Talk:Guns, Germs and Steel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See also: Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

Talk:GGS archive

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

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Absurdity

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/n/Talk%7EGuns%2C_Germs_and_Steel_06d5.html"