3 ms·

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Gui

by worik 3y ago

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex) Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of international trade and commerce. Which he ignored At one point in time Europeans are dominant. He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever. Europeans (we) had our experience of world domination. It is not the natural order, as Jarrad suggested, but an historical blip. If the Industrial Revolution had gotten under way in India and it was the West Euro company from Bengal conquering Britain, then some India Jarrad would be telling a different story That is what is wrong with it. Post Hoc analysis and story tel.ing dressed up as scholarship Or racist drivel, to call a spade a spade

thaw13579 3y ago
Did you stop reading at the intro?
- worik 3y ago
  I got about two thirds through Whatever you think about him, he really needed a more dominant editor.
prepend 3y ago
> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever. He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just presents theories as to why Europeans are dominant now (or were 40 years ago when the book as published at least). It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. It’s racist to say that’s a good thing or destined or will last forever, but Diamond never argues that. I think you have some headcanon there.
- worik 3y ago
  > It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. What is racist is to say it happened for a reason, not blind luck
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Isn't that opposite. If all humans are equal, and one group wins, then it was either external factors or luck. But if it is not luck or external reasons, then isn't that racist, because now you are saying Europeans are somehow genetically different (better), or have a better culture, and that is what caused their success? I think you are mixing possible reasons. There are non-racist reasons.
  - prepend 3y ago
    But it did happen for a reason and it’s luck. There’s lots of random chance involved (New Guineans could have started in England) but because of those chance positions there are reasons things happened. How is that racist?
  - teapot7 3y ago
    He's saying that it happened for reasons completely unconnected with race. Whether you believe his claims are correct or not, how do you manage to read them as racist?
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple. I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Guinea" had developed technology sooner, they would have dominated and killed everyone. It isn't like there isn't evidence of wars and slaughters in Polynesia, they just didn't get the technology. What I took away from the book is not that "Europeans" are evil (which would mean they are genetically pre-disposed doesn't it?), it is that all humans equally dominant whenever and however they can, and technology heavily tips the scales. And Europeans just lucked into it.
- worik 3y ago
  > . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "
  - specialist 3y ago
    Diamond's geography thesis is that migration is easier east-west than north-south, not that Europe is (otherwise) special. (Until the UK figured out how to use their island made of coal to make steam and steel at scale.)
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Been awhile for me also. But wasn't it more about East-West Trade. And that 'cross-fertilization' would help everyone across that path, the rising tide raises all boats. So at some point China or Persia also had a chance to leap ahead, but for other factors. I don't think it was a given that Europe would 'win' the technology race. Though, now my memory fails me on what was the deciding factor. But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
The author whose book you're criticising from memory is called "Jared" Diamond, not "Jarrad". Sorry to be pedantic, but this really grates. At the very least it makes me wonder about the precision of your recollection of the content of the book.

by worik 3y ago

thaw13579 3y ago

Did you stop reading at the intro?

worik 3y ago
I got about two thirds through Whatever you think about him, he really needed a more dominant editor.

prepend 3y ago

> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever. He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just presents theories as to why Europeans are dominant now (or were 40 years ago when the book as published at least). It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. It’s racist to say that’s a good thing or destined or will last forever, but Diamond never argues that. I think you have some headcanon there.

worik 3y ago
> It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. What is racist is to say it happened for a reason, not blind luck
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Isn't that opposite. If all humans are equal, and one group wins, then it was either external factors or luck. But if it is not luck or external reasons, then isn't that racist, because now you are saying Europeans are somehow genetically different (better), or have a better culture, and that is what caused their success? I think you are mixing possible reasons. There are non-racist reasons.
- prepend 3y ago
  But it did happen for a reason and it’s luck. There’s lots of random chance involved (New Guineans could have started in England) but because of those chance positions there are reasons things happened. How is that racist?
- teapot7 3y ago
  He's saying that it happened for reasons completely unconnected with race. Whether you believe his claims are correct or not, how do you manage to read them as racist?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple. I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Guinea" had developed technology sooner, they would have dominated and killed everyone. It isn't like there isn't evidence of wars and slaughters in Polynesia, they just didn't get the technology. What I took away from the book is not that "Europeans" are evil (which would mean they are genetically pre-disposed doesn't it?), it is that all humans equally dominant whenever and however they can, and technology heavily tips the scales. And Europeans just lucked into it.

worik 3y ago
> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "
- specialist 3y ago
  Diamond's geography thesis is that migration is easier east-west than north-south, not that Europe is (otherwise) special. (Until the UK figured out how to use their island made of coal to make steam and steel at scale.)
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Been awhile for me also. But wasn't it more about East-West Trade. And that 'cross-fertilization' would help everyone across that path, the rising tide raises all boats. So at some point China or Persia also had a chance to leap ahead, but for other factors. I don't think it was a given that Europe would 'win' the technology race. Though, now my memory fails me on what was the deciding factor. But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

The author whose book you're criticising from memory is called "Jared" Diamond, not "Jarrad". Sorry to be pedantic, but this really grates. At the very least it makes me wonder about the precision of your recollection of the content of the book.