Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Oh just shut the fuck up, you paranoid multiple voting weirdo.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - borealis

1
Dave plain and simple hasn't gathered enough information regarding any kind of ecology to do other than make an unwitting fool of himself with his pronouncements.

He has no idea how small some biomes are, or about how they interact. He doesn't have a clue what might be important. Regarding the tropical rainforest, his notion of creating broad alleys or cutting the canopy by 50% is a real extinction booster. Countless creatures live in the canopy, and many only survive to eat and mate because there is a continuous canopy to travel and hunt through. Breaks in that canopy that can't be traversed or easily circled around can be species killers. There are plants, frogs, insects, lizards, etc. that only exist in small, very specific environments, so small that many have already been eliminated by deforestation. Dave's plan would cause more extinctions by destroying some of those small reservoirs.

He doesn't understand species interactions, either - that losing some insect or bird might interrupt a cycle that some plant or tree depends on for reproduction, or losing some ant species might eliminate a crucial food source.
2
BTW, I take it we're no longer talking about poisonous plants, or about why there's no reason to know or do specific things in HMG.

Oh well.
That whole stupid conversation could have been reduced to... Hey Dave, be careful how close you take your pen next to your Woods because there can be poisonous plants in there.
There can be bad plants in the middle of the field too.
What you were unable to glean from the conversation was -
How do you know what you don't need to learn or know?
That was the question. Not examples of things you don't think you need to know.
The purpose of the question is to find out HOW YOU DECIDE what you don't need to know or learn.
Answer the actual question and the conversation won't be stupid.
I have already explained that but people here are too stupid or too blinded to even read my answer. I have sat through several classes on holistic managed grazing and went through an entire six-month internship

<snip envious insults>
So that was all the info you will ever need. No need to go more in depth
Dave, are you familiar with tansy ragwort? Does it grow in your county?

Idk if he has it or not - I described it and pretty sure showed him a photo on old TR before he even got his goats. His cow likely won't eat it even if it's around, unless she's starving. It was a plague in some Cape Breton pastures, but the cows would chew the grass around it right to the soil before they'd take a bite of it. The danger was if it got into the hay too much. Local name for it was Stinking Willie.
3
Quote
Mother Nature without interference from mankind never destroys ecosystems

Ahahahahahaha what
did dave really write that?

Yes. :(

It's all those posts he ignores, he misses really large pieces of information.

The bigger question is how did he get this old without knowing a good deal of this stuff?
5
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?

He won't agree because neither is true. Ecosystems have been naturally eradicated and different ones imposed on the landscape countless times in the past.

Other animals besides humans can destroy ecosystems. Beavers do. They destroy an existing dry land ecosystem and impose upon it a wetland, which soon has wetland species, plants, birds, mammals, fish.
6
It's true I don't know much about natural die-offs of this nature. But can you refute my observations about the Norms of grazing animals in nature? That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time? And that grazing animals in nature typically graze in herds? And that this whole system could be characterized as... Bunch. Move. Rest....?

It depends on what grazing animal you are talking about, on the time of year, and other biological factors typical of whatever species you're talking about. Banteng and Gaur, two wild cattle species, live in forests and jungles, not on grassy plains, Banteng cows follow a matriarch, the bulls are solitary. Gaur have similarly solitary males. Many grazing animals live in very small herds, so 'bunching' isn't an accurate description at all. Others follow strict migration patterns. Quite a few small antelope species are solitary and never maintain herds, so no 'bunching' for them.

You could describe any social animal as 'bunching, moving, resting' if you ignore all their other behaviours. Chimps 'bunch, move, rest'. So do bees, some black bears, wolves, coyotes, lions.

Quote
That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time?

Most animals, grazers or not, instinctively don't eat soiled food, and of course grazers move to new grass because they prefer different parts or ages or species of grass. Most grazers likely don't return for some time, they have patterns of migration.

But what you do does not mimic those patterns. You are imposing a pattern on your livestock. You are deciding what patch of forage they eat and when. On their own, your goats, sheep and cow might make quite different choices of food. They are aware in ways you are not which grasses are most tender or most tasty or most desirable. Their preferences may mirror their bodily needs, just as a human only fed donuts for a few days will crave protein.
7
"Nature Knows Best" ~ Dave Hawkins

Quote
In one of the worst mammal die-offs in recent history, as many as 211,000 saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) perished earlier this year in Central Asia.

Quote
Although the die-off is not completely understood, experts have narrowed down the possible culprits: sharp changes in weather and bacteria gone bad. Here's the theory in a nutshell: a drastic drop in temperature stressed out the saigas, weakening their immune systems and triggering usually harmless bacteria to explode into violent infections, causing extensive internal bleeding that kills the animals in a matter of hours. Timing is also a crucial consideration. Most of the female saigas were nursing newborns or about to give birth in May, and the animals had already shed their winter coats. And if that wasn't enough to stress them out, the herd was also feeding on newly sprouted grasses that require added energy to break down as quickly as possible, putting extra strain on their bodies.

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/conservation/endangered/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-saiga-die-off/

Note: These die-offs have been recorded since as early as 1955, and probably happened before. Nature's knowledgeable best sometimes (in fact distressingly often) includes mass die-offs, extinctions, and a great deal of suffering, without even any significant input from humans.

You often pretend to know something about 'Nature', but in reality, you're pretty damn clueless. Nature gives not one shit about you or your goats, nor your claims of "working with nature". Nature isn't an entity, Gaia is a metaphor, not a placatable goddess.
8
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
Why should I?  Not a single HMG practitioner I have ever sat under in class has EVER mentioned a single poisonous plant or the need to account for them in any way. The reason you think this is important can only be that you have been brainwashed, either consciously or unconsciously, by modern conventional agricultural thinking.

Which is complete garbage.

Worse than garbage, actually. It is literally destroying our planet.

See?

No one mentioned it (that he remembers) in a class/workshop, so the problem doesn't exist. He's unaware that most people would use such classes as a starting point, or as additional information gathering, and that they would have invested time and effort into a great deal of additional learning through reading or other classes or from other knowledgeable people.
like Borealis for example. Everyone should consult Borealis before launching their own Farm Enterprise.

Lol


Arse. You think everyone is as arrogant and proudly ignorant and uncaring as yourself. What did I say, really, except that people ordinarily try to learn something about what they are doing or planning to do? That lots of people already possess useful knowledge relevant to their activities?

Mountain climbers learn about different kinds of terrain; they don't in ignorance ignore the pitfalls of climbing steep slopes covered with scree, or stepping too close to the edge of snow covered drop-offs. Welders don't work without protection for their eyes and faces, and they hang curtains at construction sites to prevent curious onlookers hurting their own eyes when certain types of welding are being done.

People normally learn to recognise and mitigate possible harm, as opposed to thinking happy ignorance will protect them and theirs.
9
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
Why should I?  Not a single HMG practitioner I have ever sat under in class has EVER mentioned a single poisonous plant or the need to account for them in any way. The reason you think this is important can only be that you have been brainwashed, either consciously or unconsciously, by modern conventional agricultural thinking.

Which is complete garbage.

Worse than garbage, actually. It is literally destroying our planet.

See?

No one mentioned it (that he remembers) in a class/workshop, so the problem doesn't exist. He's unaware that most people would use such classes as a starting point, or as additional information gathering, and that they would have invested time and effort into a great deal of additional learning through reading or other classes or from other knowledgeable people.

Or, like countless other farm kids, they were taught incrementally by parents saying "Don't eat that, it will make you sick".
10
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.

He won't. The topic of toxic plants that tend to grow especially on the margins of fields and in less grassy areas (and sometimes even in thick grass) was discussed ages ago at old TR, probably with the same links and information re Missouri. Dave refused to even contemplate the idea of looking around his land to see what might be growing there, scoffed at the very idea that he needed to know anything about toxic plants, or that there was any merit at all to learning to recognise any plant at all.

He might be lucky enough that the property he lives on has none of the listed species. He doesn't care to find out in the usual manner, in which farmers at least know the common names of plants long known to cause illness in livestock.

My property is small and not suitable for livestock - maybe one goat - but there are at least three plant species, one in abundance which has its toxicity starkly identified in its common name - Lambkill - that grow on it that I would try to eradicate if I wanted a goat. Dave would let nature take its course, I guess.
11
Quote
Students and neighbors also described the suspect as a troubled teenager who threatened and harassed peers, talked about killing animals, posed with guns in disturbing photos on social media, and bragged about target practice in his backyard with a pellet gun.
Quote

Quote
Student Victoria Olvera, 17, said Cruz had been abusive to his ex-girlfriend and that his expulsion was over a fight with her new boyfriend.

Dakota Mutchler, 17, recalled Cruz posting on Instagram about killing animals and said he had talked about doing target practice in his backyard with a pellet gun.

Quote
''He started going after one of my friends, threatening her, and I cut him off from there,'' Mutchler said.

