{"title":"《陌生居民:阿拉巴马州新南部的移民劳工》詹妮弗·e·布鲁克斯著","authors":"M. Summers","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"book appears to present itself as the tome about the Civil War that animal scholars have awaited for years, something genuinely interdisciplinary. However, the collection is not rich in methodology, and, to damn it with Hess’ own faint praise, it too contains “a lot of easily digested information.” Each of the chapters, however, is a stellar example of traditional research, delving into primary materials that are both clear and engaging. Michael E. Woods’ opening essay, “Antebellum Camel Capers and the Global Slave Power,” is a masterful example of storytelling. Yet, it does not mention other historians until the last three paragraphs, and it is not particularly interdisciplinary, except for a paragraph that mentions a novel. One exception in terms of interdisciplinary work is Mark Smith’s chapter “All the Buzz: Why Bees Mattered in the Civil War,” which discusses theory, quotes other historians, and has an economics slant. A book entitled Animal Histories of the Civil War Era might have engaged more with the historical wartime poetry involving animals or the use of animals in political cartoons and in popular music and literature, let alone with historiography or theory. Not even when discussing vegetarianism does the book draw much from the insights of current animal-ethics scholars. Although far from the interdisciplinary study that Hess promised, the book is a must-read within its particular field, and, to the editor’s unwitting disapproval, possibly for its “easily digested information.”","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resident Strangers: Immigrant Laborers in New South Alabama by Jennifer E. Brooks\",\"authors\":\"M. Summers\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jinh_r_01926\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"book appears to present itself as the tome about the Civil War that animal scholars have awaited for years, something genuinely interdisciplinary. However, the collection is not rich in methodology, and, to damn it with Hess’ own faint praise, it too contains “a lot of easily digested information.” Each of the chapters, however, is a stellar example of traditional research, delving into primary materials that are both clear and engaging. Michael E. Woods’ opening essay, “Antebellum Camel Capers and the Global Slave Power,” is a masterful example of storytelling. Yet, it does not mention other historians until the last three paragraphs, and it is not particularly interdisciplinary, except for a paragraph that mentions a novel. One exception in terms of interdisciplinary work is Mark Smith’s chapter “All the Buzz: Why Bees Mattered in the Civil War,” which discusses theory, quotes other historians, and has an economics slant. A book entitled Animal Histories of the Civil War Era might have engaged more with the historical wartime poetry involving animals or the use of animals in political cartoons and in popular music and literature, let alone with historiography or theory. Not even when discussing vegetarianism does the book draw much from the insights of current animal-ethics scholars. Although far from the interdisciplinary study that Hess promised, the book is a must-read within its particular field, and, to the editor’s unwitting disapproval, possibly for its “easily digested information.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":46755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01926\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01926","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这本书似乎是动物学者期待多年的关于内战的大部头,是一本真正跨学科的书。然而,这本合集在方法论上并不丰富,而且,虽然赫斯自己也有微弱的赞扬,但它也包含了“很多容易消化的信息”。然而,每一章都是传统研究的典范,深入研究了既清晰又引人入胜的原始材料。迈克尔·e·伍兹(Michael E. Woods)的开篇文章《战前骆驼的劫案和全球奴隶力量》(Antebellum Camel Capers and Global Slave Power)是讲故事的绝佳范例。然而,直到最后三段,它才提到其他历史学家,除了提到一本小说的一段,它并不是特别跨学科的。在跨学科研究方面,马克·史密斯的《所有的嗡嗡声:为什么蜜蜂在内战中很重要》一章是一个例外,这一章讨论了理论,引用了其他历史学家的话,并带有经济学倾向。一本名为《内战时期的动物历史》的书可能会更多地涉及涉及动物的历史战时诗歌,或者在政治漫画、流行音乐和文学中使用动物,更不用说历史编纂或理论了。甚至在讨论素食主义时,这本书也没有从当前动物伦理学学者的见解中汲取很多东西。尽管与赫斯承诺的跨学科研究相去甚远,但这本书在其特定领域是必读之作,而且,编辑无意中表示反对,可能是因为其“容易消化的信息”。
Resident Strangers: Immigrant Laborers in New South Alabama by Jennifer E. Brooks
book appears to present itself as the tome about the Civil War that animal scholars have awaited for years, something genuinely interdisciplinary. However, the collection is not rich in methodology, and, to damn it with Hess’ own faint praise, it too contains “a lot of easily digested information.” Each of the chapters, however, is a stellar example of traditional research, delving into primary materials that are both clear and engaging. Michael E. Woods’ opening essay, “Antebellum Camel Capers and the Global Slave Power,” is a masterful example of storytelling. Yet, it does not mention other historians until the last three paragraphs, and it is not particularly interdisciplinary, except for a paragraph that mentions a novel. One exception in terms of interdisciplinary work is Mark Smith’s chapter “All the Buzz: Why Bees Mattered in the Civil War,” which discusses theory, quotes other historians, and has an economics slant. A book entitled Animal Histories of the Civil War Era might have engaged more with the historical wartime poetry involving animals or the use of animals in political cartoons and in popular music and literature, let alone with historiography or theory. Not even when discussing vegetarianism does the book draw much from the insights of current animal-ethics scholars. Although far from the interdisciplinary study that Hess promised, the book is a must-read within its particular field, and, to the editor’s unwitting disapproval, possibly for its “easily digested information.”
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history