Rating: 
Summary: Scientific history
Review: One of the most important book I ever read. I just wonder why nobody , historians, teachers, scientists, told us before Diamond all what is told in his book. It looks like the author has invented a new science, a quantitative and scientific way of doing history.
Rating:
Summary: A most carefully written, well outlined insight on progress
Review: The author truly cares about his reader's firm grasp of his ideas and theories, all straightforwardly presented for the enjoyment of the lay reader. Diamond continually reminds the reader of the dominant influencial factors in the progress of peoples and civilizations, established early in the book, always emphasizing the key events and conditions that have created our world of today and why we are the world we are today. A very enjoyable read, and lamentable to come to its last page. Excellent additional reading suggestions are included.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding, a great read.
Review: Like "Third Chimpanzee", "Guns, Germs, and Steel" covers such a wide range of times, peoples, and topics that even if you don't agree with the author's conclusion (sort of an enhanced geographical determinism- maybe "bio-geographical determinism"?) you'll enjoy the book simply for the incredible breadth of information presented by Diamond to make his case. I happened to agree with his conclusion, so I enjoyed it that much more. Only a couple of very minor criticisms: 1) As a couple of previous reviewers mentioned, the last few chapters get a bit repetitive at times (you'll catch yourself thinking "I GET it already!") 2) Some examples are much more convincing than others. For instance, his Polynesian, New Guinean, and Australian examples are neat, complete, and utterly persuasive. Some of his New World examples, however, are not as convincing. One example is the failure of the wheel to catch on in the New World. According to the book, the wheel was invented in MesoAmerica, but not in Ancient Peru. But since the only draft animals (llamas) were in Peru, the wheel never really caught on and was used only on ceramic toys in MesoAmerica. Because of the difficult geography of the region- jungles, narrow isthmus, etc.- the wheel never spread to the Incas. My problem with this example is the #'s don't seem to add up. Diamond offers 1 mile/month as a conservative guesstimate of how quickly paleo-Indian hunter-gatherers filled up the Americas, meaning that people could migrate from the Bering strait to the southernmost tip of South American in about 700 years. Now Peru and MesoAmerica are only a fraction of that distance apart, but somehow, over hundreds of years, no one managed to get one of these wheeled toys- or even the idea of a wheeled toy- between the two societies? This is even harder to believe when we consider that these people had sea-going rafts. Diamond refers to one that Pizzaro captured off the coast of Peru, and Cuba and Hispaniola were full of Indians when Colombus arrived... I had similar problems with the explanation for the failure of writing to migrate from MesoAmerica to Peru. Yes, the Incans had their system of knots for record-keeping, but again it's hard to believe that no one would get the idea of visual symbols on a flat surface across that distance over hundreds of years... Diamond's own area of research appears to be primarily New Guinea and Polynesia, so perhaps that's why his examples are stronger there. At any rate, the book is still outstanding- the 400 pages pass too quickly.
Rating: 
Summary: Why is dominance good?
Review: I have to offer a contrary opinion to the glowing reviews here. While most have been pretty insightful -- I only found one blatant racist pig -- they seem to miss a fundamental point: why is the economic and political dominance of the west that Diamond researches seen as inherently _good_? There's no doubt that the events he chronicles did happen, the disease, the political conquests, etc, and I believe most of his reasons as to why they did. The problem lies in the fact that neither he, nor the other reviewers here, ask the more fundamental question -- So WHAT? So what if the west has better weapons, resistance to disease, and economic dominance? Why are these equated with success or superiority? We need to deconstruct _why_ these were/are seen as the goal for civilizations past and present. The New Guinean asks why whites have more "cargo" -- no doubt a provocative question -- but no one stops to think "is 'cargo' really good, or desirable, or admirable?" Diamond has taken a very traditional and very male view of what exactly is the "good stuff" in life.
Rating: 
Summary: Also, why did Europe get ahead of China & Middle East?
Review: In addition to addressing the questions described in the other reviews, Diamond also looks at why one certain early developer, Europe, leaped ahead of other early developers on the Eurasian landmass. One fascinating insight: Europe's fragmentation actually was an advantage over China unity.
Rating:
Summary: Worth reading, especially if this isn't your field.
