Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

section

Tannin, you seem not to get it: it does not matter what criticisms you find nonsensical or sensible, just as it does not matter whether I like the book or not. Diamond published an important book so, whether I like it or not, there should be an article that gives an account of its argument. Similarly, an important geographer has published a well-received critique of the book that is shared by many scholars, and whether you think it is nonsensical or not, it should be in the article. This is not a listserve in which we argue over who we think is right or wrong, it is an encyclopedia in which we provide accounts of topics whether we agree with them or not. Stop cutting content you do not like, understand, appreciate or whatever. Slrubenstein

We are not obliged to report palpable nonsense - and at least one of the criticisms you insist on reverting is just that. Tannin

Tannin, if we were not obliged to report palpable nonsense Wikipedia would have perhaps half as many articles as it does. Please review the NPOV policy, though -- what one person considers palpable nonsense, others consider incisive critique. I repeat: it is not your job to be a censor. Let readers decide for themselves whether it is nonsense or worth thinking about. Slrubenstein

Tannin, there is no reason to revert the critique because you think it is nonsense. The page should be restored to include the critique. You can then add why you find it to be "palpable nonsense" Danny

Danny, I reverted again. Tannin -- my advice to you is to work on the main body of the article to make it stronger. I am not sure whether Danny means you should explain why the critique is palpable nonsense in the article itself or in the talk section. I am opposed to turning articles themselves into dialogues about a topic. I think that the account of Blough's critique should be clear (I think it is) and that the account of Diamond's book should be clear (I thought it was, but if it isn't, let's work on it). Feel free to explain why you disagree with the critique here in the talk page, of course, Slrubenstein

Yes, I mean that the discussion should take place here. The mention of Blought's book critique, however, does belong on the article. Danny

The para: It suggests that European civilization has "won" some competition. Human history is far from over, therefore it is impossible to say that one form of social organization has "won" over another form. To put it another way, Diamond suggests that history provides us with a natural experiment, but he is mistaken because experiments must have clear endings and the human "experiment" never ends. is utter nonsense. Indeed, Diamond goes to considerable trouble to sprinkle GG&S with comments making precisely the opposite point. It is irresponsible to include such a grossly misleading comment, no matter who has said it, without also including the information that is palpably untrue. There are much more cogent criticisms to be made than this.

PS: I've been intending to work on the main body of the article for some time: it is indeed very weak - though enormously improved since Danny's re-write. Tannin

Okay, here is a suggestion: after this paragraph, insert a short paranthetical list of a few page-numbers that makes this point. I think you can phrase it in a fairly unobnoxious way, for example "but see pages x, y, and z for evidence to the contrary." Slrubenstein

It would take forever! Not the sort of thing you can use an index for, and there are over 400 pages. Perhaps if I get really bored one day. A better suggestion would be to create an article on EEH, where the critique can be expressed in such a way as to make a sensible case for it. As it stands, it's just nonsensical ravings to anyone who has read GG&S and paid attention. I'm sure that Blaut makes more telling points (at least I certainly hope so!) but whatever they may be, they are not conveyed in the present article. Tannin

I thought i read he was both physiologist and antropologist. o well. -Sv

and this may be a little late but... i didnt mean to start a fyght. as to the last comment by tannin, i suggest we include the full text of the book. this should resolve any third party interpretation issues. Bovis can truck the wikipedia servers around like scud missiles to avoid getting shut down for copyright. :) Sv

---

I don't understand this sentence. It reads like the old joke, "If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs":

There are no domesticable animals native to Africa (with the arguable exception of the cat, which is not significant in this context).

That is, "Oh well, yes, the cat, but the cat doesn't count." Why? Ortolan88

I'm guessing it means the cat doesn't count because it's not eaten. (though why not? some societies eat dogs.) Though I'm not sure it's a valid argument. Cats may not have been domesticated for food, but they served a vital role in food production -- pest control. -- Tarquin 20:04 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC) PS. Orto -- What's the difference between a duck?

far be it for me to speak for JD, but I'm guessing the issue is domesticated as a draft animal, rather than as a pet. Of course, dogs were domesticated all over the place, often for use in hunting (not just food). Slrubenstein

The cat as a draft animal is a concept that just did not work out.

I was just venturing a reason for why "the cat doesn't count"

I was rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of hitching a cat up to anything.

obviously, you need a lot of finesse to do this. But really, how do you think the Egyptians dragged all those huge stones up the pyramids?

But they do play a role in food production, as stated, and the sentence still is hard to parse. No soap, radio, Ortolan88

You're right, the sentence is very badly put. Forgot to say that :-) -- Tarquin 20:31 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

As the contributor of the sentence excepting the cat, I accept that the point should be clarified. The cat is significant in protecting food surpluses once a society has adopted agriculture, but, in Diamond's analysis, this is not a significant resource in comparison to the energy from large domesticable mammals or the availability of plants suitable to get agriculture started in the first place. Diamond also points out that ferrets (descended from the weasel family) serve equally well. -- Alan Peakall 09:46 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think my latest update fixes this and that the article now captures the sense of Diamond's argument better than previous versions (without giving offence to any of our respective pet cats or dogs). Thanks to Tarquin, Ortolan, SLR -- Alan Peakall 17:24 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well-done! Slrubenstein

Diamond's list of domestic animals refers to animals weighing more than 100lbs. The domestic cat falls below this threshold, as far as I'm aware the domestic cat isn't native to Sub-Saharan Africa anyway so what's the fuss about? Remove the parenthesis. Mintguy

Reviewing the article and talk -- I suppose, in retrospect I could have dealt, and may still deal with the critics criticisms simply: Its certainly relevant to include them (attributed of course), and that they are by "respected and legitimate" writers, though as per the wieght of each; relative to the weight of the article; these should not go uncountered, despite their flaws:

"It suggests that European civilization has "won" some competition. This suggestion is implicit."

What's "implicit" is a subjective area.

"This is a false analogy, because a comparison is not the same thing as an experiment. Human history is far from over, therefore it is impossible to say that any one society has "won" over another form. In other words, experiments must have clear endings and the human "experiment" never ends."

Well, such is the nature of pop sociology/anthropology. Anyone would recieve this criticizm, if they dared venture off into the world of analogies. The "final result" of something that is continuing, is a mis-stated notion, and insincere too: of course there is no "final verdict": If there was, nobody reading this would likely know if the West was "unsuccessful." It all depends on the definition of "success..." perhaps the readers of this might be evidence of said "success".

"It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor. In other words, the "ascendency" in question is one that has primarily benefited Europeans, but is not specifically "European" in nature."

This is valid, though is no doubt unreasonably out of bounds for the scope of an encyclopedia, let alone a pop book. But Diamond does address the fundamental ties between Asian and Western cultures, and so forth. This is the most valid criticism of his work, though its' really a criticism of context: Was democracy, for example, originally an "Athenian" notion, or was it concieved of by thinkers outside of Athens; who's culture gets to put the final stamp on what it is?... Carrying this to the current era, what is "western civilization" anyway? And who belongs to it? and who doesnt? It's the whole "western" context, thats fast becoming irrelevant due to communication. To criticise Diamond for using this context, as the vulgar name for a variable in the overall equasion, is disingenuous.

Funny you say that this is valid. I thought that a major point of the book is that no culture develops by itself and that the most powerful cultures are the ones that are able to benefit the most from neighboring cultures. AdamRetchless

"It makes little attempt to explain relatively recent geographic transitions in technology, power and wealth; in particular the rise of Europe and the decline of south-west Asia since about 1500."

No it doesnt, and thank goodness. Because all of this is too much detail to finish a book in a lifetime. But in truth, all of these transitions can be explained rather simply, and as such, are practically axiomatic: Hypercommunication, hypertransportation, and overwhelming power structures.

"The effect of the above three problems is that Diamond's book suggests the inevitability of European ascendency."

Perhaps, once again - claiming Diamond has some responsibility for how his work is interpreted.

"Although Diamond's reliance on geography is not "racist" per se, it has the same effect of naturalizing differences."

This is also irrelevant, and treats the material as if it should take upon itself a team-sport mentality. Why should any reputable scientist be concerned with how his work might be interpreted to bear nationalistic overtones - maybe I'm not following, but it seems that its either: 1.completely out of left field, or perhaps 2: Diamond invites this sort of criticism of himself by basing his book on answering a ridiculous (but widely asked) pop-sociology question to begin with.

