Review by Joel There is a difference between knowing the what of history and the why or how. This desire to not only learn but understand history is well presented in Alfred W. Crosby’s ECOLOGICAL IMPERIALISM The Biological Expansion of Europe 900-1900. In his book Crosby details how Europe rose from being relatively weak in the world toward gaining power and influence while also establishing Neo-Europes. Europe with the Neo-Europes it created are today some of the most productive areas in the world. Several factors explain either Europe’s success or failure in different areas, and according to Crosby these are the need for a land similar in climate to Europe; massive displacement of the local habitat’s ecological life including humans, plants and animals; distance and isolation from Europe; and finally clumped together, Europeans needed the technology, manpower, and desire to form a colony or Neo-Europe. Crosby divides his book partly into chapters showing different European imperialistic ventures and then partly into chapters specifically talking about how Europeans were able to get to Neo-Europes and what they used to subdue and make the land their own. Looking first at isolation from Europe, this was needed in Europe’s imperialism because the single strongest way to oust the native populations was through disease that Europeans carried but had become immune to long ago, and this disease was carried mainly through animals, therefore requiring the regions Europe attempted to colonize to have a similar climate. With these similar climates the Europeans could grow exponentially in terms of people, production of raw materials for manufacturing, and influence all thanks to the animals and crops they would bring with them which flourished in the Neo-European worlds. This is why disease was such an important factor, as it was the primary deterrent against the natives already living in the Neo-Europes, who were the only limiting factor on Europeans growth. The reasoning behind why European diseases so afflicted native populations has mainly to do with the lack of larger mammals in the New World. Understanding of how Europeans came to near dominate the world is far more important than simply knowing that they did. Crosby’s main point is to show that through diseases Europeans brought, the ability once interested in an area to mobilize its population and dominate it, and how the way that the earth formed after the breakup of Pangaea benefited Europeans. That last point in detail explains the lack of large mammals in the New World was from either geographic misfortune or in a theory applying to North America how the large mammals were driven to extinction by the wave of humans from the original Paleolithic migration. This lack of larger animals meant that all natives in the New World were at a severe disadvantage when dealing with Europeans as they would have no resistances to the diseases from the European animals. Information like this is important in furthering understanding of environmental history. Looking at what this adds to environmental history, this book has obvious relevance for historians, but also ecologists and students. Overall the arguments presented on how Europe expanded and why in some cases it worked, are effectively presented in this book. I was aware that before European explorers came to America and elsewhere that there were large numbers of native inhabitants living in these areas, but I didn’t have good knowledge of how the Europeans moved against them except through the wildly over publicized image of Europeans simply fighting them with guns. Crosby’s main point mentions disease as the most important factor in why Europeans were able to so easily move in, though he does take time to talk about how the sum of the other conditions with disease led to domination in the Neo-Europes. Some information was given describing how Europeans by the 1800’s could simply move people and supplies to their colonies to support them against the native forces, but I would have liked a little bit more on this topic. Still the idea to breakup into chapters how the “weeds”, animals and diseases all related to one another is a rather convincing argument. As for Crosby’s credibility he has cited from hundreds of other sources in his writing, so there is little reason to believe that his information is poor. However, there are only a few demonstrations of empirical data in the book and more of those would have been helpful. | Review by Emily European expansion over the last millennium dramatically changed life on earth. Most historians focus on the change in government, culture, and other political, human-oriented affairs. Alfred W. Crosby’s book Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 explores a different element in the massive European expansion of the past millennium. Crosby argues that European expansion literally changed life on earth. Europeans expanded not only their values, religions, and superiority; they also spread their plants, animals, and diseases. Crosby argues their success, and sometimes failure, is directly linked to biology of the earth around them. Crosby develops his argument in several stages. He begins with several case-studies. He describes the plight of the Neolithic people, the Norse, and what he describes as the Fortunate Isles. In these studies he describes how ecology both benefited and harmed the societies occupying the land. In the following