农业史是该领域的记录期刊。因此，它发表关于农业和农村生活历史各个方面的文章，不受地域或时间限制。编辑对涉及新主题的文章特别感兴趣，展示了大量的初级和二级研究，展示了原始解释，并且对社会成员和其他农业历史读者普遍感兴趣。

Agricultural History is a significant journal in the field of agricultural history, dedicated to documenting and exploring the history of agriculture and rural life. The journal publishes research articles on various aspects of agricultural history, without restrictions on time or geography. The editors are particularly interested in submissions that address new topics, encouraging the presentation of extensive primary and secondary research, offering unique insights, and aiming to engage social members and other readers interested in agricultural history.

《Agricultural History》是农业历史领域的重要期刊，致力于记录和探讨农业及农村生活的历史。该期刊发表关于农业历史各个方面的研究文章，时间和地域没有限制。编辑特别欢迎涉及新主题的稿件，鼓励展示丰富的初级和二级研究，提供独特的见解，旨在吸引社会成员和其他农业历史的读者。

Agricultural History

Research Article| April 01 2000 The International Institute for Cotton: The Globalization of Cotton since 1945 D. Clayton Brown D. Clayton Brown Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Agricultural History (2000) 74 (2): 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-74.2.258 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation D. Clayton Brown; The International Institute for Cotton: The Globalization of Cotton since 1945. Agricultural History 1 January 2000; 74 (2): 258–271. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00021482-74.2.258 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsAgricultural History Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 2000 Agricultural History Society2000 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