Anyway, just thoughts... not advocating any changes yet... nor am I checking on this article regularly. -Stevert

The criticisms, as they are written, are stupid and I wonder if the critic read the same book that I did. Even worse, they are not attributed to anyone. Are they all from "Eight Eurocentric Historians"? As they stand, I think that they detract from the article. Just my two cents. AdamRetchless 20:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Good article on a work deserving of a lengthy and detailed entry. It's no summary of all his major points, but it's fine for now. I'd like to invite the contributors who have been working on this article to come over and overhaul the superficial article on the Industrial Revolution, since the topic would be along the same line of interest. 172

natural experiment

I don't mind the recent edit, with the link to "natural experiment," but do note that what Diamond calls a natural experiment is NOT what natural scientists mean by natural experiments (from the linked article: "Natural experiments take advantage of predictable natural changes in simple systems to measure the effect of that change on some phenomenon.") Slrubenstein

Eurasia, not Europe

I don't have the book here with me, so I won't change the article, but I am fairly confident that there is a major error in the beginning and end of the article. Diamond did not try to explain why Europe was technologically advanced and politically powerful-- he tried to explain why Eurasian cultures were technologically advanced and politically powerful. Only in the last chapter did he offer any explanation for Europe's position relative to the rest of Eurasia, and he admitted that those were half-baked ideas. On that point, it is odd that the book is criticized for not being what it never claimed to be. AdamRetchless 20:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a follow up, I think that a distinction needs to be made between what Diamond said about the social impact of his book (European dominance, or whatever he called it), and the scientific theory he was defending. Sorry, but I won't be able to get into this (and I wouldn't be much help either since I don't have a copy of the book) AdamRetchless 22:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absurdity

All criticisms of this book are utterly absurd. Chameleon 11:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms revised

It's past time to be a little bolder in revising this article. I am revising the criticisms so as to make clearer the disctinction between what Diamond says and what is said to be implicit in what he says. I have removed a bullet:

• It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor. In other words, the "ascendency" in question is one that has primarily benefited Europeans but is not specifically "European" in nature.

because it talks explicitly and exclusively of Europe, while it is impossible to read even a few pages of the book without realizing that he's talking about Eurasia. I'd try to fix it except that it appears to me so irrelevant and stupid, where not actually false, that I don't know how it's supposed to come out after being corrected to take account of the percentage of Eupropean appropriations that came from Asia. Dandrake 23:04, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant as articles are not meant to express our points of view. What is important is that others (e.g. Blau) have published these criticisms and so the article must provide an account of them. Blau specifies "African" aonctributions so I will clarrify that, Slrubenstein

In a way, you're right. The complete half-assedness of the criticisms as expressed in the current state of the article should not be addressed by revising them in-line so that they'd resemble a criticism of the book that Diamond wrote rather than of a sheer invention with Diamond's name glued on; that would merely make them look more reasonable; they need to be addressed directly after being given full scope to assert nonsense. And I get the catch: a critique of the criticisms by citation of what the book actually says is not allowed, because that would be Original Research; one must find a Published Authority from whom to quote the quotations. But Catch 23 is that thet isn't original; it's Diamond's research. I'll keep this in mind. Dandrake 20:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

You should certainly add information to the article that provides a fuller and more accurate exposition of what the book argues, and how. Slrubenstein

In a way it's fun to start the article (as he did the book) with his rebuttal, almost point-by-point, of what the critics were going to say. They seem to have got their list of subtle messages and things he ignored by cribbing the list of things he answered explicitly before even starting his presentation. That, of course, assumes that they read the book. Still, refuting nonsense (and I know the word rebut and am not using it), no matter how much fun, is a poor use of time when one could be taling about ideas. Dandrake 22:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please attempt to attribute specific critiques to the people who made them. "Some people" is a bit too generic, and possibly offensive to the critics. A-giau 08:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Derivative

Seriously now, and not just to hassle anyone: can someone tell me what's wrong with using other people's work in constructing one's own? That's what the first paragraph of Criticisms criticizes Diamond for.

"Derivative" is, of course, a negative term. Almost POV, in fact, compared to the neutral statement that his work borrows from these other people. Anyway, if the gripe is that he uses their ideas and fails to give proper credit, could someone who approves of that section fix it up to say what it means? I don't know enough of this criticism to undertake such a change—not even the names of the critics involved here. Dandrake 01:47, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants", Isaac Newton.
ALL work in science and history is "derivative". This is quite simply an absurd criticism, quite obviously made by somone who has been driven to clutching at straws in an attempt to discredit the book.

Reader's comment

I read this book years ago, and having just now read the article, I feel it does not quite convey Diamond's thesis in a way that makes it clear how the arguments are interdependent. In particular the synopsis of arguments seems a bit disjointed, though I recall they were quite lucidly presented in his book. I have to re-read sections of the book. A-giau 09:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

daft criticisms?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of the criticisms, they are published and so we should report them. Also, wikipedia is not a listserve or blog, it is not a place to state our own opinions. It is not for us to argue with or against Diamond or any of his critics. A satement like "Diamong would..." has no place in Wikipedia. Our claims as an encyclopedia must be verifiable. DID he say something? If he didn't it is not for us to speculate on what he might or would say. Slrubenstein

Bah. I will reword, however my previous version was indeed based on what he actually says in the book. Evercat 19:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bah yourself ;). For what it is worth, I have had no problems with your other changes. However, this is a section on "criticisms" and readers should expect to see criticisms, not defenses. May I suggest you have a separate section called defenses, or responses to criticisms? Slrubenstein

OK, I'll do that. Evercat 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, sorry about all the edits. The only real changes I've made are:

• Removing the claim that Diamond wants to explain "European superiority". This contradicts the bit where it says that Diamond explicitly argues against European cultural or racial superiority.
• Saying that being conquered could be considered a "loss".
• Saying that Diamond does indeed claim to be interested in issues like the enslavement of Africans by Europeans. I could probably find an actual quote if I looked hard enough, but the book is quite big...
• Saying that the book only really goes up to 1500 AD, and is mostly concerned with Eurasian rather than European dominance.
• Oh, and I moved what seemed like a defense trying to be a criticism (the "does it justify the dominance?" bit)

Evercat 21:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bantu expansion

From Talk:Bantu#Recent addition:

They couldn't spread southwards because their cattle and plants were not adapted to the Mediterranean climate. It was Huguenots who brought the Mediterranean techniques to South Africa.

Is that what GGS says? --Error 04:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

more absurdity

Now this is just ridiculous:

"It overlooks or obscures the importance of non-European (especially African) knowledge, technologies, and labor in European development, and the fact that Europeans forcibly appropriated much of this knowledge, technology, and labor."

The bolded part of the sentence seems gratuitously and spitefully tacked on. I can understand the labor part. But can someone please explain how the Europeans "forcibly appropriated" knowledge and technology? Ah, you must be speaking of the event where Greek warriors stormed into Phoenicia and violently wrested the alphabet away from the native peoples, who emerged from the battle bloodied and illiterate. Or when Gutenberg held the people of China at swordpoint, threatening them into giving up their knowledge of the printing press (fortunately, they still had calligraphy to fall back on).

Do Diamond's detractors even make the claim that Europeans "forcibly appropriated" (as opposed to borrowed/adopted) knowledge and technology? And if so, how does that argue against GGS's thesis?

What is important is that we represent the views of major critics. The criticism you refer to is cited (Blau? something like that) -- if you don't agree with or like his point, you have to take it up with him. Slrubenstein 15:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citations

Virtually all the criticisms of the book are phrased in weasel words, and not actually cited. If they were common sense, we might leave them, but since they are a bit silly, I'll be removing them all unless they can be changed from "some say that..." to "Prof X says that...". — Chameleon 18:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I share your dislike of the unfalsifiable "some say...", but rather than delete the criticisms, wouldn't it be better to search for a reputable mouth to put them in? So much has been written about this book that attributions for almost any claim can be found.

I will help, Wragge 18:41, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Point?

It is obvious that this is a big book with a lot of bigger ideas (the whole of human history is pretty general), and it's easy to get caught up with whether Diamond was right or wrong. Shouldn't the article (and the Talk) be a bit more about what the book says rather than whether its (unprovable?) theories are accurate or fully developed?

Anthropologically invalid

Guns Germs and Steel is one of the flimsiest historical theories I have ever encountered and I can not understand how Jared Diamond has garnered the attention that he has. Leave it to a Geography professor to take on the job of an Anthropologist/Archeologist and get it all wrong. I believe what Jared Diamond attempts is benign justification for Western stereotypes and misconceptions about the rest of the world. He seems to believe that nobody outside of Eurasia has benefited from cultural diffusion, nor have they contributed anything of value to world history or civilization.

Ironically, Northern and Western Europeans have contributed among the least to what we could consider human civilization. For example, there is no sign of relevant civilizations ever existing in Scandinavia.

African nations have been trading with other parts of the world for millennia. Ancient Nubia had strong trade relationships with nations inside as well as outside of Africa for thousands of years and at one point even ruled over Egypt. Ethiopians were also among the first people to adopt Christianity in 4th century AD. How could this have come about if there was little contact with countries outside of Africa? Yemen is only a stone’s throw from Ethiopia; the countries are divided by the “Bab el Mandeb” (Red Sea/Gulf of Aden).

To convince one’s self that civilization and technological advancement have only come about within the parameters of that arbitrary border confining what Jared Diamond refers to as Eurasia is ridicules, especially in the face of Archeological and Anthropological evidence to the contrary. Any first year Cultural Anthropology student would know this.

In East Africa Swahili were building ships for centuries that were superior in quality to early European ships called “mtepe;” and were trading with China, Arabia and India by sea, becoming very wealthy as a result. Most of China’s ivory for some time came from direct trade with the Swahili. According to many authors including Schmidt and Avery (1978, 1979, 1986) and a review in American Anthropologist (Kusimba, 1997), Africans between 1500-2000 years ago were smelting iron at temperatures not reached in Europe until the industrial age. These Africans (in Tanzania) are believed to be among the first to produce carbon steel, using a special preheating method.

In West Africa the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai and Timbuktu attracted people from all over the world. In the early part of the fourteenth century to the time of the Moroccan invasion in the late sixteenth century, the city of Timbuktu became an important intellectual and spiritual center of the Islamic world, attracting people from as far away as Saudi Arabia to study there. Great mosques, universities, schools, and libraries were built under the Mali and Songhay Empires, some of which still stand today.

A large number of innovations that many Europeans today recognize as being uniquely their own, such as fire arms and the old trade ships once used for commerce (The kind used by Columbus for example) trace their history back to technologies and influences acquired through Islamic contacts in the Iberian Peninsula. In the year 711 AD, Islamic invaders conquered that part of Europe known today as Spain and Portugal and ruled over the region for close to 800 years (711 to 1492). Europe as a result saw a number of improvements in various areas of life and interest, ranging from the medical sciences to military; to paved roads, and street lamps. The Moor also introduced Europe to its first Universities and the numerical system currently in popular use today.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and then gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also partially responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana -- located in what is today Northern Senegal and Southern Mauritania -- in and around the same time as the Iberian siege.

