Guns, Germs, and Steel: a critical look

[DoctorD]

Many of us have read this book. I decided to reread it with a more critical eye. Diamond's thesis is that Eurasian civilizations have dominated the world due to a pure accident of geography. Eurasia's favorable climate and its apparent bounty of readily tamed large animals combined to give its cultures a head start over the rest of the world.

On the plus side, Diamond's knowledge of many cultures that are more-or-less unfamiliar to the typical American is used to support his thesis with historical examples. I'll never have to feel guilty about spreading American culture and technology since the Bantus and Polynesians did it too!

The book's weaknesses are that he still can not account for the fact that some cultures are receptive to technology and pick it up quicker than others, and that he does not adequately explain why Near Eastern civilizations domesticated large animals and not other civilizations. For all we know, the ancestors of the cow and horse were as ornery as the modern water buffalo and zebra.

Thoughts?

[Caesar]

...the fact that some cultures are receptive to technology and pick it up quicker than others...
I'm not sure that this is true in any way not covered by the book, which does touch on things such as needs-based assimilation of technology.

For all we know, the ancestors of the cow and horse were as ornery as the modern water buffalo and zebra.
Whilest this claim is impossible to disprove, the evidence is against it in the sense that domesticating animals such as zebra has been tried even in modern times, with all the accrued knowledge we possess from the intervening millennia, and has still failed miserably. He supports this with evidence that people in areas such as Africa had ample ingenuity when it comes to exploiting their environment in other areas, which means that it would be unusual for them not to apply this to attempting to domesticate animals which they made use of.

There are far more learned critiques of the book out there, but I'd say briefly that my two main problems with the book are:

it glosses over the fact that Eurasia had a massive population advantage over the rest of the world (something like over 75% I think?) so there was less of an equal starting position than the book makes out, and
Diamond's premise that an agricultural society will ultimately always dominate a non-agricultural society doesn't apply for several notable scenarios in history (Mongols, anyone?)
But ultimately the book is one of my favourites and I think it takes a very good approach to explaining anthropology in general for the past 13,000 years. That is, from my layman's perspective.

[MikeLastort2]

I'm about half way through reading this book right now, and I like its premise in spite of the flaws mentioned above.

I'm looking forward to reading Collapse when I'm finished with GG&S.

[DoctorD]

I'm not sure that this is true in any way not covered by the book, which does touch on things such as needs-based assimilation of technology.


There are far more learned critiques of the book out there, but I'd say briefly that my two main problems with the book are:

it glosses over the fact that Eurasia had a massive population advantage over the rest of the world (something like over 75% I think?) so there was less of an equal starting position than the book makes out, and
Diamond's premise that an agricultural society will ultimately always dominate a non-agricultural society doesn't apply for several notable scenarios in history (Mongols, anyone?)
But ultimately the book is one of my favourites and I think it takes a very good approach to explaining anthropology in general for the past 13,000 years. That is, from my layman's perspective.

Chapter 13 discusses why some cultures are inventive or recipetive to new ideas and technology.

The Mongols are an interesting topic. They were a pastoral people (as were the Turks), so they weren't hunter-gatherers. Diamond alludes to the conflicts in the American West between farmers, cattlemen, and sheepmen, but all three are considered agricultural. Also, the Mongols under Genghis Khan were extremely recipetive to new technology. They borrowed tons of technology from the Chinese.

[bigredfutbol]

it glosses over the fact that Eurasia had a massive population advantage over the rest of the world (something like over 75% I think?) so there was less of an equal starting position than the book makes out,

But the book isn't about the triumph of Eurasia, it's about the triumph of Western civilization. Western Europe, up until relatively recent times, was an under-populated, technologically and culturally backward backwater of the Eurasian land mass. Western Europeans were ultimate benefactors of a lot of the agricultural, technological, and intellectual innovations made to their east and southeast.