D. Clayton Brown

The International Institute for Cotton: The Globalization of Cotton since 1945

国际棉花研究所：1945年以来的棉花全球化

Many of us reading this journal have taught agricultural history in some form. The roles of animals, crops, soil, diseases, gardens, and tractors, to only name a few, are key ingredients in understanding numerous parts of our individual and collective pasts. As a result, the venues of learning can be just as diverse as the topics' influential reach. Many of the stories we tell in our university survey classes, highly specialized graduate courses, or with students in K–12 classes include agricultural history, sometimes in quite unexpected ways for both the learner and the lecturer. Agricultural history stretches across disciplinary fields and spaces of learning, and it manifests inside formalized classrooms and outside across informal ones, often in literal fields.A key lesson, then, is that to teach agricultural history is to connect learners in visceral ways just as much as intellectual ones. Feeling freshly tilled soil or smelling a recent rain across alfalfa fields matters just as much as reading primary sources. Experiential learning plays a significant part of our agricultural history pedagogy, with the “doing” of agriculture taking various forms from reading records to reading the landscape. The authors in this forum speak to these many possibilities and the uniqueness of agriculture in its capacity to connect seemingly disparate students, researchers, disciplines, and practices.“Teaching through Agriculture” is the beginning of a much longer conversation about the processes and values of teaching the agricultural past. It is also the continuation and braiding of various recent threads of inquiry in the field, including the recent roundtable in this journal, “Why Does Agricultural History Matter?”1 Each contributor offers keen insights about how they combine intellectual and experiential learning in their classrooms and, in other cases, into their local communities. You will read about successful instruction techniques in more conventional forms, the diverse kinds of primary sources these instructors use to engage learners, and perhaps unexpected ways to integrate the past and present.Teaching has long been foundational to the mission of agricultural history. The Agricultural History Society was founded by an interdisciplinary group of historians, scientists, and economists as a space for learning, with the first members including extension agents asking how history could help anchor the relevance of traditional and new agricultural practices for their farmer-audiences.2 Over the society's history, scholarship from members has included pedagogical essays that reflect on the importance of agricultural topics in the classroom, teacher-mentors, the importance of theoretical and interdisciplinary thinking in teaching, and the use of the visceral, material elements of agriculture to ignite curiosity in learners.3 The James C. Giesen Teaching Excellence Award is just one formal recognition of the society that marks this much longer dedication to teaching in the field.The beginnings of this particular forum started at two academic conferences. The first spark came at the National Council on Public History in 2017. In that meeting, David presented on the history of agricultural science and the use of archival material in instructing STEM students and then bringing those lessons to a general public. Conversations about pedagogy continued into the 2019 Agricultural History Society meeting, where David presented work with Neil Oatsvall, Jenny Barker-Devine, Pamela Riney-Kehrberg, and Margaret Weber in “The Place of Agricultural History in the History Curriculum: A Roundtable.” The scholar-teachers on this panel expanded the discussion on every educational level and encouraged us to keep carving out a space where others could join the conversation, workshop their ideas, and share teaching strategies. Nicole sat in the audience that day and later connected with David about organizing a forum for publication focused on teaching.Then COVID-19 hit. Teaching all online posed significant challenges, especially in pedagogy. We felt that this kind of forum was needed more than ever, and our next steps included issuing a call for papers for an agricultural history pedagogy workshop. Three clear interests of the group emerged: (1) the role of agricultural primary sources in framing and designing courses; (2) the use of agricultural topics in public history and community-engaged work; and (3) how the materiality of agriculture might lend itself to innovative pedagogical approaches that can take place outside, in the dirt. From there, we decided to host an online workshop in January 2022.Our call for proposals emphasized a forum for a pedagogy of agricultural history across fields. Part of this thinking had to do with the 2020–21 academic year, where many of us had to rethink our teaching in the transition to masked, outdoor, or completely virtual spaces. Effective, adaptable, engaging, inclusive teaching takes time, research, and replicability. As such, it is important to have ongoing conversations about pedagogy rooted in the future of teaching. “Teaching through Agriculture” aimed to create a virtual and textual forum about teaching in history and related interdisciplinary fields that addressed topics linked broadly to agriculture, science, or the environment.The goal of the workshop was to gather a diverse range of research, case studies, and reflections about teaching in the ever-developing field of agricultural history. And as this forum illustrates, it is ever developing. The virtual workshop included time to discuss pedagogy candidly with colleagues around the world. We also built space into the workshop to draft the pieces that would be included in this forum. The call for proposals invited participants to address teaching in any aspect of agriculture or agricultural history, including, but not limited to, experiences (whole courses or parts of classes/workshops) in archaeology and anthropology, histories of science, technology, and medicine, environmental history, animal studies, food studies, agriculture and rural life, primary school education, or FFA/4-H