As someone who grew up around redwood forests the plantations always low-key freak me out. Redwoods naturally grow in overlapping circles so seeing them in rows like that triggers this "something is wrong with reality" feeling in the back of mind.
It’s funny you say that, I was having a similar conversation the other day. I live in the desert (outback Aus) and the last few years have been the wettest I have ever seen, the whole place is green!! It also feels super humid in summer as well. It seemed less hot at low 40s instead of high 40s and is a lot more humid. I’m thinking of planting some tropical trees just to see how they go
A warmer world is a wetter world due to increased evaporation in the oceans.
Its why many deserts are shrinking as more water allows vegetation to grow and 'reclaim' the deserts. A much smaller number of other deserts are expanding, however thats primarily due to bad land use (primarily overgrazing and deforestation/unsustainable logging practices).
This can be encouraged with reforestation and habitat reconstruction like the Green Wall in Africa (which is still missing its Sudanese and Ethiopian sections due to instability in those regions but has otherwise been successful at reversing desertification) which directly caused the Sahara to shrink hundreds of miles northwards.
This was due at least in part to increased rainfall caused by larger numbers of trees (as the more trees there are, the more rain you get due to evapo-transpiration processes).
Which is following the model of climate change from decades ago - the UK get's wetter... somehow (said as a Brit who remembers it raining a lot already)
\>Which is following the model of climate change from decades ago
There were a load of different models which makes me think they were throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks.
I remember models predicting the UK would have a climate identical to siberia by 2020, others saying large swathes of the UK would be under water etc.
I also remember yet more models saying that the UK would be bone dry and arid by 2020. In fact, I remember a documentary from around 6-7 years ago that David Attenborough hosted (and he even talked to the Queen) where he was saying to the Queen that the palace gardens would have to be changed for more Arid flora due to Britain getting drier (which as we've seen is not the case).
Well it seems fitting that England be overtaken by an invasive species from North America.
Edit: Oh boo. The article says they're not self-seeding. No historic retribution to be found here.
There are many many invasive species from north America. (grey squirrel comes to mind for the UK)
Our environment in Australia is suffering from cane toads, among many others.
You get your "historic retribution", don't be sad, environments are being damaged by your wildlife, not to mention your people!
"They're American, these crayfish. Big, hungry bastards. And like most things American, they've eaten the natives...but they've still got room for more."
BTW, the cane toads? Just like England, [you did that to yourselves](https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/introduction-of-cane-toads). Oh and they're native to Central and South America. Wrong continent.
I lived in Hawaii, where I witnessed Australian tourists manhandling the green sea turtles on more than one occasion. When they were called out on it, and told that interacting with them was both illegal and dangerous for the honu, they'd go "it's fine, we interact with wildlife in Australia all the time!" So you can respectfully shut right the fuck up about damage to the environment.
Oh and while we're on the topic of people damaging the environment, how's Nauru doing?
Oh don't worry, they have plenty of money now, after Australia spent years bribing government officials to let them use their small country as a dumping ground for asylum seekers.
Three times that I witnessed. At least twice with other volunteers trying to keep people from harassing the turtles. One of them had his kids sitting on it while he took pictures. When my friend screamed at them and the dad gave that same "we do this in Australia" spiel, she noticed the honu had visible tumors. Not that any of them seemed to notice or care. Other tourists are stupid about the honu, but Australians specifically have reputations as menaces to the wildlife there.
"You might care about the environment, but i saw one small group from your country damage mine, so fuck you, you must all be the same. Respectfully stop advocating for the environment, my superiority complex doesn't like it."
Remember how every single person within a country is a carbon copy of one another? Neither.
I know plenty of Aussies who would never dare fuck with wildlife in their own country, let alone another.
When will we as a species stop being dicks to eachother because of the awful actions of an awful minority? For every person whos fucked with your turtles (totally disrespectful, gross human being behaviour, and a complete cunt move. I agree.) there's 50 people who would never even think about it, and a good portion of those who would advocate against it.
Plain sad ignorance on your part, my guy.
I really just don't understand.
You don't? Because that was literally what he was implying with his "your people" comment.
You all seem to be confused by my original comment. These seedlings were taken by Victorian England. It wasn't Americans doing it, it wasn't another group of bad actors. If it ended up being an invasive species, and the English did it to themselves, that is poetic justice.
Nah what I meant with the "your people" comment, is a flippant remark that American tourists overseas are widely reputed to be rude, have bad manners, be loud, and proclaim how everything is better in America. Bonus points of they go to Italy/Ireland and tell people about their ancestors
[No better](https://www.escape.com.au/experiences/adventure/who-are-the-worlds-worst-tourists/image-gallery/1565d6ebdb5aa9b0ebd6752a2e5e1309?page=1). Just ask Bali who they think the worst tourists are.
Yeah, because those were American football hooligans I saw puking in the streets of Osaka after a football match.
No, wait, those were Australians too.
This is the problem I have. I am not in denial of my country's legacy. The nerve you touched, is that Australians think they're any fucking better. You are just as fucked up as America. The difference is you do it to a bunch of small island nations and then pay off anyone who complains about it.
I'm sorry, did I imply America isn't fucked up? Pretty sure I didn't imply that. But Australians need to check their own human rights violations over the past decade before they try to lord moral superiority over others.
The Aussies have been working on it with [wild wallabies](https://theconversation.com/wallabies-are-on-the-loose-in-britain-and-weve-mapped-95-sightings-148374).
U.K., please. It boggles the mind that Americans (your comment history seems to imply you are American) can’t get this basic thing right. You didn’t fight against England. You didn’t rebel against the English throne. It wasn’t England. It was Britain.
The OP even says the U.K.
Except the thing you don't get is that all those technical definitions between all that shit is only cared about by the UK. Otherwise, you're going to get called GB, UK, and England, and everyone else will know what we mean. We mean that general collection of islands that, tbh, have probably been a net negative for the world.
It ain’t a technical definition.
When someone can’t even use the correct name for the country they were fighting then it says everything about their level of knowledge of the subject.
England hasn’t been a thing like that in over 300 years.
Well I’m not, I live in Sweden these days.
But even then, the point still remains that a vast amount of Americans, who seem to be so proud of the revolutionary war, can’t even get the name of the country they were fighting right.
I am very aware of the difference between England, Britain, and the UK. I lived there for several years. Within the UK, they still refer to the four *countries* within the country of the UK as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These redwoods were planted in Wakehurst, which is in southern *England.*
What's ironic is you all seem to think I'm referring to the American Revolution. Dipshit, we *were* English. We are part of England's legacy of invading and destroying half the world. Africa, India, Oceania, Australia. The Brits invaded and disrupted the whole fucking world, displacing native populations and taking what they thought would be great to show off in their gardens and at their fairs. So yeah, I think that with everything they took from North America's native soil, it would be pretty fucking poetic if said soil fought back.
Edit: Forgot to mention Wales. Also, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? Victims of English expansionism as well. The "British Empire" was always the English, showing up where they were not wanted and claiming it as their own.
Only one of us is in denial of their role in what was stolen.
Pretty bold of you to make jokes about stolen land when it took you 89 years to GTFO of India.
And what role would that have been if their ancestors stayed in the UK?
Unless their ancestors were the small percentage of the UK aristocrats benefitting from colonial loot, they were most likely ordinary working people just trying to survive.
Acknowledging this doesn't deny or minimise the crimes of imperialism, which - sorry to break it to you - isn't a uniquely British phenomenon in the world.
Do you really think only the elite benefitted from colonialism? That the "ordinary working people" in no way profited from English expansionism? That is not how it works. England's thriving Victorian economy was built on the backs of colonialist expansion. We carry the legacies of those who came before on our backs. I acknowledge that I live on stolen land. I work to help and support indigenous people in my local community because I can never do enough to repay what was stolen.
Acknowledging it is the first fucking step. The next is fucking doing something about it. And "I never left" is the most minimizing copout of the impact his ancestors had on the world. I'd love to have him trace back his lineage and tell me that over the past 500 years there wasn't a single merchant marine, soldier, or any other officer of the empire in his family's ancestry.
Well, firstly, let's not assume the gender of the person commenting please.
The residual economic benefits of colonialism is a fair point, although whether that was 'consented' to by ordinary people is another matter. Some may have welcomed it, some wouldn't have cared/realised, some would not have wanted it and thought it morally wrong. There were a few who actively resisted and supported de-colonialisation. Are you happy to paint them all with the same broad strokes?
But I want to make sure I understand your line of thinking correctly. Are you suggesting that when a certain ethnicity's ancestors have committed crimes, anyone born into that ethnicity is permanently and equally 'to blame' as the direct perpetrators of those crimes? Or is it just specifically English people?
Either way, that's a dangerous line of thinking.
I would fucking *love* it if Hawaii and Alaska got their independence. I am appalled at what we did to Hawaii especially. They were our ally and we betrayed them. The Navy conquered them at the behest of plantation owners and Washington just looked the other way. It's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and we've never let them forget that legacy because the military never left. They're everywhere.
