Printable View
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!
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I was struck by the great disparity in the number of truly domesticable animals in Eurasia as opposed to the Americas, Africa, and Australia.
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.
Oh dear god, I have to read this too...:wall:
ITs very good I am getting father into it. Foodstuffs and writing and demostacation oh my
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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
A couple of milllenia ago.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
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
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
CBR
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.)
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Oooh, you TEASE you. Thank god for Google.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
I know, I know, but what is a young girl to do? What other resource do we have in this world of men?Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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.Quote:
You can see what he meant, but its all just slightly 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
You do realize that potatoes are a New World crop, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'd have to agree with Pindar on that one, although it is an interesting read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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?
I think Potatoes come from South America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules