3 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel I haven’t read the book, but my understanding is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel I haven’t read the book, but my understanding is that racism did play a preferential factor in that an ethic group that achieved geopolitical dominance tended to impose sanctions on more economically primitive people both intentionally and unintentionally. An unintentional example was the case with 1000 years of exposure to many pandemics for Eurasian people that isolated people never experienced, but once exposed suddenly dwindled.

Retric 6y ago
The book suggests Europe had the biggest head start followed by Asia due to geography and plant and animal species, with races being completely irrelevant.
- nl 6y ago
  From memory (and it's probably 15 years since I read it) I seem to remember that the argument for European domination as opposed to Asian was because the European landmass favoured smaller city states. That in turn allowed them to avoid the critical mistake of the isolationist Chinese policy of the Ming dynasty right at the moment the European states were beginning to colonise. Chinese and European technology was roughly equivalent at the time, but the huge increase in economic activity by European states associated with colonisation gave them a lead that was impossible to reverse. And yes, the book make it extremely clear how little race had with anything.
- austincheney 6y ago
  I am not claiming race is a developmental or preferential factor but instead was an imposed factor in the consequences of one group achieving dominance comparative to another. National groups were still most strictly ethnically homogenous at that point and frequently used that as a point of identity. I also don’t think comparing European groups to East Asian groups is productive in this context because both were well connected and technologically similar at the point of colonialism. Better comparisons would be European groups to Pacific Islanders of the same colonial period who were often highly isolated aside from immediate neighbors. A more interesting comparison is European conquerors to civilizations of the Americas during the colonial era. The Aztecs were only conquered as a result of Spanish exploiting social unrest. They didn’t have the numbers themselves for their technological military advantage to matter, though that wasn’t the case with the Incas further south. Had the Incas developed metal working as advanced as their agricultural refinements they probably could have repelled the Spanish invasion. Conversely, the Spanish were never able to conquer or subdue the Maya communities around Mexico’s current southern border due to the environment, geography, and decentralization.
ghettoimp 6y ago
I think you're slightly confused about the kind of racism being discussed. You rightly point out that there has been tremendous exploitation of (for instance) Africa by Europe, and that a lot of this exploitation has been justified by racism. But separately from that, consider the question: why were Europeans able to do this to Africans in the first place? If you asked question back in the Nazi regime, you'd probably get answers like, "Europeans are somehow inherently racially superior to Africans, and this superiority allowed them to become dominant." Guns, Germs, and Steel lays out a different and detailed explanation. The author is quite aware of this history of racist explanations. He provides a competing theory, backed by considerable research and evidence. I found it quite good, but also very dry. :)

Retric 6y ago

The book suggests Europe had the biggest head start followed by Asia due to geography and plant and animal species, with races being completely irrelevant.

nl 6y ago
From memory (and it's probably 15 years since I read it) I seem to remember that the argument for European domination as opposed to Asian was because the European landmass favoured smaller city states. That in turn allowed them to avoid the critical mistake of the isolationist Chinese policy of the Ming dynasty right at the moment the European states were beginning to colonise. Chinese and European technology was roughly equivalent at the time, but the huge increase in economic activity by European states associated with colonisation gave them a lead that was impossible to reverse. And yes, the book make it extremely clear how little race had with anything.
austincheney 6y ago
I am not claiming race is a developmental or preferential factor but instead was an imposed factor in the consequences of one group achieving dominance comparative to another. National groups were still most strictly ethnically homogenous at that point and frequently used that as a point of identity. I also don’t think comparing European groups to East Asian groups is productive in this context because both were well connected and technologically similar at the point of colonialism. Better comparisons would be European groups to Pacific Islanders of the same colonial period who were often highly isolated aside from immediate neighbors. A more interesting comparison is European conquerors to civilizations of the Americas during the colonial era. The Aztecs were only conquered as a result of Spanish exploiting social unrest. They didn’t have the numbers themselves for their technological military advantage to matter, though that wasn’t the case with the Incas further south. Had the Incas developed metal working as advanced as their agricultural refinements they probably could have repelled the Spanish invasion. Conversely, the Spanish were never able to conquer or subdue the Maya communities around Mexico’s current southern border due to the environment, geography, and decentralization.

ghettoimp 6y ago

I think you're slightly confused about the kind of racism being discussed. You rightly point out that there has been tremendous exploitation of (for instance) Africa by Europe, and that a lot of this exploitation has been justified by racism. But separately from that, consider the question: why were Europeans able to do this to Africans in the first place? If you asked question back in the Nazi regime, you'd probably get answers like, "Europeans are somehow inherently racially superior to Africans, and this superiority allowed them to become dominant." Guns, Germs, and Steel lays out a different and detailed explanation. The author is quite aware of this history of racist explanations. He provides a competing theory, backed by considerable research and evidence. I found it quite good, but also very dry. :)