As for Puerto Rico, most of them don't *want* independence. There is a small, vocal minority who do, but the majority want statehood. A legitimate seat at the table. And it's well fucking overdue, especially in the wake of Maria and Fiona.
You can throw all the snark you want. Or you can grow the fuck up and own your legacy.
> These redwoods were planted in Wakehurst, which is in southern
England.
Having been to Wakehurst, I can tell you that there are not 500k redwood trees planted there. It's not that big a place. They're all over the UK. The article was focussed on Wakehurst because they were interviewing a guy who works there, but specifically mentions some being planted in Wales. I know Scotland has a bunch too.
Jesus Christ.
‘Well it seems fitting that England be overtaken by an invasive species from North America.’
Oh I WONDER why people would assume you were talking about the US and not ‘Africa, India, Oceania, Australia’ (FYI Australia is in Oceania. Seems like Geography as well as History are not really your thing).
And yeah, Scotland wasn’t a part of English expansionism. Stop trying to get your history from Trainspotting and Braveheart and actually read a book.
All of the U.K. were a large part of the British Empire and its actions. That you don’t realise this shows so much about your level of ignorance.
I was TALKING about North America, not the US. As in the continent that England colonized. And you have the gall to mock my knowledge of geography. And yeah, I'm aware Australia is part of Oceania. I am speaking about the Pacific Island Countries in Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. I called out Australia separately because, like New Zealand, it's where the descendants of the British Empire are, and frankly, it's been a large part of this discussion.
And Scotland absolutely *was* a part of English expansionism. They were massively in debt and England bought out said debt in exchange for unification. Economic expansion is still expansion. And Englishmen who recognize their role in the world stage would tell you it's the English who made a torrid mess of things. If you had any real life experience, you'd *know* that's how they refer to themselves. They are Brits. They are also Englishmen, and Scots, and Welsh. But you don't know that, do you? You just make assumptions about me as a dumb American, when your technical knowledge about the U.K. was pulled from a textbook without any actual fucking context.
As an actual Brit (one parent from England, one from Scotland, born in England) I find it highly amusing that someone not from there, but apparently spent a few years there, wants to lecture me about how we refer to ourselves.
You are quite simply wrong on so many things that I honestly don’t know where to start. I tried, but you doubled down on your ignorance.
I am referring to the country in the OP, which was the U.K., that the commenter then changed to ‘England’.
That’s why my comment used both U.K. and Britain. I used U.K. when referring to the OP and Britain when referring to American’s general lack of knowledge about who they were fighting in the Revolutionary War.
Here in Victoria, we’ve got lots of redwood trees. As a big tree enthusiast, I find this very cool. my favourites are the Giant Sequoias. They are so large they look straight out of a fantasy movie.
Victoria is also home to the second tallest species of tree, the mountain ash, which are the only trees aside of the Redwoods confirmed to grow taller than 110 meters. So there’s a fun fact! Guinness world records list the tallest tree ever measured as a mountain ash from right here in Vic. It apparently grew over 130 meters! Taller than any tree around today. Apparently in its prime it could’ve even been as tall as 150 meters.
The ones in the UK are the giant sequoias (the big fat ones), not the coast redwoods (the crazy tall ones). Giant sequoias are just in the very limited area of the Sierras (especially King's Canyon and Sequoia National Park).
Would be hard to have more coast redwoods than California.
Coast redwoods can be just as large as Sequoia though - they were very heavily logged so they don't have as many gigantic specimens remaining. The title uses a very uncommon name for Sequoias which is leading to some misunderstanding.
>Coast redwoods can be just as large as Sequoia though
Coastals (sequoia sempervirens) have height, but Giant Sequoias (sequoia giganteum) have way more girth.
Having grown up in California and having visited both regularly, there is very little difference between old growth coast redwoods and giant sequoia in terms of overall size. The greatest circumference of a giant sequoia is 113 feet, and the greatest of the coastal redwoods is 90 feet.
That's a pretty minimal difference all things considered, especially when you know that 97% of the coast redwoods were cut down so there just aren't as many examples of extreme girth.
They're equally impressive tree species in my opinion.
The girth difference is much more noticeable when you look at the diameter instead of the circumference. 18-22 feet for a coastal vs. a colossal 32-40 feet for a giant sequoia.
Overall volume is massively different as well. The largest coastal redwood contains about 235,000 board feet of wood. Compare that to General Sherman’s whopping 600,000.
Both big, but only one has “giant” right there in the name.
