Crosby's explanations

Explanations

Megafauna or Walking with Beasts

History is not about memorizing facts

history is about change over time
history is about cause and effect --not just chronology, not just correlation
correlation is not causation--just because two things follow the same pattern doesn't mean they are cause and effect
look not just for what happened first and second but for how the first could have caused the second

What counts as an explanation in history?

in the other social sciences you can often do experiments or otherwise test theories
(one way of defining science is that a theory is only scientific if it is testible or can be proved false)

science requires controlled experiments--where you have a control group without the factor you are looking at
artificial experiments that allow you to look at one thing at a time

in history you can't do scientific experiments and isolate one factor, one cause
so in history there is usually more than one explanation or cause--don't try to oversimplify to make it neat
events are often overdetermined: you can find more explanations than you need
instead of finding the simplest causes for some event, historians want to understand the complexity
so lots of different things count as an explanation (change history)

actions of great men
changing ideas (general public or what is written in serious magazines)
ecology and disease, population pressure
social movements (eg. civil rights movement)
religion
natural events and natural resources

Crosby wants to say--pay attention to these explanations that have usually been left out
ecology can be both a cause and the thing whose change needs to be explained
ecology is both the cause and the effect

cause: when Europeans were able to bring their ecosystem they succeeded
effect: European colonization succeeded in making other parts of the world into neo-Europes
but why did that work--what is the cause of Europeans being able to bring their ecosystem

So why did European flora, fauna, and people displace those native in the neo-Europes?
Why wasn't it a more even exchange?
ecologists tell use we can't jut say that European plants and animals were better (because the only "better" is that they are better adapted to a particular environment)
instead it worked because the pieces of the European ecosystem fit together and because Europeans transformed the land

Why did such a dramatic ecological revolution take place?

because of the isolation of the neo-Europes their flora and fauna may have been simpler
because humans came late to the Americas and Australia, few diseases had developed there
fewer domestic animals meant fewer diseases because many diseases pass from animals to humans
in addition there is an oddity of ecological history
the first set of settlers (whom we call indigenous) found large animals, which they learned to hunt successfully
Australian megafauna North American megafauna (plan to reintroduce)
the native large animals had gone extinct (whether or not caused by humans)
Crosby says the Europeans found impoverished ecosystems (ecosystems with missing animals)
this left niches open for European livestock (particularly in Argentina)

megafauna

did the first humans kill off those large animals?

still controversial, but in at least some cases yes (eg. Moa)
if not by hunting then by changing the ecosystem by burning
but animals that evolved without large predators do not easily learn to defend themselves
Galapagos

so some extinction happened before the Europeans arrived
Once the European settlersarrived they killed off the competing animals in the great plains

in North America there was more competition, but Europeans slaughtered the buffalo

railroad passengers shooting Buffalo

animals that live by certain patterns can be hunted into extinction: passenger pigeon
two explanations so far: what happened before the Europeans arrive (partly human action) and the action of Europeans in hunting
Europeans valued and planted/protected their plants and not (with few exceptions) the native plants
also the actions of the Europeans in planting crops and other plants and releasing animals into the wild
in the European cases this is purposeful action by humans to change the ecosystem

other reasons for the success of European plants and animals--some of it happened without human beings changing the ecosystem on purpose

European plants and animals left many of their enemies behind
European plants and animals were adapted to work together--so the grasses stood up to grazing, European plants were fertilized by honeybees brought by Europeans

Fundamentally there is the action of the Europeans here

wouldn't have succeeded without cutting down of forests, plowing and grazing animals
European plants and animals succeeded because the Europeans created the environment the plants and animals were used to

effect--success of European colonization

cause--Europeans had an ecological advantage, but how?

empty niches
plants and animals that worked together
Europeans disturbed the soil and created a suitable environment
others

This page written and copyright Pamela E. Mack
last updated 9/16/09
Hist 124