Rating: 
Summary: History as it should be taught!
Review: Unlike most of the "history" we were force-fed in school, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is at once thought-provoking, well-written, fascinating, and highly entertaining. Jared Diamond richly deserves all the accolades (and money), which he has earned! Hey, anyone who can make history interesting to millions of Americans raised on a thin gruel of rote memorization, boring textbooks, and self-serving propaganda (see James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me") has got to be doing something right!As far as the critics of "Guns, Germs and Steel," at least as indicated by reviews here at Amazon.com, they basically seem to be arguing that the book is flawed because it is (choose one or more): "politically correct," "left-wing," not "original," "lacking in concrete evidence," overly deterministic in its focus on natural forces/factors, and -- a related criticism - neglectful of important "human variables," particularly "culture" and "religion." OK, then, what about it, is the book "politically correct" or "left-wing"? Well, if by "politically correct" the critics are referring to a hypersensitivity to any criticism of the "in" group(s) of the day, and/or holding the majority (or an "out" group, like white males, in some people's view) to a far tougher standard than others are held to, I don't really see how that criticism applies to "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Reason? Diamond is not saying that Europeans are BAD because they conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever, he's just explaining WHY Europeans conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever. Huge difference there! Really, it's surprising that this book is criticized as "PC", because as far as I can tell it's basically arguing "survival of the fittest" on a racial level (although not for any "inherent" or "God-given" reason, but basically for totally natural/arbitrary/accidental factors), and I thought that "survival of the fittest" was an old favorite of many conservatives, even fascists. So, in sum, I just don't understand why this criticism is being made at all. As far as "lacking in concrete evidence," I think that's kind of a silly criticism for a book which is written specifically for a mass audience, plus it's wrong anyway. Diamond presents PLENTY of fascinating, thought-provoking, entertaining evidence for his thesis, and if you want more you can read lots more about it all over the place! As far as "ignoring human variables" (especially "culture" and "religion"), that gets to the heart of Diamond's whole argument, and people who make this criticism either don't get Diamond's argument or just don't LIKE it (probably because it implies that THEIR "culture" and/or "religion" are not inherently any more wonderful or superior to any others, although they certainly may be more adaptive in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" sense). The thing is, this whole question is a "chicken and egg" paradox. In other words, is northern European Protestantism (for instance) more powerful than, let's say, Native American religions, because it is inherently "better" in some sense, or is it more that northern European Protestantism HAPPENED to win out (for all kinds of reasons not under their control, like germs, which they didn't even know about), and as the victors they got to write history (and, not surprisingly, portray themselves in the most positive light). Just to take one powerfully intriguing example, what if Europeans had come over to America and been decimated by native American diseases instead of the other way around? That ALONE probably would have stopped the Europeans from defeating the Indians. Imagine if a few survivors had sailed back to Europe carrying these diseases and Europe had largely been wiped out as well. Among many other things, I don't think too many people would be making the argument today that European civilization was superior to any other, that's for sure! Anyway, the bottom line here is that this is a great book. So, pay no heed to the ideologues and nitpickers, read the book for yourself, and enjoy a fantastic story!
Rating:
Summary: World history from 50,000 feet up
Review: Diamond probably should have named this book "Domesticatable Plants and Animals, Germs, and Migrations". Even so, it is one of the best histories of world I have ever read. He builds a convincing case for geographical determinism as the source of cultural and technological differences between the peoples of the world. Diamond describes the widely different inheritances of edible plants and domesticatable animals in geographic regions. The inevitable force of human ingenuity led to a package of food crops, farm animals, and epidemic diseases posessed by the inhabitants of these areas. This inheritance enabled inundation and replacement of peoples who were less fortunate in what the earth offered them. If you have ever wondered why Europeans conquered the world in the 1800's, why China is relatively homogenous, why indigenous Australians were technologically backwards, why the Americas' indigenous people were virtually exterminated, and why Africans were not given the same treatment, this book is for you. A great rebuttal to racialist theories of cultural variation.
