4 ms·

I don't know for certain, but the two major faults of Diamond are first, that his framework for anthropology is perpetuating beliefs that are antithetical to mo

I don't know for certain, but the two major faults of Diamond are first, that his framework for anthropology is perpetuating beliefs that are antithetical to modern anthropology, and second, that he is extremely resistant to following up with new advances in anthropology. On the latter point, for example, Diamond is still a believer in Clovis-First hypothesis, despite that having been discredited for so long that I learned about it in grade school decades ago. On the first point in particular: there's a general thesis of anthropology which is properly termed unilineal model (and in more colloquial terms, Civilization-style tech tree), which views civilizations as existing on a spectrum from less to more advanced. In essence, GG&S reduces the question of "why did Europe conquer the New World and not the other way around" as "because Europe was more advanced" (and then go on to try to explore why Europe was more advanced), but never trying that hard to justify why "was more advanced" was the answer to the first question. By contrast, the consensus view of modern anthropology is that technological development is heavily adapted to the context of its culture, so that (for example) the Incans don't develop carts because carts are useless in their mountainous environment. Once you go beyond the idea that "more advanced" is a qualitatively useful metric of comparison and actually start demanding to see the causal links in how specific technologies are necessary to achieve the claimed outcomes, it starts to become clear just how badly Diamond whiffs it. Literacy is a fun example: Diamond has to work around the fact that the conquistadors were largely illiterate, and they were facing bureaucratic, administrative imperial states that ran on record keeping, requiring at least proto-writing [1]; really, how different were the two empires in terms of literacy? Another fun example I like to bring up is comparing Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital) to Toledo (the Spanish one). Tenochtitlan had over 100,000 inhabitants, universal primary education (for both boys and girls, even!), running water, and public amenities like zoos and history museums; the Spaniards had... none of that. [1] And there's a case to be made that Incan quipu were an honest-to-god writing system.

GMoromisato 3y ago
What is the consensus answer to why Europe conquered the Americas and not vice versa? If technological development is "heavily adapted to the context of its culture", and that context is mostly geography ("mountainous environments") then isn't Diamond right? Seems like the alternative is, "That's just the way it turned out," which is not very satisfying.
- rjtavares 3y ago
  The interesting question really is "why did Europe conquered the Americans instead of China conquering the Americas"? And I'm pretty sure that's just the way it turned out.
  - brabel 3y ago
    China could probably have done so if their huge fleets (with hundreds of ships) of exploration of the 13th and 14th centuries didn't suddenly stop for likely political reasons. They went at least as far as the Roman Empire and Africa. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chinese-exploration-voyages-cheng-ho-1405-1433 https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-... > The difference between the experiences of Europe and China were economic and cultural rather than technological. As the voyages of Cheng Ho demonstrate, the Chinese certainly possessed the maritime technology and expertise to undertake long voyages of discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages > In 1435, when the Xuande Emperor died, the civil officials started to gain power as the new emperor, the Zhengtong Emperor, was only eight years old when he ascended the throne and could be influenced.[186] They seized this opportunity to permanently dismantle the voyages.
  - JohnL4 3y ago
    Ocean currents + cost-effectiveness, according to Ian Morris. By his telling, Chinese bureaucrats buried the knowledge of large fleets because it was a more expensive way to project power than simply going over land.
- throw4847285 3y ago
  Unfortunately the unsatisfying alternative is correct. Counterfactuals are fun but have little value in serious study of history.
  - allturtles 3y ago
    That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased as a counterfactual claim. e.g. "Slavery caused the U.S. Civil War" -> "If there had been no slavery, there would have been no U.S. Civil War." To give up counterfactuals is to surrender causality and to truly make the past "one damn thing after another," i.e. chronicle rather than history. The historical profession as we know it is all about making arguments, not merely cataloging events, so it would cease to exist without counterfactuals.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> conquistadors were largely illiterate, and they were facing bureaucratic, administrative imperial states that ran on record keeping That seems like a weird (pointless?) thing to say when a lot of what we know about the conquest comes from letters Cortez constantly sent to Charles V to inform him on his progress. Yes, some Conquistadors were illiterate, so what? > how different were the two empires in terms of literacy? Massively. Usage on of writing for bookkeeping specifically (though pretty much everything else as well) in Europe by 1500 was on a whole other level. It’s not even comparable. Are you really saying there was hardly any difference between quipu/etc. and double entry bookkeeping? Based on what we know bureaucratically/administratively European states were much more complex at the time than the Aztec empire (which was more like a hegemonic confederation, possibly because they did not have the administrative capacity to administer the areas they subjugated directly). > Tenochtitlan had over 100,000 inhabitants, universal primary education (for both boys and girls, even!), running water, and public amenities like zoos and history museums; Rome and Constantinople had most of those things too. Doesn’t mean that Spain ~1500 AD wasn’t more advanced technologically than Rome in ~100 AD in almost every way. Also what are your sources on on universal education? And I don’t really think that most houses had direct access to running water (and many Medieval cities, albeit usually on a much smaller scale had functioning water distribution systems*, e.g Barcelona still had a functioning systems from the Roman period). Bronze and pre-Bronze ages civilizations in the old world also had very complex societies, large cities (and from what we can tell) more advanced writing systems. The most advanced American civilizations were overall about on the same (or slightly below) level technologically. So yeah in that sense they were about 3000-4000 years behind the Spanish and other Europeans. * https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2023/07/29/list-of-medieval-towns-villages-cities-with-water-supply-systems/ https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2023/07/29/list-of-medieval-to...
lobf 3y ago
But carts aren’t useless in the Andes. Trucks and cars travel paved roads in and around the Andes today. The Incans maybe hadn’t found a reason to rely on them yet, but this kinda plays in to Diamond’s argument.

