Plant Life – American Environments to 1893

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.

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.

Tag: Plant Life

Weeds – Europe’s Miracle Gro?

The Architect of the Wilderness