instruction. We especially encouraged submissions that highlighted the work and teaching of early career and/or contingent faculty, nontraditional researchers, and underrepresented scholars. We also originally focused on three central categories for analysis and discussion—activities, assessments, and assigned media—with hopes of compiling a collection of cases and tools to be used by future instructors across disciplines and educational levels. The final cohort included fourteen instructors who would contribute thirteen pieces in total.Workshop participants voiced a hunger to talk about teaching: What was working? What wasn't? What were the pressing issues of the time? How could agriculture serve as a creative connector? It was clear that agriculture was uniquely positioned to cultivate engaging, inclusive classrooms, no matter the format. Agriculture connected people across geographic and temporal scales, perhaps for the sheer reason that, as Peter Coclanis has argued many times before, food is the anchor of our history and livelihood.4 Food studies certainly lends itself to creative teaching strategies, as illustrated by leading scholar-teachers in the field experimenting with unessays, recipe archives, and in-class exercises with food.5 Such strategies needed to be retooled and reimagined in online and asynchronous spaces during the pandemic, and the “how” of these (and other) methods struck a chord with the thoughtful teachers of the “Teaching through Agriculture” workshop. How do we articulate the essence of an assignment? How do we assess its success? And how might we adopt multiple approaches—online and outdoors—into different classroom communities? It was clear that agricultural history brought different opportunities and opened numerous pedagogical possibilities.We divided the written results of this forum into three conversational sections: “Classroom Engagements,” “Fields Work,” and “Public History and Beyond.” Each takes on a different dimension of what teaching agriculture or agricultural history can look like across different kinds of classrooms, incorporating different disciplinary fields, or integrating quite literal fields—situating learning on sites and in soil.The first four contributors provide diverse examples of teaching agricultural history in the context of the “traditional” classroom through sample exercises, assessments, and assignments. The examples demonstrate the importance of digging into primary sources located in agriculture to better illustrate nuanced histories in East Asian, European, and American history.Peter Braden shares two assignments designed specifically for a commodity-driven course that balances the content of the commodity with its context as a prominent nonhuman figure and helps tell a larger East Asian history. Jeff Bremer provides the details for a primary source analysis that highlights the dimensions of gender, class, and health. Matthew Holmes recounts the importance of agricultural history in providing a scaffolding for understanding the framing and basic foundations of biology. Finally, Rebecca Kaplan reminds us to attend to the sharp social dimensions of agriculture, especially when crafting syllabi at land-grant institutions (and the archives available) with stories of settler colonialism and activist resistance in mind.Fieldwork and field work tend to blur together when the social sciences engage with topics in agriculture. The bottom line: agricultural “fields” work as sites for engaging with and learning about history.With site-based (and sometimes work-based) examples, experiential learning serves as the foundation of the pieces by Ashley Colby, Nicholas Timmerman and Abigail Carpenter, Saskia Cornes, and Cody Miller. Colby argues for the importance of international service learning opportunities for students engaged with interdisciplinary questions about sustainability. Timmerman and Carpenter also address service and site-based learning but outline the intricacies of executing a field trip with multiple institutional partners. Cornes and Miller—both situated in North Carolina—provide some detailed examples of the philosophical and pedagogical dimensions of teaching on soils that (quite literally) hold and stratify histories. Cornes speaks to engagement with the soil at Duke Campus Farm, while Miller outlines a lesson plan for students visiting Moses Cone Park.The last conversational section focuses on public history, an enormous category we use here to emphasize the applicability and adaptability of these contributions. These essays feature modes, methods, and philosophies that run parallel to ongoing conversations about integrating the digital humanities into teaching, the place of the present in teaching the past, and engagement with institutional collaborators.Camden Burd and Maria Fedorova detail two instances where hands-on activities like podcast creation (Burd) and Google Map curation (Fedorova) can help students sharpen their analytical and comprehension skills when engaging with agricultural history at local and global scales. Debra Reid reminds us of the importance of integrating historical agricultural artifacts and working alongside museums to inspire learners. Sanchia deSouza and Andrew Urban provide raw accounts where past and present cannot be disentangled and offer important theoretical and practical apparatuses that emphasize personal reflection and training in community-engaged collaborations.We hope that this forum sparks new ideas and conversations about teaching agricultural history. Each author provides key insights about their instruction, sharing the various teaching ingredients they include to make pedagogy successful while modeling approaches that can be used in numerous ways. Ultimately, this forum is meant to offer a toolkit for assignments, assessments, course designs, and philosophies of teaching that come from agriculture. This collection of essays is just a start, and we are eager see what the future holds. As you'll see, most of us are teaching agricultural history, even if we don't know it. And when we do know it, the care and intentionality taken to teach it in accessible and inclusive ways is a triumph worthy of rigorous discussion and documentation for the teachers to come.

