lack of access to land then essentially forced poorer people into wage labour, factory work, plantations.

After all, Britain needed laborers to staff its expanding and notorious Assamese tea plantations. And the empire did this repeatedly elsewhere, too: Alienated people by using legal frameworks to force them into debt or homelessness, and then using those alienated people to work in terrible industrial conditions, often far away from their homes. Just as earlier nineteenth-century metropolitan London staffed its factories with indebted and impoverished people from elsewhere in England, Britain staffed its Assameses tea plantations with poor people from central India, and Britain staffed its plantations and infrastructure projects in Malaya with "coolies" and convicts from Bombay.

Outside of these material consequences, there is also the insidious lasting devastation of alienation itself. Emotionally. Loss of stories, songs, traditions, relationships, etc. The river, the delta, the ecosystem that you know and love, is not accessible to you. And so the empire's definitions and traditions are made resolute, the only possible future. There is no alternative.

But the river says otherwise.

[reasoningdaily]

[probablyasocialecologist]

“The rise of plantation capital spawned the drying of the west side of Maui,” said Kamana Beamer, a historian and a former member of the Hawaii commission on water resource management, which is charged with protecting and regulating water resources. “You can see the link between extractive, unfettered capitalism at the expense of our natural resources and the ecosystem.” Drawn to Hawaii’s temperate climate and prodigious rainfall, sugar and pineapple white magnates began arriving on the islands in the early 1800s. For much of the next two centuries, Maui-based plantation owners like Alexander & Baldwin and Maui Land & Pineapple Company reaped enormous fortunes, uprooting native trees and extracting billions of gallons of water from streams to grow their thirsty crops. (Annual sugar cane production averaged 1m tons until the mid-1980s; a pound of sugar requires 2,000lb of freshwater to produce.) Invasive plants that were introduced as livestock forage, like guinea grass, now cover a quarter of Hawaii’s surface area. The extensive use of pesticides on Maui’s pineapple fields poisoned nearby water wells. The dawn of large-scale agriculture dramatically changed land practices in Maui, where natural resources no longer served as a mode of food production or a habitat for birds but a means of generating fast cash, said Lucienne de Naie, an east Maui historian and chair of the Sierra Club Maui group. “The land was turned from this fertile plain – with these big healthy trees, wetland taros and dryland crops like banana and breadfruit – to a mass of monoculture: to rows and rows of sugar cane, and rows and rows of pineapple,” she said.

[...]

In Hawaii, water is held in a public trust controlled by the government for the people. But on Maui, 16 of the top 20 water users are resorts, time-shares and short-term condominium rentals equipped with emerald golf courses and glittering pools, according to a 2020 report from the county’s board of water supply. The 40-acre Grand Wailea resort, the island’s largest water consumer, devoured half a million gallons of water daily – the amount needed to supply more than 1,400 single-family homes.

[ausetkmt]

A Florida plantation that had slaves still stands today | wtsp.com

Tucked away on the side of a busy Manatee County road stands the vestige of a defining era in American history.

At its peak, the Gamble Plantation enslaved 190 men, women and children. Federal documents say they ranged in age from two months to 105 years old.

Their stories are not well known. In fact, few locals are even aware of a slave plantation in the Tampa Bay region.

Some historians say it's intentional.

A descendant says it's time for change.

Chandra's Gamble 'This is my history'

One of Chandra Carty's first visits to the Gamble Plantation was during her time as a high school student in Manatee County. 

"We didn't call it a plantation, we called it a mansion. I didn't know it was a plantation until maybe, I don't know, 10, 15 years ago," Carty, who is in her 60s, said. "Growing up, this was a mansion. So, they obscured what really happened here."

Interstate signs leading to the site make no mention of a plantation — only a mansion. It's only upon arrival that a sign reads, "Judah P. Benjamin Confederate Monument" at Gamble Plantation State Historic Park.

"How would the word change from plantation?" Carty asked.

However, Carty's quest for more information about the Gamble Plantation goes beyond the name. A family research project revealed she has direct connections to the site. Her great-great grandmother, Mariah, married Nelson Burton, who was enslaved at the plantation.

"The Manatee County historical records show in 1872, two freed ex-slaves being married, and that's where our family history picks up," she said.

