Crosby's Criticism

Alfred Crosby would react to Pauly’s account with criticism towards the Entomologists. I think Crosby would point out that the Entomologists’ view is antithetical to his work. Pauly gives a good summary of the Entomologists’ view when he quotes Marlatt as saying “it is the unknown things that you cannot find that we have to protect this country from” (Pauly Pg 68). Marlatt’s point is that foreign plants should be excluded from the US because they may bring harmful organisms that have not yet been discovered. I think Crosby would criticize this view because it treats the US’ ecology like an untainted Eden, superior to foreign corruption. Crosby would criticize this view because it ignores the immigrant roots of the whole US’ ecology. It also implies that the changes brought by Europeans are superior to those of other potential immigrant specimens. This ignores and demeans the devastation brought upon Native Americans by the import of …show more content…
Crosby’s work describes how the simultaneous movement of numerous plants, animals and other organisms to the western hemisphere, transformed it completely. The spread of one organism like the Japanese Cherry blossom is not likely to impact ecology enough to transform the lifestyle of a region, and who lives in it. Crosby might also argue that no change in the US’ ecology can ever again be imperial because, as Fairchild pointed out “the world is toward greater intercourse, more frequent exchange of commodities….a greater mixture of the plants” (Pauly, pg 69). The colonial transfer of plants and animals inaugurated the start of a global world. For centuries, the US ecology had been well connected to the world, and had roots in the highly competitive and influential “old world”. Hence, it’s likely it had already been exposed to most of the major changes that exists today. One new ecological change cannot equal the change induced by several new species