Since a good chunk of Eurasia's population would have been in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, it seems like you're pushing the point by stressing this population difference. The Indians of North America, according to Diamond, didn't need more Indians in order for the cultural and agricultural innovations of Mexico and Central America to spread and develop; rather, they needed a west-east axis rather than the north-south axis that the Western Hemisphere stuck them with.

[bungadiri]

Chapter 13 discusses why some cultures are inventive or recipetive to new ideas and technology.

The Mongols are an interesting topic. They were a pastoral people (as were the Turks), so they weren't hunter-gatherers. Diamond alludes to the conflicts in the American West between farmers, cattlemen, and sheepmen, but all three are considered agricultural. Also, the Mongols under Genghis Khan were extremely recipetive to new technology. They borrowed tons of technology from the Chinese.
If you're really interested in expansionist pastoral peoples you should take a look at "The Nuer Conquest: The Structure and Development of an Expansionist System" by Ray Kelly. It's very dense, though.

[Sachin]

I'm about half way through reading this book right now, and I like its premise in spite of the flaws mentioned above.

I'm looking forward to reading Collapse when I'm finished with GG&S.


Collapse is a good read. I got it as a gift from my in-laws.

Sachin

[Dan Loney]

But the book isn't about the triumph of Eurasia, it's about the triumph of Western civilization. Western Europe, up until relatively recent times, was an under-populated, technologically and culturally backward backwater of the Eurasian land mass. Western Europeans were ultimate benefactors of a lot of the agricultural, technological, and intellectual innovations made to their east and southeast. I loved the book, but I did think he conflated China and Europe when it suited him, and didn't explain why Europe, rather than China, colonized the world.

That may not be the book he undertook to write, since his scope started thousands of years before colonization. It seemed to be more like why the parts of the world that did get colonized were unable to resist more effectively, and the answer is domesticated animals. (And some other stuff.)

[Pauncho]

If it's a good very broad sweep discussion of the phenomenon of the Mongols you want, try John Keegan's History of Warfare. He lumps them in with other 'horse peoples' and explains how, in pre-gunpowder times, they can win wars but often not hold onto what they conquer.

[Caesar]

But the book isn't about the triumph of Eurasia, it's about the triumph of Western civilization. Western Europe, up until relatively recent times, was an under-populated, technologically and culturally backward backwater of the Eurasian land mass. Western Europeans were ultimate benefactors of a lot of the agricultural, technological, and intellectual innovations made to their east and southeast.

Since a good chunk of Eurasia's population would have been in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, it seems like you're pushing the point by stressing this population difference. The Indians of North America, according to Diamond, didn't need more Indians in order for the cultural and agricultural innovations of Mexico and Central America to spread and develop; rather, they needed a west-east axis rather than the north-south axis that the Western Hemisphere stuck them with.
I disagree - the book is about Eurasia to a great extent because Western Europe's success is directly linked to the advances in the region in general. And many of those benefits can be directly linked to the higher population - both in the obvious sense, but also in the advantages bestowed by more interaction, better development of immunities and more competition between societies. Indeed, a lot of these things are very complimentary and enhancing to the east-west factors which Diamond devotes a lot of attention to.

[Caesar]

I loved the book, but I did think he conflated China and Europe when it suited him, and didn't explain why Europe, rather than China, colonized the world.
He does try and explain it in the last chapter, where he talks about China's geography leading it towards greater unity and a centralised state, as opposed to numerous fragmented societies which (so he argues) can lead to stagnation. The example he used was how a single imperial command wiped out the Chinese voyages of exploration in 1433, wheras Columbus had the freedom of approaching several different courts for backing after being rejected a number of times in 1492.

I do agree that it is somewhat weak however.

[bigredfutbol]

I disagree - the book is about Eurasia to a great extent because Western Europe's success is directly linked to the advances in the region in general. And many of those benefits can be directly linked to the higher population - both in the obvious sense, but also in the advantages bestowed by more interaction, better development of immunities and more competition between societies. Indeed, a lot of these things are very complimentary and enhancing to the east-west factors which Diamond devotes a lot of attention to.

