In his article “Ecological Imperialism: The Overseas Migration of Western Europeans as a Biological Phenomenon”, Alfred Crosby addresses the success of European demographic conquest in many foreign lands, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Uruguay (to name a few). He discusses how the takeovers were not necessarily related to human demographic conquest, but also included the replacement of native animals, plants, and diseases by their European counterparts, introduced by the European settlers. In the article, Crosby asks why the European takeover was so successful in areas like the United States, Canada, Argentina, etc., and why it failed so dismally in other areas, such as Africa and tropical America. This is a significant question to ask because the reasons behind this trend are not readily apparent, and it is extraordinarily important in historical terms, since the demographic dominance of these areas has obviously directed their histories.
Crosby states that one of the primary reasons for the success of the European settlers was the ability of their animals to adapt quickly to their new surroundings. Crosby even goes so far to say that, to a certain degree, “the success of Europeans as settlers was automatic as soon as they put their tough, fast, fertile, and intelligent animals ashore.” The animals provided necessities for the settlers, such as food, and also provided them with a vast amount of capital (Crosby). This allowed the settlers to survive and expand in the areas they had settled. Crosby provides a large amount of evidence regarding European presence, both human and animal, in various regions of the world. For example, he provides specific statistics regarding the sheep population in Australia and New Zealand over a period of years after their introduction to the region (by 1989 there were apparently over 55 million sheep living in New Zealand, up from about a quarter of a million in 1840).
Crosby’s argument is very persuasive. He provides a copious amount of evidence to back his claims. The statistical data alone is more than persuasive enough. I don’t think he overlooks anything, though he is quick to write off technological superiority as a reason for the demographic conquest. Disease may have killed a lot of the native populations in the various regions, but so did guns. However, I don’t call this an oversight on his part, due to the fact that he is exploring the demographic conquest as a biological phenomenon (so technology doesn’t play a part in his argument). Crosby has a similar approach to our beloved Felipe Fernandez Armesto in that they both focus on the ecological effects of various historical events, and also pay a lot of attention to the environment as an explanation for various events and occurrences in history.
You wrote very well. I like the use of Concrete details and soon after the commentary that follows. There is however, one disagreement I have. The difference between that of Crosby and that of Armesto, is that Armesto focus is on the effect of the general climate, as in the “little ice age” or “medieval warm period”. Crosby is focused on the organism which are changing not the ever changing properties of the environment. In shorter terms, one is focusing on the living organism, and the other is focusing on the surroundings that the organisms live in. However overall I like your post.
With regards to style, the last sentence in your first paragraph could be improved. When you mention the, “demographic dominance, ” I think your trying to say that the areas’ histories are impacted by whoever is dominant, and I just think your wording makes this a little unclear.
Also, regarding your comment on how Crosby, “write[s] off technological superiority as a reason for the demographic conquest”. I feel that this is a bit of an overstatement and that though he considers it secondary he does not write off the technology gap as being a reason. However, whether you choose to keep this assertion or change it, I would suggest that you would provide some sort of textual evidence.