Add new comment

was opened. "A wolf is useless if she is not allowed to be wolfish. Likewise, a human if we are not allowed to be human." So Nettle what is a human? Isn't it human to technologise? Isn't it human to dominate?

Indigenous peoples dominated the land too: decided who was to live; who was to die; who was for food, right? This whole 'romantic' perspective of human (particularly "indigenous" humans) is just that romanticising. Also, a wolf doesn't (to my knowledge) dominate other species, like a shark doesn't dominate?

Who were the indigenous before humans? Humans have, arguably, othered the pre-human indigenous as 'its' and categorised as property. Hence, indigenous humans even call the land their land. For example, there is a map of indigenous lands of what is the USA; so pre-Whitey, this continent was already colonised, right? It is fascinating how claims are made that the humans and non-humans shared (lol) the land which is complete bollocks as Kimmerer et al know all too well, no doubt. Denial is very potent.

So please do tell us what it is to be human? Is a human still a human without the use of fire or domesticated fire?

Are we (right now) not humans, being humans, doing what humans do; how can we not be, for we are human, right? Humans are many ways of being for sure. However, domination (to be in control) is present in everyone of us. We would control the weather if we could. Anarchists know this and try to autonomy from the domination of others, including other anarchists.

For humans to share the land, we would have to be prepared to be eaten by others, tear down the walls, the fences, no more fire, no more clubs, spears etc, but those days are long gone.

It's easy to cry over a false narrative (as Chisel did) when sat in the comfort of protection from the elements, a full belly, drinking water on tap etc.

Richard Wrangham and James C.Scott (as well as many others) both acknowledge fire and how it shaped things to come.