Rating: 
Summary: Makes more sense than the critics
Review: Diamond makes an argument that could turn biological arguments for racism and racial superiority on their respective heads. He explores proven causes of societal advancement, things as basic as the availability of nutrient rich foods and domesticable animals, and shows the impact they have on the development of any society.Despite the moans of earlier reviewers who are still clinging desperately to the notion that less advanced societies are the result of less advanced minds, Diamond explains that there is another, more plausible argument - one that can not only explain differences between populations that are genetically identical, but which can explain the very rise of civilization itself from the humblest beginnings. For example, even among different (closely related) Pacific islands there are marked differences in their advancement. Some developed kingdoms and others were still hunter-gatherers. Diamond shows effectively that their advancements correlate DIRECTLY to their access to resources, ie on islands with poorer food sources you see far smaller populations, and therefore simpler social structure and fewer innovations so people may live the same way for generations. Islands with better food sources can support bigger populations with the same initial technologies as the other islands, then more stratified social classes emerge since everyone doesn't have to hunt or farm to eat. Bigger populations need more social laws which need more complex governments to enforce them, and much more competition between individuals to stay on top which leads to more and better changes in all aspects of society. All types of societies are descended from lowly hunter-gatherers at some point. If it were true that those less advanced societies bred low intellect, no society would ever have advanced in the first place. Those who still insist upon (and benefit from) the old ideas of racial superiority can never understand the weight of this book without challenging the very premise on which they stand. If you are open to an honest, thorough explanation of cause and effect in human diversification, this is your book.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and Thought Provoking
Review: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson is an interesting read. The central thesis of the book is that the Western style of direct decisive infantry warfare, with roots in democracy and capitalism, has been historically superior and partly responsible for the Western Worlds superior position. Hanson seeks to present his book as a kind of rebuttal to Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. As to the latter objective. Hanson fails miserably for Hanson's and Diamond's theories are not inconsistent and Hanson's attempt to make them so detracts from the rest of the book.. Diamond's seeks to explain why it was the Spanish who conquered the Incas in 16th century Peru and not Incas who sailed to Madrid to conquer the Spanish. He theorizes that the Spanish had greater access to domesticatable crops and animals and European geography allowed for an easier exchange of ideas from other burgeoning societies. Hanson seeks to minimize the advantages of what Diamond speaks of and instead focuses on military strategy, and western economic and political thought. What Hanson misses is that without advanced military transport in the horse, the availability of sophisticated weapons, such as steel swords, rudimentary guns and cannon the Incas would never have been conquered. Hanson's own treatment of the conquest of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) in 1520-1521 is the proof. The Mexican Army utilized infantry tactics, since they did not have any calvary. They fought decisive battles with their opponents, since like the ancient Greeks they had a war season. While the Greeks was based on the harvest, the Mexican was based on the harvest and religious considerations. While they also fought symbolic flower wars these were not the ones fought to protect their Empire. The Spanish, with several hundred Spaniards and thousands of natives under Cortez, were able to defeat the Mexicans. It was the horses, guns and eventually smallpox which were decisive. There can be no argument that Spain or Cortez operated in a democratic or that capitalism was the basis of their economy. One can even argue that what defeated the Aztecs was their penchant for human sacrifice and the desire to capture Cortez instead of killing him. In numerous battles the Aztecs could have killed Cortez but did not. Hanson's and Diamond's book build on each other and offer a compelling explanation to justify each others theories. Hanson unintentionally builds on Diamond's concepts to explain why societies with equal resources do not necessarily develop equally. Otherwise, Hanson's book is well written and very interesting. It is in the description of the battles and the campaigns where he excels. It would have been better if Hanson had dealt with some of the possible exceptions to his theory - the century old Ottoman Empire, the supremacy of the Prussian military tradition which was hardly based on notions of democracy and the Russian almost suicidal defense of their homeland at Stalingrad. Maybe he is saving that for his next book.
Rating: 
Summary: Slick egalitarian propaganda
Review: Helpfully, Diamond sums up his work: "Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: 'History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." His purpose is political: to convince us that present-day disparities in social, economic, and intellectual achievement among population groups is not attributable to biological differences. The glaring problem with the thesis: biological differences follow from environmental differences. According to the "Out of Africa" theory, modern humans arose in Africa and migrated from there about 100,000 years ago. If we accept Diamond's uncontroversial premise that Southwest Asia was a markedly different environment, that's an awfully long time for natural selection to work to fit the emigrants to a non-African environment. While the population that remained in Africa was evolving resistance to malarias, for instance, the emigrant population was adapting to its new environment(s) as it spread further across Asia and Europe. (The gene for sickle cells -- distorted red blood cells -- in the heterozygous condition protects against some of the malarias; but it does so at the cost of causing a serious anemia when it is present in the homozygous condition. Malaria is such a serious disease that a human population can afford the anemias in some individuals as long as other individuals are protected against malaria.) Environmental differences were crucial to biological/genetic differentiation as each new environment created a feedback loop that selected for fitness for that environment. Diamond's notion that after 100,000 years of such differentiation there are no significant genetic differences that affect success in present-day environments is inherently implausible and contrary to scientific observation of human biodiversity.