chapters Crosby individually addresses several different elements of ecological imperialism. These elements include winds, weeds (plants), animals and ills. Crosby uses first person accounts, military records, myths, historians’ research and scientist’ research to explain his arguments. In his concluding chapter, Crosby explains that Neo-European societies were so successful because their plants succeeded, their animals succeeded, and as a result their culture succeeded because people moving to these new places were greeted with familiar food and agricultural practices. Crosby follows this by stating “the other factor was personal and visceral” (298). In the end, Crosby’s argument is that Europeans would not have succeeded without a certain amount of geographic luck, but humans, “as the first species capable of extensive use of reason…must have had an effect all out of proportion to their number” (273). Crosby’s conclusion is that the success of European expansion is neither solely ecological nor political, but rather an inseparable combination of the two. Crosby’s argument is compelling. What is particularly striking is Crosby’s ability to combine both human and biological factors. Some scholars focus only on the human elements associated with the success of European development while others only focus on geographic luck. The pluralistic view of European expansion is enlightening to some readers like myself who had never considered a variety of factors contributing to European success. Crosby’s ability to point to different factors (human agency, hearty plants, immune systems, etc.) makes his argument palatable and his multidisciplinary approach gives validity to his argument. Crosby’s ideas offer a contrast to the traditional study of history, which tends to focus only on humans interacting with humans and disregards potential environmental consequences. This book is clearly intended for those studying history, particularly environmental history. This is made clear through Crosby’s frequent use of jargon, both historical and environmental. This book makes major contributions to the field of environmental history by arguing that humans do in fact have a certain amount of control over their destiny, but also their destiny is inevitably shaped by their environment. Furthermore, the extensive range of this book contributes to the field of environmental science. This is not a book about one region, but rather a comprehensive look at a global phenomenon over an entire millennium. Because of this, Crosby’s book offers an important addition to the field of environmental history. |
It is a commonly held view that Europeans became successful imperialists in the western world because of their technology and weaponry which was far superior to the native’s. In the book, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, written by Alfred Crosby, he disputes this commonly held view and examines the origins of successful European expansion between the years 900 and 1900, suggesting that biological, and ecological components were the most significant causes of European success. In the book, Crosby focuses his attention on Europe’s expansion to places in North and South America, New Zealand, and Australia, which he calls “Neo-Europes” and strives to answer the questions of why and how Europeans came to dominate those areas. Crosby makes the argument that Europeans were extremely successful imperialists because they set out to dominate areas secluded from Europe that have similar climates, where valuable European animals and agriculture can thrive and the native populations are biologically disadvantaged because of their susceptibility to European diseases.
Alfred Crosby makes a very convincing argument that disease, rather than superior weaponry was the largest cause of death to the native populations of the Neo-Europes. In his book he writes, “No single influence can have been more destructive than disease, which works its way through a susceptible population irresistibly, taking advantage of every flaw, choking out lives day and night” (98). I agree completely because disease has the ability to decimate a population faster than an army with superior weaponry fighting in a foreign land. I also agree that the plagues and virgin-soil epidemics brought over by the Europeans who were living in highly populated and concentrated cities along side many domesticated animals would spread extremely fast through the isolated native populations because they had built up no immunities to the foreign pathogens.
Alfred Crosby also makes a very convincing argument that the locations in which the Europeans chose to conquer and exploit played an enormous role in the success of European imperialism. He states that the Neo-Europes lie at similar latitudes to Europe and are all almost completely located in the temperate zones, which means that they have similar climates (6). Crosby’s argument is that these familiar climates allowed for valuable European animals and agriculture to thrive in foreign lands with mild competition. I think that Crosby makes a very valid point because many European plants and animals that did not exist in the Neo-European areas five hundred years ago, such as pigs, sheep, cattle, barley, wheat, and rye now flourish in those areas. Without these valuable resources Europeans would not have been able to sustain large populations and create enormous amounts of surplus to export.