Rating: 
Summary: A worthy reading
Review: I really enjoyed reading Jarel Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. No doubt that the topic proposed by this book is fascinating, and the first pages very promising. Maybe because of that, as you go through you may feel some disappointment. For people who, like me, might be not familiarized with History and Anthropology, the book is full of interesting anecdotes and stories. But, since the scope of the book is very broad, and J. Diamond himself is not a historian, it is likely that the book must contain many imprecisions that might irritate to some people familiarized with some of the topics. That should not concern to the reader. The important thing of this book is the methodology (an approach similar to the Natural History, based on ecological and evolutionary concepts) that he emplys to explain the course of the human history during the last 13000 years, and the generalizations that he provides to explain the outcomes of it. No doubt that some of the explanations provided by Diamond to some issues, for example for the flourish of European societies over China, or India, during the last centuries are clear oversimplifications, which are to be improved by other authors. In that sense, I also think that the reader should not worry too much about it, since this book must be regarded as a pioneer work, more than as a finished conclusion. Among the main drawbacks, besides the oversimplifications (and omission of spiny problems), I would point that the book is too long, what seems unnecessary. The author wants to prove that were differences in the geographical features of the different continents what determined the different paces in "development"ÂEamong them. His idea is rapidly understood, but he repeats it too much. That's why you feel that the book is somehow loosing interest as you read. I also felt that his reasoning was deterministic in excess, not conceding the enough importance to random events (even with the same forces driving the course of the events, and starting from the same point 13000 years ago, our world today is just one of the many possible outcomes). Overall, I think it is a very good book, and I recommend reading it to anybody who wants to spend some time thinking about the past and present of human societies. Even if you disagree with the author opinions, I am sure that it will be interesting for you.
Rating:
Summary: Fabulous!
Review: What an amazing book!
When I started this, someone from a mail list I'm on said that it should be required reading for anyone interested in creating a world. I heartily agree. In a short 425 pages, Mr. Diamond shows us how mankind stopped being nothing more than roving bands of "primative" hunter-gatherers and grew into complicated societies. He also shows us how some cultures advanced more quickly than others. Along the way, he explains how history works. What drives massive migration? What allows someone to invent? Why would we need to develop writing and what advantage does it give over people who can't?
All those questions, and more, are answered in a very logical, easy-to-understand way that was a pleasure to read. In fact, it was a challenge to read during the holidays because each page is so densely packed with relavent information that I felt I needed to devote my entire attention to the page. I'm sure there were important ideas that I missed, so I'll eventually re-read this one, and I say that about very few books. As a writer, I found numerous ideas for how a culture might develop in this book. And, along with those ideas, I found a lot of motivations for created people, as well. At many times in history, life has been an adventure, no matter who you were or what you wanted life to be. Mr. Diamond highlights several of those times in Guns, Germs and Steel. For instance, imagine what it must have been like to be some of the first people to colonize New Guinea or Australia using only primative stone and bone tools. Now, imagine what it might have been like with a few differences, like steel. Start writing about those imaginings and, viola, you're off and running. No matter how you slice it, Guns, Germs and Steel is a great book that I'd reccomend to almost anyone with an interest in ancient history.
Rating:
Summary: An opus of breathtaking scope worth multiple readings
Review: I read this book when it came out and saw Diamond on the lecture circuit when he plugged the book. I thought highly of it at the time. Seeing it still selling well four years later, I wanted to review it but felt a re-reading was in order. It was even better this time. Diamond's central rhetorical device is answering New Guinean friend Yali's questions why Europeans have so many more goods than New Guineans do. The answer is location, location, location: location with lots of domesticable crops; location with lots of domesticable animals; and location with lots of productive acreage having 'Goldilocks' access to the rest of the world -- strong enough for crop and idea diffusion but weak enough to prevent political unification. The book is twenty solidly written essays like his 'Discover' magazine articles. Linguistics, evolutionary biology, history, archaeology, anthropology, epidemiology, agronomy and paleontology are just part of the palette from which Diamond draws for his sweeping portrait of the most recent 13,000 years of human existence. There is hardly a wrong word written, a false step taken, or an error made in this exciting book, which delights in no small part by raising as many questions as it answers. Diamond knows a lot about a lot of things, and provides many an aha! moment. He also asks interesting questions about some things that neither he or anyone else knows about, and those questions are as interesting as any of his answers. He answers questions like: How did Africa become black? How did China become Chinese? and Why aren't Australia, New Guinea, and Malaysia Polynesian? One may not like the answers, but he takes a great shot at them, and I relish his doing so. He asks why proselytizing religion (Christianity and Islam) were driving forces for conquest among Europeans and West Asians but not Chinese. He also relates several interesting bits about his extensive field work (as an ornithologist) in New Guinea. The best page of the book is page 87, figure 4.1, "Factors Underlying the Broadest Pattern of History." The entire book is spent explaining that diagram, which is itself an answer to What are the proximate, intermediate, and ultimate causes to history's broadest pattern? I would modify his ultimate factors to be geography (adding carrying capacity to his east/west axis) and, more controversially, co-evolution between humans and large animals (with respect to their availability and behavior). I am also surprised that he did not cite the island-area effect in species or cultural diversity. But perhaps that would have been gilding the lily. There is nothing in the author's framework that precludes a change in where the most goods are today. He notes carrying capacities and access have changed radically over the last 13,000 years, shifting the balance of power from time to time. 200 years ago, for instance, China had the most goods. 200 years from now it may again. If you like history, evolutionary biology or (like me) both, read this book today!
