|
|
|
George Ball |
After taking up the controversial
subject of natives versus exotic or “invasive” garden plants in
the New York Times Op/Ed pages (see summary below), I learned that although most
people agreed, those who didn’t were extremely upset. I
expected flames in return for flames. However, the dissenters
waged a war of personal attacks and threats of embargo on my
company. Missing was any mention, much less refutation, of the
facts. It was as if I violated a taboo. Not true. And I
certainly did not advocate growing kudzu in one’s garden, as
some suggested. In fact, I pointed out kudzu’s destructive
nature in order to distinguish such truly menacing invasives
from those that are, as I said, “safe as milk”. Indeed, someone
please cite for me the destruction wrought upon our nation by
the dandelion, our most common invasive garden weed, brought to
our shores from Asia. Also, please share it with the hundreds
of dandelion farmers in the U.S.
To reiterate, the
earth is not a super model; no healthy, vital landscape that
includes our dynamic human presence can tolerate the
horticultural plastic surgery and botanical bulimia advocated by
the gardening extremists, who’ve been seduced by the ideology of
“Native Plants Only”. Again, I suggest that extremism, in the
direction either of “pristinism” on the one hand or of unkempt,
chaotic gardens and overrun, broken-caged landscapes on the
other, is wrong. Simply stated, the dangers, both real and
perceived, of invasives and exotics have been harmfully
exaggerated, as have the virtues of natives. The gardening
public should be informed—not proselytized. Science and
scientific opinion in the service of ideology is no science at
all, as in the case of Lysenko and his theory of inherited
skills, so favored by Stalin. Far from stinging, Swiftian
satire, my proposal, however modest, meant to be playful as well
as provocative—a romp rather than a grim-faced, frontal assault
on the ornamental “true believers”, hysterically blinded by the
sight of too many petunias, morning glories, salvias and
impatiens.
|
|
|
Zinnia, Zowie |
With rare exceptions, such as
Luther Burbank and L. H. Bailey, America has long suffered a
lack of horticultural imagination. We are a “can do” nation,
puritanically oriented away from pleasure gardens. Recently, on
his new TV show, ex-Disney boss Mike Eisner announced, “Type A’s
cannot do gardening”. (He wants yet another by-pass—the new
status symbol.) When we want beautiful gardens, we pay a fee to
see them in magic kingdoms, grown in neat rows by immigrant
labor. Heaven forbid we ever actually touch a plant.
Therefore, it’s not surprising that our gardening industry
leaders turn, like sunflower heads, to the UK and the Continent
and, lately, Japan where the fortunate inhabitants bask in the
colorful glow of hybridized exotics. For well over a hundred
years, some of America’s prettiest natives have been
“discovered” by Europeans and Japanese, hybridized in their
adopted homes and reintroduced to us. Why? Mainly because the
citizens of these nations are better educated and, therefore,
less politicized about plants. They have the creativity to
appreciate the entire spectrum of botany, not just what their
professors and environmental pundits tell them. Free from such
influences, they enjoy the simple virtues of the strong colors,
forms and textures found in the many plants of our fabulous,
robust country—both wild and tame.
I wish only for our
nation’s tent—and garden—to be big. Many of my critics,
especially those in higher education, desire a small,
seldom-visited, state-supported garden where they can control
events, set the agenda and manage the debate. As in M. Night
Shamalyan’s recent film, ‘The Village’, a false mythology and
religion must keep the citizens in line and trapped in a small
and shallow world. Outside the lonely campuses with their ivory
towered gardens, the rest of us enjoy a free and beautiful
country.
|
"Border War",
The
New York Times
Op-Ed, March 19, 2006 |
SUMMARY
|
The
controversy over "exotics" vs. "natives" has
been portrayed by the environmental movement
to the detriment of traditional vegetables,
herbs, and flower garden plants, the
majority of which are of exotic, or
non-North American origin. The extreme
position of some in the botanical world is
that "natives" be emphasized in new garden
and landscape plantings, both private and
public. Unfortunately, this point of view
rejects the great beauty as well as economic
value of the overwhelming majority of
current garden plants. The author (Ball)
argues against such a narrow-minded view of
gardening and cultivar development. He
cites the vast number of US garden plants,
common as well as unusual, that have
originated in Asia and Europe, as well |
as the many
North American natives such as potatoes,
peppers, sunflowers and corn, that
have transformed the economies and cultures
of the rest of the world. He concludes with
an exhortation to view "exotic" plants the
same way that we view immigrants from other
countries--that we welcome them with open
arms, so long as they enter through the
proper channels. Finally he recommends that
these channels be not so narrow as to
prohibit non-destructive, but perhaps
somewhat invasive, foreign plants. Toward
the end of the article, he asserts, "Aside
from requiring a bit of weeding, exotics are
as safe as milk, unless one considers
gardening a chore rather than a passionate
hobby. If so, forget the forget-me-nots". |
|
|
