春水堂视频

Thomas Andrews has a knack for framing American history unconventionally. In his award-winning book 鈥淜illing for Coal,鈥� Andrews traced the central role of coal in Colorado鈥檚 economic growth, environmental change and social conflict. Now he鈥檚 turning his scholarly gaze toward another little-acknowledged actor in American history: animals.

鈥淧aying attention to things that aren鈥檛 human鈥攆ossil fuels, animals and air鈥攎ight give us a broader view of history,鈥� Andrews told a group of University of Colorado Boulder leaders recently.

Professional historians clearly agree. 鈥淜illing for Coal: America鈥檚 Deadliest Labor War鈥� won the 2009 Bancroft Prize, one of the highest honors in the field of history, from Columbia University.

At the time, Andrews was an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver. Now he鈥檚 become an associate professor of history at CU-Boulder, a development that made Todd Gleeson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, 鈥渢ickled pink.鈥�

Having viewed Colorado history through the lens of energy, Andrews is now working on a second book tentatively titled 鈥淎n Animal鈥檚 History of the United States.鈥�

The first book raised questions Andrews hopes to address in the second.

Early American miners 鈥渃onstantly had to grapple with an environment that wasn鈥檛 of their creation,鈥� Andrews said, adding that in many cases animals helped people navigate and survive unfamiliar environments.

Miners developed mutually beneficial relationship with mice that came underground in hay. Miners often fed and named the mice.

鈥淧artly, this was boredom,鈥� Andrews said. 鈥淏ut there was also a symbiosis, because mice were great safety tools.鈥� Like proverbial coal-mine canaries, mice sensed rising concentrations of carbon monoxide. Mice noticed small cracks in rock walls that usually preceded a major collapse.

鈥淧aying attention to mice was a good thing,鈥� Andrews said. 鈥淢iners had these interesting, cute and very functional relationship with mice.鈥�

Mules, on the other hand, were mulish. 鈥淭hey didn鈥檛 want to do what miners wanted them to do.鈥� And researching 鈥淜illing for Coal,鈥� Andrews said, 鈥済ot me thinking about animal history.鈥�

He began broadening his view of animal influences on history beyond some previously probed questions about bison, wolves and some domestic animals.

One avenue of inquiry involved weaving present-day ethical issues into a UCD course. Andrews screened the film 鈥淕rizzly Man,鈥� about a grizzly-bear advocate who lived among Alaskan bears for 13 summers before being killed by one bear. Andrews also assigned his class to do journal entries about riding horses, and to do ethnographic descriptions of a dog park in Los Angeles.

鈥淚鈥檇 have (students) rationalize and defend their own choices about eating or not eating animals. They also had larger assignments. They needed to make an argument about big-box pet stores or zoos.鈥�

鈥淭he students absolutely loved it,鈥� Andrews said. As he employed such unconventional teaching techniques, 鈥淚 realized there was a great opportunity for a book,鈥� which is now under contract by Harvard University Press.

The idea is to 鈥渢ake a stab鈥� at human-animal relationships over the last 600 years, Andrews said.

Because the topic is so large, the book will be selective. 鈥淏ut I want to show how animals have shaped American history, to show how attention to animals can shed new light on historical topics鈥� such as slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.

As Andrews notes, the relationships between humans and animals are complex and varied. For instance, the inquiry raises a question: 鈥淗ow do we have one category of animals that we call pets and another category called livestock that is treated as a factor of production?鈥�

鈥淚 don鈥檛 have any particular ax to grind,鈥� Andrews emphasized. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 advocate a position.鈥� He does raise questions about animals with which humans have very contradictory and complicated relationships.

A second area of focus is that of animals as 鈥渧ehicles of conquest.鈥� Horses, sheep and cattle, which Native Americans resisted, literally changed the landscape, Andrews noted.

Additionally, a history of American animals raises questions about slavery, particularly the relationship of slaves and animals under the law. Andrews noted an analogy between the legal treatment African Americans, Native Americans and animals.

While both animals and slaves were legally regarded as property, and Native Americans were not recognized as full members of society, slaves and Native Americans were treated as people in adverse conditions.

鈥淎nimals were not being brought to trial, whereas slaves were,鈥� Andrews said, adding: 鈥淵ou had people who were being treated like animals, and that was fundamentally viewed as what was wrong with slavery.鈥�

Susan Kent, chair of CU-Boulder鈥檚 Department of History, said the hiring of Andrews and Elizabeth 鈥淟il鈥� Fenn of Duke University听further broadens key strengths in the history department. Along with cultural environmental historians Phoebe Young and Paul Sutter, the department is now a 鈥減owerhouse,鈥� Kent says, adding:

鈥淚t鈥檚 an extraordinary line-up, and enables us to position ourselves as one of the premier institutions in America for the study of environmental and Western/borderlands history.鈥