Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
At first daunted at the task of reading about “The Biological Expansion of Europe,” I was pleased to find Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism an enlightening read about the “biogeographical advantages” Europeans held in their conquest of the “New World” (5). Within the book, Crosby investigates the success of what he calls “the portmanteau biota” of Europe, and explains that while humans were largely responsible for the spread of this biota, the success of European ecological imperialism was “a team effort” by plants, animals, humans, and even diseases throughout the “Neo-Europes” of the world (293).
I found Crosby’s argument about weeds the most interesting in this work. Crosby asserts that weeds were critical in the development of Neo-Europes, despite their perceived uselessness by settlers. I was convinced by Crosby that weeds were integral to creating a suitable environment for the portmanteau biota particularly because the encroachment of these foreign weeds upon (mainly) America and Australia was an injection of the Old World’s flora in the New World’s land. While the presence of these often-agitating plants may have disgruntled European agriculturalists, these weeds were consumed by the livestock that were also brought from Europe. Thus, these plants were likely familiar fare for the chickens and pigs that were brought to the New World, and could have contributed to their near immediate success in new lands. Weeds became especially important as land was overgrazed by cattle and overused by farmers in Central America in the sixteenth century (151-152).
Because weeds were opportunistic plants – as Crosby asserts – they grew rapidly in disturbed and nutrient deprived lands. Comparing weeds in the New World to the modern Red Cross, Crosby argues that weeds kept otherwise arid soils stable for the planting of crops in the future (168-169). With respect to my colleagues, I would like to add to Ian’s post about Europeans manipulating the land “towards their directives.” While Ian focused on the intentional shaping of the land for profit in examples like Australia and the production of sugar, I think Crosby also demonstrates the sheer luck Europeans had in establishing Neo-Europes. The presence of European weeds in the New World allowed many farmers to continue planting the same lands season after season. Without any knowledge on behalf of the farmers, the weeds were also helping to manipulate lands to theses farmers’ directives year after year. Without this inadvertent import from Old World European culture, the agricultural successes of the Neo-Europes may never have occurred.
I also appreciated Crosby’s definition of a “weed,” and I enjoyed how he employed the term throughout the rest of his work. According to Crosby, weeds spread rapidly and fought against other plants. They are not always disliked, and they are not always harrowing to the other organisms around them. (149-150). He notes that weeds are “colonizing plants,” similar in many ways to the colonizing European imperialists (170). Additionally, near the end of his book he concludes that the expansion of Europe was due in large part to weeds. “Weeds, in the broadest sense of the word,” Crosby argues, “are more characteristic of the biotas of the lands anciently affected by the Old World Neolithic than any others” (292). With this quote in mind, weeds were truly characteristic of the settlers that brought them to the New World – these humans were opportunistic, fought aggressively for their land, and were often (but perhaps mistakenly) seen as a torment by those who could not get rid of them.