I believe that Crosby puts an appropriate amount of emphasis on the environment’s influence on European success because wind currents influenced where Europeans could sail and climates influenced where Europeans could thrive. I also believe that Crosby put an appropriate amount of emphasis on human influences of European success because they learned the wind currents so that they could travel to their destinations and manipulated the ecosystems of their colonies. Crosby does all this while also providing substantial evidence through the use of an assortment of valid primary and secondary sources from many fields of study. Ecological Imperialism would interest a large audience of people including people who study biology, geography, anthropology, history, zoology, pathology, epidemiology, economics, and sociology.
Alfred Crosby makes some major contributions to the field of environmental history with his book Ecological Imperialism. He managed to explain a thousand years of ecological history in a very convincing and understandable way. He explained European imperialism by emphasizing the significance of environmental factors instead of just focusing on human agency. Lastly, Crosby makes drastically changing historical ecosystems comprehensible and memorable.
Review by Aaron J. The people of Europe are the cultural continental group that are set apart from the people of other continents in their successes of imperialism that leads to them making up the bulk of the population of the temperate zones of the world. This feat is normally explained in military terms as firearms versus spears in the favor of the Europeans. The Europeans had a greater ally on their side than the technology they possessed. Alfred Crosby points to the biology involved playing a more pivotal role in the success of the Europeans than their military might did. The diseases, plants, and animals moving with the Europeans was the decisive factor in European expansion and growth outside of Europe. The explanation of the success of the Europeans starts with the break up of Pangaea. This break up of the super continent started the process of divergent evolution where which continent will have different the flora and fauna than the others. This difference will play into the hands of the Europeans thousands of years later. The continental drift is the cause of much of this difference. This is the beginning to the ecological edge that is bestowed upon the Europeans. The European expansions of the Norse and the invasion of the Crusaders into the Middle East highlight the failure that can take place during imperialistic surges. Neither was successful in gaining a foothold in a new land. The Norse failed to successfully colonize Greenland and Vinland because each were too far away to be sustained. The Crusaders failed to conquer the lands of the Middle East because the native populations were more numerous, and the diseases found there worked against the Europeans. These failures highlight key factors in determining the success of an imperialistic effort in terms that are outside of military power. It came down to distance and diseases. The Norse colonies were too far away and became targets of new waves of European diseases when reinforcements would finally arrive. The diseases coming in each time hit the Norse population hard in these isolated lands they were failing to take over. The Crusaders were marching into a region that has been populated by people for thousands of years, and was not far enough away from Europe to have disease come to favor the Europeans. Disease was more of a problem for the invading Crusaders than for the Muslims native to the Middle East. The factors of distance and disease will be seen as continual factors in determining the success or failure of European expansion. The success of the Europeans was tied to the plants, animals, and diseases that accompanied them in their quests in the long run. The spread and success of European crops in the Americas aided the Europeans in these new lands. The exchange of animals between the New World and Old World was nearly one sided, and aided the Europeans as the animals of Europe were to be a consistent aid to Europeans living in new lands. Old World infections ripped through the populations that had been separated from these illnesses that have plagued Europeans for centuries prior to their push to new lands. The introduction of new diseases into populations that had no experience or immunity to these diseases becomes a severe problem for the indigenous peoples that Europeans encounter. These biological factors were more important to the success of the Europeans than any military advantage possessed by the Europeans at the time. These ideas of a biological edge in favor of Europeans playing such a role in the imperialistic efforts of the Europeans was new when this book came out. The use of primary sources helps in this argument even when the expertise of understanding biological forces is lacking. The expansion of the European biota to new lands was to be a critical advantage to the Europeans according to Crosby. His argument hinges on making the reader see the biological factors as aiding to the Europeans, and hindering to the native populations. His analyze of sources makes this connection between European imperialistic success, and the spread of the European biota into these new lands. | Review by Eric The author conducts an investigation of the root