Nicole Welk-Joerger

David D. Vail

Introduction

引言

Author W. Ralph Eubanks wrote, “If you can find where the past and the present intersect within Mississippi, you can indeed understand the world.”1 The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, better known as the Mississippi Delta, has a rich agrarian history and is a space that holds national significance for the modern civil rights movement and as the birthplace of American music. Popularly known as “the most southern place on earth,” as dubbed by historian James C. Cobb, the Mississippi Delta offers an excellent case study for a high-impact, service-learning, credit-earning travel course.2 This article will discuss the rationale, design, and goals of an interdisciplinary and interinstitutional course on the Mississippi Delta.The course idea originated from Nicholas Timmerman's graduate school experience at Mississippi State University (MSU), where historian Jason Morgan Ward designed a similar service- and travel-learning course on the Mississippi Delta in collaboration with the Maroon Volunteer Center. During Timmerman's time at MSU, he was afforded the opportunity to chaperone and teach the course himself (in the spring semesters of 2015 and 2017). In the summer of 2021, Gail Carpenter of Iowa State University (ISU) approached Timmerman about the possibility of collaborating on a grant opportunity in the Study USA program sponsored by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at ISU. The grant's design is to encourage the creation of credit-bearing, domestic travel courses within the United States that “provide undergraduate students the opportunity to learn about diverse culture, food and agriculture systems, natural resources, and life sciences within the U.S.”3 The program advocated that proposals “expose/engage students in cultural diversity of the U.S.,” such as partnering with a minority-serving institution and exploring geographic locations “that are significantly different from what students experience in Ames, Iowa.”4 We believed that a partnership between a predominantly white land-grant institution and an 1890 land-grant HBCU fulfilled one of these requirements, and studying a space such as the Mississippi Delta naturally fulfilled several of the other grants’ requirements.The grant proposal argued that an interdisciplinary and interinstitutional course on the Mississippi Delta would Combine in-class and immersive experiential learning, including hands-on service activities and housing provided by local community groups in the delta.Blend history and agriculture to garner appreciation for factors that shaped the present systems in the Mississippi Delta.Collaborate across two land-grant universities with disparate backgrounds and student bodies—namely, ISU and Langston University, an HBCU.The idea was to create a domestic travel course that was intentionally interdisciplinary and to design a classroom space that engaged in conversations about the sciences and the humanities. ISU and Langston have strong agricultural science programs, so it made sense to design a course that would attract students interested in learning about the intersection between agricultural science and history. We also viewed this course as an opportunity to benefit each discipline mutually. The humanities generally struggle to prove to potential students the field's relevance, and the sciences struggle with teaching students cultural and social connections. Our grant proposal was accepted in the fall of 2021 to design and implement the course for the spring 2022 semester.The course and trip leaned heavily into research on high-impact learning practices as defined by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which argues that high-impact learning challenges and engages students, increases retention, and contributes to cumulative learning.5 Examples of high-impact learning practices, according to scholar George Kuh, include “first-year seminars,” “learning communities,” “service learning,” “undergraduate research,” and “study abroad.”6 The idea behind developing a partnership between ISU and Langston was to establish interinstitutional learning communities where students collectively reflected on lessons learned in the classroom and the field.7 The domestic travel experience to the Mississippi Delta was the central component of the course and included service-learning opportunities, ensuring “that students' service experiences are linked directly to classroom learning,” as scholars Jayne Brownell and Lynn Swaner advocate.8The course was specifically designed as a credit-earning elective that engaged students with the history and agricultural practices in the delta over time.9 The course objectives measured students' ability to: Demonstrate a working understanding of the historical factors that shaped the Mississippi Delta.Experience the culture, people, and communities of the Mississippi Delta by visiting significant sites through an experiential and service-learning alternative spring break trip.Develop a working knowledge of the historic and contemporary importance of agriculture in the Mississippi Delta.Build critical thinking skills and analytical reading skills through the study of diverse interpretations of historical events, cultural diversity, and ethnic studies.Establish cross-campus and interdisciplinary relationships between ISU and Langston students, faculty, and staff from a variety of departments and disciplines.To measure these course objectives in the physical classroom, we designed lessons and assessments, assigned readings, hosted guest lectures, and encouraged discussions. Content covered course modules titled “Creating a Cotton Kingdom,” “At the Crossroads: The Birth of American Music,” “Aquaculture in the Delta,” and modern “Agriculture Economics.” Guest lecturers included Valarie Grim from Indiana University to discuss the agricultural history of the delta, Emary D. Smith from Alcorn State University to discuss food security in the delta, and Joseph Morris from ISU to discuss aquaculture in the delta, thus intentionally blending history and agricultural sciences.The trip took students to historically significant places such as Money and Sumner, Mississippi, to visit sites related to the murder and trial of Emmett Till. We visited Clarksdale, Ruleville, and Mound Bayou, Mississippi, to see places with historical significance to blues music and to the civil rights work of Fannie Lou Hamer and Medgar Evers, as well as to better understand the role of a historically Black town in the region. We also took students to Stoneville, Mississippi, where Mississippi State University's Delta Research and Extension Center researches catfish, cotton, and other important agricultural products in the region, and to Alcorn State University's Extension/Research Farm and Technology Transfer Center in Mound Bayou, Mississippi. During the trip, students completed approximately ten hours of community service. Some of the service-learning components of the trip included helping with spring planting at Marilyn William's family farm in Tunica, Mississippi, and assisting with the thrift store and food pantry at St. Gabriel Mercy Center in Mound Bayou, Mississippi, and at the St. Francis Community Center in Greenwood, Mississippi. The service-learning components of the course connected students to individuals and organizations in the delta working to address systemic issues in the region, such as food security, poverty, public health, and nutrition. Additionally, the service-learning components of the trip provided students from both institutions opportunities to work together through a positive team-building exercise.The region's rich agricultural and cultural history validates the purpose of this high-impact learning and travel course on the Mississippi Delta because the delta offers a unique microcosm of much of American society. The interdisciplinary and interinstitutional intentionality of the course exhibits the importance of forging partnerships between predominately white and minority-serving institutions because it afforded our students opportunities to have meaningful learning interactions with faculty and fellow students from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, land-grant institutions provide a natural space for developing interdisciplinary courses between the agricultural sciences and agricultural history, thus deliberately bringing together the humanities and the sciences.

