View Full Version : Guns Germs and Steel
Strike For The South
06-04-2006, 06:28
Has anyone read this? Its by James Diamond and he tries to figure out why the Northern Europeans pretty much ended up owning the wrold. He refuses to accept any race conclusin (which I find abhorent~;)) Im entralled in this fine peice of literature and you should buy it. If you dont you are nothing but a commie. A dirty penny piching commie.
Guilty as charged.
'elp, 'elp! I'm being repressed!
Avicenna
06-04-2006, 09:29
Why buy it if it's in the school library? :wink:
And of course you can also watch the DVD http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/ ~:)
CBR
discovery1
06-04-2006, 23:52
good book good tv show. I can't bring my self to read past the fall of the inca though. 50,000 vs 200. The one with 50,000 walks into an ambush, and looses....:no:
Papewaio
06-05-2006, 01:21
Good book, a must read for Orgahs! in the backroom.
It is easy to digest information, mind you the issue I have with pop science in general is that it is in varying degrees of science and sometimes is used to avoid peer review... not always a bad thing as peer review can be fossilised into the current belief sphere.
I found it kind of shortsighted. The author's reasoning was flawed in certain areas, at least for the episodes I watched.
Marshal Murat
06-05-2006, 14:03
I saw a couple episodes on PBS, and I got the book.
I really enjoyed it, eye-opening in some respects. It really made me realize how important the written word is.
NodachiSam
06-05-2006, 19:12
I got the book and enjoyed it a lot and I'm happy to hear others have read it here too. He labours his point heavily but I think the evidence he brings up for his points is very convincing. I'm currently reading his latest book, "Collapse" Apparently he wrote a book on human sexuality and something about why humans have sex in private while few other primates seem to care. Sounds worth checking out.
Has anyone read this? Its by James Diamond and he tries to figure out why the Northern Europeans pretty much ended up owning the wrold.
I've read it a couple of times and found it excellent, but you are mis-stating his conclusion. He explains why a culture of the Eurasian continent came to dominate the world. He actually has nothing to say about why Northern Europeans did this rather than Chinese, Indians, or Mesopotamians.
I was struck by the great disparity in the number of truly domesticable animals in Eurasia as opposed to the Americas, Africa, and Australia.
English assassin
06-06-2006, 11:30
To be fair to Jared, a billion Chinese and a billion Indians would probably take issue with any conclusion that Northern European culture dominates the world. The fact that all three cultures, together with Islam, pretty much do pwn everyone else is very consistent with his argument.
Alexanderofmacedon
06-07-2006, 03:32
Oh dear god, I have to read this too...:wall:
Strike For The South
06-13-2006, 05:11
ITs very good I am getting father into it. Foodstuffs and writing and demostacation oh my
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2006, 15:03
I found the arguement persuasive but he stops the idea of natural selection with the conclusion that primative peoples are generally more quick witted and industrialised peoples are more robust.
He never explores the idea that Europeans might be genetically more techically minded. You get some European or Asian Engineers who can look at something and see how it works and some Africans and Aborigines (sp?) that have trouble understanding 3-D space.
It doesn't make one smarter than the other but it makes one more gifted in acertain area, conversly I don't know of very many European sprinters, or many who can learn as fast as "primatives"
Different racial groups look different because they are adapted to different environments, why can't they have differently adapted minds as well? If Africans actually are less "intelligant" than Europeans its because the talents we value the most are the ones most useful in our environment.
In the middle of the jungle no one looks more stupid than a white PhD.
If this offends anyone I apologise and of course there is no evidence either way because no-one will do the tests.
He never explores the idea that Europeans might be genetically more techically minded. You get some European or Asian Engineers who can look at something and see how it works and some Africans and Aborigines (sp?) that have trouble understanding 3-D space.
*snip*
Different racial groups look different because they are adapted to different environments, why can't they have differently adapted minds as well? If Africans actually are less "intelligant" than Europeans its because the talents we value the most are the ones most useful in our environment.
As most Europeans or Asians were simple farmers just a couple of centuries ago I dont see how they could could have developed brains that somehow were more technically minded than others. Most of these peasants managed to have lots of babies so natural selection isnt a possible answer.
IIRC Jared mentions how the people he had been visiting showed a great ability to learn and remember all the stuff that was important in their enviroment. Higher education and technical skills would need an ability to learn and remember things and it doesnt appear Europeans/Asians have an advantage in that area.
CBR
Avicenna
06-14-2006, 13:56
A couple of milllenia ago.
A couple of milllenia ago.
:inquisitive:
Most people lived in rural areas until the 19th century. Higher education for the masses is something from the later 20th century. I would say the level of skill/training required to make a good quality stone tool is higher than when doing menial work in a late 19th century factory.