The spread of Islam into Africa is not mentioned in Jared Diamond’s theory, nor is the fact that the Saharan Desert is only between 5000-2000 years old, making his claims of isolation seem all the more ridiculous in from a broad perspective. Further, it has also been shown that the current inhabitants of Europe do not resemble Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans in craniofacial form, but share close affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace et al, 2006). I am curious why Jared Diamond does not incorporate these bits of historical, geographic and Anthropologic information into his makeshift post hoc hypothesis.

At the time of Columbus’s arrival in the America’s the Aztec were using math, astronomy and agriculture that was superior to Europeans. If it were not for contact with South American Amerindians (initially by accident) much of Europe would have likely died of starvation; as the continent was experiencing sever famine at the time. It was South American agriculture and crops that saved Europe from near death. Ironically, in exchange for this vitally needed learning the Europeans inadvertently killed off between 80-95% of Amerindian populations; completely wiping out many Aboriginal Caribbean native groups with new-world diseases, and then slavery.

THE REASON EUROPEANS CONQURED THE NEW WORLD IS BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE BLOCKING EUROPEAN PASSAGE TO THE SILK ROAD, AND SO THEY HAD TO FIND ANOTHER ROUT TO INDIA/CHINA. ATTEMPTING THIS BY SEA EUROPEANS EVENTUALLY DISOVERED THE AMERICAS; INADVERTLYING, THROUGH SHERE INCOMPETENCE (COLUMBUS WOULD ACTUCALLY NAME THE NATIVES AMERICANS "INDIANS"). THIS ENCOUNTER WOULD END UP WIPING OUT 80-95% OF THE NATIVE POPULATION WITH EUROPEAN BORN DISEASES. MAKING LATER CONQUEST ESPECIALLY EASY!

Africans had access to guns, too – but like the Arabs, who introduced the weapon to Europeans, initially found them inconvenient for traditional warfare. In effect, Africans also had guns germs and steal, which refutes a large part of Jared Diamond’s ridiculous theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 02:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Geography

The Geography section of the article is rather weak. It doesn't make much sense to discuss it this way, considering that the whole book is about consequences of geography. Having rewritten the Outline and Agriculture sections to emphasize the book's premise that geography is a pervasive factor, perhaps we could just remove this section from the article? DPoon 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Diamond also explains how geography shaped human migration, not simply by making travel difficult (particularly by latitude)..."

A vital point he makes is that Europe is mountainous. This kept kingdoms small due to difficulties of ruling peoples spread through such difficult terrain. This meant that bright sparks who didn't obtain royal sympathy or who annoyed the king could leave and find refuge with the neighbouring kingdom. The most famous example would be Columbus who hawked his idea around before he struck a venture capitalist to sponsor him. Diamond contrasts this with China where a big flat country allowed vast empires to be dominated and original minds (who are likely to be troublemakers) had no options. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheeps and Peccary

Cheking the Wikiartikels of Sheep and Peccary Diamonds claim about lack of "useable" animals seems to be simply wrong. Any solutions anybody?

(please sign your name above by typing ~~~. In response to your question, I think his point about all the qualities of a domesticable animal needing to be present--in other words being necessary but not sufficient--is an interesting but mostly-untestable one. Because some of the qualities necessary are difficult to define, we will never know if a peccary or bison is domesticable unless we try. But, as he discusses regarding wild plants, local peoples can be expected to attempt to domesticate virtually all the animals in their area. It seems likely to me, that at some point, native americans had gotten their hands on a wild, young peccary, and like some of my more-insane clients (I'm a veterinarian), had tried to raise them, nursing them with human breast-milk, and the relationship probably didn't work out for one of the numerous reasons Diamond speaks about. Just look at all the crazies who "rescue" every orphaned animal they see. You think that started in modern times? I mean why was the wolf the only member of the canidae domesticated? There are plenty of foxes around, and people were looking for a smaller wolf. Why not just domesticate a fox? Why are none of the cervidae (deer, moose, etc ...) domesticated? Why only bovidae and the closely-related ovidae? I think the answer is because Diamond is correct, and it is the rare species which is domesticable. It's not an inherent characteristic of the species, but rather characteristics as they relate to typical, local, human characteristics. I mean for all we know, rhinos might be domesticable by VERY large, iron-clad people, with a lot of patience and no furniture.--Davidbessler 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Both deer and Fox have been domesticated. There are mllions of domestic deer throughout the Circumpolar north who are being actively bred and refined for specific tasks and characteristic. Domestic varieties of fox have been developed for furs. Also you are simply missing the point that people don't domesticate meat animals - like peccarys - when they remain plentiful enough in the wild and are more easily hunted rather than raised.DHBoggs 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More Criticism

The issue of whether or not this book is 'Eurocentric' should be irrelevant. This book is leftist non-sense, and there are dozens of countries that destroy his theory. Consider that China has had domesticated animals for thousands of years while Germany was mostly a group of warring tribes until Roman occupation. How did Germany then become one of the world's richest nations only a short time later? What about the Aztecs? Did they not have maize and armies? Are there no European countries that have inhospitable conditions? Shouldn't Iceland then be one of the poorest countries in the world? What about the Egyptians or the Persians (Iran)? Anyone with even a basic sense of history should be able to see that this book is nothing but pc drivel. The fact that it won a Pulitzer only shows how political correctness can corrupt any institution.

The author talks at length about South East Asia, and China specifically, who had many advantages and were a world power during the period he focuses on and are today. He refers, in general, not to European dominance but Eurasian.

The Aztecs did indeed have maize and armies - in fact that's exactly why the question of how the massively outnumbered Cortez conquered them is interesting. Maybe it had something to do with Cortez's access to, oh, I don't know, germs, guns, and some third material that currently escapes me [/sarcasm].

The book is certainly not a complete theory of history, and can fairly be criticized as a populist metatheory that of course fails to address many incredibly complicated events in history. Increased consideration of Environmental factors has, however, become increasingly common in the study of history. --Camipco 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant. Please read our NPOV policy. You seem not to accept it. But for us editors, it is inviolable. user:Slrubenstein

I happen to agree with you on the point about having a NPOV is inviolable. But that isn't really the point I think your trying to make here, this is a talk page and discussion should be on improving the article. I think a policy you should refresh yourself on is Wikipedia:Civility.Colin 8 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cortez conquered the aztecs using a huge indian army of rebelling natives. It had nothing to do with guns (pitiful matchlock muskets) germs (not extensive until several years after the conquest) or soft medieval steel. It was a result of superior spanish military tactics, leadership and a native alliance expertly exploited by the highly organized Spanish government. Magellan thought highly of the conquering power of European guns and steel too until he was slaughtered by "primitive" natives in the Philippines. Further the notion that Europeans were somehow favored with the only large animals suitible for domestcation is antiquated and demonstrably false and I have difficulty understanding how a man of Diamonds training in biology could still seriously entertain such an essentialy Biblical idea (God favored the white man). The ancestors of cattle (wild Aurochs), sheep and horses were certainly every bit as "wild" and unspecialized as non domesticated species anywhere. The tame meat, wool and milk producing versions we are familiar with are the results of hundreds of generations and thousands of years of selective breeding. The same could certainly have been done to zebras in Africa or bison in North America. In fact even in thier "unbred" natural state tame zebras can be ridden and harnessed (http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/negative-zebra.html) and I have a neighbor who raises bison instead of cows and breeds them with other kinds of cattle. There is no reason, for example, that the varieties of reindeer or bison or llamas or camels or water buffallo or what-have-you couldn't have been selectively bred to become, for example, milk machines like modern Holstiens. Cultural choices, not biological determinism, led to colonialism. I will say this for Diamond however; at least he raises the publics awareness of issues.DHBoggs

If you can cite some authors who believe what you do, then you are free to add those beliefs to the criticism section. -- bcasterline • talk 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the spread of colonialism, the main article already sites some relevant works. Regarding the rise of domestication, there is a very large liturature, most of it in the form of journal articles; for the characteristics and suitibility of animals to domestication as well as some discussion of the alteration of characteristics through breeding try Simon J.M. Davis, The archaeology of Animals, 1987. There are more recent works but you will have to ferret them out yourself. For domestication processes in general, Lewis Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference and Tim Ingold, Hunters Pastoralists and Ranchers, are some works I find useful, among others you can refernce from the bibliographies.DHBoggs 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I'm confused by the distinction between methodological criticism and criticism of scholarship, can someone explain this to me? I feel like the criticisms could be much better organized. Maybe I'll have a go at it. I agree with Ortolan88's point that the talk pages in some ways are superior to the article. --Camipco 17:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I had a go at it. I think the structure of the section makes more sense now. I moved a lot around, and changed the headers, but made very few changes to the text. This was a lot of work, I'd appreciate it if people discuss before reverting :-)

Obviously, there's still more to be done. I'd like to see some of the interesting points from this talk thread brought into the page, for example. It is what it is. --Camipco 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Great start, Epopt, going from incoherence to coherence! Now I'd like to know who the critics are who complain of "environmental determinism with racist implications". These are grave accusations from slrubenstein and it hardly seems fair to attack a book most noted for knocking the underpinnings from western smugness about inventiveness, etc. without providing both some concrete examples of the author's thesis and some concrete examples of these complaints. Some general linking into the history of technology also seems called for. I write, not as one who knows anything about the subject, but as one who would like to learn more than is here now. Ortolan88

I am away from my office and ill-equipped to provide more detail in the article, besides the reference to Blaut's book that I just put in the article. Most of the anthropologists, geographers, and historians with whom I have spoken -- people who consider the same issues Diamond addresses in the book -- raise more fundamental objections (meaning, questions of scholarship rather than politics): what is of value in Diamond's book (one example being points about the evolution of disease among agriculturalists, and the devastating effect of Old World pathogens in the New World) are not original to Diamond but rather long, and well, established; and what is new to Diamond (an argument about the advantages of east-west continents over north-south continents, for example) is based on poor analysis of facts -- but does echo a strand of thought among European thinkers dating at least as far back as Rousseau, viz that European society is in fact superior to other societies, and for "natural" or inevitable reasons. Diamond makes all sorts of claims about the superiority of Europe and the inferiority of other parts of the world (China, Africa) that are simply wrong.