He said students weren't surprised officials had identified Cruz as the shooter: ''I think everyone had in their minds if anybody was going to do it, it was going to be him.'' Mutchler said.

Quote
But Broward County School District Superintendent Robert Runcie said he did not know of any threats posed by Cruz to the school.

''Typically you see in these situations that there potentially could have been signs out there,'' Runcie said. ''I would be speculating at this point if there were, but we didn't have any warnings. There weren't any phone calls or threats that we know of that were made.''

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/02/14/florida-school-shooting-suspect-made-disturbing-social-media-posts/In8NVjDOX68Xl7QYHTibdL/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter

The kids know. The adults don't listen, don't observe, don't act.

12
even with the shoving the man on the train track scenario it's not throwing yourself on the damn track

Also lol at a Serious Libertarian Thinker arguing we need to teach young people how to potentially give up their lives for the collective good.

But, seriously, though, even if you were dumb enough to think that a bunch of teenagers or kids or whoevers rushing every shooter is the solution, thinking about how you get to that solution should really be enough to snap you out of your goddamn stupidity.
That article was written in response to Sandy Hook, so it was advice for fucking kindergartners. Libertarianism is the result of severe sociopathy.

I know. It's a complete and utter what the fucking fuck is wrong with your brain kind of piece. But even when I try to give her as much benefit of the doubt as I can, it is bafflingly absurd and stupid and fucking nuts. Yet this is the kind of intellect that gets you a spot on the editorial board of the fucking Washington Post.

Considerably worse is that kind of brilliant thinking is viral. Without any reference to the writer, I've seen several posts scattered on a half dozen major websites today suggesting exactly that kind of response - everybody should go pile on the shooter!!!. And while I can't be sure, I suspect it is teenagers writing those posts, because they don't believe they'll ever be the ones to die and they'd like to fantasise about being heroes. Nobody should be putting such notions into their underdeveloped little grey cells.

Mind, those posts are utterly drowned by the usual insane defense of 'I need alla the guns alla time with no kind of check or balance'. Non-stop. Thousands and thousands of posts. Absurd abuses of statistics. Those gun lovers with a shred of conscience left push the 'mental health' shibboleth - that restricting mentally ill people from gun ownership would solve the problem, where clearly it would not in most cases, as with the exception of Adam Lanza I can't remember a mass shooter who was diagnosably 'mentally ill'.
13
You must know every sane parent would be telling their kid "Don't fucking do this. Run. Hide."
14
You're always rude and sarcastic, Dave. You don't need a reason.
15
Emergency shed. Lol

Borealis will sell me one for the low low price of $999.99 ...

Why do you make complete garbage responses like that?

You could build a strawbale shelter for your animals, or a cob shelter, or even a damn sod hut. Unlike you, I've never 'sold things they don't need to rubes'.

For thousands of years people in cold climates have offered shelter to their livestock. For many of those centuries they lived with their livestock, in the same shelter. Only100 years ago Acadians were attaching their houses directly to their barns.

You though - a thin tarp on one side is fine, because you're an unfeeling uncaring man who only wants to be sarcastic at someone online, rather than take in any well meant advice from people who actually know something.
Maybe you could make a humanitarian trip to Missouri and go talk to all my neighbors who have cows and suggest to them also that they need emergency shelter for their cows.

I drive by people who have cows every day, and even in the worst weather they are always out in the fields... No shelter of any kind.

I have no problem with people offering me advice. But when you come across everyday all arrogant as if you know everything and I know nothing and then you offer something really stupid which you wouldn't suggest at all if you lived here then that's why you get the reaction from me that you get.

I'd bet they have more shelter than you think, given how much you suck at observation. Woods, bedding, wind breaks, at least, plus they aren't tied to a goat pen and unable to choose where they lie down.

I'm arrogant? You're the one that thinks you know everything and will mention six months after it happened that your cow got sick for some reason certainly not associated with your decisions.

We've had a mild winter so far. Lucky for Natalie.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/caring-for-dairy-cows-during-cold-winter-months/
16
Emergency shed. Lol

Borealis will sell me one for the low low price of $999.99 ...

Why do you make complete garbage responses like that?

You could build a strawbale shelter for your animals, or a cob shelter, or even a damn sod hut. Unlike you, I've never 'sold things they don't need to rubes'.

For thousands of years people in cold climates have offered shelter to their livestock. For many of those centuries they lived with their livestock, in the same shelter. Only100 years ago Acadians were attaching their houses directly to their barns.

You though - a thin tarp on one side is fine, because you're an unfeeling uncaring man who only wants to be sarcastic at someone online, rather than take in any well meant advice from people who actually know something.
17
Both games sound fairly depressing.

I keep waiting for games that aren't about shooting, killing, catching. Maybe games that are about exploring and finding things. I've not seen any that look very good.

18
Dave doesn't realise that his 'simple' lifestyle is one destructive natural event away from back to square one.

One severe blizzard or hurricane or flood could kill all his animals.

Despite his sincere belief that his animals cannot get sick, they certainly can. They can get sick and die, or worse, make Dave sick as well.

His system is nowhere near as robust as he thinks it is.
As discussed forty pages ago.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You have actually totally missed the point of holistic thinking regarding systems. Would you please Google that 1973 paper by C.s. Holling called resilience in ecosystem management or something close to that. It isn't that frankenfarms are the only place that plague happens, it's that there are no systemic mitigations.

Dave actively rejects systemic mitigations, and so is vulnerable to the same problems he derides in modern farming.
not just vulnerable but it is inevitable.
Lol

Dave, do you recall a few years ago there was a devastating blizzard in South Dakota that killed more than 30,000 cows? And another blizzard that killed something like 10,000 dairy cows? The SD event was what might be called a 'perfect storm', in that it started with rain and freezing rain, then turned to snow and high winds, at a time of year when the cattle had not grown in their winter coats. So the cows got wet and then cold and covered with snow that stuck to them. Those cattle died of cold, exposure, and pneumonia, despite quite a few of them having minimal shelter, rather like what you give your animals. Many others were found huddled by wind brakes and fence lines, desperate for any kind of shelter.

You can 'lol' but it won't be so funny when, for lack of even a goddamned emergency shed, you let your animals all die of exposure. You have not been doing this for long, and you've been lucky with weather. (Although there's that dead piglet). You might stay lucky for a long time. Or not.
19
Hahaha ...  You people are hilarious!
And you are contemptible.
You're just mad bc I see through your bullshit.

Quote one piece of bullshit Sea Star has posted that you think you see through.

SS has agreed with, backed up with experience, and liked posts Dave didn't like at all. Therefore Sea Star has bullshit through which Dave can see.

20
Contrast this horrible mess with my system for growing meat.

Sun shines.  Grass grows.  Sheep eat grass.  Sheep have cute baby lambs that kids love and can play with.  Lambs eat grass and grow.  When lambs reach full size, kill for meat.  Rinse and repeat.

Dave, once again: That is NOT "your" system.

People have been doing that for millenia. You just added a moving cage.
Which started life as a cartoon inspired shelter that was poorly designed and built but when flipped over onto some skids, became the robocage, mostly because it was a lot of work to bring the browse to the goats and Bluffy was maiming his trees and there was that incident with the chainsaw up a tree. Except it didn't work very well in the woods the goats it was designed for were supposed to browse upon thus sustaining one adult on one acre. But, hay (sic), there's a big ol' pasture right beside these here woods. Let them eat grass! Despite a first two fold increase in land, then a switch to 4 fold of that and then a reinclusion of the original bit of land, it still doesn't sustain one adult.

Tbf, it could support one adult (even a large family, or a couple families) abundantly if Dave wasn't so intent on living on milk and, eventually, meat. And keeping his animals caged up.

Learning how to grow potatoes (and learning to like a wider variety of foods) would help. He got a very poor yield from his potatoes, which makes no sense given his soil and location. I suspect he didn't follow any established practice for planting and growing them.
21
Dave doesn't realise that his 'simple' lifestyle is one destructive natural event away from back to square one.

One severe blizzard or hurricane or flood could kill all his animals.

Despite his sincere belief that his animals cannot get sick, they certainly can. They can get sick and die, or worse, make Dave sick as well.

His system is nowhere near as robust as he thinks it is.
22
The dairy farm I lived on when I was a little kid was a lot of work for the owners, because it was in the 1950s. It was a lovely place, with about 100 cows. The men kept the barn very clean, washing the floors, gutters, stalls every morning after putting the cows out to pasture. At that time keeping dairy cows in at night was considered the right thing to do. They grew hay for winter, and had a silo in which they made their own silage. They didn't feed corn because it was not common to do so in that region. Occasionally they did feed oats. They had a cooler house built over a spring, and a stone tank in which they placed the full milk cans after milking. They had a couple electric milkers, but they still milked by hand as well.

A lot was changing. They had a bull in for some of the cows, but were experimenting with artificial insemination. I know that because at the age of four I went to the barn to play and found my uncle there with his green rubber-wrapped arm up to the shoulder in the back end of the cow, with the owners standing by and watching. Was a bit of a shock and my mother had to explain to me that it was one of Uncle's jobs and that no, he wasn't hurting the cow.
23
Uncool ... good observations about reading and writing. Efficiency. I think you're right. But have you ever taken a look at modern milk production in the commercial Dairy system?  It's an extremely Rube Goldbergesque system not to mention that it's destructive to ecosystems and you would never want your sons or daughters working at a commercial dairy farm.  Nasty as hell. Study the system in detail sometime and I think you will see how Rube Goldberg ish it is.

My system, on the other hand, is extremely simple and elegant. The Sun Shines. Grass Grows. My cow eats the grass. She gives milk. I drink it. The end. How can you get a more beautiful and elegant system than that?

I spent the summer of '75 on a mom and pop dairy farm in Minnesota.  The sun shined, the alfalfa grew (along with field corn), the cows (maybe 20) ate the alfalfa, along with a supplement made with the field corn, and gave milk.  The family sold the milk, making a living of it without having the degrading parasitic existence of selling superfluous shit from Sears, unlike a bumbling fool in Missouri who shall remain unnamed.  Oh yeah, they even lived in an actual house.  How can you get a more beautiful and elegant system than that?

There you go. It's as if Dave has never seen a small working dairy farm in his life. He only imagines massive horrible miserable factories, which do indeed exist, and are horrible.

He's never looked at large modern dairy farms, either, the ones which are not horrible, but are highly automated, in which the cow herself decides when she wants to be milked and willingly enters the milking station, which automatically washes her udder, attaches the teat cups, milks her, measures the amount, and sends her on her merry way. In the barns, while the cows are at pasture, efficient machines clear manure from the floors and gutters and wash them down. There are large brushes that start turning automatically when the cow presses against them, so they can get a good scratch and incidentally get some cleaning action done.

Those farms are very costly to set up, but it is what many younger farmers who inherit large relatively wealthy farms aspire to and work towards. It means happier cows producing more high quality milk and fewer people needed to operate the whole thing.
24
Seriously surprised Dave hasn't had the genius idea to put the goats, sheep, and cow, on treadmills to charge his battery. No fossil fuels at all!
25
Here's the latest from Thomas Robb...
http://amppob.com/trump-good-for-everybody-says-thomas-robb-of-the-kkk/
Seems like an unusual KKKer in that he claims to not Advocate violence and claims to want equal opportunity for both blacks and whites. If that's true, then it was kind of stupid of him to associate his movement with the KKK.


Lots of KKK leaders and white supremacists make claims of non-violence. It gives them an out if any of their members commit violent acts ("Oh, we don't support actual violence, not us!") And there's always a victim-blaming caveat - "If those people stayed in their place/left our white wimmin alone/didn't demand opportunities only whites should have/ went back to Africa/etc., nothing would have happened to them." They lie, to stay on the safe side of the law and to fool people like you.

They are the scum of the earth in your country, Dave, and it is unsettling how often you defend people known to support them, tacitly or by vague innuendo.



They are the scum of the earth in any country, including yours! Your comment, and the Sky News video, strike me just a bit self-righteous as it gives the impression of the Brits, and others, looking down their noses at American racism and the KKK, when in fact it was the Scots ideology of clan kinship, that played a large role in the establishment of the KKK in the first place. Even the burning cross, emblematic of the KKK, is based on the Crann Tara, a fiery cross which had been a traditional means of calling Scottish clans to arms.

African slaves were introduced to the American colonies long before the establishment of the United States, and slavery was legalized in the colonies under British Law. Given the fact that racism and hate crimes are on the rise in the UK, perhaps Sky News should spend their time looking closer to home for their reports. Just a thought.



No, Heinz, I was responding to Dave's weak-ass white-knighting (hah!) of a KKK leader in the USA, not reviewing the entire history of racism, racist organisations, or the prevalence of racism everywhere in the world.

I'm sadly very aware of racism in my own country, especially since we've just seen an outrageous example of it in a courtroom in Saskatchewan.

My apologies. I was reading something into your post that wasn't there.

What happened in Saskatchewan?

A farmer who shot a young First Nations man (farmer claims it was an accident) was acquitted of murder charges. There were no FN people on the jury. Lots of people think Stanley (the farmer)over-reacted by getting a gun out at all. Stanley claims to have been scared and wanting to protect himself, but he confronted the young men who were on his property by going right up to them, when he could have stayed safely away. It's complex, there are conflicting narratives, but shit like this happens often enough to make it clear that ignorance and racism is very much part of the story.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-justice-1.4530471