GMoromisato 3y ago

What is the consensus answer to why Europe conquered the Americas and not vice versa? If technological development is "heavily adapted to the context of its culture", and that context is mostly geography ("mountainous environments") then isn't Diamond right? Seems like the alternative is, "That's just the way it turned out," which is not very satisfying.

rjtavares 3y ago
The interesting question really is "why did Europe conquered the Americans instead of China conquering the Americas"? And I'm pretty sure that's just the way it turned out.
- brabel 3y ago
  China could probably have done so if their huge fleets (with hundreds of ships) of exploration of the 13th and 14th centuries didn't suddenly stop for likely political reasons. They went at least as far as the Roman Empire and Africa. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chinese-exploration-voyages-cheng-ho-1405-1433 https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-... > The difference between the experiences of Europe and China were economic and cultural rather than technological. As the voyages of Cheng Ho demonstrate, the Chinese certainly possessed the maritime technology and expertise to undertake long voyages of discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages > In 1435, when the Xuande Emperor died, the civil officials started to gain power as the new emperor, the Zhengtong Emperor, was only eight years old when he ascended the throne and could be influenced.[186] They seized this opportunity to permanently dismantle the voyages.
- JohnL4 3y ago
  Ocean currents + cost-effectiveness, according to Ian Morris. By his telling, Chinese bureaucrats buried the knowledge of large fleets because it was a more expensive way to project power than simply going over land.
throw4847285 3y ago
Unfortunately the unsatisfying alternative is correct. Counterfactuals are fun but have little value in serious study of history.
- allturtles 3y ago
  That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased as a counterfactual claim. e.g. "Slavery caused the U.S. Civil War" -> "If there had been no slavery, there would have been no U.S. Civil War." To give up counterfactuals is to surrender causality and to truly make the past "one damn thing after another," i.e. chronicle rather than history. The historical profession as we know it is all about making arguments, not merely cataloging events, so it would cease to exist without counterfactuals.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> conquistadors were largely illiterate, and they were facing bureaucratic, administrative imperial states that ran on record keeping That seems like a weird (pointless?) thing to say when a lot of what we know about the conquest comes from letters Cortez constantly sent to Charles V to inform him on his progress. Yes, some Conquistadors were illiterate, so what? > how different were the two empires in terms of literacy? Massively. Usage on of writing for bookkeeping specifically (though pretty much everything else as well) in Europe by 1500 was on a whole other level. It’s not even comparable. Are you really saying there was hardly any difference between quipu/etc. and double entry bookkeeping? Based on what we know bureaucratically/administratively European states were much more complex at the time than the Aztec empire (which was more like a hegemonic confederation, possibly because they did not have the administrative capacity to administer the areas they subjugated directly). > Tenochtitlan had over 100,000 inhabitants, universal primary education (for both boys and girls, even!), running water, and public amenities like zoos and history museums; Rome and Constantinople had most of those things too. Doesn’t mean that Spain ~1500 AD wasn’t more advanced technologically than Rome in ~100 AD in almost every way. Also what are your sources on on universal education? And I don’t really think that most houses had direct access to running water (and many Medieval cities, albeit usually on a much smaller scale had functioning water distribution systems*, e.g Barcelona still had a functioning systems from the Roman period). Bronze and pre-Bronze ages civilizations in the old world also had very complex societies, large cities (and from what we can tell) more advanced writing systems. The most advanced American civilizations were overall about on the same (or slightly below) level technologically. So yeah in that sense they were about 3000-4000 years behind the Spanish and other Europeans. * https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2023/07/29/list-of-medieval-towns-villages-cities-with-water-supply-systems/ https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2023/07/29/list-of-medieval-to...

lobf 3y ago

But carts aren’t useless in the Andes. Trucks and cars travel paved roads in and around the Andes today. The Incans maybe hadn’t found a reason to rely on them yet, but this kinda plays in to Diamond’s argument.