In the “The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology” paper, Larson argues that using militaristic language is not an effective way to write about invasive species. One way he thinks the use of this jargon is a poor way to write about alien species is because it creates an opening for debate as to whether or not we need to change the way we are trying to maintain native ecosystems. Making invasive species the clear “enemy” also causes points of inaccuracies. Although Larson does accept that the use of militaristic language captures readers attention, he says that in the end the overuse of this type of language is ineffective.
One example of militaristic rhetoric being used in an invasive species article is found in an article titled “Knee Deep Club declares war on invasive plant”, by John Luciano. Although the article is about a group of concerned citizens striving to keep the Water Chestnut plant off of their land, the language used makes it sound much more intense. One of the clubs members, Tim Clancy, was quoted saying “I want everyone to know that this menace is not in Lake Hopatcong yet, but it is a real threat”. This type of language and rhetoric is what Larson thinks articles would be better off without.
Personally, I like militaristic language being used in articles such as these. I feel like it grabs the publics attention and shows them that these somewhat unknown issues are very serious and require prompt and drastic measures to be taken Although I can see where Larson is coming from, I think that metaphorically connecting war to invasive species is an effective way of shedding light on the issues at hand.
Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500
Luciano, John. “Knee Deep Club declares war on invasive plant – NorthJersey.com.”NorthJersey.com. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://www.northjersey.com/recreation/94557669_Knee_Deep_Club_declares_war_on_invasive_plant.html>.
Great summary of Larson’s argument. Although I didn’t disagree with Larson as wholeheartedly, I found it refreshing that you supported the militaristic language. I found your personal opinion concise but also effective in expressing dissent from his opinion. You were convincing and I agree that sometimes militaristic language can actually be effective!
As mentioned by Shamaita, I felt that your summary was very effective. I also liked the input at the end. I completely agree, the militaristic approach is what is going to grab attention which may ultimately inspire action. Let’s face it, dealing with aquatic invasive species is not necessarily the most exciting thing for the average Joe. I do think the piece written as a whole could use some proofreading though. Great job!