Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful and Thought Provoking
Review: What can I say? This was a Pulitzer winner and I have to agree. He does an excellent job of presenting his thesis and exposing a different way of looking at the reason why the European cultures came to dominate our globe. As an aspiring novelist who was looking for a foundation to shape his own fictional settings I found this text provided a wealth of thoughts. Of course, some of my friends would say I'm always off in my own fictious world anyway!
Rating:
Summary: excelente amalgama de diferentes ciencias
Review: Esta tarea parece en principio demasiado grande para un solo autor, pues recopilar la vida en la tierra, abarcando toda los continentes con excepción de la antártica por un periodo de 13.000 años, parece enorme y en verdad el libro es monumental. No agobia ni cansa al lector con jergas antropológicas ni lenguaje rebuscado. No esta lleno de odiosos pies de paginas, que tanto atrasan al lector. Es rápido, y se mueve a buen ritmo explicativo, yéndose de un tema a otro sin ser repetitivo ni pedante.La historia parece documentar mas a Australia y Nueva Zelanda, pues el autor ha hecho mas investigación ahí, pero su enfoque de los demás continentes esta muy bien logrado, pues no esta tratando de contarnos toda la historia, sino solo lo referente a los primeros asentamientos humanos y el paso de las organizaciones humanas, de nómadas, a bandas, de bandas a reinos y de reinos a estados. Claro que la transición de cada uno de ellos no fue homogénea ni rápida, tardo mucho y varios factores ayudaron a que a veces se adelantara y a veces que se retrasara. Las fuerzas externas, como guerras, y amenazas de conquistas por parte de invasores, hacían que las grandes tribus se uniesen para protegerse de enemigos comunes. La geografía juega parte importante en el desarrollo de esta tesis, ya que los accidentes geográficos y los cambios climáticos, según el autor, ayudaron o retrasaron el desarrollo de los pueblos, unos como los de nueva Zelanda y Australia que permanecieron aislados y subdesarrollados, y otros, los pueblos europeos que al poder hacer un intercambio de producto, se beneficiaban de un intercambio de ideas y difusión de cultivos entre pueblos. Por supuesto que es una teoría y es perfectamente debatible como cualquier otra y en un futuro próximo esta tesis podría ser confirmada por mas información o rebatida con igual cantidad de información en su contra. Aunque pienso que el libro es fantástico y no debe de ser tomado bajo ningún concepto como un libro racista, sino instructivo. Muy buena lectura no solamente para los amantes de la antropología sino para quien quiera enterarse del porque de muchas cosas y tener datos certeros a mano... Luis Mendez
Rating: 
Summary: Information-packed, but...
Review: NOT CONVINCING. Well-written, well-researched, well-put together. The explanations given for the premise of this book, i.e. 'it's not their fault they're like that and it's not our fault we're like this,' are self-defeating. Well-chosen historical incidents to bring topic into foreground. Good read, but keep focusing on the question and you won't find a convincing answer. Also recommended: Road to Serfdom by Hayek Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun by Roberts Johnson White House Tapes by Beschloss
Rating:
Summary: Worth the read, despite everything
Review: Many of the criticisms of Diamond's book among the 250+ reviews below correctly point out its many flaws: the short shrift given to cultural factors, the over-emphasis on the regions with which the author is most familiar (e.g. New Guinea, Polynesia), sweeping and often unsupported generalizations, repititions in the body of the text, etc. However, overriding thesis on the vital importance of biological and geographic/geological factors in shaping the broad course of human history is a valid one and he argues it quite plausibly. The only problem is that Diamond's arguments begin to falter as he gets closer to the modern era, which is his own fault for not conducting the necessary research and thinking his basic ideas over more thoroughly. However, perhaps the most important aspect of "Guns, Germs and Steel" lies in the public response to it (as seen both on this public reviews page and in the U.S. as a whole, where it was a bestseller and Pulitzer Prize winner), as people were essentially surprised at having human history presented in such a manner. This despite the fact that many of Diamond's basic points are hardly original, and specific aspects of his argument have been brought up and explained in much greater detail by other historians, anthropologists, etc., as even the most superficial glance at Diamond's own bibliography shows. This is indicative: in the U.S. at least, the basic impact of biogeographical factors on human history is hardly ever discussed in any depth (if at all) in high school and university "Western Civ" courses-either in lectures or in the textbooks. In this sense, Diamond's book is an excellent supplement to any study of world history, although it should be read critically.
