Combative, militaristic rhetoric is prevalent in both scholarly and non-scholarly literature on invasive species. Larson (2005) argues that such rhetoric can be counterproductive when addressing the problem of invasive species. For this blog post, I would like you to read Larson (2005) and then do the following:

1. Find a passage from an invasive species text in which the writer uses rhetoric that could be characterized as “militaristic”. The text may be published (e.g., one of our class readings or a reading you came across in your research) or unpublished (e.g., one of your previous blog posts, a classmate’s blog post).

2. Your blog post should begin with a short summary of Larson’s argument, followed by an introduction of the example you found that illustrates Larson’s premise. You should give the direct quotation (something I’ve asked you to avoid in your lit review!) of the militaristic rhetoric you found. If necessary, explain the context for this quote. Cite the passage using the same style as for the lit review (Name Year). Then, give your position on Larson’s argument. Do you agree that such militaristic metaphors are “problematic” and “ineffective” when writing about invasive species? Provide the full reference at the end of the post or, if appropriate, a link to the blog post. There are no word limits (min or max).

3. Comment on at least one classmate’s post.

Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.