CBR
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-15-2006, 22:13
Its not higher than forging a pattern welded sword, tempering a cutting edge, weaving complex cloth, tapestry, making a four poster bed.
I'm not talking about higher education, I'm talking about all the highly complex things Europeans have been building for millenia, the ancient Greeks had clockword for crying out load.
200 years ago people were doing more than just farming, there was a whole class of tradespeople that created things for our society and higher education was popular in Persia, Greece and Rome.
Thats why I said more technical, more mechanical, if you will. You seem to be rejecting the idea out of hand because you're uncomfortable with it.
Question: Why did the native Americans take to the plains when they discovered horses, why didn't their society develope technologically to the same level ours did. Stone tools can be used to do most of the things iron tools can, not all, but most. Given that we now know there is iron on most continents why did the Europeans take advantage of it and none of the Americans get past copper.
Why did they never invent the wheel? You don't need iron for that.
The explanation seems to me to be that these things were invented once, by the Chinese or Mesopotamians and we copied them and developed them.
So they must have been smarter than we are.
Why don't we find developed writing on every continent.
I'm not saying the Chinese are smarter I'm saying no one asks these questions.
What if I said that China and India have, until a couple of hundred years ago, outsripped everyone else in everything. Couldn't it just be that they're more inventive, more inquisitive?
Thats why I said more technical, more mechanical, if you will. You seem to be rejecting the idea out of hand because you're uncomfortable with it.
No I rejected the idea because I have read his book and thinks his arguments are very good. Its been a few months since I read it though, but IIRC most of your questions are discussed in the book. I havent watched the dvd so I dont know if something was left out or not.
CBR
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-15-2006, 23:53
Oh, I should also point out that making a good quality stone tool is more of a knack than a skill. We have one of the world authoretories here, Dr. Bruce Bradley.
(Now you can work out where I am.)
Kralizec
06-25-2006, 00:20
One explanation why the native north Americans didn't harness metal is because they didn't have the population density and such no advanced sedentiary civilizations, and largely stayed living as nomads. North America only became able to support large populations after the Europeans imported grain. I don't think there were any plants in north America that lend itself as well to cultivation as grain or potatoes.
Further south there were complex civilizations like the Aztecs and the Incas. I'm not sure why they didn't develop metalworking but I don't believe they lacked the intelligence for it.
There also where advanced civilizations in Africa, and not just Egypt and Nubia, that are often overlooked.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-25-2006, 00:47
North American society did not and could not become nomadic until the re-introduction of the horse by the Spanish. The Sioux have a legend of how they "lost the corn" and went from being settled farmers to nomads.
Pontifex Rex
06-25-2006, 01:32
One explanation why the native north Americans didn't harness metal is because they didn't have the population density and such no advanced sedentiary civilizations, and largely stayed living as nomads. North America only became able to support large populations after the Europeans imported grain. I don't think there were any plants in north America that lend itself as well to cultivation as grain or potatoes.
Nomadic Native American tribes were more the exception than the rule. The eastern woodland tribes, including the Iroquois Confederacy, and the Pacific coast tribes all lived in permanent or semi-permanent settlements and relied on agriculture and mixed hunting/gathering/fishing for sustanance. The tribes that moved on to the plaines in the 16th and 17th centuries had lower populations due to the nature of their lifestyles but even so, those plaines Indians who's territory bordered woodlands and mountains, or were on friendly terms with tribes that did, had access to agriculture either directly or through trade.
Has anyone read this? Its by James Diamond and he tries to figure out why the Northern Europeans pretty much ended up owning the wrold.
Yes, I've read this book. I was not impressed. I think his thesis is flawed. I think Boorstin has a much more coherent position.
English assassin
06-29-2006, 16:44
Yes, I've read this book. I was not impressed. I think his thesis is flawed. I think Boorstin has a much more coherent position.
Oooh, you TEASE you. Thank god for Google.
As it happens I am reading his "Collapse" at present. All good stuff, and thought provoking as an apprach, but then I got onto the chapters on Iceland and the North Atlantic islands, which I know a bit about, and oh dear. None of it is wrong, but a lot of it is the sort of stuff you might write if your researcher had taken notes from the Boys Big Book of Vikings. Sophomoric. Once someone asserts Viking raids began with Lindesfarne it rather undermines your confidence in their research... oh, and giving a fission chain reaction as an example of autocatalysis slightly alarmed me too. You can see what he meant, but its all just slightly off beam. And why he thought it added to any understanding of the viking expansion to call it an autocatalytic process I don't understand.
