Russell Bourne

It starts with a narrative story- curiously, the only section of the entire book illustrated with pen-and-ink drawings, the rest has photographs. The opening chapter tells of efforts to breed an orangutan at the zoo, the decision keepers made to separate the orang infant from its mother when it developed an infection, and the anxious period spent trying to save its life with veterinary care that was rudimentary compared to technology of today. The rest of the book is more general in nature. Chapter subjects vary: a history of zoos in general, from menageries kept by royalty in the past to the beginnings of modern zoos, in particular the National Zoo, and its connection with the Smithsonian Institution. How the zoo manages its space and visitors, the balance between scientific inquiry and pleasing the public (whose entry fees contribute a lot to funding things), keeping the animals healthy, making enclosures more natural for them, managing breeding operations and gene pools between zoos. The role the zoo has in maintaining species populations- in particular a large breeding ranch it has in Virginia (not open to the public) and advancements that have been made there in breeding rare birds, ungulates and golden marmosets. Conservation, animal husbandry and scientific inquiry seem to be the main three points.

There's also a chapter in the back about studies in the field done by Smithsonian scientists on Asiatic elephants, red howler monkeys, tigers, chipmunks and the tenrec. There's mention of how every single animal that dies in a zoo is autopsied, and what zoo scientists learn from that. Discussion of how local wildlife that enters the zoo (piegons, rats, raccoons,domestic cats, etc) is managed- particularly because of diseases they might introduce to the exotics. Final two chapters highlight numerous other zoos in the country and around the world, pointing out significant advancements or special collections they each have.

from the Dogear Diary… (meer)

http://pixxiefishbooks.blogspot.com/2...

I read this faster than I normally would have wanted to (a loaner while I was in Winnipeg this fall), but it was an interesting history of the relationship between the early settlers and the natives in America, and in particular, about the interplay between the settlers' religions and the native religion(s).

I don't have much of a religious background myself, let alone an understanding of the Puritans' and Pilgrims' philosophies. Bourne, however, did a good job of presenting the issues and problems, and, at least from the vantage point of a 'newbie' to the topic, he seemed balanced and reasonable. The book was a bit of an eye-opener, and I certainly want to read more on the subject in the future. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing if there are any similar books looking at the interplay between early settlers to Canada (well, before it became Canada, of course) and our First Nations peoples.… (meer)

I read this book a couple of years ago, so my memory isn't as specific as I'd like at this point. What I do remember is the "big picture" that this finely written and carefully researched book presented of the unruly "lower sorts" in the economically depressed, hardscrabble waterfront of Boston in the 1760s and 1770s. Looking at the early years of the Revolution from this perspective is undeniably appealing to modern Americans, who view protest against "the Man" as a birthright, but it's also the smart thing to do. It was the "unrest" of these years--the rebellious actions of regular people--that simultaneously underscored the views of so-called radical leaders such as Samuel Adams, and disturbed the upper-crust of Massachusetts and other colonies that sought abrupt political change, but not social upheaval. To the extent that the "mobs" could help the gentry achieve their goals for political change, they were directed, sanctioned, even assisted in conducting what we would call street action. But to the extent that the social and economic change demanded by those mobs would have upset the status quo, they were opposed, undermined, and even sold out. In one sense, then, it's sad to read this book and cheer for the underdogs opposing "the Man," be he the British Parliament or the colony's own elite--only because we know, in the end, that the economically underprivileged never did win get the social revolution they'd hoped for.

On the other hand, because of this careful tightrope-walking by the colonies' elite--in harnessing the power of the "street" when it could be helpful and restraining it when it could have gone too far for the tastes of the gentry--the American Revolution is one of the few, perhaps the *only*, successful revolution in history. (I phrased that like it's my opinion, but it's more the general consensus of historians.) We have the Boston waterfront residents of the 1760s and 1770s to thank for fomenting the rebellion that resulted in the United States. We also have them to thank for showing us the egalitarian ideals they fought for--regardless of whether those ideals were achieved.

As if these intriguing and thoughtful concepts weren't enough to take away from a simple book, I found the writing style to be engaging and active. This book "reads" well--don't be put off by all this high-falutin' talk if that isn't your thing. It's a great read!

As I read this book, I kept hearing the old line from the play "1776" in my head, uttered by a frustrated Pennsylvanian: "Why is it always *Boston* that breaks the King's peace?!" Well, this book explains why. Loved it.… (meer)