Nicholas A. Timmerman

Abigail J. Carpenter

Study USA

美国研究

Some years ago, like many recent graduates starting visiting teaching positions, I was in the unenviable position of creating new courses a few weeks before the semester started. As I constructed my syllabus for a history of science in the United States course at the University of California, Berkeley, a land-grant university (LGU), I realized that covering the history of land-grant universities was an ideal way to incorporate agricultural history and local history into the class while touching on many major themes and events in American history. Since then, I have continued to use local agricultural history and history of the LGU system to explore issues such as gender, segregation, dispossession, knowledge creation and dissemination, human and nonhuman animal relationships, and theory of bodies, health, and the environment in a wide range of courses from first-year US history surveys to graduate student history of medicine seminars at Cal, Michigan State University, and Oklahoma State University. I have designed several activities that can be adapted for different courses, content, and locations. Collaborating with the university archives and local historical associations allowed me to tailor these lessons and activities for each university and class. Discussing local agricultural education and history with students provides them with an opportunity to directly connect their college experiences with past events and actions and gain insight into how their education and institution is part of American society and history. They also learn how agricultural teaching, knowledge, and practices shaped their university and communities. In this article, I will share my current lesson plan and strategies for adapting it for different courses and skill levels.When I began my current position at Oklahoma State University, I dove into Oklahoma history to update my material on land-grant universities and make it relevant to students in my US history since the Civil War survey. As I prepared for the course, I realized Oklahoma is the only state with 1862, 1890, and 1994 Morrill Act institutions and that creating a lesson centered on these three LGUs would provide me with a platform to discuss gender, race, segregation, and land. These topics were introduced before this lesson both in the textbook and lecture, and we continued to discuss them throughout the rest of the class. Covering them in the context of agricultural education and land-grant institutions allowed students to understand how these issues shaped Oklahoma State University and connected them to their own lives and experiences.I set aside two class sessions for this lesson plan and started by sharing a photograph of the first class of Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College (1862 Morrill Act) students. I asked my students who were the students attending what is now Oklahoma State University at its founding. Many in the course were surprised to see that about half of the initial student body were women, but they were not surprised by the fact that the founding class was all white. This activity segued into a brief overview of how and why land-grant universities developed and why there were three separate Morrill Acts over 132 years.After the content about the Morrill Acts, I returned to OSU for an activity about gender, higher education, and career opportunities. Using information from old course catalogs available in the university archives, I listed the seven course options that were available for first-year students in the 1901 spring semester (Etymology and Structure, German or Latin, Algebra, Geometry, Hygiene, Cooking, and Woodworking or Stockjudging) and assigned groups of students to represent seven actual students (women majoring in general science, English literature, home economics education, and zoology, and men majoring in plant agriculture, math, and engineering). The groups then selected what five courses they thought were most relevant to their major and shared their decisions with the class. After that, I revealed that some of these courses were gender-restricted (Hygiene and Cooking for women and Woodworking or Stockjudging for men).After this reveal, I shared additional content about the gendering of majors and courses at land-grant universities and started discussion with another photo analysis prompt. This image was of six students (four women and two men) in an 1896 Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College dissection course. I asked the students why they thought women would be in an anatomy course, which then led to a larger discussion about how agriculture and science educational and career opportunities were gendered at the time. We kept returning to this point throughout the course as we talked about the changing roles of women in the workplace and wage disparities during the twentieth century.From there, I moved away from OSU and to Langston University, the only historically Black college or university founded in Oklahoma under the 1890 Morrill Act. This gave me an opportunity to cover segregation in Oklahoma and to provide local examples that complemented the textbook content on the issue. I shared with the students that the 1890 Morrill Act specified that the split of funds provided to the state for LGUs had to be “just and equitable” and provided an example from the archives that the split was $22,500 for OSU to $2,500 for Langston in 1900. We then discussed what “just and equitable” means and who determines that. We returned to this point the following week when talking about Plessy v. Ferguson and the concept of “separate but equal” and later in the semester when covering Brown v. Board of Education.Finally, the first class session ended with an introduction to the Land-Grab Universities project and the land dispossession that built and funded these institutions.1 Oklahoma was not covered as part of the reporting project, but by sharing the website with students, they saw the larger pattern and picture of how Native American land and natural resources were taken to build the land-grant university system. The students read about the Dawes Act and land rushes in the textbook that week, so when we