Richard Franke Chapter Why Does Franke Believe

¶ … Richard Franke Chapter

why does Franke believe traditional West African cultures have adapted better to their environments than later influences vis-a-vis Western cultures?

First of all, Franke believes that apart from Western influence and outside the influence of ruling power classes, production systems that are environmentally and ecologically sustaining were developed between farmers and herders. They learned from each other, Franke writes on page 259. They were in "intensive contact" and as a result farmers exchanged knowledge about plants that herders needed to know and herders shared knowledge that farmers needed to know. There was no one dictating how things should be developed; it was an evolution of ecology based on communication and interactions. Franke calls this "traditional knowledge," and the fertility of soil was vitally important to sustenance and survival. But when African countries became colonies of European ruling classes, the interlopers introduced "…excessive use of the soils" and exploited "local labor" to increase production at the cost of environmentally responsible practices (Franke, p. 259).

Secondly, traditional herders and farmers needed each other and cooperated as part of the big picture production plan. It was, as Franke explains, a "Herder-Farmer symbiosis": herders exchanged meat and milk with farmers and farmers gave grain to the herders. Moreover, even though there inevitably was tension between herders and farmers, because they needed each other they were able to avoid violence in most cases and they developed "permanent alliances" (Franke, 261). The bottom line to this question is that no European power needed to come in and show the herders and farmers why cooperation made sense for them; they evolved organically and their alliances -- though contentious on occasion -- were developed through pragmatism and the need for sustainability.

Question two: How can modern science today utilize the traditional "non-western knowledge"?

Certainly the case studies that Franke presents provide sensible, solid information that could translate into environmentally responsible policies. For example, farmers and cattle ranchers can cooperate and co-exist on the same land. In rainy seasons, the animal dung that is left on productive lands during the dry season helps improve the soil (Franke, 262). Rotating the use of the land (which is also practiced in Western countries) makes good sense, and the farmers and herders of West Africa learned that through generations of trial and error.

No particular parcel of land is allowed to deteriorate, and weeds are pulled during the growing season but they are not burned or tossed away -- they are left "…loose on the ground as mulch" (Franke, 264). Also, Western cultures could learn from the Dogon culture. The Dogon culture is deeply religious and they have adapted very well to their climate and environment in Western Africa. The rainfall for the Dogon (southeast of Timbuktu) comes mostly in July and August, and hence, the Dogon "…make use of the valley, plateau, riverbanks and hillsides" during the rainy season to grow millet, a staple for their people. Along with dry season vegetables, that grow because the Dogon use animal dung in "…an intense composting process" which includes stalks from the millet, "peelings from the kitchen, ashes from the fires, baobab fruit and/or peelings" and human waste.

What can Western society learn from this? From a practical point-of-view, the Dogon utilize everything to help them survive. Peelings from vegetables are not thrown away but instead the peelings are saved in an enrichment process for the land, to keep it fertile. Even human waste is used (which would be unthinkable in America) in the process of growing gardens that flourish with peppers, onions, corn, potatoes and tobacco (Franke, 266).