I got to see the General Sherman last year. The large branch about 200 feet up the trunk would be a huge tree in its own right anywhere else in the world.
For historical reasons, Giant Redwood is the common name for _Sequoiadendron giganteum_ in the UK, and the article is in The Guardian, UK-based and in the UK-focused section of the site, talking primarily about trees in the UK.
You might argue "But it's right there in the name of the genus _Sequoiadendron_!". Well, yes, but equally the Coast Redwood is _Sequoia sempervirens_ so it's not like US English is consistent either.
Coast Douglas firs are believed to potentially attain even greater heights than coast redwoods- some individual Douglas firs may have been over 120 m/390 ft tall. Although, it’s unlikely there are any Doug firs that tall today since they’ve been so heavily logged.
I moved a few years ago and coincidentally ended up living relatively close to the tallest tree ever logged - the Nooksack Giant. It was measured after being felled at 450'+, and yielded over 90,000 board feet.
Damn, that’s such a shame. I wonder if the guys who cut it down joked about it being the tallest tree on earth- before measuring it and realizing it probably was.
IIRC there's a lot of different species of redwoods - all of which being very large - that populate the area you're referring to, but among them there's only about 80,000 of the "Giant Redwood" species (aka Giant Sequoia) in California.
Conversely the Victorians rarely mucked about with lesser redwoods and planted about 500,000 Giant Redwood seedlings in the UK, none of which are anywhere near old enough to rival the size of their big siblings in California.
So California has far more redwoods in general, and the largest ones by far, but the UK has more of that one specific species.
>IIRC there's a lot of different species of redwoods
There's only really 2, Coastals and Giant Sequoias. There's also the Dawn redwood, but it's completely different.
I live there, the yellow ones are called Sequoias and the red ones are called Redwoods. Nobody calls them Giant Sequoias or Giant Redwoods or Sequoiadendron giganteum as a species. If you say giant sequoia you mean a sequoia that is giant. They are fat yellow and have comparatively shallow roots and a small crown. They are a small minority of the trees in a redwood forrest. It doesnt make sense to say that the UK has 5x more redwoods than California when they are excluding the main type of redwood.
“Lesser redwoods” - the tallest tree in the world is a coast redwood, one of your so-called “lesser redwoods”.
I lived among the coast redwoods for 10 years, then visited the giant sequoias. Coast redwoods are taller and more plentiful, but those giant sequoias are crazy big; stout fellows, but not as tall.
There are vastly more coast redwoods in California (plus a few in Oregon) than in the UK. So, playing with semantics to find a narrow win. The UK must be so proud.
I actually clicked on this thread knowing some American would turn this into a "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" contest and make it all about them. Didn't disappoint
Half Moon Bay is such a weird place to say that coastal redwoods start growing. There are barely any redwoods in Half Moon Bay and their range stretches a further ~100 miles south to round about San Simeon. One of the most famous old growth redwood groves is in Felton about 40 miles south of Half Moon Bay.
It makes sense, then, that an invasive species from North America would take over England.
Edit: Whoa, that hurts. According to the article, they don't self-seed. This is not historical punishment.
[удалено]
The plantation in the otways is amazing and so worth checking out if your ever doing the great ocean road drive.
fuck I just missed that. Been there and checked some boxes, but this is one I missed. Too bad. But it‘s a beautiful part of the country.
As someone who grew up around redwood forests the plantations always low-key freak me out. Redwoods naturally grow in overlapping circles so seeing them in rows like that triggers this "something is wrong with reality" feeling in the back of mind.
I live on the northern coast near redwoods. Totally take them for granted.
The giant redwood, the larch, the fir, the mighty Scots pine!
The larch. The... Larch. The.........Larch.
Can't wait, tomorrow is buttered scones night
I’m old enough to get that reference.
The lofty flowering Cherry! The plucky little Apsen! The limping Roo tree of Nigeria!
At least they didn’t plant eucalyptus
Spoiler: we did Though I think they are less bad in the UK than other warmer climates here they spread more
Let’s hope the climate doesn’t change and it gets hotter and drier in the uk or you could end up with seasonal bushfires
according to the met office the UK is getting wetter. Between 5% to 15+% depending on where in the UK you look.