There are two issues here: one is, is Europe really superior? Certainly, if you look at the last three hundred years, Europe (and the United States) have enjoyed economic and military supremacy. Of course, if you look at the world a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago, or three thousand year ago, the answer to this question would be different. And frankly, we do not know what the answer would be a thousand years from now, or two thousand years, or three thousand years. Diamond tries in his book to construct a natural "experiment" and makes a grave error: he looks at the present as if the "experiment" is over. But in human society, the "experiment" is never over and we cannot make conclusive or absolute claims from the present state of the world.

Two thousand years ago - Europe dominated with the Roman Empire. What are you talking about when you say it would be different? JettaMann

Second, assuming that for the moment Europe and Euro-American societies are supreme, the second issue is why? Here, Diamond is clearly and unapologeticly a geographic determinist, and his argument is therefore vulnerable o all the arguments made against geographic determinism. I am no expert in this matter and would defer to professional geographers. But my sense is that Diamond emphasizes too much the autonomy and relative isolation of different parts of the world. it is well established that most of the technologies europeans relied upon in their economic and military ascent came from other parts of the world. Al too often european and Euro-American authors give too little credit to non-Europeans who developed the technologies or even taught Europeans how to use them. One example, based on a book by a geogrophe whose name I forget, will suffice: for a long time rice was one of the US's main exports; the cultivation of rice was crucial to US economic development. But not only was the rice brought to the US from Africa, Europeans relied on African slaves to cultivate it -- not only because slaves provided labor, but because slaves from Africa had knowledge of how to cultivate rice that Europeans lacked. This example suggests a different reason for European (and US) success: that Europeans stole and exploited the knowledge and labor and resources of others. This explanation is partial, but it does introduce a dimension lacking in Diamond's book: power. And, in fact, historians far more sophisticated and knowledgable than Diamond have explored this issue, like Emmanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gundar Frank and Eric Wolf ... there are many others.

The assertion here may be correct, but it is missing Diamond's point to argue that it undermines his thesis. It merely pushes the question one stage back to ask why Europeans had greater power to abduct Africans and appropriate their superior knowledge than vice versa. Diamond seeks to get to the bottom of the pile of turtles by rooting his study at the point in time when all living humans were hunter gatherers. Once you take a later starting point, the number of cultural factors grows steadily and the potential for their interaction grows combinatorially. Alan Peakall 14:54 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think Diamond is missing the point. At the time of Columbus, not all people in the Americas were hunter-gatherers; moreover, many people who are hunter-gatherers today may not have been hunter-gatherers in the past. To put the question as, "Why did Europeans have the power to abduct Africans, and not vice-versa" is offensive if the answer sugggests any inevitability. Prior to the 1500s Europeans did not abduct African slaves in any significant number; indeed, Europeans were captured as slaves regularly (the word slave comes from Slav). If Diamond wrote his book in the 1400s, he would have ended up concluding that North African or Asian culture was superior, and I am sure he would have found good reasons to make that claim. Who knows what the world will be like in the future? Maybe a few hundred years from now Europeans "civilization" will be in disarray and Africans will be raiding Europe and the US for slaves. If he were to write his book in 2500s, for all I know he might conclude that Ausralians or Amazonian Indians or some other group are superior, and find good reasons to explain how that happened. There is a fundamental problem with determinism, especially when you privilege one particular slice of human history as if that were the end point. Like it or not, the book reveals some fundamental Western biases. Slrubenstein

This would be a fair criticism, IF Diamond were talking about European dominance. He is not. As a cursory reading of the book will show, he is talking about Eurasian dominance; and moreover, he is talking about it as the superiority of the continent, not of the peoples living on it. This criticism is toothless, because there has not been a single moment in history since the dawn of civilization when cultures outside of Eurasia-and-Northern-Africa were more technologically advanced than those within that huge region. Diamond is explaining the reasons that this is the case. He is not arguing that ANY people are superior to any other. He is arguing that Eurasians had certain outcomes which others did not, because of different starting positions. I'm not sure why this idea is so offensive to some. And I am quite troubled by the assertion that "'Why did Europeans have the power to abduct Africans' is offensive if the answer suggests any inevitability" -- what if the answer really is "any group of people living where the Europeans lived would have had advantages the Africans did not"? Are we then to reject the entire question, because it offends our delicate sensibilities? (That's an answer that gives no pride of place to Europeans, incidentally; only pride TO place, in the sense that it favors Eurasia over Africa.)

Diamond's book may for some be an attack on European smugness because he is not claiming that Europeans are innately smarter than non-Europeans. Well, I regret bing so sarcastic, but "bravo." It is a shame that some people still need to be convinced that Europeans do not have a monopoly on intelligence. Be that as it may, I am happy to give Diamond credit if he has convinced some people of this. Nevertheless, Diamond still asserts that europe is superior, and his explanation of why Europe is superior suggest that this superiority was inevitable. Even if he is basicly saying that some people just had good luck to live in Europe rather than in Asia or Africa or South America, he is still claiming that science justifies European domination and power. But it does not. slrubenstein

You're missing the point. Diamond does not argue for European superiority. He argues for Eurasian superiority. He fully acknowledges that many European technologies came from Asia and Northern Africa (which, you'll note, was geographically connected to Asia before the development of the Suez Canal) and in fact he says that that's a substantial [i]part[/i] of the Eurasian Advantage -- a much greater interconnected area that permitted those kinds of cultural transfer. Your criticisms are based on facts that Diamond incorporates in his analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.171.214 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, Diamond has almost no pro-European bias whatsoever. I'd say he says scientific (materialistic, rationalistic) analysis "explains" European dominance, but not that it "justifies" it.

Many people disagree with you. there is obviously room for debate. What is important is that the article present both views. Slrubenstein

Okay, now I strongly agree with you. :-)

--- Thanks. I hope you'll write more about this (carefully) in an article. Ortolan88

Another case, I wonder how many there are, where the talk page is superior to the article. Ortolan88 14:39 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

Free-market critics

The Theory of History section seems more like a plug for free markets than a legitimate criticism. First of all, the information is incorrect: Japan and South Korea, despite being capitalistic, are incredibly interventionist. South Korea's Chaebol system involves government co-ordination and the forming of large multi-sector conglomerates which co-ordinate all manner of economic activity. Taiwan existed under a dictatorship until 1987 and received heavy U.S. support. As well, comparing the growth of nations during the 20th century with growth during the previous ten centuries is very problematic. In a way, it makes Diamond's point. The areas to which technology has flowed easily and readily have developed. Those that have not received the technology have not.Troyc001 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism from a free-market perspective. A criticism from a technocratic-statist perspective would read almost identically, saying that Diamond has ignored the effect of enlightened state planning and social forces that are not results of the environment. Both criticisms have limited applicability as Diamond focuses not on Europe vs. Asia but Eurasia vs. the rest of the world. --JWB 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Can some source of the criticism be provided? If some semi-respectable source is making this criticism, then fine. Otherwise, would this not qualify as original scholarship?Troyc001 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add it and am not standing up for its retention, though I doubt it's original research - this viewpoint is so common I'm sure it is in many sources, maybe even in some of those already cited in the article. I would prefer the article to focus on the book's Eurasia thesis.--JWB 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about the section detailing criticism of Diamond's "law of history." The article currently states

"Many historians dispute Diamond’s “law of history” regarding the dominance of agricultural societies over their non-agricultural neighbors. [citation needed] There are numerous cases of nomadic societies conquering agricultural ones: the Hittites conquest of the ancient Middle East, the successive movements of Germanic people (such as Franks, Goths and Huns) across Europe, the Aryan migration into India, the Seljuk Turks conquest of much of the Muslim world that began in the 11th century, and the vast Mongolian conquests of the 13th and 14th centuries."

It seems to me that there is a confusion in this section between non-agricultural and nomadic. I will post back soon with sources, but I am fairly sure that a few of the people mentioned above possessed some form of agriculture, mainly the Hittite and Germanic peoples, and possibly the Mongolians if you count livestock. Also, I was quite sure that the Germanic peoples were on the whole sedentary not nomadic. I might be confusing different time periods.--tbonepower07 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "law of history" is stated a bit too broadly(more of a usual tendency than a law) but using the Hittites, Germanic tribes etc. as counter examples is simply mis-informed. Every single one of those groups whether nomadic or sedentary were relying predominantly on agriculture. I have removed those statements from the article. DHBoggs 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Diamond's thesis in this book is on the utility of raising both plants and animals, so there's no contradiction in pastoralists successfully competing with agriculturalists. Also, you've left Inuit vs. Norse as the only example of this criticism, but this is a case Diamond covers in detail in his later Collapse (book). Finally, who exactly is making this criticism? It's still unattributed, and it's hard to evaluate the criticism without being able to find out any more about it. --JWB 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Europe or Eurasia?