talked about the “donated” land that white farmers gave to establish what is now the OSU campus, they connected the dots of how land rushes played a role in transferring this space from Native control to the university.In between the two class sessions, the students read an excerpt of Laura C. Kellogg's writing, available in the American Yawp Reader, for their weekly primary source assignment, and in addition they were asked to watch a thirty-minute documentary on the legacy of Chilocco Indian Agricultural School, an American Indian boarding school and the only one that specialized in agriculture.2 They then wrote short journal responses with their initial thoughts and questions and brought those notes to the next class.I started the second session with a brief overview on the history of Native American boarding schools and a short clip from the documentary. I used a photo analysis prompt, this one of students in front of a building at Chilocco surrounded by two fences, to spur discussion about the differences between the aims of Oklahoma's land-grant universities and Chilocco, including the differences in the educational experiences, and how the boarding school sought to replace Indigenous agricultural knowledge and practices as part of forced assimilation. To continue the conversation about forced assimilation, the students broke up into small groups to share their thoughts on Kellogg's writing, and then we talked about it as a class. We returned to this discussion weeks later when covering Native American communities during the New Deal and then again when learning about the Red Power movement and Native activism in the late twentieth century.Next, I introduced students to a new type of primary source that they had not encountered yet in the course, oral histories. First, I informed them what an oral history is and why they are of value to historians. Second, I showed them the Chilocco Indian Agricultural School Oral History Project as an example of how oral histories can be used to capture the experiences of people whose voices might not be heard or included in other sources.3 Then, I shared a segment from Claudine King's (Chickasaw) oral history interview.4 As an alum and former employee of the school, she offered a unique perspective on the transition of the institution from federal control to Native American control. We did a photo analysis prompt using an image of 1957 Chilocco Princess Marie Brown (Osage) and 1957 Chilocco Brave Gordon Roy (Ponca) to discuss the move away from forced assimilation policy at the school. I then wrapped up our discussion of Chilocco by covering the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and the College of the Muscogee Nation (1994 Morrill Act) and introducing the concept of self-determination and sovereignty that we returned to when covering the Red Power movement later in the semester.The last question for this lesson was a takeaway question for students to consider on their own. I asked “Why are there still three separate land-grant universities in Oklahoma?” and “Do they address the original LGU mission of benefiting the agriculture and the mechanical arts?” I reminded them to think about the intent of the institutions to serve communities in Oklahoma as they pondered the question over the weekend. We returned to this question again at the end of the semester as we discussed multiculturalism, free speech, who controls and dictates education requirements, and other current issues at universities in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.Since there are land-grant universities in every state and most universities have robust institutional archives, this lesson can be adapted to any location and modified for different courses. By working with the archives at your local land-grant universities and historical societies, you can find course catalogs, photographs, student papers, diaries, letters, and oral histories that can be used in class as primary sources and to provide local content for this lesson. While Oklahoma is the only state with all three types of LGUs, the topics of gender, race, and dispossession can be covered even if there are no local 1890 or 1994 Morrill Act institutions. Focusing on historical and current admission policies and rates at your state's land-grant university or universities, including how this may vary at each individual campus in a larger system like the University of California system, and how and why those campuses were built in those locations, can provide students with insight into these issues.5This lesson can also be modified and adapted in any number of ways for upper-division students and courses. For example, when I covered this subject in an upper-division science and society course at Michigan State University, we spent more time exploring primary sources including photographs from the early years of the university. I split the students into groups of four or five; each group had a different photo that they analyzed, and then they shared their findings with the class. Another option would be to allow the students to do the research. For this lesson, I found the old course catalog and university pictures in the archives and relied on an existing oral history project housed in the library for content. In an undergraduate capstone course or a graduate course, students could conduct this research instead and share their findings not only in class but through public history projects such as a podcast or short documentary, digital maps, or specialized tours of campus.Exploring the creation and early days of agricultural education at Oklahoma State University, Langston University, and Chilocco Indian Agricultural School provided me with an opportunity to use local examples and archival resources to teach students about sexism, segregation, and forced assimilation and directly connect it to their university experiences. It also demonstrates to students how agriculture shaped education and educational institutions in the state. For historians of agriculture, this lesson can provide an opportunity to teach about the intersection of education and agriculture and how the long history of issues that campuses and students currently grapple with can be understood through this lens.

