Pub Date : 2023-11-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10795875
Margaret Derry
This article uses the concept of purity to explore the thinking of purebred animal breeders and that of eugenicists in Britain and North America between 1880 and 1920. It begins with an explanation of why such a study is important and continues with the historical background of purity's role in animal breeding over the nineteenth century and an assessment of the theoretical foundations of Francis Galton's eugenics. The article argues that the shared concern with pedigree keeping, which characterized both purebred breeding and eugenics, made it easy for historians to assume that the two fields were more connected than they actually were. In fact, the basis for purity in animal breeding—namely, inbreeding and marketability—could not migrate to eugenics. Pedigree use in animal breeding (inbreeding, consistency, and marketability) actually had little in common with pedigree use in eugenics (evidence of inheritance via statistical quantification). Unpacking this historic connection between animal breeding and eugenics has significance today for such disciplines as animal breeding itself, genetics, politics, and ethics.
{"title":"Purity","authors":"Margaret Derry","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10795875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10795875","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses the concept of purity to explore the thinking of purebred animal breeders and that of eugenicists in Britain and North America between 1880 and 1920. It begins with an explanation of why such a study is important and continues with the historical background of purity's role in animal breeding over the nineteenth century and an assessment of the theoretical foundations of Francis Galton's eugenics. The article argues that the shared concern with pedigree keeping, which characterized both purebred breeding and eugenics, made it easy for historians to assume that the two fields were more connected than they actually were. In fact, the basis for purity in animal breeding—namely, inbreeding and marketability—could not migrate to eugenics. Pedigree use in animal breeding (inbreeding, consistency, and marketability) actually had little in common with pedigree use in eugenics (evidence of inheritance via statistical quantification). Unpacking this historic connection between animal breeding and eugenics has significance today for such disciplines as animal breeding itself, genetics, politics, and ethics.","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139302929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474568
C. Wolnisty
{"title":"Country of the Cursed and the Driven: Slavery and the Texas Borderlands","authors":"C. Wolnisty","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474568","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47438125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474467
M. Tauger
{"title":"Mennonite Farmers: A Global History of Place and Sustainability","authors":"M. Tauger","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474467","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44713609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474548
Gabrielle Guillerm
At the heart of Seeing Red is the massive land transfer from the Anishinaabeg to the United States as the newly independent country sought to transform Indigenous homelands into American homesteads. Focusing on the sixty years after US independence in 1783, Michael Witgen—himself an Anishinaabe scholar—examines the legal and diplomatic mechanisms that US officials used to dispossess Indigenous peoples living in today's states of Michigan and Wisconsin from their homelands. Whereas the United States expelled by force most Indigenous peoples living between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River through its infamous Indian Removal policy, Witgen asserts that US officials dealing with the Anishinaabeg implemented a different approach, which he calls a “political economy of plunder.” With this new concept, Witgen makes an important contribution to our understanding of Indigenous dispossession in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, demonstrating that, in the Upper Great Lakes, the US empire acted less as the settler empire it sought to be than as a traditional exogenous colonizer exploiting Native peoples and their resources.The opening chapter, “A Nation of Settlers,” explores the legal mechanisms that the United States devised to colonize the Northwest Territory (today's states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) following the American Revolution. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance was the key piece of legislation organizing the territory's transition into states and regulating the sale of land from the public domain to US settlers. As Witgen explains, the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance were grounded in a political fantasy of the Northwest as empty land devoid of Indigenous presence. Even though US officials and settlers knew that Indigenous peoples still lived on these unceded lands, they nonetheless believed that Indigenous peoples could claim title to the land but did not properly own it because, unlike Euro-Americans, they lived in an alleged state of nature without private property and farms. For the US settler state, the idea of Indigenous self-determination on Indigenous land was simply unthinkable. Instead, US westward expansion demanded the elimination of Indigenous peoples from the land, through either removal or assimilation.Moving chronologically, the four other chapters illuminate how, time and again, the United States failed to implement its settler vision in the Michigan Territory, resorting, instead, to the political economy of plunder. Unlike the southern part of the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) that saw a rapid settler invasion of Indigenous homelands after 1783, the Michigan Territory long remained dominated by the fur trade, which required the ongoing presence of Anishinaabe families hunting and processing the furs. Into the 1830s, the Anishinaabeg dominated the demography in most areas of the Michigan Territory. Individual stories, such as the experience of anglophone Pro
{"title":"Seeing Red: Indigenous Land, American Expansion, and the Political Economy of Plunder in North America","authors":"Gabrielle Guillerm","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474548","url":null,"abstract":"At the heart of Seeing Red is the massive land transfer from the Anishinaabeg to the United States as the newly independent country sought to transform Indigenous homelands into American homesteads. Focusing on the sixty years after US independence in 1783, Michael Witgen—himself an Anishinaabe scholar—examines the legal and diplomatic mechanisms that US officials used to dispossess Indigenous peoples living in today's states of Michigan and Wisconsin from their homelands. Whereas the United States expelled by force most Indigenous peoples living between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River through its infamous Indian Removal policy, Witgen asserts that US officials dealing with the Anishinaabeg implemented a different approach, which he calls a “political economy of plunder.” With this new concept, Witgen makes an important contribution to our understanding of Indigenous dispossession in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, demonstrating that, in the Upper Great Lakes, the US empire acted less as the settler empire it sought to be than as a traditional exogenous colonizer exploiting Native peoples and their resources.The opening chapter, “A Nation of Settlers,” explores the legal mechanisms that the United States devised to colonize the Northwest Territory (today's states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) following the American Revolution. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance was the key piece of legislation organizing the territory's transition into states and regulating the sale of land from the public domain to US settlers. As Witgen explains, the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance were grounded in a political fantasy of the Northwest as empty land devoid of Indigenous presence. Even though US officials and settlers knew that Indigenous peoples still lived on these unceded lands, they nonetheless believed that Indigenous peoples could claim title to the land but did not properly own it because, unlike Euro-Americans, they lived in an alleged state of nature without private property and farms. For the US settler state, the idea of Indigenous self-determination on Indigenous land was simply unthinkable. Instead, US westward expansion demanded the elimination of Indigenous peoples from the land, through either removal or assimilation.Moving chronologically, the four other chapters illuminate how, time and again, the United States failed to implement its settler vision in the Michigan Territory, resorting, instead, to the political economy of plunder. Unlike the southern part of the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) that saw a rapid settler invasion of Indigenous homelands after 1783, the Michigan Territory long remained dominated by the fur trade, which required the ongoing presence of Anishinaabe families hunting and processing the furs. Into the 1830s, the Anishinaabeg dominated the demography in most areas of the Michigan Territory. Individual stories, such as the experience of anglophone Pro","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136260727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474588
Margaret Weber
{"title":"Meatpacking America: How Migration, Work, and Faith Unite and Divide the Heartland","authors":"Margaret Weber","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474588","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42963944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474427
M. Raby
From 1926 to 1974, the United Fruit Company operated the Lancetilla Experiment Station near Tela, Honduras. As a laboratory and botanical garden where one of the world's largest living collections of tropical fruits could be found, it stood in apparent contrast to the vast banana monocultures of the surrounding area. While United Fruit's infamous plantations depended on the application of pesticides and chemical knowledge to produce a single commodity crop, its Lancetilla Experiment Station pursued a broad research program oriented toward agricultural diversification. This essay examines the history of Lancetilla to explore the company's sponsorship of science and the multiple, shifting meanings of “diversification” within this prototypical transnational agribusiness. The history of experimentation at Lancetilla reveals a range of contested visions of economic development in twentieth-century Latin America, and it is a history that has left surprising traces in both local Honduran landscapes and the face of global agribusiness today. Ultimately, by introducing oil palm to Central America, United Fruit's crop diversification project served to replace one monoculture with another.
{"title":"Beyond Bananas","authors":"M. Raby","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474427","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 From 1926 to 1974, the United Fruit Company operated the Lancetilla Experiment Station near Tela, Honduras. As a laboratory and botanical garden where one of the world's largest living collections of tropical fruits could be found, it stood in apparent contrast to the vast banana monocultures of the surrounding area. While United Fruit's infamous plantations depended on the application of pesticides and chemical knowledge to produce a single commodity crop, its Lancetilla Experiment Station pursued a broad research program oriented toward agricultural diversification. This essay examines the history of Lancetilla to explore the company's sponsorship of science and the multiple, shifting meanings of “diversification” within this prototypical transnational agribusiness. The history of experimentation at Lancetilla reveals a range of contested visions of economic development in twentieth-century Latin America, and it is a history that has left surprising traces in both local Honduran landscapes and the face of global agribusiness today. Ultimately, by introducing oil palm to Central America, United Fruit's crop diversification project served to replace one monoculture with another.","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44942517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474447
L. Chu
This article studies the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) in Taiwan. It begins with the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction (JCRR), a US-funded agency championing plant breeding and land reform. Capitalizing on Japanese colonial legacy, a technocratic Chinese nationalism, and Cold War geopolitics, the JCRR boosted the productivity of rice while diversifying the agricultural economy through vegetable cultivation. The AVRDC, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the US government, was created in 1971 to bring this vision to Southeast Asia. The expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations nonetheless threatened the center's survival. To carve out its sphere of influence, the AVRDC combined vegetable breeding programs with experiments on home gardening and small-scale agriculture, inserting itself into a bourgeoning sustainability discourse in the 1980s. The article argues that the center's ambiguous position within the international agricultural research network prompted it to adopt a “modest narrative” that celebrated not heroic figures but the collaborative endeavor of scientists sympathetic to farmers. However, the marginalization of agriculture and shifting identity politics in Taiwan made the center's achievement increasingly less relevant to its host country, thus complicating the significance of the AVRDC to the agricultural history of Taiwan.
{"title":"With and against the Grain","authors":"L. Chu","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474447","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article studies the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) in Taiwan. It begins with the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction (JCRR), a US-funded agency championing plant breeding and land reform. Capitalizing on Japanese colonial legacy, a technocratic Chinese nationalism, and Cold War geopolitics, the JCRR boosted the productivity of rice while diversifying the agricultural economy through vegetable cultivation. The AVRDC, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the US government, was created in 1971 to bring this vision to Southeast Asia. The expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations nonetheless threatened the center's survival. To carve out its sphere of influence, the AVRDC combined vegetable breeding programs with experiments on home gardening and small-scale agriculture, inserting itself into a bourgeoning sustainability discourse in the 1980s. The article argues that the center's ambiguous position within the international agricultural research network prompted it to adopt a “modest narrative” that celebrated not heroic figures but the collaborative endeavor of scientists sympathetic to farmers. However, the marginalization of agriculture and shifting identity politics in Taiwan made the center's achievement increasingly less relevant to its host country, thus complicating the significance of the AVRDC to the agricultural history of Taiwan.","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45591302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1215/00021482-10474497
Nicole L. Freiner
{"title":"Harvesting State Support: Institutional Change and Local Agency in Japanese Agriculture","authors":"Nicole L. Freiner","doi":"10.1215/00021482-10474497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-10474497","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50838,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44947878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：