It seems to me the page discusses Europe too much. The book is primarily about Eurasia vs. other connected regions, not about Europe as a separate unit. --JWB 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I agree, and this shows up perhaps unfairly in the criticisms section. I didn't feel, for example, that he underestimated the importance of South East Asian technology. --Camipco 17:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Proposed edit for intro:

"...which began broadcasting a documentary based on the book, produced by the National Geographic Society," which uses the term "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about 870 times in one hour. :(

-St|eve 01:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Anna Karenina principle

The Anna Karenina principle is currently an orphaned stub describing one argument from Diamond's book. Can it and should it be merged into this article? MC MasterChef 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be merged or not, but after my edit it is at least no longer orphaned. DPoon 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Ok to keep it separate, because it is a well-defined piece of text. It just has to be properly linked whenever it is mentioned.

african contribution

can anyone point out exactly what were the african contribution to european ascendency? The more familiar non-European inventions of paper, gunpowder, compass, and the movable type were Chinese in origin, not African, and they were not forcefully appropriated, but learned through mutual exchange. Cowell 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The contribution is usually said to mainly be that colonialism provided profits that helped Europe develop, and that it exercised key technologies like seafaring and industrial machinery, allowing Europe to gain the lead. The example of export of a African technical skill that I have seen documented in most detail is rice cultivation coming from the Niger Delta to South Carolina; I'm sure other people have other examples.--JWB 23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The areas from where most Africans were taken in the Atlantic slave trade were densely-populated chiefdoms, kingdoms and empires, all of which rested upon agricultural and iron-working systems that could maintain dense populations. Since most were farmers, ironworkers or other craftsmen, then they had a "pre-adaptation" to the requirements of plantation slave labor, without whose existence the Industrial Revolution would not have taken place (the stable, chattel labor force freed up capital that could be used in technological innovations and investments). Thank the African bodies themselves for the Industrial Revolution.Kemet 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was given to understand that the industrial revolution was primarily a British phenomenon, while African slavery was primarily an American one; and that industrialization in America happened more readily in places where slavery was less common (i.e. the Northern states vs. the South and the Caribbean islands). No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.171.214 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

FAC?

This is quite good, I think with minor adjustments it would survive FAC. Anybody interested in addressing eventual FAC objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What is FAC? Which objections are you anticipating?--JWB 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC = Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. As for the objections - I guess we will see after nominations. My question was about whether there are any editors that will read the comments and try to address them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'd look at objections. (not guaranteeing I would fix all objections) What page would they be on? --JWB 08:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Let's start with Peer Review first. There are usually not that many comments, but if they are, they are useful. Check the templates at the talk above for links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We have comments - see Wikipedia:Peer_Review#Guns.2C_Germs.2C_and_Steel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Adding more publishing info about the book is a good idea, though I'm not the person for that.--JWB 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Theory of History

A more fundamental argument against Diamond’s thesis is that he does not understand the true nature of history; if history is defined as “a study of human actions” then it must be a study of conscious action and the evolution of ideas, rather than environmental factors. The ability of man to shape his environment and create a positive environment for growth presents many counterexamples to Diamond’s thesis, such as the numerous cases of rapid prosperity achieved by countries with few resources but free markets such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. (Compared with nations blessed with natural resources that have stagnated under interventionist governments, examples: Brazil, Nigeria, and Russia.) He also fails to explain the importance of the individual, as many countries received a direct increase in their standard of living because of key individuals. By implying that those individuals were just members of their respective groups undermines the significant contributions that those individuals provided.

This part of the criticism is very weird. Is defining "history" as “a study of human actions” anywhere close to the mainstream ? Does studying environmental factors is somehow not correct according to the historical orthodoxy ? It doesn't seem to me that either of these is true. If these two concepts are not mainstream, at least who supports them ?

The rest of the paragraph seems completely misdirected - it refers to the very modern times, oversimplifies the interventionism/free market issue (interventionism refers to government action in a free market economy, so there's no opposition here; the East Asian countries are pretty interventionists) and refers to the resources issue, that doesn't seem to be considered important by the book etc. The influence that individuals may have does not make the study of historical trends somehow invalid.

This section would need a complete rewrite before returning to the article. Taw 06:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a weird and untenable definition. The articles on history and Prehistory are relevant hereDHBoggs 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

European domination of Asia and Native American defeat of Vikings in Vineland

How does the theory account for these?matturn 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only read about half of the book, but I don't think he talks about Native Americans "defeating" the vikings in Vineland. He suggests limited contact between the two (says the first "significant" contact was in 1490's) and I think that the Vikings were driven out by natural conditions as much as natives.

As far as European domination of Asia, it seems to me he explains it by saying (for various reasons) they developed certain key technologies (war ships that made all others obsolete, better metal working, practical guns etc) which allowed them to dominate in Asia (and elsewhere). Everything but the germs basically ;)TastyCakes 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The book doesn't claim to explain every bit of history. The hypothesis is that better natural resources (animals, plants, geography, weather) allowed peoples in Europe AND Asia to more easily develop agrarian cultures then other locations, such as sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. With farming culture comes sufficient food supplies for larger human populations and specializations such as metal-working, math & writing for harvest management, etc. In hunter-gatherer societies, these specializations don't happen as EVERYBODY is scavenging for food all day long. These specializations are the beginnings of a technological advantage that snowball over time. A society that is lucky in geographical location not only benefits from the trade of goods and ideas, but also exposure to many diseases from other populations (and eventually gaining immunity to those diseases). The hypothesis does not claim to explain events much latter in human history. For example, Europe's technological progress after the dark ages (nor why Europe entered the dark age) nor why China stayed technologically stagnant after the 1600's are beyond the scope of the hypothesis. Dyl 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Plant foodstuffs not mentioned in the article

Besides domesticated animals, plant foodstuffs (eg. cereals/grains) of different geographical regions is a major topic in the book. This is not mentioned in the article. Dyl 08:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Europe And Not The Rest Of Eurasia

This article focuses too much on Europe. Why is it people always look to Europe when thinking of a dominate civilization. Europe has only caught up to the rest of Eurasia by 1500, and took the lead only at around 1800. Even in Ancient times only Greco-Roman civilizations were advanced while the rest of Europe were living no better than Native Americans and Native Africans below North Africa. On the other hand Southwest Asia (Arabia, Persia, ect.) South Asia (India, ect.), and East Asia (China, Korea, ect.) have dominated the world in technology far longer than most European "civilizations". China was vastly ahead of the world in technology for most of history.. If this book talks about civilization up to 1500s then Europeans shouldn't be mentioned too much, except for Greco-Roman and late Middle Ages Europe. Yet from this article it seems that Europeans are talked about most. Zachorious 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, said that in the "Europe or Eurasia?" section above. The book is not Eurocentric, but Eurasiacentric. IMO a lot of the discussion of Eurocentrism in this article is out of place and not relevant to the book, but so far I have been reluctant to just delete it. --JWB 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what parts are problematic. Some of the large criticism/response sections could probably be split into smaller sections or summarized using Wikipedia:Summary style. I would expect Europe and Asia to be central topics because part of the purpose of the book is to examine why these continents have been more developed.--Nectar 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Europe and Asia" is a central topic of the book, but "Europe vs. Asia" is not, in deliberate contrast to most conventional history. --JWB 02:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the criticism being summarized & split off onto a seperate article. As I see it this article focuses far too much on the criticism and not enough on the actual substance of the book. This book is popular non-fiction, not academic. Books and other references can act as counter-examples and comparisons to the assumptions and ideas in GGS and use those in place of a long-winded crit section. --Nick 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian hegemony

"But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilization, as a whole, has survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority." Where is this belief that is being refuted? Who believes that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority? Did Jared Diamond invent this idea? Someone help me with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowyCaballero (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2006.

It's a very common unstated or implicit belief, especially among cultural conservatives. Probably not common among academics (although Allan Bloom springs to mind as a likely candidate to hold such a belief), but it definitely is among the hoi polloi of Western culture. —

goethean ॐ 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also see Social Darwinism. The most common belief even among intellectuals not so long ago. -- bcasterline • talk 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is a belief only held by white supremacists. Anyone familiar with chaos theory would agree with Diamond. - User:ShadowyCaballero

Do you really feel that the view that the belief in a theoretical European cultural superiority is an invention?. It was the most clear cut and widely held view until fifty years ago and is still held by a great many people. This has little to do with whether its correct, just that it exists and has for an extremely long time. what about manifest destiny or the British attempt during its rule over a third of the world to make all of their subject peoples as British as possible or the laughable claims that Africans were akin to beasts of burden or the still widely held modern nationalistic belief that this country whichever one it may be, is the greatest country in the world. Colin 8 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a pretty sloppy and misinformed use of "chaos theory" which does not apply to the material Diamond is referring to. Moreover, this is not a belief limited to avowed or self-identified white-supremists. James Blaut argued that it is pervasive in Academia [1]. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is more Euro-centric than GGS ever could be!

I've read the book. One astonishing aspect of GGS is that Diamond hardly even mentions Europe! No, really! Diamond spends much more time talking about New Guinea and the Pacific Islands that he does about Europe. If one sits down and actually reads the book, Eurocentrism is the antithesis of what Diamond is arguing. He never argues for environmental determinism, and even anticipates this accusation in his book. He rather looks at the "broades pattern of human history", which is that the CONTINENT of EURASIA has been host to the predominately most complex societies with the most complex sociopolitical institutions and technology.

I can't understand why this article just blindly lists criticisms that so-obviously run counter to Diamond's own position in his book. Contrary to this article's words, Diamond does not just "never explicitly argue for racism" he ACTIVELY argues AGAINST it. It's the main thesis of his entire book!!! The book's main point is that no peoples are culturally or biologically superior to any other peoples, and thus there must be other reasons for the trend of history to be that Eurasia (including parts of Africa) was the primary location of major world civilizations, and why civilization on the other continents took such a different course. His conclusion, far from "environmental determinism", looks at a whole host of factors that have more to do with system dynamics than anything else. His ideas are echoed in The Human Web, a more recent book.