Rating:
Summary: A good, but incomplete effort
Review: Having read the book and approximately 100 of the reviews, I have decided to give this book 3 stars. That conclusion is based on the fact that much of material is either new to me or is something that I had never sat down and thought about. I found the book interesting, provocative, and, ultimately, unsatisfying. In covering thousands of years of history over many continents, Diamond, by necessity, deals in sweeping statements and (over) generalizations. Because specific statement and arguments are not referenced (there is only a section on "Further Readings" in the back of the book), the reader not intimately familiar with the book's wide-ranging material must rely on Diamond's abilities to analyze and reason in a unbiased manner. It is immediately apparent on picking up the book that Diamond's reason for writing it is to refute any notions that Western civilization is superior because of the people involved. Instead, he argues that Western civilization is a fluke of nature, and that it is only luck that prevented Europe from being colonized by Third World peoples. I have no problem with Politically Correct thinking as long as it is factually correct. However, Diamond, very early in this book, gave me reason to doubt his abilities to analyze and reason carefully. The best example of the above is his discussion (on page 20 and 21) as to why he thinks that native New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans. He offers no evidence except the observation that New Guineans have an obvious advantage over him when he is trying to find his way in the jungles. This is really not so surprising: one would expect people who have lived in an environment all of their lives to have mastered it. A truer test of intelligence would be how quickly someone can master a new environment. His argument is really no different than saying that Bostonians are more intelligent than Midwesterners because the Midwesterner finds the street layout of Boston to be confusing and ends up getting lost (an experience I recently had). The arguments proposed by Diamond as to why New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans are even weaker. One argument is that constant tribal warfare selects more intelligent people. A moment's thought raises major questions about that line of reasoning: Why does warfare with primitive weapons select for intelligence instead of for size, brute strength, aggressiveness, or quickness? If there were constant innovation in weapons and fighting tactics, that would be a method by which intelligence would be selected by constant warfare by giving a survival advantage to intelligent warriors, but no evidence was presented to support that notion. The second reason is even weaker: New Guineans are more intelligent because they don't watch TV! The research on childhood intellectual development and TV viewing that I have seen is inconclusive, and Diamond does not quote any research to support his claim. Perhaps his claim is true, but, if so, it clearly leads to a conclusion that Diamond does not anticipate and that he would clearly object to. If TV watching leads to lower intelligence and functions as do most environment factors, then more TV watching would lead to lower intelligence than would low or medium TV watching. In other words, it would not be an all-or-none phenomenon. However, Diamond does not address the fact that, in several surveys, African-Americans have been found to watch considerably more TV per day than do other ethnic groups. By Diamond's reasoning, African-Americans are therefore less intelligent than are members of other ethnic groups, including New Guineans. He would be clearly appalled by this conclusion, yet it follows naturally from his previously stated line of reasoning. My question then is whether the reader can trust Diamond to analyze and reason carefully and take his line of inquiry wherever it leads, however unpopular and politically incorrect that may be. Based on the above example, I think the answer is no, that he will not venture into areas and explore other than a strictly environmentally deterministic approach. That is why I find this book interesting, but incomplete and, ultimately, unsatisfying. He simply leaves too many questions unaddressed. Many general reviewers are greatly enamored with this book, but I would have liked to have read more reviews by professional historians, cultural anthropologists, and archaeologists.
Rating:
Summary: A must to understand the actual state of humanity.
Review: A book to enjoy, learn, and love. A fascinating book, I read it in one sit, if you start it you can't live it until you finish it. An excellent and well documented thesis, with a huge of well founded examples and data. About the style of writing, it's hard to distinguish if it's a fascinating novel or a scientific tome, Jared makes feel rigorous history as a tale. Recomended to everyone, newcomers or scholars.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for the layman
Review: I have read all the previous 250+ reviews and I don't have anything terribly new to add. I can just say that personally as an African (one of the Bantu that Diamond refers to) I found this book FASCINATING as I had never been exposed to such a cohesive and comprehensive theory of the impact of geographical factors on human societies. Of course I knew that theories existed but not with this level of DETAIL and sustained EVIDENCE. In particular I was impressed with his elucidation of the importance of technology diffusion (Europe got most of its early technology from Middle East and China) and geographical isolation (Australia suffered from its relative isolation). The impact of the SHAPE of the continent was also an idea i had never considered. It was also interesting to learn of the relative levels of advancement of American, African , Aborignal and Eurasian civilizations. It emerges that on a global basis Africa was roughly parallel to America and that the Aborignal were the sole people to remain in the hunter gatherer stage. This makes sense considering the relative size, shape and isolation of the respective continents. This also corrected my previous erroneous belief that Africa was on the trailing edge of global civilization. Lets see ... Copper working in 2000 B.C., Iron in 1,000 B.C, Steel by early A.D, not as bad as I had thought , better than Australia certainly. The surprising early strength and unity of China was also another revelation to me, I had always assumed my Chinese friends were boasting when they talked about how old and advanced their civilization was. In this light current Asian success can be seen in its historical context: The foundation was laid down several millenia ago, the Western lead was really just temporary historically(last 500 years). Lastly, I expect that with modern technology the role of geography will be much smaller and technological diffusion will occur MUCH more rapidly than in the past. So in the next 1000 years we can expect to see technological differences between different regions to disappear as the barriers to technology transfer decrease. For once in my life I was glad for the scourge of Malaria! It seems Malaria was one of the chief reasons Africa was not settled by Europeans and Bantu ethnic groups were able to survive. I might not be here to write this if not for Malaria!! In conclusion I would like to agree with all of peggywb comments of August 18, 2000. I feel much more enlightened after reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: One of my favorite books,learned more in this book then what i learned in all my years in high school.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking and persuasive ideas on a vital topic
