Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Reviews (See all 2,471) Write a reviewfor this

It's a hit!

In response to Jed Link's review of this book, it's important to remember the following when considering such a broad topic as Jared Diamond attemp... (show more)

In response to Jed Link's review of this book, it's important to remember the following when considering such a broad topic as Jared Diamond attempts to explain: How is human history different for peoples on Earth? The answer is actually a part of the question: our environments shape our experience and eventually our historical destinies. For any of us to so foolish ignore the obvious truth that resources, environment and the diffusion of knowledge or trading of goods is to fly in the face of what makes us human and how we have been born into the society we now have thereby creating the possibility of 'human agency' in which to act.

Mr. Link has clearly not read (or not carefully enough) the body of evidence when he 'refutes' Mr. Diamond when by saying the author "ignores and rejects the implications of human evolution caused by different selective advantages for a farmer and a hunter-gatherer over the same span of time." This point was reiterated through multiple chapters of the book: hunter-gathers and farmers are no 'better off' than the other; what Mr. Diamond drives home so well is that because of the environmental conditions (not human agency), as well as the sociopolitical ones (such as the size and stratification of society) does a group choose farming or continue hunting-gathering. It's also important to know that these are not binary positions that societies occupy - 'farming' as we know it was a slow evolutionary process by humans to improve the chances of survival while hunting-gathering; whether or not bands of people became settled, farming societies rests on a variety of factors (many of which were very well explained with ample evidence in parts one and two of this book).

Mr. Link is right in one respect: history does not predict the future. I'm not sure if, when reading a history text, he expected to see astrological charts. History is just that. In regards to 'human agency', I would think that Mr. Link would agree that humans do not make decisions in a vacuum: our environment and society directly affect how decision are made. After all, how could have Pizarro ever had the notion of becoming a conquistador or sailing a massive ocean?

To answer his point about 'hypersensitivity' in regards to racism in this book, it's perhaps best to look in the mirror. Beyond the flagrant lie that Mr. Diamond "Over and over again... assures the reader that he is not racist (which he proves by explaining how he thinks native New Guineans are more intelligent than American Whites, a politically correct – albeit racist – contention." If the passage Mr. Link was referring to had been read in context, I would be impressed if someone even thought twice about the 'political correctness' of it. Comparing the intelligence of New Guineans to the ways in which Western peoples use their brains is not within driving distance of racism. To think otherwise, Mr. Link, would be hypersensitive.

History is an "exercise in salvage", Mr. Link. No longer can history be understood through settled on fact or propaganda - history, as Mr. Diamond shows, is is all an encompassing study involving economics, anthropology, sociology and (as Mr. Diamond proves) lots of science. You can read this book, as Mr. Link has done, with a closed mind, with the usual myths of the greatness of European men and be astonished that scientific evidence, when applied to volumes of history and anthropological study, creates a verifiable pattern - that the course of human events has been sculpted by our environment, physical or otherwise. (show less)

 

 

by Robert Oxford

No, it's a flop!

Jed Link's review (appears below mine right now) was quite good, so I won't repeat making the same points. Fascinating in its detail yet stretched ... (show more)

Jed Link's review (appears below mine right now) was quite good, so I won't repeat making the same points. Fascinating in its detail yet stretched in its conclusions, this book exemplifies some of the messiness that has been and will continue to be encountered as the emerging field of environmental history struggles with evidence from before recorded events and seeks a human narrative in natural circumstances. This books' popularity ultimately aids the field's development, because it introduces content, reasoning, and arguments that will be repeated over and over in an accessible form.

Though I enjoyed Diamond's sweeping urge to synthesize and his wide-reaching knowledge and certain acute observations, I did start to suffer from his style. It began to feel plodding and very predictable, as most of his arguments are structured the same way, with a straw man set up at the beginning, followed by a gradual point-by-point comparitive breakdown of the straw-man argument. It gets monotonous. And why the pictures, which are the very essence of National Geographic 1959?

At any rate, quite glad to have read this tome, which, even for the nits that many specialists will pick, and the conclusions which reach too far, held much interest and provides fodder for lots of interesting conversations. (show less)

 

 

by Facebook-gebruiker

More Reviews

• 
  

  Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond) is an academic exercise in junkyard salvage. Any mechanic will tell you that a car that doesn’t run isn’t necessarily trash. It can still be useful for the parts that the car is made of. This book is worth reading, not because its thesis is in working order – it’s not – but because there is a wealth of interesting information in the parts that make up the thesis. If a reader can overlook the overly simplified environmental determinism, they can mine out ... (show more)

  Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond) is an academic exercise in junkyard salvage. Any mechanic will tell you that a car that doesn’t run isn’t necessarily trash. It can still be useful for the parts that the car is made of. This book is worth reading, not because its thesis is in working order – it’s not – but because there is a wealth of interesting information in the parts that make up the thesis. If a reader can overlook the overly simplified environmental determinism, they can mine out fascinating nuggets of information ranging from crop domestication, to linguistic studies to human migration.