causes of the European power domination of the western world. Crosby wonders whether European dominated the western world as a result of technology or as a result of biological or ecological components. In his study, he proposes that European’s successful imperialism was as a result of successful agriculture and animals thrive of animals. In his book, the biological advancements of the Europeans provided the power to collapse the indigenous population and the local ecosystems. Through his arguments, he continues to support his thesis that the success of Europeans in colonization was as a result of introducing plants, animals and diseases in the areas of colonization. They brought with them diseases, predators, new fauna and plants that significantly changed their colonization zones. He shifts our thinking by observing that Europeans did not simply discover and settled in the new earth. Instead, they brought with them some components of the “old world” which included flora and fauna to create a new breed of humans described as “Neo-Europes” in this case, he claims that in all areas where Europeans’ biological allies thrived, consequently the Europeans in such areas settled and thrived. Crosby supports his arguments through historical events rooted in historical geology and evolutionary biology. In his discussion, Crosby looks the world as one big continent,-Pangaea that describes a hypothetical super-continent. He continues to explain the reason for the similarity in species found in North America and Europe being as a result of the split of Pangaea. Next, the author takes the reader to the end of the Ice Age. The complex processes that relate the earth’s inner core and the outer mantle resulted into land fragmentation. Through the process of plate-tectonic theory, regions that played the role of semi-autonomous ecological zones played the central stage in the bio-evolutionary process. He attributes the evolution of the life forms to the centrifugal forces within the earth. (Crosby 9-20). In addition to the biological and ecological evolution, he has used several historical and geographical facts to support his arguments. For example, he explains the success shared among the European imperialists through a biogeographically process. Through this argument, he observes the similarity of latitudes between Europe and its Neo-Europes. In this hypothesis, Crosby observes that Europe and the Neo-Europes share the same temperate zones. In other words, they experience roughly similar climates. From this hypothesis, he connects the biological life forms in Europe and Neo-Europe to the type of climate experienced in these zones. In this case, the animals and plants that sustained Europeans tend to be favored by the warm-to-cool climate. They also require precipitation of approximate 100 to flourish. This requirement is supported by the climate experienced in the area; the area enjoys an annual precipitation of 50 to 150 annually (Crosby 19-32). Thus, just as animal and plant farming was able to flourish from the Fertile Crescent, spreading to east and west with less difficulty; it follows that it would also flourish in the Neo-Europe’s’ zones. Also, the same way it was able to replace lifestyle characterized by hunting and gathering, it follows that it would also change the way of life in the Neo-European zones. Crosby notes that although this approach would seem powerful, these zones enjoyed different fauna and flora. Thus there was the need for the Europeans to bring along with them (export) their Fauna to this New World. In this case, the foreign fauna was to compete with the indigenous fauna in the New World. The result would be a complete devastation of the native Fauna and Floras to sustain the foreign life. To support this argument, Crosby observes that today the Neo-Europe zones exports more foodstuffs than another zones; foodstuffs of European provenance. He continues to support this thesis by engaging historical events that shows the area did not have these plants and animals in the past. Such grains and meats include sheep, barley, wheat, pigs and goats among others (Crosby 79). Through the biological and ecological processes, Crosby explains the European superiority that allows easy colonization of the Neo-European zones. According to Crosby, the major tool used was disease. He explains disease as a natural byproduct as a result of interaction of humans and animals. In this case, he argues that as a result of the shift from gathering and hunting, Europeans settled for farming and domesticating animals that lead to the spread of disease. It is this tool that they used to command superiority in the Neo-European zones. At the time of colonization, most of natives in the Neo-European zones were hunters and gatherers. Thus as Europeans arrived with diseases, diseases that were new to those areas, they gained huge advantage in overwhelming the indigenous people. Such diseases included influenza, measles and tuberculosis (Crosby 120). In conclusion, the book is interesting, humorous and relatively easy to read. The author has employed a wide range of facts that includes geological, historical, biological, and geographical among others. Through this, he has been able to provide a convincing theory that explains the reasons behind the European triumph in the Neo-European zones. Thus, it is evident that Europeans used ecological components to ease their colonization efforts in Neo-Europe. |