Week Ten---Restoring the American Bison to its Rightful Range ....

How would you prioritize the reintroduction of the American Bison? ....The American Bison holds a deep, sacred symbolism for many Native Americans and their supporters. The restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" symbolizes a return to a more harmonious relationship with Nature, the land and its vast population of different animal and plant species. A bit of a reminiscence, or longing, for the past. But it is more than that. Restoring the American bison population feels like an attempt to right catastrophic wrongs in our American history, to heal cultural wounds. And while there is a certain nobility in this venture, I do wonder if the honest sentiments of many involved in the project may be ultimately exploited by those seeking economic gains. Its is quoted in our readings (PBS) that "selling bison meat has become a $650 million industry -- one that many Native Americans are eager to join ..." Is the restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" a capitalistic venture or are monies intended to benefit the Native American community as a whole, and equally? ...Is the American Bison meat industry going to raise each and every one of these animals humanely?---thus honoring the bison with the love and respect that is central to this restoration project? The nobility of the Native Americans of the past is invoked---they engaged in sacred hunting, killing only what they needed to survive, and in turn, used each and every part of the animal ....is the American Bison meat industry going to be so noble? ....This is only one side of things. The greater intentions of restoring the American Bison have more to do with restoring Native American communities and their belief systems ....however, I do have concerns that these very sentiments may easily be exploited by hungry, opportunistic souls and that we may, in some ways, have a repeat of history.

"Child cancer risk higher in richer rural families" ....I am always suspicious about such reports. One must always consider their sources---who funded and conducted the study? No study is ever truly objective, and such reports are only a slice of the bigger picture. This particular report suggests that child cancer risks are higher for those who live in more isolated communities which, for the particular communities cited in this article, also mean economically richer communities. The writer of this article suggests that having less contact with others at an early age significantly reduces a child's exposure to potential bacteria and viruses, thus possibly leading to a higher cancer risk. To me, it seems like there is a lot of speculation going on. While there are many medical experts jockeying the idea that some cancers are caused by viruses, the real fact is---we do not know with any certainty at this time. This is one theory of many. One thing in particular that stands out to me in this article is the downplay of other environmental factors, such as radiation, in childhood cancers. Is it not a known fact that radiation can cause cancer, yet this article cites that it "plays a small role" ...? Hmmm.