February 2014 – Page 4 – American Environments to 1893

February 9, 2014

The “Seams of Pangaea”

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

In Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Alfred W. Crosby attempts to explain why Europeans “triumphed” in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and South America (regions he calls “Neo-Europes) (7). The period Crosby studies is one thousand years long, and the region encompasses nearly the whole globe. Crosby bravely studies a vast subject in terms of time and place. This vastness is both the reason why Crosby can present such an enticing argument and also why the argument may fail to be convincing.

The vastness of time and place is the reason Crosby can present his argument because he needs the full thousand years to trace how ecological causes–not Europeans’ “superiority in arms, organization, and fanaticism”–led to European success in the Neo-Europes. Though disease worked quickly, plants and animals took longer to change Neo-European environments than the timeline of conventional stories of human-centered European imperialism in the New World. Crosby acknowledges the length of time necessary to validate his argument: “the success of the portmanteau biota and of its dominant member, the European human, was a team effort by organisms that had evolved in conflict and cooperation over a long time” (293).

The vastness of time and place is also worrying because it is so vast. I found the fourth chapter, “The Fortunate Isles” and the tenth chapter, “New Zealand,” most convincing because Crosby focused on particular regions. “The stories of all the continental Neo-Europes are too long and complicated to tell within the limitations of this book,” writes Crosby, “therefore, we turn to New Zealand.” It is admirable that he acknowledges the impossibility of chronicling the stories of the other regions. Additionally, Crosby’s evidence is primarily secondary. I think the scope of his argument necessitated secondary evidence, but history relies on primary evidence. But then maybe this isn’t really history as much as an ecological study with historical implications?

I had a different reaction to this book than Sean did (February 9). He said that it resolved his doubts about environmental history as an academic discipline. Ecological Imperialism did the opposite for me. Crosby’s argument is convincing because it makes a lot of sense, and he uses convincing evidence. And I really want to believe it because it seems right. Crosby’s argument is ambitious and it seems convincing . But maybe it’s just a little too good to be true.

February 9, 2014

The Disease and Domination Forced on the New World

Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperials took away any doubts I may have had about environmental history as a field of study. Crosby makes a convincing argument about the environmental factors that impacted European colonization that expands on the well-known idea that European’s brought disease with them and also discusses a new element, that the European’s were able to expand because of how the environments allowed their crops to be successful.

It is pretty well known that European’s brought disease with them when they came to America, which was a major factor in the decimation of the Native American population, but Crosby provides a further explanation for this. Crosby cites how when European cultures began to settle in one place and stray from the hunting lifestyle, they exposed themselves to diseases which wiped out sections of their populations. However, in Darwinian fashion, the European’s who survived developed immunities to the diseases brought on by their lifestyle, and therefore when they brought their lifestyle to the New World, they remained immune while indigenous members of the population were not. Crosby’s conclusion from these facts is that, “The only truly effective way to deal with the major communicable pathogens of the world is directly, thus building – if one survives – immunity against them” (287).

I think Manish makes an interesting point when he says “In retrospect it would have been to the benefit of many of the indigenous populations to attempt to isolate themselves and retain their native identities for their immune systems lacked exposure to the vast majority of pathogens that the Europeans had endured for hundreds of years.” While that might be true, it’s hard to say if the European’s had known the consequences of their shifting lifestyle would bring on so much death and disease that they would have settled anyway. While it was advantageous to European’s in the end, going through centuries of death while they could have maintained a hunting lifestyle separate from animals is a major price to pay, and if they had known what they were getting into I would argue they would have continued on with their more “natural” way of life.

I also found Crosby’s argument about how European’s were able to change the physical landscape of the New World to adapt to their lifestyle very convincing. Ian brings up how successful sugar production in Australia was due to how conducive the climate was, and that the bringing of the foreign entities allowed the members of the Old World to excel while living off the land. I really liked the term Crosby uses of “European erosion” (97), as it goes beyond how successful European products were and instead discusses how the weeds and foreign plants helped push out the indigenous cultures, like with the Guanches of the Canaries.

February 9, 2014

The Architect of the Wilderness

One of the central ideas that Alfred W. Crosby presents in his work, Ecological Imperialism, is the concept of humans reshaping their environment towards their desires. An early instance of this idea is 15^th century British Colonists introducing both bees and sugar to “Maderia,” the land we now know as Australia (77). The purpose of bringing these foreign entities to the land by colonists was simple, it was profitable. As Crosby indicates, sugar production in Australia was a product like gold for English colonists, as the favorable climate of Australia made growing this product easy (77).