It's history Carty and others who study the site say is missing from the Gamble Plantation, which now as a state park focuses heavily on its Confederate themes and memorial to Confederate cabinet member Judah P. Benjamin. He served as Secretary of State to the Confederacy and stayed at the plantation for a brief time on his escape from the country at the end of the Civil War.

"To be in line with how contemporary historians, contemporary museums, anthropologists try to interpret these public heritage sites, there needs to be a significant push to foreground the stories of the enslaved laborers here," Dr. Diane Wallman, associate professor of anthropology at the University of South Florida, said.

"As you know, somebody who studies history, and believes in, you know, the thorough and full telling of history, it makes me sad that the stories of particular people that lived here, died here, worked here, are not being told," she said.

Currently, there is little on the site that mentions the experiences of the enslaved. A visit to the plantation's information center does have a typewritten list of the names of all those enslaved. However, unlike other displays, there is no museum label to describe its significance.

"I want to see when I go into the little information booth, to see the story of specific slaves, to see Nelson Burton's story, because life is a story," Carty said. "We need to tell the story the best that we can. Where did the slaves live? What did their day to day activity consist of?"

A big Gamble The rise and fall of the Gamble Plantation

In the early 1840s, Robert Gamble of Tallahassee, Fla., used slave labor to establish a sugar plantation on about 3,500 acres of land along the Manatee River. 

Federal documents show he came to the area under the Florida Armed Occupation Act, which gave away 160 acres of land to settlers willing to develop the area and battle indigenous inhabitants.

According to paperwork filed with the National Park Service, those enslaved to Gamble lived in 57 slave cabins on the plantation. They are credited for the success of the plantation and sugar mill. 

Unable to keep up with "natural disasters and a fickle sugar market," information from Florida State Parks says Gamble was driven into debt by 1856 and sold the plantation in 1859.

A path forward Reconciling past with present

Documents filed with the National Park Service show in the 1920s, the United Daughters of the Confederacy purchased the Gamble Plantation mansion, restored it and made it a Confederate shrine.

10 investigates got records going back to the 1970s that show the UDC made an agreement with the state to limit the plantation's interpretation mostly to its Confederate themes.

When a state park leader proposed changes, he faced resistance. 

"There was pushback from the state government level. There's letters from senators...supporting the UDC and folks and trying to keep this focused on the Confederacy Judah P. Benjamin and Robert Gamble," Wallman said. "it's come up in the 90s, it's come up again now, where we're trying to have these conversations about expanding the narrative here and making it more inclusive."

John Sims, the late Sarasota-based artist who based some of his last projects on reimagining parts of the Gamble Plantation said he would like to see a memorial to the enslaved at the site.

“The state should consider…funding and even through legislation being able to support efforts to memorialize the history of enslaved folks and their relationship to the various slave plantations in the state of Florida,” the late Sarasota-based artist John Sims told 10 Investigates’ Emerald Morrow before his death in December 2022.

“Let’s look at some of these former slave plantations as places that really belong to all of us, particularly descendants of African slaves who have occupied those spaces,” Sims said.

Requests for on-camera interviews with the Judah P. Benjamin chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy were denied, but member Evelyn Hoskins said she believes others will be open to doing more at the Gamble Plantation to honor the enslaved.

"We are all looking for answers," she said. "The slaves were just as much of the Gamble story as anyone else."

10 Investigates also reached out to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park. A spokesperson denied our request for an interview, but said in a statement:

"The Florida Park Service is committed to providing resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting and restoring natural and cultural resources, and the agency strives to do this in a positive and appropriate manner.

"Our agency is always evaluating how we communicate Florida's unique history across all state parks, including at Gamble Plantation Historic State Park."

Carty remains optimistic. She said her focus’s is not on removing what’s at the site. Instead, she wants to include what’s missing.

"I just want the complete story because this is my history," Carty said. "Why would I tear down my history? Nelson had to build this? Why would I destroy?"

So, she's calling on the UDC, the state park, lawmakers and even the governor to push a more balanced version of history—one she never wants to be forgotten. 

"I'm feeling hopeful," Carty said. "Hopeful that some I see the image of Nelson...the image of Mariah, and they say, 'job well done.' You finally got our story out so everybody can understand what it was like living here."

[guilbertjj]

                                                     Le vieux banc

[wildwithlight]