Rating:
Summary: Amazon book reviews as social science
Review: Why is it that most of the people that denigrate this book use poor grammer?
Rating:
Summary: Science in the service of History
Review: In one compelling volume, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history: Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World? This question has been answered by others before; Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause ("geographical determinism") has also been proposed before. Any student of history can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, proposed that Europe's primacy stemmed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate. The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle speculation. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities. To support this idea, Diamond introduces thorough set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world didn't-- and so their fertile soil went untilled. After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into repeating ideas about the formation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while unoriginal, are still compelling, and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way. His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues (such as smallpox) which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old Worlders had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start. Along with these monumental contributions to History, this book has its drawbacks. If you're looking for a narrative explaining Great People, Great Events, or Modern Ideas, you will be sadly disappointed. Diamond's thesis offhandedly assumes that it is difficult to believe Shakespeare's plays or Newton's laws could have been written by hunter-gatherers. If you are looking for reasons why Europe came to dominate the world, rather than, say, China, Diamond presents mixed results. He mentions the 14th century self-isolation of China, but does not analyze it. He also brings up the odd theory about the relationship between the coastline lengths of Europe and China and trade potential; this idea is provably wrong. If you are looking for a book that explains the world's history of the past 500 years, look elsewhere. Guns, Germs and Steel exhausts itself by effectively, coherently, fundamentally, definitively, and entertainingly explaining the preceeding 15,000. I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone with an interest in world history. The scholarship is first-rate, and the thesis is incredibly significant. The technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to understand way, and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. It fully deserved the Pulitzer prize.
Rating: 
Summary: Racist
Review: It is sad nowadays how hard white liberals and minorities go out of their way to make whitey the evil one. How sad it is that certain minorities hold onto this fiction as a reason for their lack of 'social progress". I don't believe in the "bell curve". I don't believe that white people are the problem either. So called progress is really in the eyes of the beholder and their culture. When I have visited the so called "underdeveloped" countries, I found that those that would call themselves minorities here were actually living lives that I envied. I found that because they held onto values and practices for hundreds of years, they were much more at peace than western man. This author is an elitist while attempting to create an excuse for cultures that didn't "develop" like white people. How can you say that the white way is the right way? I have found greater values in the cultures found in Latin and African societies that have been less tainted by western values that destroy the land. Look at our lives that are consumed by trinkets. We care more about trinkets than about raising our own children. The double income family wants trinkets over having an actual family unit. Compare that to the so called undeveloped nations. Why is it that white elitists think that it is good when other nations are given the same burdens that we have created for ourselves? Aren't they holding our culture as advanced and then painting it with guilt so that they can feel superior to others?
Rating:
Summary: This will change how you see the world
Review: Diamond's careful analysis of how geography influences the development of societies is one of those ideas that stick in your head and change your thinking on a whole host of other subjects. It isn't so much a new scientific theory, but a new way of looking at things. The feeling I came away from the book with is that the world is really a very small place: we may think that everything has been tried, and what succeeded was the best, but in reality the whole course of human history has been shaped by a handful of accidents, like the shapes of the continents, the social behavior of certain large animals, the nutritional value of certain plants, and so on. Along with Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic this is one of those books I'll force my children to read.
Rating:
Summary: How Eurasian societies came out on top.
Review: How did the Eurasian societies come to dominate the peoples of North and South America, Africa, and Australia. Diamond places a number of nice theories on how Eurasia came to dominate and colonize those of the other continents. They are all very plausible, and that is why this book offers such a vast vault of information. In fact, there is a lot of info in these pages, so the reader may be placed on overload just trying to understand all this.
Some of the theories focus on the geography of the Eurasia compared to the others. Eurasia spreads east and west and in many cases, weather was duplicated from one place to the next. The other continents were spread north and south. The peoples of Eurasia built cities and were more concentrated than other societies and thus were more immune to diseases. When these diseases came into contact with people from other continents, there was no one who was immune. Big tamed animals and plants were more plentiful in Eurasia than elsewhere. There is so much more in this book that is all very valid. That is why Eurasian societies ended up with more of the cargo.
This is a great read. Allow some time to understand all the theories because there is plenty of meat in this book.
|