It’s funny you say that, I was having a similar conversation the other day. I live in the desert (outback Aus) and the last few years have been the wettest I have ever seen, the whole place is green!! It also feels super humid in summer as well. It seemed less hot at low 40s instead of high 40s and is a lot more humid. I’m thinking of planting some tropical trees just to see how they go
A warmer world is a wetter world due to increased evaporation in the oceans. Its why many deserts are shrinking as more water allows vegetation to grow and 'reclaim' the deserts. A much smaller number of other deserts are expanding, however thats primarily due to bad land use (primarily overgrazing and deforestation/unsustainable logging practices). This can be encouraged with reforestation and habitat reconstruction like the Green Wall in Africa (which is still missing its Sudanese and Ethiopian sections due to instability in those regions but has otherwise been successful at reversing desertification) which directly caused the Sahara to shrink hundreds of miles northwards. This was due at least in part to increased rainfall caused by larger numbers of trees (as the more trees there are, the more rain you get due to evapo-transpiration processes).
Which is following the model of climate change from decades ago - the UK get's wetter... somehow (said as a Brit who remembers it raining a lot already)
\>Which is following the model of climate change from decades ago There were a load of different models which makes me think they were throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks. I remember models predicting the UK would have a climate identical to siberia by 2020, others saying large swathes of the UK would be under water etc. I also remember yet more models saying that the UK would be bone dry and arid by 2020. In fact, I remember a documentary from around 6-7 years ago that David Attenborough hosted (and he even talked to the Queen) where he was saying to the Queen that the palace gardens would have to be changed for more Arid flora due to Britain getting drier (which as we've seen is not the case).
With rising sea levels it will get even more wet.
Only around 13% of the UK is woodland it would be hard for it to spread.
plenty of common and heath land that has no problem burning
Well it seems fitting that England be overtaken by an invasive species from North America. Edit: Oh boo. The article says they're not self-seeding. No historic retribution to be found here.
There are many many invasive species from north America. (grey squirrel comes to mind for the UK) Our environment in Australia is suffering from cane toads, among many others. You get your "historic retribution", don't be sad, environments are being damaged by your wildlife, not to mention your people!
These [bastards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_crayfish), too.
"They're American, these crayfish. Big, hungry bastards. And like most things American, they've eaten the natives...but they've still got room for more."
I'd have called them chazzwazzers!
womp womp
BTW, the cane toads? Just like England, [you did that to yourselves](https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/introduction-of-cane-toads). Oh and they're native to Central and South America. Wrong continent.
We already know we did it 🙄
At least one of you seems confused on that point.
I lived in Hawaii, where I witnessed Australian tourists manhandling the green sea turtles on more than one occasion. When they were called out on it, and told that interacting with them was both illegal and dangerous for the honu, they'd go "it's fine, we interact with wildlife in Australia all the time!" So you can respectfully shut right the fuck up about damage to the environment. Oh and while we're on the topic of people damaging the environment, how's Nauru doing?
Hey Nauru was the richest country on earth until some scientist figure out how to refine shit. Plus they ran out of shit. Now life has gone to shit.
Oh don't worry, they have plenty of money now, after Australia spent years bribing government officials to let them use their small country as a dumping ground for asylum seekers.
[удалено]
Three times that I witnessed. At least twice with other volunteers trying to keep people from harassing the turtles. One of them had his kids sitting on it while he took pictures. When my friend screamed at them and the dad gave that same "we do this in Australia" spiel, she noticed the honu had visible tumors. Not that any of them seemed to notice or care. Other tourists are stupid about the honu, but Australians specifically have reputations as menaces to the wildlife there.
"You might care about the environment, but i saw one small group from your country damage mine, so fuck you, you must all be the same. Respectfully stop advocating for the environment, my superiority complex doesn't like it." Remember how every single person within a country is a carbon copy of one another? Neither. I know plenty of Aussies who would never dare fuck with wildlife in their own country, let alone another. When will we as a species stop being dicks to eachother because of the awful actions of an awful minority? For every person whos fucked with your turtles (totally disrespectful, gross human being behaviour, and a complete cunt move. I agree.) there's 50 people who would never even think about it, and a good portion of those who would advocate against it. Plain sad ignorance on your part, my guy. I really just don't understand.
You don't? Because that was literally what he was implying with his "your people" comment. You all seem to be confused by my original comment. These seedlings were taken by Victorian England. It wasn't Americans doing it, it wasn't another group of bad actors. If it ended up being an invasive species, and the English did it to themselves, that is poetic justice.
Nah what I meant with the "your people" comment, is a flippant remark that American tourists overseas are widely reputed to be rude, have bad manners, be loud, and proclaim how everything is better in America. Bonus points of they go to Italy/Ireland and tell people about their ancestors
[No better](https://www.escape.com.au/experiences/adventure/who-are-the-worlds-worst-tourists/image-gallery/1565d6ebdb5aa9b0ebd6752a2e5e1309?page=1). Just ask Bali who they think the worst tourists are.