Rebecca Kaplan

Teaching US History through Land-Grant Universities and Agriculture Education

通过赠地大学和农业教育教授美国历史

Writing and teaching using global history is by no means a novel concept. Students in both K–12 and postsecondary education systems have been exposed to them to varying degrees since the 1990s. Despite having clear connections to world history, agricultural history has largely been taught through national and or regional lenses. Recently, agricultural education specialists have identified the integration of “a more globalized approach” to teaching agriculture to be a priority for the future.1 As such, we are left to answer the question of how history instructors can develop effective assignments to encourage undergraduate students to think more globally about agriculture. Moreover, how can these assignments be accessible to classrooms that do not have the budget, time, or access to fieldwork and or civic engagement components? These were the two guiding questions that I asked myself when designing assignments for a course titled Food, Science, and Technology during the Interwar Period. My approach was to go digital. Though still imperfect in several ways, the digital assignment (discussed below) inspired students to engage and reflect on global narratives within agricultural history.One unit of this course focused on how World War I reshaped the global agricultural market by disrupting food supply networks. The result was widespread hunger and even famine conditions in many European countries. In some cases, disturbances caused by food deprivation led to revolutionary events and even the collapse of empires (Russia). To consider the global effects of the war and connect them with the issues of food access, I designed an assignment that asked students to trace the outbreak of food riots from 1914 to 1919. In outlining the goals for the assignment, I sought to make it a collaborative in-class experience that focused on developing the following skills: (1) improving historical research skills, including formulating a research question, obtaining data, evaluating it, and placing it in a global historical context; (2) developing knowledge and mastery of digital technologies; and (3) working in collaboration with others.For this assignment, students worked in groups of four to six people during the period of one ninety-minute class. Each group was assigned a year and was asked to find articles in newspaper databases (e.g., the New York Times) using several specific keywords, such as “food riot,” “food revolt,” “food disturbances,” and so on. After finding relevant articles that reported news about food riots in different cities across the world, students put this data into an Excel spreadsheet (fig. 1). Each group had its sheet in the joint Excel spreadsheet in which they recorded the date, city, country, participants, cause, and resolution. Over the course of this assignment, these groups collected and analyzed between ten and twenty newspaper articles. The rest of the class time was devoted to transferring the collected data using Google Maps onto a single map that had layers for each year (fig. 2). Each layer was identified with a different color to make it easier to track the development of food insecurity during and after World War I after the map was completed. Students spent approximately thirty minutes creating the map by putting colored pins and writing short descriptions of events based on the information from newspaper articles. After the map was completed, students examined the map layers that their colleagues created and discussed their findings in small groups and then as a large group.As a result, I observed a more engaged and productive conversation about global connections in agricultural history. Students commented on the global impact of World War I on food production and food access, as well as social and racial inequality. Students connected key course themes outlined in lectures and secondary readings with their analysis of primary sources. Further, the map helped not only to visualize the number of food riots but also to demonstrate the growth and then the eventual decline of food riots in different countries. The dynamic nature of digital technologies presents students with another way of looking at the “change over time” concept. Second, this assignment helped students to “live” a life of a professional historian. Students obtained hands-on experience in asking a research question, identifying keywords for their search, and then working through the database with an immense amount of information. In the process, they used critical thinking skills to evaluate information and choose what articles fit their search criteria. Moreover, by working with the database, they realized that not all articles contained the same amount of information, and they were able to identify historical gaps that could only be filled with the help of other sources. Finally, the assignment dismantled stereotypes of agricultural history as a dry and insignificant subspecialty by demonstrating its deep connections to political, economic, and cultural history. In the end, mapping out historical events and processes by using newspaper archives proved an effective way to visualize the agricultural history and food history of the twentieth century.I believe that the assignment can be modified to adapt to different teaching contexts. For larger classes, the assignment can be a take-home group project where students meet outside of the classroom. For virtual environments, students can work in breakout rooms. To shorten the time spent on the assignment in and beyond the classroom, an instructor might choose articles ahead of time and focus students' efforts on analyzing the assigned material and transferring acquired information on a map in Google Maps. The assignment can be adapted to the analysis of other historical events and processes that are not connected to famines and food riots. Mapping the Green Revolution comes to mind.Despite the positive outcomes, the assignment still had some drawbacks. One obstacle for those engaged in premodern, marginalized, or Indigenous histories is access to sources. However, even those who focus on the modern era will have productive conversations about the limitations of newspapers and whose perspectives they provide. Another obstacle was the utilization of English-language newspapers that reported on domestic and foreign riots. While the records of riots were valuable, it was important to recognize whose voice students were hearing in those accounts. Nevertheless, the assignment achieves two crucial goals. It demonstrates how the global military conflict impacted agricultural production and food access in urban and rural areas not only in Europe but also in other places all over the world.

