Rating: 
Summary: Broad explanatory power; appeals to common sense
Review: It's been a long time since I've read a history with such explanatory power and such well-written prose. Diamond undertakes to survey all of human history from the last ice age on down, and chart the rise of civilizations--and specifically, to explain why cities and complex societies arose in some areas more quickly than others, and why in still other areas they never arose at all. His thesis is that ultimately a combination of environmental factors in particular areas nudged the inhabitants of those areas in the direction of intensive food production, which led to increased populations, complex societies, better technology, and in the end the displacement and even eradication of peoples and societies who were less fortunate.Diamond does not restrict his focus to a particular region, civilization, or people. Rather, his text is replete with examples and case studies from around the world. We learn why horses were domesticated but zebras were not; we learn why agriculture arose first in southwest Asia, only later in Mexico and the Andes, and not at all in ancient Australia and California even though the latter two areas contain regions which seem perfectly suitable for it. Best of all, though Diamond is greatly interested in explaining the causes of the European expansion in recent centuries, he time and again illustrates his thesis with examples from -other- encounters between peoples of different environmental and technological backgrounds. The breadth of his examples, and the common sense appeal of his arguments, lends great credibility to his thesis. My own degree is in history, and I have worked professionally as a designer of computer games intended to tell the story of human history. So I've read quite a few books on this sort of subject and this is by far the best written and has one of the most interesting (and useful) theses. I recommend the book without hesitation for both casual and serious students of history.
Rating:
Summary: Durn good read
Review: The book is a very enjoyable read, go'n git it. The 5 stars are for the read, downside is zillions of assertions with nary a blink or a reference. Still, general thesis is tenable -- larger forces and pressures have deep and lasting consequences. As for the reviews who think poor == dumb. Git over it dudes! We've only had about 2000 generations since we took that hike out of Africa -- enough to make some difference but not a lot. That is, inter racial differences in intelligence are >> than intra racial differences. Thus, even if the mean intelligence of some hapless race is below snuff, the variance would give that race plenty of smart schnooks to carry the ball of civilization forward given that the average sot doesn't exactly need a lot upstairs for their daily work even in modern societies. Besides, if anything, the mean intelligence of , say, the Chinese is above that of whites. So their society must be more advanced than say Europe's? Well, they were more advanced...but now they're not...I guess intelligence must change with time. Or since Islamic societies were once the most advanced than that of Europe, I guess they all got real dumb later on. Seems like the intelligence of reviewer "one4time" got cut on Occum's (not "Ockham"'s) razor. Since societies seem to fluctuate in advancement with time and place, I'd say by Occum's razor that intelligence doesn't have as much explanatory power as Guns, Germs and Steel. 'Nuff said.
Rating: 
Summary: A Question for the Ages
Review: Many years ago a New Guinea native asked Jared Diamond a simple question: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Only slightly rephrased, Diamond devotes this book to answering the question why, from the depths of the primeval forests of Africa, mankind emerged at different rates, some achieving the heights of civilization and technology while others remained virtually in the Stone Age? And why did people on some continental landmasses prosper while people on others lagged behind, especially because some locations, like the California Coast, are mild and desirable while others, like Northern Europe are harsh and forbidding? Diamond's thesis is that some populations got a head start over others in the development of civilization. But the head start resulted from favorable geography and natural resources, not from any innate superiority. Given the same location and advantages, any group of people over time would have reached the same result. The first beneficiary of geography happened to be the Fertile Crescent. The "cradle of civilization" not only had all five major large mammals (sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses) available for domestication, but they also possessed the major wild seed groups that would become domesticated grain and cereals. Not all areas are so favorably endowed. Once hunting and gathering gave way to food production, population density took hold, which in turn made possible civic development and technology. The head start then spread roughly along the same parallel east to Asia and west to Europe. Diamond contrasts Eurasia's wide girth and similar climates with America's and Africa's narrow waist and elongated longitude. Technology and culture can shuttle back and forth vast distances between east and west, but climatic zone differences as well as mountain ranges and deserts inhibit flows north and south. I have two criticisms of the book. One, it has no footnotes so that one can source out the author's materials. For example, on page 108 Diamond asserts that early man, because of his ego, would rather hunt giraffes than gather nuts. Is that theory his, or someone else's? The very nature of a book such as "Guns, Germs, and Steel" requires that it pile theory upon theory to make a picture puzzle of a distant and hidden past. If key pieces don't fit, the picture may take a decidedly Cubist theme. A few footnotes would help the reader who wants to delve deeper into a topic. The second criticism is the author's failure to address the role of human intelligence in the development of civilization. Considering the grief Charles Murray took into for writing "The Bell Curve," which held that certain populations have actually raised their intelligence level through centuries of using their brains to solve problems, one understands why Diamond steers clear of the topic - no academic can afford to be tinged with even a hint of racism or euro centrism. Plenty of professors on the leftist fringe stand ready to point the accusing finger any anybody who deviates from the acceptable norm. But surely scholars can deal with the role human intelligence in a non-racist way; after all, the physiology of the human brain is the same in all Homo sapiens. Diamond owes it to his readers to complete the mosaic he has created.
