I don't have a narritive here. I don't even think they are wrong it what they say - europeans WERE being racist idiots by completely disregarding what natives did because they thought they were better. What I'm saying is, that in and of itself is not a reason to bring back controlled burns. The reason you bring back controlled burns is not because Europeans rejected it due to racism. The reason you bring back controlled burns is because they work.

but the article doesn't say any of that at all... so where are you getting this? can you actually quote a portion of the article that calls europeans "racist idiots" (a term which you've used multiple times throughout this thread), or provide a quote that states that we should bring back controlled burns because it's anti-racist? the entire article is literally saying that we should bring back the burns because they work, not for the reasons you're listing.

No where in the article does it suggest that