This article, in an attempt to be fair, is distorting the truth by allowing any criticism to pass equally, without weighing the validity of the arguments against the actual work itself. We don't have to be POV to acknowledge the differences between valid critical arguments and completely uninformed ones.

In particular, as others have noted, Diamond does not focus so much on Europe, but on EURASIA. In fact, in his new edition, he has added material that discusses the reactions to his work. One of the main things he talks about is that since his book was published a major public question has not been to ask "why Europe"--why was EUROPE in particular the eurasian region to spring to dominance so quickly with so much hegemony (another was "why NOT China"). The reason these are popular responses to the book is simple: he never really addressed European Ascendency with any depth! Instead he focuses on Eurasian societal evolution, and not Australia or the Americas. He never goes into too much analysis exploring why Europe ended up dominant, perhaps because it's fairly obvious that European dominance has only existed for barely 500 years. He implies this to be an anomolly resulting from a variety of chance events combined with other basic geographic, environmental, and sociopolitical factors. It's a theory of convergence more than anything else, and it's only implied. So these criticisms appear to come from folks who either didn't read the book at all, didn't read it closely, or who perhaps went into the book harboring some preconceived notions that tainted their interpretation.

Others here seem to agree in principle, so the article should be changed to reflect reality. I'm not saying get rid of criticism, just that we should be more selective about the criticism we include as to whether the critic seems to have any clue what Diamond was actually saying.

Merge Anna Karenina principle here

The article Anna Karenina principle is linked only from here and is of no use outside the context of GGS book. There is no info whether someone else have picked the name, so several articles just for a book (even if it was the best one ever) is useless.

It is also rather short which makes a very good candidate for a merge. Section here would be better to read than to navigate to another article. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about this article. However, now that I see it, I think the real issue is that it should not be called "the Anna Karenina principle." In fact, Diamond is refering to a principle well-established in ecology and cultural ecology. I imagine his calling it the Anna Karenina principle is part of his attempt to popularize and reach a general audience through non-scholarly more friendly language. And there is a real (meaning, predates Diamond, is what is used by scientists) name for this: Liebig's law of the minimum: growth is limited by the minimum availability of one resource rather than by the abundance of all resources (there are other ways of putting it). I do not know of any references to an Ana Karenina principle that predate Diamond's book. Frankly, I would just propose speedy deletion of the AK article, merge the contents here but provide the correct link to the Liebig's law article. Will you do it, or should I? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would redirect AK to here (since it is called that in this book), but mention and link to Liebig's law from this article. — goethean ॐ 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book and know about it only from The Big Wire. Level of knowledge about the Liebig's law was even lower :-( Thanks for educating me ;). For the merge - I can do it, NP. Just avoiding to be way too brave, and trying to be more cooperative. It seems that I haven't read the talk page either, there was already a merge proposal before (#Anna Karenina principle). But you'll have to add the reference what is the relevance of Diamond's AKP to Liebig's. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree. I don't care if it only has relevance to this article. Many wiki subjects deserve to have very long articles. This might be one. Very long articles are awkward in the wiki format. Breaking them into pieces this way makes sense to me. I read the AK matter with interest, separately. I have just skimmed the main article, because it is so long and complex... 69.87.199.69 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Stop this obsession with merging articles. From the general reader's point of view, the pedia is much easier to use if the articles are on separate pages.

What is this?

This shows up in the article as displayed on my screen, under controversial claims.

In Chapter 5, Professor Diamond contends that the natives of Papa New Guinea fashioned boats out of hollowed out tree trunks to transport themselves to Australia. In reality, the could have built wings and flew.

It's clearly nonsense, but it doesn't appear in the "Edit" page, so I can't delete it. Help?

Gun History needed

This article needs much more info about the history of guns, and/or links to such. People coming to wikipedia seeking the history of guns end up here and find little help. 69.87.199.69 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

removal

• What I removed:

Professor Tom Tomlinson argues in a review of Guns, Germs, and Steel that Diamond's approach ignores "much of the current literature on cultural interactions in modern history" and that Diamond omits "almost all of the standard literature on the history of imperialism and post-colonialism, world-systems, underdevelopment or socio-economic change over the last five hundred years."[2] Though Diamond's book is a popular history that is not primarily interested in engaging academic debates, this point exposes a failure of the book to deal sufficiently with competing hypotheses that is especially problematic in light of Diamond's calls for history to be written as a science.

• Why I removed it:

• If you read the review, you'll see that that excerpt is meant to be descriptive, not critical. It's not even an argument: the Book's prologue makes clear that the question is why the eurasians got guns, germs, and steel, not what it did after they got them. Don't revert me until you've responded to my points here. Go ahead and revert it in the meantime if you want to discuss and we'll put a dispute tag on it while we discuss. --Urthogie 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted with slight editing because I don't feel your deletion of this point of criticism is justified. The book review in which this argument is made is both descriptive and critical. Diamond ignores the literature and theories mentioned by Tomlinson. I also disagree with your point on the purpose of the book. The top paragraph of this article says: "But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilization, as a whole, has survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority." The section you deleted essentially claims that Diamond ignored 'intervening variables' such as imperialism and colonialism that matter for how Eurasian civilization survived and conquered others. This is significant in regard to writing 'history as a science.' --InSpace 09:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gun History not needed

The book isn't about how guns impacted the balance of power but rather how the geographic location of civilization affected the enviornment and organisms in the fertile areas, therefore creating a more sophisticated culture. The history of guns isn't really a main idea in the book.

American progress

I seem to recall the picture of "American Progress" by John Gast being either in the cover of some edition or discussed in the book. Should it be included in the article? --84.20.17.84 10:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bantu and SA

This is listed as a controversial claim in the article:

In chapter 19 (How Africa Became Black) he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu they would have been unable to establish themselves in Cape Town, and says that since both sets of invaders displaced the Khoisan people the Dutch claim of prior occupation (although true) "needn't be taken seriously".

First: "he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu"

This makes it sound like it was a matter of timing, which is not what the author claims. Diamond notes that the Bantu were already near the Cape of Good Hope, but had stopped expanding because the climate there was such that the Bantu agriculture and crops were not suitable for the area. Is was however suitable for crops the Dutch brought.

Second: I'm not sure what is actually controversial here. That needs to be clarified. A more complete quote is:

"once South African whites had quickly killed or infected or driven off the Cape's Khoisan population, whites could claim correctly that they had occupied the Cape [of Good Hope] before the Bantu and thus had prior rights to it. That claim needn't be taken seriously, since the prior rights of the Cape Khoisan didn't inhibit the whites from dispossessing them."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.74.92 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2007

Tone problems?

I'm a newer user, so I'll refrain from just jumping in with edits, but this line in particular:

This speaks to a larger issue of illogical attacks on Western/European civilization by people who are themselves products of that civilization, and in fact never could've made those same attacks without the benefits they enjoy as members of that civilization.

...seems to be entirely political in nature and not helpful with the encyclopedia nature of the article. Should the paragraph be removed/reworded? Mike Wolfe 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and Context

It is (pardon the emphasis) RIDICULOUS to suggest that noting evolutionary selection for certain skills amounts to an argument for genetic superiority. In one instance you have Diamond's objective recapping of a process, and in the other you have a term fraught with connotations of Eurocentrism. It is a disingenuous way for his detractors to find faults where there are none.

Also (and related), central to his discussion of the evolutionary selection is the notion of "context." Where he explains that Europeans would observe the inability of New Guineans to function in European civilization and assume this denoted a lack of intelligence, but modern Europeans (and their descendants) couldn't possibly function in New Guinean civilization. In New Guinea, it is Europeans who "lack intelligence."

This is like any of the other critiques leveled at Diamond's book. These critiques are (all of them) indicative of someone who did not read the book in its entirety, OR does not understand how scientific knowledge acummulates, OR has an axe to grind.

Rafajs77 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one concerned with our claim of 'no genetic... superiority', so the argumentum ad hominem above must be directed at me. Let me repeat that I'm not a Diamond detractor, my objection is only to the Wikipedia article; I still think that our article hides one-third of his argument by implying that New-Worlders were not at a genetic disadvantage in disease resistance against Old-Wolders. Diamond specifically writes (many times, especially in the introduction) that they were.

Although I seem to have persuaded no-one, I'm honestly surprised that anyone would find it RIDICULOUS to object that Wikipedia has summarized 'Genetic selection for disease resistance rather than intelligence' as 'no genetic superiority' of the Europeans. I agree that these are all loaded phrases, but I think this explicit discussion is one of the book's most interesting parts, so I'm surprised that nobody else finds it worthy of mention (to the point that it is effectively concealed by our claim that genetic superiority had no part to play in the speed of Old World conquest - the exact antithesis of Diamond's 'Germs' explanation).

Of course, my lone objection isn't concencus so this has been dormant until the above attack, which seems unwarranted, and missed the idea that we're discussing the article and not the book.

--Wragge (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the fact that Europeans have been developing science, math, philosophy, literature, politics, etc for centuries... while Africans and Native Americans society revolved around hunting, has nothing to do with selective evolution? It's extremely politically incorrect, but that doesn't make it any less true. I suggest for everyone to read these two reviews of the book: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html

guns, germs, and steel.

1. REDIRECT

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLA and graduate of The Roxbury Latin School. In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book was broadcast on PBS in July 2005, produced by the National Geographic Society.

According to the author, an alternative title would be A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years.[1] But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather originate in environmental differences powerfully amplified by various positive feedback loops. He also, most explicitly in the epilogue, argues that societies with food surpluses and high-to-moderate degrees of interaction with outsiders are more likely to encourage great people to realize their full potential and to adopt new inventions.