Rating:
Summary: High Qual
Review: This is one of my favorite books; I'd put it in my top five. This is not to say that I necessarily subscribe to all of the author's arguments. I've discussed this book with others and have read many critical reviews, and understand that the book and its arguments are not perfect. Nevertheless, it offers tremendous food for thought, regardless of whether you agree entirely or not. It is especially instructive for people without deep backgrounds in history and science. This book is a well-written and enjoyable exlpanation for why certain societies prospered instead of others. Its greatest value is that it provides evidence that environmental factors influenced history significantly, which is helpful for balancing outdated racial arguments among others.
Rating:
Summary: Not THE answer, but it's a great start
Review: In this book, Jared Diamond attempts to answer the question: "Why did the Europeans invade other countries and temporarily take over, and not the other way around?" He escapes racism and approaches the question like it should be approached - from the world's viewpoint, where all people are equal. His answer to this question, as he unravels it in the book, is that Europeans had guns, germs, and steel in their favor, a result of living in the environment and the area of the world they lived in. He provides numerous examples to support his ideas. What I found very rewarding about this book was his knowledge of world history. He breaks down the book into chapters covering important countries and continents of the world and explains why at certain points in world history they may have held the most advanced civilization and why they remained that way or why they faltered. It draws more on geography and biology than anything else for examples. I am very glad that someone has finally put down in one cohesive book what all the biologists, ecologists, and geologists have been thinking for all these years.
Rating:
Summary: A narrow view and understanding of the world
Review: My biggest question is the criteria for awarding pulitzer prizes. No wonder we are all suffering from a slanted view of the world that has caused much fragmentation, misery and war. Scholars need to be holistic in their views but when those in medicine such as Diamond THINK they possess one when they actually do not, they succeed in propagating THIER own perspective to the lay person. A balanced, and well researched book---- this is not.
Rating: 
Summary: Made me think, but somewhat long
Review: Reading this type of book was definitely a first for me. I've enjoyed reading various specific accounts of history, but to approach history in such an all-encompassing view definitely made me think and question some of my own thoughts and opinions. Because of that I would definitely recommend this to others. There are many times throughout the book that new ideas were presented and even if I didn't completely follow or believe the author's reasoning, the final conclusions oftentimes still made sense. I did find the book to be somewhat long though, and although the author's initial questions and his opinions/hypotheses on the answers to those questions got me hooked throughout the first few hundred pages, by the end of the book I thought he was starting to be repetitive and was just waiting for it to end. Still though just going through the process of thinking about the various questions the author proposed makes this book definitely worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: Well Written and Enjoyable Book
Review: Ever wonder why Europeans conquered the New World? Sure the easy explanation is that the Europeans had better technology and organization that the Native Americans could not overcome. But, ever wonder why it wasn't the Inca who sailed over the Atlantic and conquered Europe? Or why Africa was colonized by Europe, even though Africa is the birthplace of Homo sapiens? Guns, Germs and Steel tries to answer this question. Diamond has written a facinating book trying to answer that question. He argues that the early domestication of plants and large mammals (cows, horses, etc.) allowed civilizations in Europe and Asia to develop much faster than civilizations in the Americas, Africa or Austrailia. Contributing to this (relatively) quick development is the fact that Eurasia's main axis is east-west, which allowed an easier spread of basic food production package from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, as well as the Chinese food production to spread throughout Asia as the local hunter-gatherer communities had to either adapt the sedentary way of life or get overrun by the more populous farming societies. I don't want to give much more away, since the author really explains the points of his thesis quite well. Some reviews have criticized him as too repetitive. I found it quite easy to follow his arguement since I didn't have to waste time trying to find the specific page from 10 chapters previous to refresh my memory. Also, as I read some of the previous reviews, I found that many of the negative reviews were based on two objections. One deals with a sentence at the beginning of the book where he states that an average New Guinean is smarter than an average westerner because of our sedentary lifestyle vs. their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Personally, I don't think there is a way to create a test which would prove or disprove that statement. Others have claimed that the author is too PC, and has made some Marxist statements. I was going to try to refute those arguements, but instead I implore anyone reading this review to get the book and judge for yourself. Is it perfect? No. Are his theories air-tight? No. He admits this himself. I encourage everyone to read this with an open mind. You might be suprised.
Rating:
Summary: great historical source
Review: Guns, Germs and Steel provides a really great comparison between different socities development through time looking at how and why certain peoples were able to conquer other people. It also how cultures developed or failed to by looking at things like culture, religion, geography, techonological diffusion, political structure, plant and animal life and so forth. It goes through history to explain how various factors influenced human development through time. Overall, it helps add a lot to one's understanding of world history.
Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener
Review: GG&S is a great book. Diamond explores causes that reach back thousands of years when explaining things that are only hundreds of years old. and it makes sense. The old answers to why world history developed the way it did are wholly inadequate and prompt Diamond (and now me) to question more deeply. The book is great and I understand so much more than of world history than I did before reading it. (and I finished The Wealth and Poverty of Nations just before this.) btw GG&S is better, but should be read after Wealth and Poverty in my opinion.
| 
