Reviews
Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America by Virginia DeJohn Anderson
librarianonparade's review against another edition
4.0
To purloin a phrase, well-behaved livestock rarely make history. Indeed, livestock rarely make history at all, and yet as the author herself points out, neglecting to include the role of livestock in the early history of America ignores a very important point of contact and conflict between the arriving English colonists and the Native American inhabitants of the land. The early records of the time are full of references to animals - lost cows, stolen pigs, livestock attacked and mutilated by dogs and wolves, disputes over brands and earmarks, fines over damage by livestock, broken fences, destroyed crops.
For farming settlers, livestock played an immensely important and central role in their lives, and dismissing that role does them and history a major disservice. One of the main distinguishing characteristics, in the English mind, between themselves and the natives was their concept of agriculture, of 'improving' the land - to the English un-farmed, unimproved land was therefore 'empty' and belonged to no-one and could be claimed. Livestock again played a substantial role in this, pushing the boundaries of the English-claimed land further and further beyond the settlements in search of pasturage and grazeable land. Lacking the labour necessary for the intensive husbandry they were used to in England, the settlers let their livestock range freely, and therein lay the seeds of another source of the conflict.
There was a fundamental disconnect between the way animals were viewed - Native Americans not only had no concept of domesticated animals, but no concept of the idea of animals as property. It was near impossible for the natives to distinguish between the wild animals of the forest and the almost-as-wild strange new animals of the settlers roaming freely in their traditional hunting grounds. What difference was there between killing a deer in the forest and killing a cow? To the settlers there was all the difference in the world. Much of the early disruption and violence of the colonial era could frequently be traced to disputes over a cow, a horse, a pig.
I found this a really interesting read, a truly original approach to history and one I confess I'd never thought about myself. One rarely thinks of cows of agents of historical momentum, and yet it is hard to argue against it in reading this book!
For farming settlers, livestock played an immensely important and central role in their lives, and dismissing that role does them and history a major disservice. One of the main distinguishing characteristics, in the English mind, between themselves and the natives was their concept of agriculture, of 'improving' the land - to the English un-farmed, unimproved land was therefore 'empty' and belonged to no-one and could be claimed. Livestock again played a substantial role in this, pushing the boundaries of the English-claimed land further and further beyond the settlements in search of pasturage and grazeable land. Lacking the labour necessary for the intensive husbandry they were used to in England, the settlers let their livestock range freely, and therein lay the seeds of another source of the conflict.
There was a fundamental disconnect between the way animals were viewed - Native Americans not only had no concept of domesticated animals, but no concept of the idea of animals as property. It was near impossible for the natives to distinguish between the wild animals of the forest and the almost-as-wild strange new animals of the settlers roaming freely in their traditional hunting grounds. What difference was there between killing a deer in the forest and killing a cow? To the settlers there was all the difference in the world. Much of the early disruption and violence of the colonial era could frequently be traced to disputes over a cow, a horse, a pig.
I found this a really interesting read, a truly original approach to history and one I confess I'd never thought about myself. One rarely thinks of cows of agents of historical momentum, and yet it is hard to argue against it in reading this book!
librarianonparade's review
4.0
To purloin a phrase, well-behaved livestock rarely make history. Indeed, livestock rarely make history at all, and yet as the author herself points out, neglecting to include the role of livestock in the early history of America ignores a very important point of contact and conflict between the arriving English colonists and the Native American inhabitants of the land. The early records of the time are full of references to animals - lost cows, stolen pigs, livestock attacked and mutilated by dogs and wolves, disputes over brands and earmarks, fines over damage by livestock, broken fences, destroyed crops.
For farming settlers, livestock played an immensely important and central role in their lives, and dismissing that role does them and history a major disservice. One of the main distinguishing characteristics, in the English mind, between themselves and the natives was their concept of agriculture, of 'improving' the land - to the English un-farmed, unimproved land was therefore 'empty' and belonged to no-one and could be claimed. Livestock again played a substantial role in this, pushing the boundaries of the English-claimed land further and further beyond the settlements in search of pasturage and grazeable land. Lacking the labour necessary for the intensive husbandry they were used to in England, the settlers let their livestock range freely, and therein lay the seeds of another source of the conflict.
There was a fundamental disconnect between the way animals were viewed - Native Americans not only had no concept of domesticated animals, but no concept of the idea of animals as property. It was near impossible for the natives to distinguish between the wild animals of the forest and the almost-as-wild strange new animals of the settlers roaming freely in their traditional hunting grounds. What difference was there between killing a deer in the forest and killing a cow? To the settlers there was all the difference in the world. Much of the early disruption and violence of the colonial era could frequently be traced to disputes over a cow, a horse, a pig.
I found this a really interesting read, a truly original approach to history and one I confess I'd never thought about myself. One rarely thinks of cows of agents of historical momentum, and yet it is hard to argue against it in reading this book!
For farming settlers, livestock played an immensely important and central role in their lives, and dismissing that role does them and history a major disservice. One of the main distinguishing characteristics, in the English mind, between themselves and the natives was their concept of agriculture, of 'improving' the land - to the English un-farmed, unimproved land was therefore 'empty' and belonged to no-one and could be claimed. Livestock again played a substantial role in this, pushing the boundaries of the English-claimed land further and further beyond the settlements in search of pasturage and grazeable land. Lacking the labour necessary for the intensive husbandry they were used to in England, the settlers let their livestock range freely, and therein lay the seeds of another source of the conflict.
There was a fundamental disconnect between the way animals were viewed - Native Americans not only had no concept of domesticated animals, but no concept of the idea of animals as property. It was near impossible for the natives to distinguish between the wild animals of the forest and the almost-as-wild strange new animals of the settlers roaming freely in their traditional hunting grounds. What difference was there between killing a deer in the forest and killing a cow? To the settlers there was all the difference in the world. Much of the early disruption and violence of the colonial era could frequently be traced to disputes over a cow, a horse, a pig.
I found this a really interesting read, a truly original approach to history and one I confess I'd never thought about myself. One rarely thinks of cows of agents of historical momentum, and yet it is hard to argue against it in reading this book!
More...