A major theme in the book is a fundamental difference between Eurasia and other landmasses being their main directional axes: Eurasia, comprised of Europe and Asia together (with north Africa often included as well by the author), is laid primarily over the west-east axis, while both the North America - South America landmass and Africa have north-south as the main axis. This, together with Eurasia's large area, results in much wider continuous ecological areas in Eurasia compared to other landmasses (see the Mediterranean climate areas for example). Therefore domesticated plants and animals and technology spread much faster in ancient times inside Eurasia compared to other landmasses.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.1.225 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008‎ (UTC)

Determinism

Needs a correct description of a determinist critique. The Timothy Taylor critique that was originally in this spot is not a determinist critique, and seems better suited to Eurocentrism. 14 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.83.121 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the summmary

The section "The theory outlined" contains a lot of material that's also in the "Agriculture" and "Germs" section. I've commented out the "Agriculture" and "Germs" sections after incorporating additional material from there into "The theory outlined". The alternative would be to make "The theory outlined" much shorter; but then we'd also need a separate section "Why Europeans became dominant", and there's little more to say about that in a separate section because the book only gives the subject a handful of pages. Philcha (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Taylor

I don't know whether Taylor ever questioned whether Hernán Cortés actually won in his conflict with the Aztecs in the first place or accuses Diamond of "Eurocentrically" assuming that Cortés was the victor because the European culture supplanted the Aztec. The ref given does not mention any of this - "Why Did Human History Evolve Differently on Different Continents for the Last 13,000 Years? (comments)" (HTML). edge.com. 5-12-97. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Philcha (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the paragraph was not supported by the citation, and sounded weird enough that it really would need to be supported to include in the article. Removed. CAVincent (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Work!

I just would like to say that you guys do a wonderful job of summarizing the book in such short space and I appreciate this very much! Im 14 years old and had to read this book for a school project and I read this before the book. It really gave me a heads up and helped me enjoy the book a little more. Thanks so much for such a good article! Seanpnoot (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Added this phrase

It is regards to political systems and the environment. Edit/change it as you see fit. (factors such as centralization of government in order to build irrigation systems in river valley civilizations, which inhibited the development of democracy and political freedom - whereas areas that required no centralized irrigation effort, such as Greece, were politically and culturally fragmented, and were able to develop individuality and democracy) Intranetusa (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey...Drastic pruning warning

This article seems to be getting seriously out of hand (as so many articles that generate controversy do). This article is about a book and its ideas. It is not about all the arguments and nit-picking over terminology that have arisen from people taking offence at the book's thesis. These should be summarised briefly and clearly at the end. The article has become too flabby and tedious to interest a casual reader:-

• the section about James Blaut is longer than any other! It has no paragraphs! It has been written by someone who has been unable to control his/her own feelings to the extent that other editors have interspersed refutations in the middle - it is horrible! To the author: fix it up or I shall remove all but 2 or 3 lines.
• There are a series of sections dealing with criticisms and counter-criticisms, many of which are highly specific and strike the reader as arguments over facts, not over ideas. This is way too long. Most of it belongs in an article on its own - perhaps on Eurocentrism.--AssegaiAli 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

there are almost no citations here! god people do something! Also, don't say if you dont like it change it yourself, as i am a wiki n00b, and would probly end up distroying everythang if i tryed Thedudewithglasses 07:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Blaut's criticism, but this section needs reworked. The above is right, its way to long. Blaut's key criticisms could be summarized in three bullet points. I'll do it if I can ever finish my damn dissertation on sumpweed201.207.97.7 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No response to my suggestions last month - so I have made some changes. Criticisms are now shorter and more pointed and divided into specific sections that I hope convey the thrust of the controversy as simply as possible. Would anyone like to volunteer to do the same with the responses to criticisms? --AssegaiAli 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering whats wrong with the Blaut section. While I might not agree with much of what says Blaut, thinking that Diamond addresses many of his concerns, he is still entitled to his opinion. What does bother me is stating that environmental determinism is "discredited", such a statement needs attribution.--OMCV (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about the same. Pergamino (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GG&S argues that genetic superiority in disease resistance was a factor in Eurasian conquests.

Our summary has it that Diamond wants to refute the belief that:

Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority

This surely can't be true and the article's 'Germs' section neatly explains why...

European people had acquired immunity through natural selection

That is, cities had coevolved pandemic diseases and people genetically fitter at surviving them (than hunter gatherers).

Since one third of the title is dedicated to the thesis that a pillar of hegenomy was genetic superiority, we probably shouldn't say that the book refutes this.

--Wragge 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The book does not suggest that natural selection for certain immunities implies genetic superiority. Consider a hot sunny day: a person of Kenyan descent tells a person of Swedish descent that dark skin is a sign of genetic superiority because it protects the skin from the sun's radiation. But Swedes did not evolve in a climate with lots of exposure to a hot sun, and so their skin pigments eventually faded. On a chilly winter day, the Swede could argue the other way, saying light skin is a sign of genetic superiority because they are better able to produce vitamin D, especially in poor sunlight. Kenyans, however, did not evolve in a relatively sunless climate, and so their skin pigmentation is strong. Europeans were exposed to some microbes, and other cultures were exposed to different microbes. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's a speedy reply to my point, but I'm not completely sure where the disagreement is. The Blue Whale is better adapted than the Eurasian to the deep ocean; synonymously: whales are genetically fitter (or superior) for survival in that environment. African genes are clearly superior to Eurasian for sun stroke resistance (in the example above). 'Wiktionary:Superior' isn't a magic word, it just means 'better'. Especially in the context of evolution it doesn't make sense to compare genes in the abstract: 'genetic quality' is determined in the context of a given environment. (Fitness (biology) has the corrolary: "As phenotype is affected by both genes and environment, the fitnesses of different individuals with the same genotype are not necessarily equal, but depend on the environment in which the individuals live.")

I repeat my assertion that a central plank of this book's theory is that Europeans had evolved both more virulent diseases and (genetically inherited) resistance to them. I assume that Twas Now agrees with that, and that this debate is over the semantics of 'superiority'. It seems (to me) that Twas Now has given two examples of 'relative superiority' in the 'rebuttal' above (effectively agreeing with me).

After rereading the 'lethal gift of livestock' chapter, I find that Diamond has avoided using any terms like 'genetic superiority' or anywhere directly mentioning comparative genetics. However, page 210 (of my '97 edition) calls Spanish smallpox resistance a 'decisive advantage' over the Aztecs, and the rest of the chapter describes this as being an evolved resistance.

What am I missing? Please explain how genes giving increased immunity aren't superior to those which don't. Also, if that really isn't 'superior' then the term 'genetic superiority' seems inherently meaningless/confusing & should still be removed (as nothing then can ever be genetically superior to anything else).

--Wragge 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't what happened when the Europeans arrived that the environment (specifically the microbiological environment) changed to one to which the immune systems of the Europeans were more suited? — goethean ॐ 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, this is all neither here nor there because to add this content to the article, you've got to cite it to a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's all this "genetic superiority" material coming from? The introduction says that observed differences were not considered due to any genetic superiority of Europeans. Indeed, resistance to disease is not a matter of genetics so much as of a healthy immune system containing appropriate antibodies. I concur with Goethean on this: reliable sources will need to be found before we consider any non-negative use of such a loaded phrase as "genetic superiority". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Superiority" has connotations of intelligence or better ability, which is likely why Diamond avoided it. Simply referring to disease resistance is more precise anyway. Of course disease resistance could be described as "superior" rather than inferior or neutral, but it is not the best choice of words, and tends to bring up an irrelevant and loaded issue.

The sentence in the introduction should be rephrased, unless possibly if it a direct quote from Diamond. --JWB 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamond argues for genetic superiority in the prologue (page 20)

SheffieldSteel asks above where "all this genetic superiority material is coming from?" - in a way, that was my question initially, since our introduction argues that Diamond denies it. In fact, he celebrates it. Right in the prologue he writes:

From the very beginning of my work with the New Guineans they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent [...] than the average European.

On the following page (21) he explains why he think this is...

Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on these genes. [...] traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents and problems in procuring food. Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies has little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance [...] natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent. Besides this genetic reason [...]

To be honest, I re-read the entire book before coming back to the Prologue to find the clear statement I remembered. I did that partly because I was a stupid European, but mostly because I assumed people who contribute to the talk page would have read the book, at least to page 21. As far as I can see, this is a very central point in Diamond's these (he puts it in the title) and it isn't controversial to say that. Admittedly, throughout the rest of the book he doesn't spell out the genetic component this clearly, but it underlies the entire 'germs' argument (examples I mention above). --Wragge 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Diamond is arguing that anyone is genetically superior. The evolutionary pressures in the New Guineans' environment would favour someone of higher intelligence; by contrast the evolutionary pressures likely faced by Europeans over the same time frame would be in the direction of disease resistance. So, it's not clear where "genetic superiority" lies, if anywhere, in this situation. Diamond does explicitly deny that European success is due to genetic superiority; nowhere does he explicitly attribute anything to it.

It's also rather a loaded phrase, since historically it's been used by white supremacy groups. It would be a gross misrepresentation of Diamond's position (and yes, I've read the book) to associate him with such views. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Diamond wouldn't (and doesn't) write "genetically superior" - it's Wikipedia that's doing this: That's what I'm objecting too: it's misleading (and possibly disingenous). I'm saying that we should take that out.

I dispute that Diamond doesn't explicity attribute anything to it, unless you want him to include the word "genetic" in every sentence about disease resistance before you'll accept that he's making this (obvious) point. The entire logic of differential genetic tolerance for infection diseases is very explicitly that dense Eurasian cities (near livestock) bred disease resistant people. I've offered two direct examples of this (one in the the very paragraph I've given above, and one in the previous section) where no counter-citations or refutations are given.

