Guha’s piece uses a mix of sources that are more official texts like reports, books, legislative documents, and manuscripts and a few that are more casual accounts, like notes and remarks noted in a file. Grove also cited reports, books, and papers from India. Notably, from what I saw, most of the documentation for both texts were produced by people in positions of power, not locals or the indigenous population. More recent scholars have access to new information, as well as new perspectives that have been published about the subject. Sivaramakrishnan cites Guha and Grove, making use of secondary sources. Barton references more American sources, given that he is writing about the development of environmentalism in the US. Of course, this would shape how he interpreted the colonial intervention of Indian forests. It appeared that Americans were very much influenced and inspired by how Europeans controlled Indian forests, and wanted to replicate that ‘conservation’ because they exemplified a collaboration and understanding between the state and the public. Brandis, Barton says, educated India to understand that forestry can only be managed by the state and that only they can do it properly. The American characters in Barton’s chapter only understood India from the European perspective and their interpretation that there was less deforestation, and therefore Europeans must be doing good there. Barton’s reading did not not at all that Americans are colonizers of Indigenous lands as well. Meanwhile, Guha’s reading particularly discussed the specifics of the laws, acts, and memorandums related to Indian forestry. The account of the three types of forests that were delineated by the Indian Forest Act of 1878 made an impression on me, because of how 2 of the 3 were basically categorizing forests that were under state control or were going to be in the near future, and one that was meant for villages to use but was never used. I read Guha’s introduction of Brandis as a pragmatic individual who was interested in Indian locals’ way of using the forests, and who advocated for customary rights as story-like. In the end, he ended up supporting state “indisputable” rights. The back and forth listing of reasons against Brandis’ Act/Bill and the Madras government’s Bill against the Act was very interesting to follow the story through, even as they were taken from official documents. It was upsetting to read that the opposition to the Act and the resistance dispelled very quickly by Brandis’ rewriting of the Madras Forest Act. Then, we see Brandis spreading his ‘victory’ and the ways he achieved control of forests in India to Hough, Sargent, and Pinchot in America, spreading empire forestry in Barton’s piece. In many cases, the printed texts are a reflection of what people were thinking at the time, but more organized. However, they must also be biased, because they were printed with the audience in mind; perhaps the ideas were minimized to not spark too much controversy, which creates an article that also discounts the situation. The positions of the writers and where they stand will greatly influence their works as well.