My confidence in him when he is talking about societies that I know nothing about understandably took a knock.
Oooh, you TEASE you. Thank god for Google.
I know, I know, but what is a young girl to do? What other resource do we have in this world of men?
You can see what he meant, but its all just slightly off beam.
Quite. I read "Guns Germs and Steel " well before the collective kudos began and the Pulitzer was awarded. I thought there were some interesting notes, but as a grand thesis it seemed, what was the term: off beam.
I didn't bother with "Collapse".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_Germs_and_Steel has details on the criticism and reponses to it.
CBR
Hurin_Rules
06-30-2006, 17:50
One explanation why the native north Americans didn't harness metal is because they didn't have the population density and such no advanced sedentiary civilizations, and largely stayed living as nomads. North America only became able to support large populations after the Europeans imported grain. I don't think there were any plants in north America that lend itself as well to cultivation as grain or potatoes.
You do realize that potatoes are a New World crop, right?
Hurin_Rules
06-30-2006, 18:01
Yes, I've read this book. I was not impressed. I think his thesis is flawed. I think Boorstin has a much more coherent position.
I'd have to agree with Pindar on that one, although it is an interesting read.
BTW, Pindar, I'm not really familiar with Boorstin (beyond his stint as Librarian of Congress), or with his position on this; can you summarize or point me in the right direction here?
Conqueror
06-30-2006, 18:51
You do realize that potatoes are a New World crop, right?
I think Potatoes come from South America.
I think Potatoes come from South America.
That...doesn't refute his statement.
Conqueror
06-30-2006, 19:20
Hurin_Rules was answering to Kralizec's post which talked about plants specifically in North America.
Uhh...no, it says 'New World'.
Kralizec
07-01-2006, 01:05
Not my post ~;)
Potatoes came from south America, but never made it to north America until the colonial age AFIK.
I'd have to agree with Pindar on that one, although it is an interesting read.
BTW, Pindar, I'm not really familiar with Boorstin (beyond his stint as Librarian of Congress), or with his position on this; can you summarize or point me in the right direction here?
Hi Hurin,
Do you recall Boorstin's three part work starting with "The Discoverers"? * It's dated, but like Diamond he got the Pulitzer. Toward the beginning to the investigation he asks the same question: why the West came out on top as opposed to any other major civilizational block, particularly given the West's relative backwardness. His basic answer is tied to cultural norms. Whereas all the other civilizational blocks developed a core state apparatus that informed all things under the sun, the West remained fractured. This fractured condition allowed the West one key advantage: competition. Other civilizations due to their dominate model tended to atrophy. The dynamism Boorstin refers to could apply to the Greek City States, Italy during the Renaissance or Western Europe as a whole. That is a simple summery though other elements can be added.
*The other two being "The Creators" and "The Seekers"
*snip*His basic answer is tied to cultural norms. Whereas all the other civilizational blocks developed a core state apparatus that informed all things under the sun, the West remained fractured. This fractured condition allowed the West one key advantage: competition. *snip*
The epilogue in Guns, Germs and Steel mentions same thing but Im sure Boorstin goes into a lot more detail. In what way do you find Diamonds thesis flawed?
CBR
English assassin
07-03-2006, 13:15
Bleh. If you ask me both thesis are flawed. The west hasn't "won," any more than a human is the end of evolution. In a hundred years time Jared N'Diamond and Mohammed Boorstin will be writing books about the inevitability of the collapse of the west (very probably citing its fractured and competitve nature). Or possibly they will be writing about the inevitability of its continued success, who can say.
You can't really get this stuff wrong can you? Proposals for books explaining the inevitable rise to global dominance of the Australian Aborigine are rarely taken up by publishers.
Well I dont think its a question of who "won" but trying to understand why the world has developed into what it is today. I dont see anything wrong with that.
CBR
English assassin
07-03-2006, 14:50
Nothing wrong with it, but proceeding from the basis that the world has to be the way that it is can you astray.
"this society is "dominant"" "these are traits of this society" "therefore these traits lead to dominance" is an incomplete chain of reasoning.
Yes I certainly agree with that. I havent read Boorstin but IIRC Diamond doesnt say it has to be like this either.
I think the argument that the competition between states meant societies kept on developing is a pretty fair statement.
How would the papal ban on crossbows and archers in 1139 have worked out if Europa hadnt been so fractured?
If there hadnt been for all those wars that developed gunpowder weapons, then I doubt Europe would have become so dominant.
IMO it was the weapons technology and especially gunpowder that changed the western societies/culture and not some inherit cultural advantage. Of course that is the simplified version ~:)
CBR
English assassin
07-03-2006, 16:45
Yes, but. if states are like animals then competition will probably lead to development, I grant you. But who is to say that that development will be in a "useful" direction, where "useful" means "able to sail overseas and impose your will on people who were otherwise largely minding their own business". if its about competition in war, then you would have thought the mesoamericans would have been very formidable, except that their warfare developed in a largely symbolic direction which proved sadly inferior to the Spanish preference for three foot of steel sword blade.
Who was to say Eurpoean competitive culture wouldn't develop in the direction of gaining status by bulding the nicest cathedrals, or growing the biggest vegetables. It didn't have to lead to cannon and HMS Victory.
IMHO there is no "why" to this, it just did.
Yeah I dont think development always will be "useful" especially if doesnt have much input from other cultures.
Now I must admit I dont know much about mesoamerican warfare but AFAIK the Aztec focused on taking prisoners for religious purposes but they did not represent all mesoamericans.
Since warfare has been a pretty consistant part of human history, I just dont think it very likely that Europeans suddenly would have changed into something like you describe. That took some horrible wars and democracy before we went over to the football ritual instead :2thumbsup:
CBR
The epilogue in Guns, Germs and Steel mentions same thing but Im sure Boorstin goes into a lot more detail. In what way do you find Diamonds thesis flawed?
CBR
Hello,
I sorry for the late reply, I'm far away from where I normally am. Let me shfit things a tad just so we're clear: what do you recall was Diamond's thesis?
Bleh. If you ask me both thesis are flawed. The west hasn't "won," any more than a human is the end of evolution.
Won? The West is the dominant civilizational model. This is obvious. This was not always the case. That is also obvious. Why the West should have risen to the dominant model is a legitimate question. Any analysis goes from the present backwards. No thesis requires any argument regarding the future.
You can't really get this stuff wrong can you? Proposals for books explaining the inevitable rise to global dominance of the Australian Aborigine are rarely taken up by publishers.
Actually, you can: Diamond would be an example. Writing about Australian Aboriginal world dominance would also be getting it wrong as its a counter factual.
Big_John
07-03-2006, 20:27
Hello,
I sorry for the late reply, I'm far away from where I normally am. Let me shfit things a tad just so we're clear: what do you recall was Diamond's thesis?this is from memory (and explaining it to other people), so i may get some things wrong..
----
diamond's basic thesis is that modern culture/civilization patterns have nothing to do with genetic differences between populations, but with environmental differences between the locations where those populations developed. basically, he views the situation like a building, with every level dependent on the foundation from below.
the most basic foundation is the environment itself, and this has 2 equally important components: domesticable plants, and domesticable animals.
when one has both domesticable plants and animals, agriculture can arise that is sufficient for turning hunter-gatherer populations into agrarian city-dwellers.
diamond uses that setup mainly to distinguish between development in eurasia compared to the rest of the world. every other landmass, he argues, is deficient in some way. mostly, iirc, they lack domesticable animals, which means they lack the animal power for plowing, which is necessary for large-scale agriculture.
----
this basis (domesticable animals/plants --> large-scale agriculture --> necessary population densities to turn hunter-gatherers into city-dwellers) leads to a "cultural environment" where ideas like boorstin's come into effect. in addition to large populations leading to conflict/technological innovation, the large populations also create the perfect environment for "germs" to thrive and develop, evolving along with human immune defenses. so, as a side effect of societal development in agrarian societies, dangerous viruses and bacteria develop.
this turned out to be important when people from high-density, agrarian societies imported these germs to the "new world", for example, where the low-population densities never allowed germs to thrive and develop similarly to in eurasia. since the amerindians had never been exposed to these kinds of germs, they were decimated when these germs infected them. there were no reciprocal germs to decimate the eurasians because there was never a high enough population density in the new world to give rise to such virulent pathogens. in addition, the eurasian immune system had been developing along with smallpox, syphilis, etc, and so was able to deal with relatively benign new-world germs.
----
diamond also talks about the importance of the physical geography. this is a distinct concern from domestication, but they end up being related. he mentions the old idea that east-west oriented landmasses, like eurasia allow for transmission of animals, plants and agricultural technology more easily than north-south oriented continents.
in addressing the "competition" angle, diamond points out that within eurasia, europe is well suited for competing states because of it's highly "indented" coastline. this geographical setup makes europe much more difficult to unify politically than china, for example, which has a much smoother coastline. china suffered a chronic and frequent unity because there were little in the way of geographic barriers to keep one power center from dominating any other that might arise.
europe, by contrast, suffered a chronic disunity, where isolated populations could develop their own political structures, languages, and ethnic groups. this caused europe to resist attempts at unification more successfully (e.g. ancient rome, napoleonic france, nazi germany).
the significance here is that under a relatively unified culture, a large area like china or europe will not only experience less conflict/competition (leading to innovation, presumably), but also a unified political entity can stunt development with policy.
----
so, diamond argues that the environment, both in terms of the geography and in terms of the layout of domesticable plants and animals were the basic controls in the development of human societies. that's how i remember it at least, if i missed anything, please correct me (anybody).
discovery1
07-03-2006, 21:21
Note that the Guns Germs and Steel author argues that the reason that the euroasians had lots of diseases was because they lived in close proximity to their draft animals, which never happened in the new world even among the inca with their llama's. Not that the euroasians had a high pop density.
Big_John
07-03-2006, 21:46
Note that the Guns Germs and Steel author argues that the reason that the euroasians had lots of diseases was because they lived in close proximity to their draft animals, which never happened in the new world even among the inca with their llama's. Not that the euroasians had a high pop density.good catch, i forgot the bit about the animals. but i'm 99% sure population densities are cited as a reason too. i'm pretty sure he argues that living in close proximity to animals and the high population densities supported by the agriculture that required those animals both created a great breeding gound for the eurasian diseases that ravaged the new world.
Big John that is a bloody long thesis. Theses are typically much shorter. CBR look over the dissertation Big John put forward and tell if you agree or want to shorten the thesis some.
discovery1
07-04-2006, 20:18
Big John that is a bloody long thesis. Theses are typically much shorter. CBR look over the dissertation Big John put forward and tell if you agree or want to shorten the thesis some.
Seems like Big_John just fleshes out some of the details while the actual thesis is only a sentence
diamond's basic thesis is that modern culture/civilization patterns have nothing to do with genetic differences between populations, but with environmental differences between the locations where those populations developed.
@Big_John: Really? You could be right. I only saw the PBS doc about his work, plus I read a bit of his book.
Big_John
07-04-2006, 21:56
@Big_John: Really? You could be right. I only saw the PBS doc about his work, plus I read a bit of his book.i'll reread that part and let you know. i never saw ther series, btw.. does the pbs website have it online to watch for free like that elegant universe series?
discovery1
07-04-2006, 22:14
i'll reread that part and let you know. i never saw ther series, btw.. does the pbs website have it online to watch for free like that elegant universe series?
http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/show/index.html
Only seems like they have summarys of the episodes plus their transcripts unfortunately.
Big John that is a bloody long thesis. Theses are typically much shorter. CBR look over the dissertation Big John put forward and tell if you agree or want to shorten the thesis some.
I think that is pretty much it.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_Germs_and_Steel):
The theory outlined
Before human beings developed agriculture, they lived as hunter-gatherers, as some still do. Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of sheer will or intelligence, but is more like a house of cards, each level dependent upon the levels below it. Specifically, the key to civilization is agriculture. The keys to agriculture are domesticable plant and animal species for food and work. The demands for domesticability of an animal species are particularly stringent. Diamond identifies six criteria including the animal being sufficiently docile, gregarious, willing to breed in captivity and having a social dominance hierarchy. Though not stated explicitly, his theories are similar to that of cultural ecology.
I think that is pretty much it.
Is it your stance then that Diamond's thesis is not concerned with the dominance of the West but a more general notion for of all of Eurasia and I assume North Africa? I recall, the work begins with a recounted conversation between Diamond and a New Guinean, the crux of which was why the West? This is the question Diamond then proceeds to give answer to.
His books mostly describes the differences between the continents. He explains why New Guinea didnt end up being the one with all the "cargo" and why Eurasian cultures became dominant.
He does mention some reasons why the west became dominant in the last 500years but is IMO not the strongest part of his book.
CBR
English assassin
07-06-2006, 15:29
Won? The West is the dominant civilizational model. This is obvious.
Even if we allow that there is one "Western" civilizational model, (and I suppose we could pull out enough common themes to make that tenable) I would deny that it was "obviously" dominant. No one seems to have told the Chinese, or the Islamic word, or India. Possibly some time around 1840-1850, with the opium wars, the British all over India, and the forcible the opening of Japan to foreign traders, the "west" did acheive dominance for a period. But given the technologies and economies of the time even at that high water mark i would question what the dominance actually consisted of.
Throughout most of C20 what we would call the west was clearly not dominant, being under serious challenge from fascism and communism.
So what we seem to have are two short periods, one of which we happen to be in now, where "the west" is the most powerful bloc on the planet. Does this amount to a dominance worth of study, on a par, say, with Rome's status as the dominant power in the Mediterranean world for more than 500 years, or just short term historical noise?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.