Review: Dr. Diamond's book covers little in the way of new ground, but he does a reasonable job of bringing together some interesting recent work in a variety of fields, making this information available to those of us that are not professionals in these various areas. Of course, much of what is here should be reasonably familiar to any well-educated person, but there were enough surprises to keep me going through the unfortunate repetitions scattered throughout the book. Diamond dwells to excess on the Pacific area he's most familiar with. It is understandably a micro-example of his wider premise, but surely others must be known as well, and the book could have benefited from additional examples from other geographic areas. Despite these problems, the basic premise of the book is well-defended and provides a clear and easy-reading statement of the author's ideas.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't understand growing importance of human biodiversity
Review: "The Clash of Continents " -- by Steve Sailer -- Published in National Review, 5/19/97, as "Why Nations Conquer" An early version of this book's subtitle illustrates its ambitiousness: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. Jared Diamond's goal is to explain why Eurasians conquered Africans, Australians, and Americans instead of the other way around, even though conventional social scientists shy away from such a fundamental question out of fear of what they might find. Since random accidents of personality and culture appear too trivial to account for the clash of continents' lopsided outcomes (e.g., a few hundred Conquistadors demolished the grandest empires of the New World), this leaves only two possible underlying causes: either the winners had better homelands or better bodies and brains. Deeming genetic explanations "racist" and "loathsome," Diamond sets out to reaffirm the equality of humanity by showing the inequality of the continents. To him, the three most important engines of history are location, location, and location. Few are more broadly qualified to write history in terms of geography and sociobiology. A molecular physiologist at UCLA, Diamond is also an evolutionary biologist in the field. His 33 years birdwatching in the tropics, especially in New Guinea, home to 1000 of Earth's 6000 languages, put him in touch with a remarkable variety of humans. Diamond wrote surprisingly little for popular audiences before his dazzling 1992 book, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. In contrast to that kaleidoscopic page-turner, Guns, Germs, and Steel hammers away at a single thesis, sometimes repetitiously. Nonetheless, it rewards the effort. Diamond argues that the broadest aspects of the modern world -- e.g., North America's domination by whites -- were largely determined by the continents' dissimilar natural resources of domesticatable plants and animals. Regions offering an abundance of these could support the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer-herder, allowing higher population densities. And those communities that could free up the most manpower from farming to specialize in technology and war could conquer their neighbors. A few areas, especially the Middle East, were home to many easily domesticated foods: both wild grains like wheat and large mammals like cows and sheep. Other parts of Eurasia such as Europe were close enough to the Fertile Crescent for early diffusion of these crops and livestock. In contrast, much of the Earth, including seemingly congenial landscapes like California, lacks native plants that would be more profitable to cultivate than to gather. What valuable vegetation the New World did possess, like Mexico's corn, was slow to migrate north and south along the Americas' main axis because crops' growing seasons are sensitive to latitude. (Since the vast Eurasian continent's main axis is east-west, however, foods diffused more easily there.) Also, the New World was badly lacking in large domesticatable mammals. Excluding boutique operations, today humans raise just 14 species of mammals of over 100 pounds. Of these, only the llama/alpaca is native to the Americas. Of course, 13,000 years ago the New World teemed with potentially useful beasts like horses and camels. Then the American Indian arrived and, Diamond says, ate them. This rapacity made their Aztec and Inca descendants both militarily impotent and dreadfully susceptible to the Conquistadors' diseases. The Spaniards, in contrast, were heirs to not just Eurasia's foods and technologies (including Chinese inventions like paper, gunpowder, and the compass), but also to immunities to its germs. Since the worst epidemics are descended from farm animals' diseases (e.g., smallpox from cows), native Americans had no diseases of their own (except possibly syphilis) with which to fight back. Diamond's geohistorical approach certainly clarifies continental-scale history. Most of world history, however, is Eurasian history, and he's only sketchy on why the West Eurasians eventually overcame the East and South Eurasians. Diamond is not content, however, to merely write the history of the last 13,000 years. He also claims that his evidence is of great political momentuousness because it shows that no ethnic group is inferior to any other: each exploited its local food resources as fully as possible. For example, after the Australian Outback explorers Burke and Wills exhausted their Eurasian-derived supplies, three times they had to throw themselves on the mercy and expertise of the local Stone Age hunter-gatherers. These Aborigines, the least technically advanced of all peoples, may not have domesticated a single Australian plant in 40,000 years, but in 200 years down under scientific whites have domesticated merely the macadamia nut. Farming only pays in Australia when using imported crops and livestock. But, are indigenous peoples merely not inferior? In truth, on their own turf many ethnic groups appear to be somewhat genetically superior to outsiders. Diamond makes environmental differences seem so compelling that it's hard to believe that humans would not become somewhat adapted to their homelands through natural selection. And in fact, Diamond himself briefly cites several examples of genetic differences impacting history. Despite military superiority, Europeans repeatedly failed to settle equatorial West Africa, in part because they lacked the malaria resistance conferred on many natives by the sickle cell gene. Similarly, biological disadvantages stopped whites from overrunning the Andes. Does this make Diamond a loathsome racist? No, but it does imply that a scientific-minded observer like Diamond should not dogmatically denounce genetic explanations, since he is liable to get tarred with his own brush. The undeniability of human biodiversity does not prove that we also differ somewhat mentally, but it's hard to imagine why the brain would differ radically from the rest of the body. Consider the fable of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant's personality traits -- foresight and caution -- fitted him to survive his region's predictably harsh winters. Yet, the grasshopper's strengths -- improvisation and spontaneity -- might furnish Darwinian superiority in a tropical land where the dangers are unpredictable. Like many, Diamond appears to confuse the concepts of genetic superiorities (plural) and genetic supremacy (singular). The former are circumstance-specific. For example, a slim, heat-shedding Somalian-style body is inferior to a typically stocky, heat-conserving Eskimo physique in Nome, but it's superior in Mogadishu (and in Manhattan, too, if, you want to become a fashion model and marry David Bowie, like Somalian supermodel Iman). In contrast, genetic supremacy is the dangerous fantasy that one group is best at everything. Before the European explosion began in the 15th Century, it seemed apparent that no race could be supreme. Even the arrogant Chinese were periodically overrun by less-cultured barbarians. The recent European supremacy in both the arts of war and of peace was partly an optical illusion masking the usual tradeoffs in talents within Europe (e.g., Italian admirals were as inept as English cooks). Still, the rise and reign of Europe remains the biggest event in world history. Yet, the era when Europeans could plausibly claim supremacy over all other races has been dead for at least the 60 years since Hitler, of all people, allied with Japan. The historian who trumpets the political relevance of his work must consider both the past and the future, which Diamond fails to do. Surprisingly, ethnic biodiversity is becoming more important in numerous ways. Until recently, one's location and social position at birth closely constrained one's fate. But, as equality of opportunity grows, the globalized marketplace increasingly exploits all advantages in talent, including those with genetic roots. Pro sports offer a foretaste of the future: many are resegregating themselves as ethnic groups increasingly specialize
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for every Social Scientist & Philosopher
Review: Jared Diamond's work may be the most important contribution to the understanding of human history since Rousseau's DISCOURSE OF THE ORIGIN OF INEQUALITY (1755) forced philosophers to question the assumption that civilization was "naturally" superior to pre-literate ("savage") society. Diamond has had the courage to raise the essential questions about the psychic unity of our species, the origins of political institutions, and the shape of modern history. In so doing, his analysis reflects the explosion of knowledge in evolutionary biology over the last decade while integrating research cutting across many fields in the social sciences and humanities. Although some specialists have quibbled about details (professors are territorial animals), Diamond's basic question -- why did Europe conquer the New World, Africa and Asia -- cannot be addressed without something like his broad view. Given the absurd stereotype of biology as genetic determinism, it is particularly fascinating to see how biogeography takes on an essential role in the explanation of cultural differences and historical sequences. No longer can serious analyses of Western global hegemony ignore the argument that it is due to such factors as the timing of hominid settlement in various continents, their orientation and scale, and the diversity of their fauna and fauna suited for domestication. Diamond's complex analysis of the origins (and frequent collapse) of political institutions challenges the simplistic formulas that dominate most social science today. If you are seriously interested in understanding human nature, history and politics, this book is not to be missed. Despite all the publicity it has received, few of my colleagues seem to have read -- or even know about -- Diamond's important and thought-provoking book. If you are seriously interested in understanding human nature, history and politics, GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL is not to be missed. Roger D. Masters, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting analysis but hard to pin down on originality
Review: Since other reviewers have summarised the contents, there is no need to do this again. However, none of the above reviewers remarked that quite often, the book is rather sloppy both in analysis and detail, including a very different subtitle on the paper cover and in the book itself (I have the Jonathan Cape version). For example, in the encounter between Pizarro and the Inca throne pretendent Atahuallpa, the latter is several times presented as the ruling Inca, which he was not. Atahuallpa had just won major victories over his opponent and was heading for the capital Cusco to claim the throne when he found Pizarro and company on his way. Not very surprisingly, Atahuallpa had other things on his mind than evaluating the possible threat these foreigners could present. Another example: several times it is mentioned that the Incas had no writing. However, they had quipus, an elaborate system of threads and knots with which they could make extensive precise records. These quipus could easily be transferred through the realm with the aid of long distance runners. They could well be considered the equivalent of cuneiform, and were very well adapted to Andean state building efforts. Also the importance of potatoes is played down, as well as many other things, especially New World dating of plant domestication, that do not conform to Diamond's analysis. I was also struck by the fact that Diamond hardly ever makes reference to the work of other scientists and historians, although his work heavily leans on their scholarship. Their work is only referred to in the section Further Reading, which I find rather offensive to these scholars (also because the Index does not refer to that section). So, although this is a most interesting and challenging book, it is impossible to know what part of the argument should actually be attributed to Diamond, and what to other scientists. For example, considerable portions of the argument about infectious diseases come straight from William McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, without ever mentioning this in the main text. As a result, the book's arguments and details should not be quoted unless there is certainty that Diamond has not taken them from someone else without mentioning him or her. I think the book is very strong on biology and languages, but considerably less so on human history. Fred Spier
Rating:
Summary: One of the most important books I have ever read
Review: The authors explanation of how some societies had advantages for technological and social development because of biogeographical accidents, seems to get to the heart of why some societies are more "advanced" than other societies. If I have any criticism of the book, it is that the other seems to spend very little time on Chinese society and none on India.
|