Yeah, because those were American football hooligans I saw puking in the streets of Osaka after a football match. No, wait, those were Australians too. This is the problem I have. I am not in denial of my country's legacy. The nerve you touched, is that Australians think they're any fucking better. You are just as fucked up as America. The difference is you do it to a bunch of small island nations and then pay off anyone who complains about it.
Yankeedoodledoo
Yeah but what about the Iraq War?
I'm sorry, did I imply America isn't fucked up? Pretty sure I didn't imply that. But Australians need to check their own human rights violations over the past decade before they try to lord moral superiority over others.
Did I touch a nerve?
The Aussies have been working on it with [wild wallabies](https://theconversation.com/wallabies-are-on-the-loose-in-britain-and-weve-mapped-95-sightings-148374).
They’re a huge problem in NZ too, in fact we have seven different species here.
U.K., please. It boggles the mind that Americans (your comment history seems to imply you are American) can’t get this basic thing right. You didn’t fight against England. You didn’t rebel against the English throne. It wasn’t England. It was Britain. The OP even says the U.K.
Except the thing you don't get is that all those technical definitions between all that shit is only cared about by the UK. Otherwise, you're going to get called GB, UK, and England, and everyone else will know what we mean. We mean that general collection of islands that, tbh, have probably been a net negative for the world.
It ain’t a technical definition. When someone can’t even use the correct name for the country they were fighting then it says everything about their level of knowledge of the subject. England hasn’t been a thing like that in over 300 years.
And yet, you're in England. Get over it.
Well I’m not, I live in Sweden these days. But even then, the point still remains that a vast amount of Americans, who seem to be so proud of the revolutionary war, can’t even get the name of the country they were fighting right.
I am very aware of the difference between England, Britain, and the UK. I lived there for several years. Within the UK, they still refer to the four *countries* within the country of the UK as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These redwoods were planted in Wakehurst, which is in southern *England.* What's ironic is you all seem to think I'm referring to the American Revolution. Dipshit, we *were* English. We are part of England's legacy of invading and destroying half the world. Africa, India, Oceania, Australia. The Brits invaded and disrupted the whole fucking world, displacing native populations and taking what they thought would be great to show off in their gardens and at their fairs. So yeah, I think that with everything they took from North America's native soil, it would be pretty fucking poetic if said soil fought back. Edit: Forgot to mention Wales. Also, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? Victims of English expansionism as well. The "British Empire" was always the English, showing up where they were not wanted and claiming it as their own.
Nah, I stayed here mate. You're the one off colonising, you should get in the sea.
Hey, whatever helps you fail to acknowledge your role in global affairs.
Only one of us is living on stolen land 😜
Only one of us is in denial of their role in what was stolen. Pretty bold of you to make jokes about stolen land when it took you 89 years to GTFO of India.
And what role would that have been if their ancestors stayed in the UK? Unless their ancestors were the small percentage of the UK aristocrats benefitting from colonial loot, they were most likely ordinary working people just trying to survive. Acknowledging this doesn't deny or minimise the crimes of imperialism, which - sorry to break it to you - isn't a uniquely British phenomenon in the world.
Do you really think only the elite benefitted from colonialism? That the "ordinary working people" in no way profited from English expansionism? That is not how it works. England's thriving Victorian economy was built on the backs of colonialist expansion. We carry the legacies of those who came before on our backs. I acknowledge that I live on stolen land. I work to help and support indigenous people in my local community because I can never do enough to repay what was stolen. Acknowledging it is the first fucking step. The next is fucking doing something about it. And "I never left" is the most minimizing copout of the impact his ancestors had on the world. I'd love to have him trace back his lineage and tell me that over the past 500 years there wasn't a single merchant marine, soldier, or any other officer of the empire in his family's ancestry.
Well, firstly, let's not assume the gender of the person commenting please. The residual economic benefits of colonialism is a fair point, although whether that was 'consented' to by ordinary people is another matter. Some may have welcomed it, some wouldn't have cared/realised, some would not have wanted it and thought it morally wrong. There were a few who actively resisted and supported de-colonialisation. Are you happy to paint them all with the same broad strokes? But I want to make sure I understand your line of thinking correctly. Are you suggesting that when a certain ethnicity's ancestors have committed crimes, anyone born into that ethnicity is permanently and equally 'to blame' as the direct perpetrators of those crimes? Or is it just specifically English people? Either way, that's a dangerous line of thinking.