Maria Fedorova

Mapping Food Riots—Teaching Global Connections

绘制食物暴动地图——教授全球联系

Leo E. Landis

Harvesting History: McCormick's Reaper, Heritage Branding, and Historical Forgery

收获历史：麦考密克收割机、遗产品牌与历史伪造

Floor Haalboom

From Breeding and Feeding to Medicalization: Animal Farming, Veterinarization, and Consumers in Twentieth-Century Western Europe

从育种与饲养到医疗化：20世纪西欧的动物养殖、兽医化与消费者

Elizabeth S. Manley

Unpacked: A History of Caribbean Tourism

解构：加勒比旅游史

Abstract While the “iron triangle” remains a useful metaphor for describing tight and inertial links among policymakers, invested beneficiaries, and administrative officials, the label historically applies only to the classic period of modern US agricultural policy, between the 1930s and 1960s. Only farm interests sat at the table, politicians gained little by challenging the isolated process, and outsiders had no pull. This changed after the 1960s and 1970s, when the modern farm bill combined food assistance with the traditional commodity supports, and in a post-reform Congress, where power shifted from southern committee chairs toward party caucuses and leaders. New coalitions found openings and opportunities to advance programs and to exchange strategic support. While the fundamental directions of policy, research, and extension may never have shifted radically or fundamentally, it is not historically accurate to blame an iron triangle of simple and limited interests.

Sarah T. Phillips

The Iron Mess

铁的混乱

Abstract This article introduces the field of climate history and highlights its connections to agricultural history and other historical subdisciplines. It is designed for historians curious about past climates and climate change and how this information might inform their work. It defines climate history and historical climatology, surveys the state of climate historiography, and provides an overview of the field's research methods and challenges, emphasizing the varied, interdisciplinary nature of its sources. This methodological review exposes the value and limitations of natural archives such as tree rings (dendroclimatology), and it presents human records as a complementary and underutilized source of paleoclimatological data that historians are well positioned to develop. It demonstrates that climate history offers a useful and accessible lens for interpreting the past and contextualizing contemporary social and environmental issues. Finally, it encourages historians to actively consider the climate, and it provides suggestions and resources for getting started.

Abbreviation	Agric. Hist.
Journal Impact	0.56
Quartiles(Global)	HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE(Q3)

ISSN	0002-1482, 1533-8290
h-index	20

Publication Information	Publisher: Agricultural History Society，Publishing cycle: Quarterly，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 1978，Proportion of original research papers: 100.00%，Self Citation Rate:25.00%， Gold OA Rate: 1.69%
Average review cycle	网友分享经验：>36周，或约稿
Average recruitment ratio	网友分享经验：容易

Agricultural History

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience