3 ms·

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" tries to explain a timeline of world history that doesn't exist. In particular, he begins with the idea that western Europe had more "c

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" tries to explain a timeline of world history that doesn't exist. In particular, he begins with the idea that western Europe had more "cargo" from the beginning and stayed ahead, which is blatantly false when you look back past the Dutch cornering the triangle trade in the east and the Spanish looting the Americas. He also pretends to invent the idea of geographical determination of history, ignoring over a century of literature on the subject where the initial enthusiasm for the idea was steadily tempered until it was taken as one factor among many. "Collapse" uses case studies, such as that of Rapa Nui, that are just plain wrong. If you start from wrong data, you can't expect to get much of anywhere. I stopped bothering with him at that point. He goes over the exact same ground that anthropologists and historians have long before and makes many of the mistakes again. He's an excellent writer. I wish his content weren't so inaccurate.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Nowhere does Diamond claim to have invented geographic determinism. He does suggest a model for a specific mechanism, largely urbanisation (accounting for much of the terms), technology, and a wide range of domesticated animals, including multiple heavy draft animals. Not all of these are specific to Western Europe, and several decidedly did not originate there. Going beyond the Age of Discovery to why it was the West that industrialised ~1800, rather than other places and times, has occupied a great many writers. Karl Polnyi's The Great Transformation, a whole set of economic history texts edited by Joel Mokyr (the Princeton Economic History of the World), notably Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, Clark's A Farewell to Alms, and Mokyr's on (not part of the series) Gifts of Athena, A Culture of Growth, The British Industrial Revolution, and Lever of Riches. The question of "why Europe and not China?" is literally The Needham Question, which occupied British sinologist Joseph Needham for his entire life (and beyond -- his Science and Civilisation in China is still being written, approaching 70 years since it began, and two decades after Needham's own death. Much of the criticism of Diamond's work smells far more to me of academic jealousy over not respecting borders. Several of the broad-brush elements you describe simply aren't valid. Others are details of larger theory which may require revisiting, but don't invalidate the whole. Again: I'd asked for specific criticisms, preferably references to the best specific critiques available. Most I've seen are, as yours, vague, broad, and themselves grossly flawed. Or for another view, Barbara King at NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/14/169374400/why-does-jared-diamond-make-anthropologists-so-mad https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/14/169374400/why-d...
- madhadron 7y ago
  > Nowhere does Diamond claim to have invented geographic determinism. He claims exactly that in the introduction to his book, alongside the explicit thesis that the west had more "cargo" to start and continued to. > Much of the criticism of Diamond's work smells far more to me of academic jealousy over not respecting borders. What would it look like if it were historians dismissing poor work? > Most I've seen are, as yours, vague, broad, and themselves grossly flawed. Broad, yes. Vague, no. One of the central methodological problems in history is the selection of facts and material from which to construct an account. Diamond selects facts and material which support his theory, which is not a defensible choice. This is a broad critique, and it invalidates the whole work whether or not his particulars are correct.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Nowhere does Diamond claim to have invented geographic determinism. He does suggest a model for a specific mechanism, largely urbanisation (accounting for much of the terms), technology, and a wide range of domesticated animals, including multiple heavy draft animals. Not all of these are specific to Western Europe, and several decidedly did not originate there. Going beyond the Age of Discovery to why it was the West that industrialised ~1800, rather than other places and times, has occupied a great many writers. Karl Polnyi's The Great Transformation, a whole set of economic history texts edited by Joel Mokyr (the Princeton Economic History of the World), notably Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, Clark's A Farewell to Alms, and Mokyr's on (not part of the series) Gifts of Athena, A Culture of Growth, The British Industrial Revolution, and Lever of Riches. The question of "why Europe and not China?" is literally The Needham Question, which occupied British sinologist Joseph Needham for his entire life (and beyond -- his Science and Civilisation in China is still being written, approaching 70 years since it began, and two decades after Needham's own death. Much of the criticism of Diamond's work smells far more to me of academic jealousy over not respecting borders. Several of the broad-brush elements you describe simply aren't valid. Others are details of larger theory which may require revisiting, but don't invalidate the whole. Again: I'd asked for specific criticisms, preferably references to the best specific critiques available. Most I've seen are, as yours, vague, broad, and themselves grossly flawed. Or for another view, Barbara King at NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/14/169374400/why-does-jared-diamond-make-anthropologists-so-mad https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/14/169374400/why-d...

madhadron 7y ago
> Nowhere does Diamond claim to have invented geographic determinism. He claims exactly that in the introduction to his book, alongside the explicit thesis that the west had more "cargo" to start and continued to. > Much of the criticism of Diamond's work smells far more to me of academic jealousy over not respecting borders. What would it look like if it were historians dismissing poor work? > Most I've seen are, as yours, vague, broad, and themselves grossly flawed. Broad, yes. Vague, no. One of the central methodological problems in history is the selection of facts and material from which to construct an account. Diamond selects facts and material which support his theory, which is not a defensible choice. This is a broad critique, and it invalidates the whole work whether or not his particulars are correct.