I also see the worldview difference in Carroll’s argument, though she probably does not.
Her assertion is that the “European” norm was imposed on the “natural” norm of grazing, from the animal kingdom.
What we see here is that the worldview of Man being a Special Creation being called “European” and inherently evil colonialist,
and the “natural” (ie, evolutionist/humanist) worldview is her preferred “norm”.
Note also that the Native Americans were in her POV essentially a species of wildlife. Not really human.
Right. And it couldn’t have possibly been these evil “European norms” that propelled that society into educate itself to invent superior tools of civilization, innovate through the hurdles of nature to establish thriving cities, open the creative mind to forms of art that appeared somewhere other than cave walls...