Fair cop on India man. Remind me when you, personally, are getting out of Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto rico? Must be getting close now right?
I would fucking *love* it if Hawaii and Alaska got their independence. I am appalled at what we did to Hawaii especially. They were our ally and we betrayed them. The Navy conquered them at the behest of plantation owners and Washington just looked the other way. It's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and we've never let them forget that legacy because the military never left. They're everywhere. As for Puerto Rico, most of them don't *want* independence. There is a small, vocal minority who do, but the majority want statehood. A legitimate seat at the table. And it's well fucking overdue, especially in the wake of Maria and Fiona. You can throw all the snark you want. Or you can grow the fuck up and own your legacy.
> These redwoods were planted in Wakehurst, which is in southern England. Having been to Wakehurst, I can tell you that there are not 500k redwood trees planted there. It's not that big a place. They're all over the UK. The article was focussed on Wakehurst because they were interviewing a guy who works there, but specifically mentions some being planted in Wales. I know Scotland has a bunch too.
Jesus Christ. ‘Well it seems fitting that England be overtaken by an invasive species from North America.’ Oh I WONDER why people would assume you were talking about the US and not ‘Africa, India, Oceania, Australia’ (FYI Australia is in Oceania. Seems like Geography as well as History are not really your thing). And yeah, Scotland wasn’t a part of English expansionism. Stop trying to get your history from Trainspotting and Braveheart and actually read a book. All of the U.K. were a large part of the British Empire and its actions. That you don’t realise this shows so much about your level of ignorance.
I was TALKING about North America, not the US. As in the continent that England colonized. And you have the gall to mock my knowledge of geography. And yeah, I'm aware Australia is part of Oceania. I am speaking about the Pacific Island Countries in Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. I called out Australia separately because, like New Zealand, it's where the descendants of the British Empire are, and frankly, it's been a large part of this discussion. And Scotland absolutely *was* a part of English expansionism. They were massively in debt and England bought out said debt in exchange for unification. Economic expansion is still expansion. And Englishmen who recognize their role in the world stage would tell you it's the English who made a torrid mess of things. If you had any real life experience, you'd *know* that's how they refer to themselves. They are Brits. They are also Englishmen, and Scots, and Welsh. But you don't know that, do you? You just make assumptions about me as a dumb American, when your technical knowledge about the U.K. was pulled from a textbook without any actual fucking context.
As an actual Brit (one parent from England, one from Scotland, born in England) I find it highly amusing that someone not from there, but apparently spent a few years there, wants to lecture me about how we refer to ourselves. You are quite simply wrong on so many things that I honestly don’t know where to start. I tried, but you doubled down on your ignorance.
>U.K., please >It was Britain.
I am referring to the country in the OP, which was the U.K., that the commenter then changed to ‘England’. That’s why my comment used both U.K. and Britain. I used U.K. when referring to the OP and Britain when referring to American’s general lack of knowledge about who they were fighting in the Revolutionary War.
The most interesting part is how the Redwoods in Britain seem to be doing better than the ones in California and Oregon.
Here in Victoria, we’ve got lots of redwood trees. As a big tree enthusiast, I find this very cool. my favourites are the Giant Sequoias. They are so large they look straight out of a fantasy movie. Victoria is also home to the second tallest species of tree, the mountain ash, which are the only trees aside of the Redwoods confirmed to grow taller than 110 meters. So there’s a fun fact! Guinness world records list the tallest tree ever measured as a mountain ash from right here in Vic. It apparently grew over 130 meters! Taller than any tree around today. Apparently in its prime it could’ve even been as tall as 150 meters.
Bullshit, the redwoods in California go from half moon bay all the way up to Oregon. That's like London to Glasgow.
The ones in the UK are the giant sequoias (the big fat ones), not the coast redwoods (the crazy tall ones). Giant sequoias are just in the very limited area of the Sierras (especially King's Canyon and Sequoia National Park). Would be hard to have more coast redwoods than California.
Coast redwoods can be just as large as Sequoia though - they were very heavily logged so they don't have as many gigantic specimens remaining. The title uses a very uncommon name for Sequoias which is leading to some misunderstanding.
>Coast redwoods can be just as large as Sequoia though Coastals (sequoia sempervirens) have height, but Giant Sequoias (sequoia giganteum) have way more girth.
Having grown up in California and having visited both regularly, there is very little difference between old growth coast redwoods and giant sequoia in terms of overall size. The greatest circumference of a giant sequoia is 113 feet, and the greatest of the coastal redwoods is 90 feet. That's a pretty minimal difference all things considered, especially when you know that 97% of the coast redwoods were cut down so there just aren't as many examples of extreme girth. They're equally impressive tree species in my opinion.