Good point, but I still think you're throwing the net too wide. Eurasia is good-sized percentage of the world's total land mass after all. That said, I don't think you and I disagree all that much, we're just framing the point differently.

[Ismitje]

Collapse is a good read. I got it as a gift from my in-laws.

Sachin

I'm paying alot of money for Diamond to come to campus and speak about Collapse this March. He's the keynote speaker in a four day event about "Resource Wars."

The good news is that he transcends academic disciplines very easily and is also well known to a non-academic audience, so I should be able to get a thousand people or so to attend the talk.

[The Old Lady Hertha]

I loved the book, but I did think he conflated China and Europe when it suited him, and didn't explain why Europe, rather than China, colonized the world.


Well it's simple why China didn't go colonize the world; they felt too secure in it's own isolated world. Even up to the 1800s, they felt that their world was far superior to the rest of the worlds. Hence words in our culture, like zhong guo, the "Middle Kingdom." It took China way too long to realize that not only the Europeans had gone ahead of them, but local rivals Japan and Russia too.

[Anthony]

While his thesis is interesting, I do not buy the whole thing. I do agree that agricultural societies had a huge advantage over nomadic and pastoral societies in that they produced food surpluses on a more regular basis.

[DoctorD]

While his thesis is interesting, I do not buy the whole thing. I do agree that agricultural societies had a huge advantage over nomadic and pastoral societies in that they produced food surpluses on a more regular basis.

As I posted in the book thread, read 1491, which alleviated many of the concerns I had with Diamond's book. Of course, his second edition should be only titled Germs.

[Mountainia]

I thought that the book wasn't trying to present a 'proof' that geography determined the outcome of Eurasian world domination. I saw it as a way of presenting the concept that geography played a role. Thus, I don't think his ideas address the Europe-China distinctions. Where he discusses why Europe and not China, his points don't follow from his Guns, Germs, and Steel points. I think he would do well to just delete that discussion from future editions. It may be more of a historical anomally that from 1600-2000, European civilization dominated. That may not have been true from 2000BC up to 1600AD, and may not be true from now on.

[ForzaGrifo]

Well it's simple why China didn't go colonize the world; they felt too secure in it's own isolated world. Even up to the 1800s, they felt that their world was far superior to the rest of the worlds. Hence words in our culture, like zhong guo, the "Middle Kingdom." It took China way too long to realize that not only the Europeans had gone ahead of them, but local rivals Japan and Russia too.

Yeah, we were by far the most advanced civilization on the planet, up until circa 1500s when the Ming courts disbanded the Zheng He fleets. Back then Europe was like a third-world country.

There's a saying in Chinese -- Feng Shui has its turns. We'll have our turn again. The 21st century will belong to China.

[grandinquisitor28]

A book that takes the opposite position is Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture." Read it eon's ago, and no doubt this professor's political views aren't remotely popular these days, but I've always found his books to be very interesting, thought provoking and great reads.

[Mountainia]

Yeah, we were by far the most advanced civilization on the planet, up until circa 1500s when the Ming courts disbanded the Zheng He fleets. Back then Europe was like a third-world country.

There's a saying in Chinese -- Feng Shui has its turns. We'll have our turn again. The 21st century will belong to China.

I can see that many people's views are colored by the realities of the world as it now stands, but don't see the ebb and flow of societies over time. Many people see that western societies are wealthy and liberal, and think it will always remain so.

They don't seem to realize that there are no guarantees, and that the primacy of knowledge and wealth has moved back and forth over known history. Egypt, Assyria, Greece, China, Rome, Iran, Europe, and others could all, at one time or another, made claim to 'the most advanced'.

I'm hoping that moving forward we can break out of this us/them view. Because it's also not guaranteed that the future will be an advance over the past.