Review: This book sets out to answer the question: How did European people get such a big edge? What were the key differences between Eurasia and the rest of the world that led to Europe having the wherewithal in 1492 to conquer the Americas, instead of vice-versa. The book makes a strong case for geographic and biological environmental factors, and argues strongly against factors involving presumed differences in the human 'races'. The geographic factors seem to be but common sence, (once Diamond has explained them!) The biological environmental factors are more technical, and cannot really be evaluated by the lay reader, but they are of such importance that I would like to see more professional-level reviews. Is North America as poor in domesticable plant and animal species as Diamond says? What do other experts in the field say? Basically, I'm with him. Part of the motivation for writing this book is to put out, for public discussion and edification, a strong theory to explain how Europeans/Asians "got ahead". As Diamond points out, many of us think about this very question, and many of us are stuck with unpalatable 'common sence' answers along the lines of "Native Americans (African, Aboriginal Australians) are naturally primitive" or "The Cultures developed by non Europeans are all fatally flawed (by warlikeness, laziness, conservatism, communism, etc.)" I, myself, have wondered about this, and I am too politically correct (which is now an insulting stereotype in-and-of itself) to want to adopt, or even toy openly with any of these race-cultural supremacist theories. But the underlieing question is so important, we MUST discuss it, and get this kind of thinking out into the light of day, where it can be rigorously analysed and judged. Diamond allows us to do this by producing a thorough, well supported theory, covering almost every aspect of this problem. He shows how it can be solved with out recourse to the "I guess those people are jest backward" thinking. Whether all of the answers he suggests and supports will turn out to be the final ones, is certainly open to debate. The only drawback I would point out to his book is that he does get a little repetitious. Another serious round of editing would have helped. But perhaps repetition is not necessarily a bad idea in driving some of his ideas home... As for his reviewers... One reviewer thought Diamond's position is that Whites represent the pinnacle of modern society and that no one can usurp this distinction. This is silly. Diamond is attempting to figure out what gave Whites/Europeans their big edge in 1492. That they had this edge is difficult to dispute. He says nothing about whether they will keep it. Most of his arguments relate to cultures in isolations vs. those which are not. Since none of us are very isolated anymore (at least compared with the kinds of isolation some peoples had in pre-European-exploration times), his work cannot be said to make any projection about continued "white" dominance. Some reviewers complain his work is unoriginal. I'm sure that other experts in this field know that some of his theories and arguments did not spring, unaided, from his mind alone. I never had the impression that he was attempting to make us think so, either. He certainly cites enough other references... His great accomplishment is a clear, persuasive synthesis of ideas that can be read and appreciated by the non-expert. One reviewed scoffed that Diamond is unduly wedded to the idea that "all men are created equal". I didn't get that impression from reading Diamond either. He does suggest that all peoples have their share of geniuses though, which I think would be difficult to disprove. He is also thought to undervalue the importance of culture. This is possible, but on the whole I disagree. Diamond is talking about very long time scales. I think that when we are talking about thousands of years, the physical constraints on the people are more important than any voluntary cultural decisions they make. As Diamond points out, any large number of people will have some groups who are willing to try new things, or who HAVE to try new things because they have been cut out of the best real estate. Over thousands of years, those who avail themselves of the most successful possible food or technology will tend to automatically shut out the others. This may not be observable over a period of tens of years, when cultural factors could easily conquer enlighted self-interest; maybe cultural factors could even triumph over 100's of years. But I think Diamond is more likely to be correct that over the time scale HE is interested in, the boundary conditions (availability of plants, animals and minerals) control the problem. Another complaint is that he does not adequately explain why the Fertile Crescent, with its big head start, or China "won" the domination of Eurasia and hence the world. I'd say that the answer to this problem is not the purpose of Diamond's book. The answers to this that question are more the province of conventional, relatively modern history, in which transient cultural factors may prove far more important than the "initial conditions" or "boundary conditions". Reviewers who wanted to find the solution to that problem clearly should have read another book, or perhaps be writing their own.
Rating:
Summary: A Thought Provoking Thesis
Review: As I write this, some 250 reviewers have preceded me. The last thing this book needs is my opinion as the 251st. The reviews have been educational and interesting, but in quibbling over details they miss the point of this book. Diamond has proposed an interesting new thesis and has supported it with a huge group of interesting examples. It's worth reading to consider the thesis and see if it bears scrutiny. To my way of thinking, it does. Is it the final answer to the question: "Why did civilization advance in "the West" instead of somewhere else?" I guess not. Has Diamond identified some key pieces of the puzzle? You bet!
|
