American Environments to 1893 – Page 11

February 9, 2014

Humans as Actors in Nature: Ecological Imperialism

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

After reading Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism and considering his argument, I am beginning to question the ways we defined and the ways we look at nature during our last class meeting. I am specifically struggling with the idea that Reed Noss suggests; Wilderness can manage land better than we can. After reading Noss’s argument I basically accepted it without much though. Nature, if given true-self determination always seems to find a way to persist and thrive. When looking at the effect of Human’s on nature it is difficult to think of a completely positive one. However, Crosby shows that in many ways, “Nature” acts as imperialists just like humans. He cites McNeill’s law and the importance of microbial diseases as “invaders” and “conquerors.” Crosby elaborates, arguing that an invading organism can decimate an invaded region to the point that they render the old ecosystem vulnerable or actually take over the environment and inhabit it. By personifying these organisms, Crosby is bridging the gap between humans and nature. He may even be suggesting that perhaps humans are just another actor in nature. Obviously we have an effect on the world around us, but what if we are actually just another “invader” or “conqueror” of what we perceive as Nature. McNeill’s law and Crosby’s nature suggests that humans are just another actor in the process of nature. Humans and our conception of “nature” are effected by each other in the same way that a type of animal from one country can be infected by an invading disease form another.

Crosby continues to challenge this idea with his discussion of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Crosby contends that the “first wave” of Aboriginal people to Australia were instrumental in the eventual settling of it. He argues that the people killed off or otherwise displaced a number of species of megafauna that were native to the country. By killing these animals they created new ecological opportunities and places for new settlers to inhabit. Were these “first wave” aboriginals just one form of an inevitable organism that would have killed these animals or destroyed their environment? Did we just accomplish what “nature” itself would have done anyways? While there is obviously no way to know

I would use this idea to respond to (iasolcz)’s previous discussion on the spread of disease. He argues that the spread of disease is not only perceived as a negative occurrence. Sometimes disease can be beneficial to an invading party, particularly if the party is trying to take over or displace an indigenous population. By looking at disease in this way we can continue to reshape the way we perceive nature and our relationship with it. While humans do carry diseases and spread them, animal can do the same. Rats in particular were the initial cause of the bubonic plague. If we bridge the gap between humans and our conception of nature, we can argue that humans are just another actor in the spread of diseases and the destruction of populations.

February 9, 2014

Weeds – Europe’s Miracle Gro?

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.

February 9, 2014

The Environmental Story of European Expansion

A major theme of Alfred Crosby’s work Ecological Imperialism is the merging of human societies from the “Old World” and natives living in the neo-Europes. Crosby discusses the intersection of separate human cultures as well as the introduction of new animal and plant species into unsuspecting habitats. The role that disease played in the European conquest of the New World is well documented by Crosby, but he also provides an explanation for the proliferation of Old World animals in North America. Old World animals experienced more success and expansion in the neo-Europes than did the animals of the neo-Europes in the Old World. According to Crosby, this is because the Old World animals were able to fill a vacated niche in the New World ecosystems. Crosby argues the large animals, such as mammoths, that evolved in the absence of humans were not prepared to hide and defend themselves from hunters and thus were easily eliminated by the human civilizations that crossed the ice bridge and entered North America. This in turn created an opening that was filled by grazing animals of the Old World such as cows, horses, and sheep (278). The terrific success of Old World animals in North America had always baffled me and gone largely un-discussed in previous works I read on the expansion of Europeans into North America. Crosby’s argument, however, provides an explanation that I find quite compelling.

Another interesting aspect of Crosby’s book is the difference between the Europeans and the natives in their willingness to join together to fend off a foreign threat. In the lands that eventually became New Zealand and Australia, the natives were at first unwilling to unite their tribes to defend the land against the Europeans. Crosby mentions that some tribes even aided the Europeans in their efforts to exterminate other tribes on the islands. Eventually they joined together, but not until it was too late to defeat the Europeans. While disease and immunity obviously factors largely into the eventual success of European expansion, I believe Crosby underemphasizes the importance of having a common goal. The Europeans, in sailing to and establishing themselves in new lands, shared the common goal of spreading European society. Natives, on the other hand, often times did not realize the importance of their encounter with the Europeans or the Europeans’ intentions until it was too late. Had the natives understood that the Europeans endangered their society and their best chance of resistance was to unite with other tribes, perhaps European expansion would have played out differently.

As far as the field of environmental history, I completely agree with Sean’s assessment that Ecological Imperialism “took away any doubts I may have had about environmental history as a field of study.” Crosby wrote on a topic, European expansion, that I have heard about and studied many times. His approach, however, was completely unique from anything else I have read about colonization. Disease and environmental factors were always mentioned as aspects of European expansion, but never were they the main focus. Crosby’s work told a compelling story of European expansion sculpted and shaped by environmental and ecological factors.

February 9, 2014

The “Seams of Pangaea”

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.

January 31, 2014

On Squirrels

A few of you wrote about the naturalness of Davidson’s squirrels, prompting the archivist, Jan Blodgett, to send me this post on the history of campus squirrels – it turns out that they were imported to add to the atmosphere of campus! Her post reminded me of an article written by a friend of mine for a Popular Science blog, about a different article published in the Journal of American History on the history of urban squirrels.

The Popular Science overview article is here.

The original Journal of American History article is here.

Enjoy these, and your weekend.

January 27, 2014

Nouveau Nature

Of the primary source materials related to Davidson’s natural landscape, I thought the most interesting were the black and white photographs showing Davidson in varying states of deforestation. It is difficult to look at the carefully manicured lawn in front of Chambers and imagine it strewn with felled trees and crisscrossed by corduroy roads.

For a while, most of Davidson consisted of empty fields. It wasn’t until the second half of the 20^th century that additional buildings were added to the empty land and trees were added to the cross country trails. The way the campus is designed leads one to believe that the campus was molded around nature, that the buildings were built just so in order to be locked in by graceful oaks. Rather, any of the nature on campus is here to replace what was lost when the school first cleared the land. The arboretum on campus is to nature as a museum is to culture.

When did Davidson cease to become truly natural and wild? I think that when the Atlantic, Tennessee, and Ohio railroad was completed in 1860, development began rapidly. Before then, Davidson was out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by wilderness.