Rating:
Summary: A common sense approach to environmental determinism
Review: A disarmingly easy read on a controversial topic. Diamond sets out common sense ideas in a well organized and well written manner. If you are a believer in some kind of genetic racial superiority idea this is the kind of book that will get you hot under the collar. It might even make you think and stop dragging your knuckles!
Rating:
Summary: Take it at face value
Review: The reader from Boston who advises us not to 'read too much into' this book has it right. I think those who are convinced that genes and racial factors have resulted in modern disparities in wealth and 'advancement' of the civilizations of earth will find a demon lurking between the lines of the book. Those who can read with a more open mind will find the book an accessible, thought-provoking work that displays a broad (though not always deep) understanding of many factors which have played roles in humankind's development. It's interesting to read the reviews submitted by the former kind of reader, most of whom seem convinced that white northern peoples and societies are the product of superior genes. It's surprising that many of them, on the vanguard of the evolution of human intellect, make egregious spelling and grammatical errors in their reviews!
Rating:
Summary: Great read for lovers of history and historic trivia
Review: This book is a must if you've ever wondered why societies have interacted the way they have, with the outcomes we read of in history. This from-the-ground-up discussion of cultural history should be required reading for anyone considering the field, as well as anyone wishing enlightenment about how it all came to be the way it is. Not a treatise on racism, but an argument for why many of the early beliefs in racial inequalities based on continent of origin are flat wrong. I'll read it again to make sure I've got it all straight in my own mind.
Rating:
Summary: Great popular science book
Review: When I bought this book, I was looking for a popular science book that would explain a new subject, and maybe broaden my mind a bit. As such, Guns Germs and Steel is a great success. Firstly, it's a fascinating subject. I mean, the question he's answering is how come Europeans ended up colonising the world, and not the other way round? Secondly, it's well researched. To answer the question, he compares the histories of human development on all the different continents over the last 13,000 years. By the end of it, you end up knowing a bit about the history of every continent. (eg, did you know that people on the island of Madagascar, off the coast of Africa, are actually the descendants of Polynesians?) But the main reason it's so good is the way he structured the book. I've always thought that the best part of following a sports team is the pre-season, when you sit around comparing the strengths & weaknesses of the various teams in the comp and having endless debates about who's going to win. Guns Germs and Steel is a bit like a form guide for the sport called "human development". It starts by looking at the state of human development in each continent 13,000 years ago (in the "pre-season") so that you might make predictions about which continent should have ended up dominating the world. And then it traces human history in each continent to show why Europe ended up winning, which continents came close, and which were the non-contenders, and why. Along the way, you learn a little history about every continent. You're also challenged by brilliant questions like how come horses were domesticated but zebras weren't? Or why weren't acorns ever domesticated as a food source when some acorns can be edible? Or how come when Europeans met Americans for the first time, European germs killed many Americans, but American germs didn't affect Europeans? The general writing style the author uses is that he poses a question, then spends time answering it. But this leads to another question, which when answered leads to another question... and so on. It ends up that you can't put the book down, because at any given time, you've only just heard the question and haven't heard the answer yet! And if you did just hear the answer, you've got another question! I found that this really drew me into the whole subject. By the end of it, I wanted to study some more anthropology! I was surprised that some other reviewers didn't rate this book highly. But many base their bad reviews on the fact that Diamond debunks the "White Race Is Superior" theory, which they subscribe to. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that this is a well-researched, well-written, deeply interesting book about a deeply interesting subject.
Rating:
Summary: Very Enlightening and Lots of Fun to Read.
Review: I could not put this book down. I have read some great thrillers by Greisham and others, that were less compelling than this brilliant examination of 13,000 years of human interaction over the world and the impact of this interaction on the environment, world history and the various species populating the earth, past and present. I must say that it has added a dimension to my perspective of the history/evolution of the human species. Jared Diamond's scholarship meets, in my humble opinion, the very highest standards. The breadth and depth of his research is staggering. This is certainly one of the best books I have read in many, many years.