All I'm suggesting is (at a minimum) the removal of the phrase "no genetic superiority". It seems clear that there is (at least) concencus that Diamond argues for genetic differences, and hence a variety of genetic superiorities.

--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Diamond points out that dense populations in very close contact with many animal species caused diseases in humans. After this went on for many, many generations, people in those populations with some immunity to disease fared better than people without any immunity, and left more offspring. Later, when some of these people brought some of these animals with them to new lands, the people already living in these places fell victim to said diseases.

This is a proximate cause - a passing epiphenomenon set in motion by other things that were already happening. The buck doesn't stop here. Why did some people have the time to build up any sort of immunity ( be it genetic, or behavioral ) while others didn't?

Note also that disease is used in GG&S to explain why Europeans failed to colonize places like New Guinnea, where diseases to which they were not immune stoped them in their tracks. It's not that Europeans were "superior" ( bleeding over from "better suited" sense to "morally or inherently better" ) for their resistance to small pox. It's that small pox itself played a larger role in the last 13,000 years of history than, say, SARS. And Eurasians happened to already have encountered the pox.

This is from someone who didn't stop reading at page 21. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, isn't immunity cultural, not genetic? Cultural in the microbiological sense, that is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(PS: About 'not reading the book' - that joke was too good to resist (the genetics is on page 21!) and I took some of the earlier comments a bit personally; of course, I assume good faith, and that we're all very familiar with the text & have differing interpretations. --Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not genetics on page 21. There's nothing about As, Cs, Gs, or Ts. Just a highly speculative story about differing selective pressures in different parts of the world. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take another look at my copy of the book before commenting further on this. I'm sure we can agree on some form of words that fits policy. Don't worry about the WP:AGF thing. We're on the same side. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last paragraph on p21:

“ That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up. Certainly, there is no hint at all of any intellectual disadvantage of New Guineans that would serve to answer Yali's question. (emphasis in original) ”

Compare this with the article's lead, which states that the book refutes the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian genetic superiority. The book and the lead are quite consistent with one another. One could argue that Diamond is being illogical or inconsistent because disease resistance constitutes genetic superiority, but such a statement runs the risk of being original research (or possibly synthesis, depending on how it's worded). That is, unless a notable critic has made that point. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We agree there are genetic differences: the problematic word is: any

I agree that we've produced (separate) quotations which say that (obviously) Yali's people have no disadvantage in intellectual genes compared with Eurasians, but that's not what our lead says. Our lead says that Eurasians had no genetic advantage of any kind. That is significantly inconsistent with the book.

Consider our present wording: "Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority". These three (intellectual, genetic, and moral) are presented as separate qualities, so the lead reads:

Eurasian hegemony is [not] due to any form of Eurasian [...] genetic [...] superiority

Quotes I've cited above (from page 20 & Chapter 11) establish that our lead is the exact opposite of what the book says: We are saying that Eurasian hegemony wasn't caused by genetic differences, where Diamond's "Germ" thesis is that they were.

It is this statement which constitutes original research, as all Diamond writes is that:

in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

You may feel that the reader will infer "intellectual genetic superiority" where the lead says "genetic superiority". However, this is a synthesis at best, and confusing to the average article reader (who won't have studied the book). That reader might be given the (incorrect) impression that Eurasian genetic disease resistance isn't essential to the "Germs" part of Diamond's theory.

I don't want to be bold and change this, though it's a small and important edit, since it's also certain to be contencious. I suggest the following rewording:

while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any genetic superiority in mental ability.

I favour this wording because:

• A) it's closer to the phrase used above in the book ("mental ability") and because
• B) the "moral superiority" claim we were making isn't really addressed in the book (the GG&S chapter on the social organizations that form around societies of various sizes can be read either way). I don't remember a specifically "moral" comparison anywhere in the book. If somebody feels this is an element of GG&S, then the "moral" part could be re-inserted, (with a citation).

We could add a footnote reference to the quote that Sheffield Steel gives above to this rewritten sentence. What do you think? --Wragge 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC):

I suggest we change 'no genetic superiority' to 'some genetic difference'

Since Diamond gives a (fairly convincing) argument that the average inhabitant of the New World would have been smarter but less disease-resistant than her Old World counterpart (at first contact) for genetic (as well as environmental) reasons, the wording we want might be something like: "Genetic Differences". It's certainly a good idea to dispassionately avoid words like superiority and inferiority.

Whatever new formulation is adopted, it's completely dishonest for the article to say that Diamond argues against "Genetic Superiority", that phrase must be removed. --Wragge 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Criticism/Political Factors

>In fact, Diamond specifically cites the evolution of complex socio-political structures as a yield >of the increased resources and environment which was being experienced by western europeans.

Doesn't make sense. I'm not an expert on this book but how about:

In fact, Diamond specifically states that the increased resources experienced by western Europeans yielded the evolution of complex socio-political structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Thomas (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Genetic Superiority" resolution

Frankly, the entire preceding fussiness over "genetic superiority" seems like self-indulgent hairsplitting to me, but it is accurate that Diamond makes reference to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences (Eurasian disease resistance, the Chinese forsaking the seas, etc) in the later parts of the book, and the article should acknowledge this. I've tried to do so in a way that is as brief as possible and keeps the focus on these differences all being dependent effects of geographic differences, so that geography is the ultimate determinant (and not any inherent superiority of European stock), as is Diamond's actual argument. Hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us now. JSoules (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jared Diamond made a racist comment saying that New Guineans are probably on average more intelligent than Europeans and then hypothesizes that the high murder rate would lead to natural selection for intelligence. It's an arguement I don't really understand (are stupid people being murdered? are smart people killing them? are smart people avoiding the situation all together? isn't propensity to violence a cultural and personality trait? Does the fact that people of low intelligence are more prone to violence in modern society mean that the same would be true of tribal societies? - I'm asking this out of interest, not for the article).

In any event, blatant racism in any modern book is notable, particularly when it seems to be clearly bias with such a weak supporting argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Diamond does refer to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences. But to call that "blatant racism" is ridiculous. No-one would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison about 2 breeds of dog. There are proven inter-racial genetic differences, e.g.: negroes have adaptations for dealing with extreme heat while Eskimos have adaptations for dealing with extreme cold; dark skin is the original human trait and N. Europeans developed very fair skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency in their less sunny climate.

Diamond is arguing against the common assumption of West-European-based cultures (and probably earlier dominant cultures) that they have genetic advantages in intelligence and / or industriousness and / or social behaviour and therefore have a right to rule the world (see for example Lord Salisbury's 1886 speech against Irish home Rule.-- Philcha (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not 'ridiculous' to call an weak ad hoc argument to say New Guineans are more intelligent blatant racism.

You use the example that nobody would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison between two breeds of dog. True, but to say a fighting dog is more intelligent than a cattle dog, because less intelligent fighting dogs are more likely to die in fights would still strike me as a strange argument. Also species of dog are generally not accepted as a good proxy for race.

Maybe that's because all breeds of dogs are a single species? That's not splitting hairs - it's what happens when people guess ( in an "encyclopedia" no less ) at things they don't understand, and then assert their hunches as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

/* Also, by your own counter example it's impossible to be racist - you say differences are proven, give an example and seemingly then accept any argument about racial differences without any proof. Think about it. */

You go on to say that there are "proven" differences between geographically-dependent culture and genetics. This may be the case, but higher intelligence among New Guineans is not at all proven. So this is why the statement is blatant racism, it's not "proven" and it's evidence is Diamond's prejudiced observations and justification a weak hypothesis.

We are well aware that Diamond is explaining why Europeans make more "cargo" than New Guineans. However, Diamond's rebuttal is itself is both racist and pseudo scientific.

The other sin of Mr Diamond, I've just remembered, is that in discussing the hypothesis that you mention (some cultures dominate others through higher genetic intellectual abilities) is that he says such suggestions are "loathsome" and uses this to reject the argument. This is an example of the moralistic fallacy, and is further undermined by this racist argument we are now discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception / Criticism

Dear User:Archaic d00d and User:Pergamino,

I have this page watchlisted as it's a book I'd quite like to read, so I've noticed that you're having a mminor edit war about a heading. First of all, as per WP:BRD I'd suggest we leave the article as it is, so I've reverted it. We should discuss the proposed change (diff) here before we apply it if consensus is reached. In my opinion, "Reception" is broad enough, with positive and negative meanings, to include the subheaders, without another section. But that's my opinion, what does everyone else think? Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, and is misleading, to have subheadings "Political Factors", "Eurocentrist Determinism" and "Weakness in arguments" under the heading of Reception. It sounds like you are trying to explain the motivation of reviewers rather than criticisms of the book.

For instance talking the "Political Factors" of a reception, sounds like political factors influenced the perception. For instance you could say "Jared Diamond was room mates with a guy who has alot of influence over deciding who gets Pulitzer prizes, so the politics of the Pulitzer price explains that reception. When actually "Political Factors" refers to criticism that Diamond's book does not take into account economic systems and rule of law in how countries develop. It explains a criticism rather than what factors influenced the books reception.

In conclusion, the subheadings explain criticisms, they don't explain how people "recieved" (i.e. liked or not) the book. Archaic d00d (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Good point, although if we do add the heading a bit of re-writing will be required to balance up the reception section. Anyone else? Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we do need to rewrite much. The reception of the book is that it got generally positive review and won prizes, the crticism doesn't change that. The criticism about the book has to do with the arguments the book made, so if it has to be balanced against anything it's the summary of the book's arguments.Archaic d00d (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just that the Reception section will be about 3 lines, which is a bit pathetic for a section. Pergamino seems to have other things to do, so I think we've reached a consensus here, go ahead and make the edit as you see fit. Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)