  The Failure of the Thesis

  From an argumentative perspective, the author establishes a non-falsifiable case. It is a pseudo-scientific masquerade where causation is conflated with correlation and where the entire cannon of diverse human history can be plucked through to find supportive theories and examples. The author upholds collaborating evidence because it collaborates, and discounts everything else because it does not. For example, he meticulously describes the evolutionary process by which corn was domesticated and changed from pinky-sized ears to the forearm-sized corn cobs that we enjoy today, but ignores and rejects the implications of human evolution caused by different selective advantages for a farmer and a hunter-gatherer over the same span of time. The thesis and the support are self-fulfilling, and argumentatively fallacious.

  In the final chapter, the author reveals his intention to bring scientific methodology to human history. The scientific positivism he proposes – which has long been rejected for social sciences because it fails to predict human behavior – strives to tell a tale of human development that unfolded a certain specific way and could not have unfolded in any other way.

  In the book’s thesis-framing example, Pizarro leads 168 Spaniards to victory over 80,000 Incan soldiers. The author argues that the result was environmentally pre-determined and accordingly that there was no way it could have occurred differently. This is just one example by which he explicitly attempts to remove human agency from the equation of human history, with the penultimate goal of discrediting any claim that human differences account for differences in human history.

  The author’s intentions are clear, as he is very careful to jump through politically correct hoops with disclaimer after disclaimer to appease his hypersensitive academic audience. Over and over again he assures the reader that he is not racist (which he proves by explaining how he thinks native New Guineans are more intelligent than American Whites, a politically correct – albeit racist – contention).

  The central problem with his thesis becomes evident in his final chapters when he tries – and fails – to reconcile the explanations of human pre-history with recorded accounts of modern-recorded history. The problem of human agency overwhelms an otherwise untested hypothesis. When writing about events for which there is no record beyond the ultimate terminal result it is easy to discount the impact of human decisions because there is no record of those decisions being made. Since the choice between A and B is not explicit, one can assume that there wasn’t a choice at all using the perfection of hind-sight. Surely the Allied Forces had to land at Normandy (instead Pas de Calais or Italy) to win World War 2 because they won the war after landing at Normandy. This is the circular logic that permeates primary thesis: It had to happen because it did happen.

  But in the final chapters, he attempts to bring his theory of human development into the 20th Century and cracks begin to emerge. The success of Chinese Civilization which was predicted by environmental determinism choked and failed because of human choices (the choice of Eunuchs to shut down ports). The failure of Japan to adopt muskets resulted from the human code of the Samurai and the honor of the sword. Once human history – and the inevitable choices incurred by human agency – are recorded, there is more difficulty discounting the impact of those decisions.

  Ultimately, then, this book is not able to discount the impact of human agency or redirect the focus from human difference.

  Good for the parts

  Although the thesis is not compelling – largely because it overreaches – there is certainly use in the individual arguments that are made. Certainly, environmental conditions played some role in human history. The important caveat that needs to be made is that environmental variables helped shape but did not dictate the paths that human history took. Different people in the same environments would have lead to different results. The author all but admits this when he talks about the near-death of Hitler before World War 2, and the failed assassination attempt later.

  The sections on human migration, plant and animal domestication, and written language development are fascinating. The utility of this book is that it surveys such a broad range of topics, explaining extremely complex theories succinctly and in plain English. You don’t have to be an anthropologist or a botanist to grasp the narrative prose. The author litters the pages with anecdotal evidence that, like the parts of a broken down car, can be taken out and reassembled into a car that runs.

  This reservoir of interesting, useful information makes this book worth the time to read, so long as one is sufficiently critical of the thesis. And just in case you are on the border, the book has pictures too. (show less)

   

  by Jed Link on Jan 21, 2008 at 03:18AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  Apparently I will be the 2,279th review for Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", so any capsulizing of the book seems redundant. Otherwise I doubt that I am going to be able to add anything in commentary that hasn't already been posted. But I will say nonetheless that it is an ambitious, compelling book that seeks to answer some of very great questions regarding the course of human history. And actually Diamond's answer comes up, I have to say, surprisingly banal: food production.... (show more)

  Apparently I will be the 2,279th review for Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", so any capsulizing of the book seems redundant. Otherwise I doubt that I am going to be able to add anything in commentary that hasn't already been posted. But I will say nonetheless that it is an ambitious, compelling book that seeks to answer some of very great questions regarding the course of human history. And actually Diamond's answer comes up, I have to say, surprisingly banal: food production. What is very interesting (though not without a few snoozy, maybe overly-attenuated
  moments), however, is the interdisciplinary scholarship that went into molding this thesis. Very admirable. Some of these other reviews seem to have some axes to grind, maybe it speaks more of the reviewer than the reviewed, maybe not. But I don't see how anyone could walk away from this book without new ideas, new perspectives. I give it four stars. (show less)

   

   

  by Andrew Sutter on May 29, 2009 at 05:03AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review