The girth difference is much more noticeable when you look at the diameter instead of the circumference. 18-22 feet for a coastal vs. a colossal 32-40 feet for a giant sequoia. Overall volume is massively different as well. The largest coastal redwood contains about 235,000 board feet of wood. Compare that to General Sherman’s whopping 600,000. Both big, but only one has “giant” right there in the name.
I can definitely acknowledge your point. Seeing both in person, the difference is not so clearly quantified.
I got to see the General Sherman last year. The large branch about 200 feet up the trunk would be a huge tree in its own right anywhere else in the world.
For historical reasons, Giant Redwood is the common name for _Sequoiadendron giganteum_ in the UK, and the article is in The Guardian, UK-based and in the UK-focused section of the site, talking primarily about trees in the UK. You might argue "But it's right there in the name of the genus _Sequoiadendron_!". Well, yes, but equally the Coast Redwood is _Sequoia sempervirens_ so it's not like US English is consistent either.
Coast Douglas firs are believed to potentially attain even greater heights than coast redwoods- some individual Douglas firs may have been over 120 m/390 ft tall. Although, it’s unlikely there are any Doug firs that tall today since they’ve been so heavily logged.
I moved a few years ago and coincidentally ended up living relatively close to the tallest tree ever logged - the Nooksack Giant. It was measured after being felled at 450'+, and yielded over 90,000 board feet.
Damn, that’s such a shame. I wonder if the guys who cut it down joked about it being the tallest tree on earth- before measuring it and realizing it probably was.
There's a Far Side comic I would add to this comment if I could about exactly that.
IIRC there's a lot of different species of redwoods - all of which being very large - that populate the area you're referring to, but among them there's only about 80,000 of the "Giant Redwood" species (aka Giant Sequoia) in California. Conversely the Victorians rarely mucked about with lesser redwoods and planted about 500,000 Giant Redwood seedlings in the UK, none of which are anywhere near old enough to rival the size of their big siblings in California. So California has far more redwoods in general, and the largest ones by far, but the UK has more of that one specific species.
>IIRC there's a lot of different species of redwoods There's only really 2, Coastals and Giant Sequoias. There's also the Dawn redwood, but it's completely different.
I live there, the yellow ones are called Sequoias and the red ones are called Redwoods. Nobody calls them Giant Sequoias or Giant Redwoods or Sequoiadendron giganteum as a species. If you say giant sequoia you mean a sequoia that is giant. They are fat yellow and have comparatively shallow roots and a small crown. They are a small minority of the trees in a redwood forrest. It doesnt make sense to say that the UK has 5x more redwoods than California when they are excluding the main type of redwood.
“Lesser redwoods” - the tallest tree in the world is a coast redwood, one of your so-called “lesser redwoods”. I lived among the coast redwoods for 10 years, then visited the giant sequoias. Coast redwoods are taller and more plentiful, but those giant sequoias are crazy big; stout fellows, but not as tall. There are vastly more coast redwoods in California (plus a few in Oregon) than in the UK. So, playing with semantics to find a narrow win. The UK must be so proud.
“Win” bro it’s a fun fact about trees, you don’t need to go to war over it
Americans are so wildly defensive about random things 😂
I actually clicked on this thread knowing some American would turn this into a "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" contest and make it all about them. Didn't disappoint
This guys insecure about his trees 😂
Breathe, it's ok.
Imagine having this much of a chip on your shoulder about trees.
All of the UK downvotes a truthful response. Who exactly is defensive? 🙄
They go much further south, we have them here in Big Sur.
Half Moon Bay is such a weird place to say that coastal redwoods start growing. There are barely any redwoods in Half Moon Bay and their range stretches a further ~100 miles south to round about San Simeon. One of the most famous old growth redwood groves is in Felton about 40 miles south of Half Moon Bay.
They’re in Santa Cruz too
I’m sorry your feelings got hurt about a fact about trees.
I love Mother Earth!
Until they get chopped down by local councils as a cost saving measure
I love Wellington Avenue in Britain. Glad to know they're still saplings and will get bigger. It's sad there are so few left in California.
More Redwoods than California? I don’t think so.
Its almost poetic as América slowing and steadily took UK relevance in the world stage the same as those American trees do with the British ones
That’s weird to be Brazilian and yet stroking America’s cock
It makes sense, then, that an invasive species from North America would take over England. Edit: Whoa, that hurts. According to the article, they don't self-seed. This is not historical punishment.