Alterations to the land did not stop there either, as if you look to 19^th century New Zealand, the changes made by English Colonists are immeasurable towards their reshaping the land. In terms of physical introductions, Crosby offers a short but strong description of English influence. An English Botanist living in New Zealand in the 1840s stated “certain spots abounding in the rankest vegetation, but without a single indigenous plant” (253). His words explicitly show how the introduction of weeds and other plant life to the New Zealand wilderness by British colonists had completely altered content of the land. Though this is only one man’s account, the fact that a trained Botanist was unable to recognize one native piece of plant life to the region is evidence enough to display how powerful humans are in altering the land towards their directives.

Furthermore, the changes to the New Zealand’s natural landscape did not stop at the physical level, as English explorers also brought with them numerous pathogens which diminished the native population. Though their cultural lifestyle may have had some contribution to the death rate, native New Zealanders, the Maori, were devastated by the introduction of Old World diseases like Tuberculosis (231-233). The death rate reached such high numbers in the Maori population that many began to turn their back on their European visitors, casting them as “the author of their evils” for the struggles they brought to their land (244). Even unintentionally, the presence of foreign humans in new environments causes significant alteration to the current ecosystem, often leading to drastic changes in population counts of both plant and animal life, even that of fellow man.

Continuing with the subjects of diseases and pathogens, I completely agree with Manish’s assessment of nature being a dangerous entity. Though nature does not necessarily have a motive for the spread of disease, we as humans all perceive this side of “nature” as a negative attribute, one that we have fought against for centuries on end. Yet, on the other hand, there are people who potentially would view some diseases as a beneficial factor of nature depending on their directives. For instance, if we look at American history and the various conflicts that arose against Native Americans, I would argue that many pioneers who waged war against the natives were thankful for certain diseases. As Manish references in his post, most indigenous populations were highly susceptible to the Old World diseases that the Anglo American settlers were not, turning nature’s efforts into something these white individuals favored. Though we often tend to associate Nature’s efforts with disease as a negative, it cannot be denied that in many instances, human kind has accepted these actions as a positive.

February 9, 2014

Ecological Imperialism: Mean Nature

In her last post Chelsea Creta (chcreta) quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson on his description of nature. “Nature never wears a mean appearance” (28) After reading Alfred W. Crosby’s book Ecological Imperialism I would strongly have to disagree. Nature is an unforgiving force that always poses a potentially deadly threat. One of the major focuses of the book is the impact that European imperialists had on the Neo-European lands both ecologically and socially on the indigenous cultures. When thinking about impacts of Old World civilization on Neo-European lands the impact of Old World diseases must be at the forefront of that discussion. Disease was such an important factor in the decimation of many indigenous populations in the Neo-Europes. Crosby makes a very good point in describing the successful spread of disease as a dual team effort. Europeans would plant crops or import items that would assist in the spread of foreign pathogens. However, the benefit of their actions outweighed the cost of refraining from their actions, which was to the mutual benefit of the pathogens as well.

In retrospect it would have been to the benefit of many of the indigenous populations to attempt to isolate themselves and retain their native identities for their immune systems lacked exposure to the vast majority of pathogens that the Europeans had endured for hundreds of years. In some ways the Neolithic revolution in the old worlds had prepared the Europeans well to become the leading imperialists in the world. Old World history had conditioned European civilizations and individuals to withstand some of nature’s harshest obstacles.

Unfortunately, the natives of Neo-European lands lacked the same conditioning. Even worse the circumstances of the natives helped amplify the effects of the epidemics that would come to play an important role in their histories. While European efforts to improve their circumstances paved the way for the spreading and cultivation of pathogens in the foreign lands the native embracement of European ideals and practices brought them into closer contact with the foreign pathogens that would lay waste to major percentages of the native population. Crosby uses the example of the Maori in New Zealand to illustrate this point. To some extent the Christian missionaries are responsible for encouraging the Maori to strive to become more European.

The success of the Pakeha lifestyles further prompted a want to become “European” but placed the natives within closer confines with both European immigrants as well as European pathogens resulting in deadly consequences. In a strange manner the Maori acceptance of Europeans perhaps was the most beneficial occurrence for European success. Not only did they adopt many of the ecological habits and customs of Europeans such as the farming of certain plants and raising of old world livestock but their want to be closer to Europeans helped eliminate competition due their decimation by disease. That allowed the Europeans to further flourish. Nature can be a leveling factor in the conquering of one civilization over another and in the case of European imperialism the Neolithic Revolution was an important factor is providing the Old World inhabitants with biological tools that made them most suitable to world expansion. In the several examples of Neo-Europe that Crosby discussed nature has played a crucial role in permitting Europeans to succeed and it would not be a stretch to say that nature can have the meanest of appearances.

February 1, 2014

Possible Paper Topics

For my paper I hope to look at the relationship between the expansion of the United State’s frontier and the relationship it had with the United States Army. As the frontier expanded westward the army grew in size but it never reached the numbers to effectively perform its duties. They were charged among many things with protecting Indians and conducting explorations. I hope to look at the struggles the frontier presented them with and how they adapted to them. I hope too look at the laws they administered and how their presence was received by Indians.