Rating:
Summary: Crops = Eurasian rule
Review: Before commenting on this book I would like to say something to all those people that consider the European race to be superior: DON'T FORGET THAT IT WAS OUR RACE THAT CREATED THE GREATEST MONSTERS IN HISTORY: HITLER AND STALIN. Now let's come to the book. I've read many of the reviews. Most people found it excellent, but some deplore that it was too PC, or that it focused too much on people that never bothered to develop civilization. For me, it was the first world history book i read that told me so much about extra-Eurasian cultures. The idea that European superiority could have something to do with genetics is in my view completely absurd. Just observe the people around you and tell me: do you really think that they have a superior intellect? I don't think so. If Africans, Asians or Native Americans had the same opportunities to education as Europeans and Whites in general have, they would surely be as performant as we are. Diamond also gives this argument, yet it is true that he spoils it by concluding that New Guineans are more intelligent than people born in civilization. His most important argument (and in my eyes the one that explains most) is the crop argument. The random distribution of "domesticable" crops and animals explains why some people invented agriculture before others. It is obvious that you can't build civilization without farming, and you don't invent farming from one day to the other. People living in the fertile Crescent did have to invent farming because it was almost given to them in a silver plate. They had the greatest choice, so they could pick the crops that gave them most benefits. Other people in other parts of the world did first have to find the crops that allowed farming. Just imagine how to do that in a rainforest where there are millions of different plants, only a few of which allow farming! The same argument counts for domestication of animals. Furthermore, the Mideast is at the crossroads of all trading routes of that time. It linked Africa, East Asia and Europe, more than the Central Asian and European steppes. Finally, one important argument against the racial theory is given in Diamonds book, but seems to have passed unnoticed by most readers. In the second or third chapter (i don't remeber which), Diamond presents the different evolutions in Polynesia. If race had played a role, all Polynesians would have evolved in the same way. Yet that was not the case at all. Some Polynesians (on the Chatham islands, for example), became hunter-gatherers again. Others maintained farming, but did not evolve. Others started to create empires (Hawaii and Tonga). The Easter island developped writing and build the famous Moai. All this was mostly due to geography: depending on which island they settled, Polynesians evolved differently, even though previously they had shared the same level of development. Atolls and other unferile islands developped hunter-gatherers;fertile ones allowed agriculture, volcanic ones allowed buildings and monuments made of stone, minerally rich ones (new Zealand) created a war culture, and the ones most blessed allowed empires (especially Hawaii).If that's not an example of how geography, and not race, shapes history, then I'll go and live in New Guinea.
Rating:
Summary: Must-read for students of history
Review: Here's one of the reasons I love this book so much: one4time from Asheville, North Carolina confronts the first and only solid refutation of racism as implied by history, and finds it incompatible with his own racist convictions. *(of course, just as a side note, his specific arguments hold no weight when you add the factor of time. It is based on the fact that whites today are generally more successful than other races. however, it wouldn't hold up to the test of time: 1,000 years ago, the opposite would be true. he would be asking: "if whites are not biologically inferior to Muslims and Africans, then how come middle eastern and North African Civilizations are superior to white ones? Even Muslims living in Spain, a European country, have a higher standard of living and greater cities than Christians living in Spain". Who knows how his argument will hold up 1,000 years from now) I'm sorry to have to be so frank, but unfortunately today, too many people in all societies of the world study only the history of the past 500 years from Western textbooks, where the rise of White Civilization (put into euphemisms such as "European" or "Western") came to dominate and humiliate all other world civilizations through superior-well, everything, especially after 1800. Once again, sorry to be so blunt. Rather than be put into the context of 40,000 years of human history and 10,000 years of human civilization, schools around the United States teach the past 500 years (the exact period of time that 'the West' was on the rise) as the entire bulk of modern world history. Not surprisingly, any serious student of history today would be led to suspect at first (with the exception of Japan), that all nonwhite peoples were somehow inferior, especially African & Native American peoples but not excluding all other nonwhites. Any semiserious student of politics AND history would ponder, given all the anti-racist rhetoric in society today, why white civilization suddenly came to dominate all the other ones and why white scientists seemed to come up with all the inventions, from Pythagoreas to Einstein. This book goes a great deal at providing a much-needed explanation for people whose only other alternative would be private racism, a conviction that nonwhite civilizations failed because the people who composed these places were biologically inferior. It is not surprising that many people reject Jared Diamond viciously, because his book is revolutionary.
|
