Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking and persuasive ideas on a vital topic
Review: This book sets out to answer the question: How did European people get such a big edge? What were the key differences between Eurasia and the rest of the world that led to Europe having the wherewithal in 1492 to conquer the Americas, instead of vice-versa. The book makes a strong case for geographic and biological environmental factors, and argues strongly against factors involving presumed differences in the human 'races'. The geographic factors seem to be but common sence, (once Diamond has explained them!) The biological environmental factors are more technical, and cannot really be evaluated by the lay reader, but they are of such importance that I would like to see more professional-level reviews. Is North America as poor in domesticable plant and animal species as Diamond says? What do other experts in the field say?Basically, I'm with him. Part of the motivation for writing this book is to put out, for public discussion and edification, a strong theory to explain how Europeans/Asians "got ahead". As Diamond points out, many of us think about this very question, and many of us are stuck with unpalatable 'common sence' answers along the lines of "Native Americans (African, Aboriginal Australians) are naturally primitive" or "The Cultures developed by non Europeans are all fatally flawed (by warlikeness, laziness, conservatism, communism, etc.)" I, myself, have wondered about this, and I am too politically correct (which is now an insulting stereotype in-and-of itself) to want to adopt, or even toy openly with any of these race-cultural supremacist theories. But the underlieing question is so important, we MUST discuss it, and get this kind of thinking out into the light of day, where it can be rigorously analysed and judged. Diamond allows us to do this by producing a thorough, well supported theory, covering almost every aspect of this problem. He shows how it can be solved with out recourse to the "I guess those people are jest backward" thinking. Whether all of the answers he suggests and supports will turn out to be the final ones, is certainly open to debate. The only drawback I would point out to his book is that he does get a little repetitious. Another serious round of editing would have helped. But perhaps repetition is not necessarily a bad idea in driving some of his ideas home... As for his reviewers... One reviewer thought Diamond's position is that Whites represent the pinnacle of modern society and that no one can usurp this distinction. This is silly. Diamond is attempting to figure out what gave Whites/Europeans their big edge in 1492. That they had this edge is difficult to dispute. He says nothing about whether they will keep it. Most of his arguments relate to cultures in isolations vs. those which are not. Since none of us are very isolated anymore (at least compared with the kinds of isolation some peoples had in pre-European-exploration times), his work cannot be said to make any projection about continued "white" dominance. Some reviewers complain his work is unoriginal. I'm sure that other experts in this field know that some of his theories and arguments did not spring, unaided, from his mind alone. I never had the impression that he was attempting to make us think so, either. He certainly cites enough other references... His great accomplishment is a clear, persuasive synthesis of ideas that can be read and appreciated by the non-expert. One reviewed scoffed that Diamond is unduly wedded to the idea that "all men are created equal". I didn't get that impression from reading Diamond either. He does suggest that all peoples have their share of geniuses though, which I think would be difficult to disprove. He is also thought to undervalue the importance of culture. This is possible, but on the whole I disagree. Diamond is talking about very long time scales. I think that when we are talking about thousands of years, the physical constraints on the people are more important than any voluntary cultural decisions they make. As Diamond points out, any large number of people will have some groups who are willing to try new things, or who HAVE to try new things because they have been cut out of the best real estate. Over thousands of years, those who avail themselves of the most successful possible food or technology will tend to automatically shut out the others. This may not be observable over a period of tens of years, when cultural factors could easily conquer enlighted self-interest; maybe cultural factors could even triumph over 100's of years. But I think Diamond is more likely to be correct that over the time scale HE is interested in, the boundary conditions (availability of plants, animals and minerals) control the problem. Another complaint is that he does not adequately explain why the Fertile Crescent, with its big head start, or China "won" the domination of Eurasia and hence the world. I'd say that the answer to this problem is not the purpose of Diamond's book. The answers to this that question are more the province of conventional, relatively modern history, in which transient cultural factors may prove far more important than the "initial conditions" or "boundary conditions". Reviewers who wanted to find the solution to that problem clearly should have read another book, or perhaps be writing their own.
Rating:
Summary: A Thought Provoking Thesis
Review: As I write this, some 250 reviewers have preceded me. The last thing this book needs is my opinion as the 251st. The reviews have been educational and interesting, but in quibbling over details they miss the point of this book. Diamond has proposed an interesting new thesis and has supported it with a huge group of interesting examples. It's worth reading to consider the thesis and see if it bears scrutiny. To my way of thinking, it does. Is it the final answer to the question: "Why did civilization advance in "the West" instead of somewhere else?" I guess not. Has Diamond identified some key pieces of the puzzle? You bet!
Rating: 
Summary: Not What I Expected
Review: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond is an attempt to explain why it was that Europeans came to conquer the world and not some other people. However, the book really doesn't deliver on that front. It is more of an explanation why Eurasian socities became dominate over non-Eurasian societies. Diamond really doesn't say anything extremely new with this book. He promotes the geographic theory of societal development to explain the more advanced Eurasian technology. Those geographic factors being better animal and plant domesticates, better weather, and less barriers to trade. These are not new theories. I was expecting more discussion of the really intriguing question of why didn't China colonize the world instead of Europe. Diamond doesn't begin to discuss this until the *epilogue* and then only in several pages where he discusses the cultural and geographical aspects of European assendency. The final part of the book is much more interesting than the first three. It is in this fourth section that Diamond discusses the clashes that have occurred between differing societies. But even this is done with more of a descriptive than explanatory voice. Guns, Germs, and Steel is more for the uninitiated in the study of human societal development. This book is a building block for more complex ideas.
Rating: 
Summary: Extremely educational, if slightly incomplete.
Review: This was one of the most educational books I have read in years. Diamond analyzes several key elements affecting the development of societies, from the axis of the continent to the availability of plants that can be domesticated, and makes it all very interesting. One of the best-researched books on the topic, Diamond still doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Unfortunately, Diamond excessively downplays the role of culture and religeon influencing a society's development in the pursuit of avoiding offending anyone. The explanation of why the Fertile Crescent and China lost technological leads over Europe, a topic that should have been a key component of this book, is treated rather briefly in the final chapter with somewhat cursory analysis. Nevertheless, this book is highly recommended, particularly for laymen on the subject like myself.
Rating:
Summary: informative, but repetitive
Review: I found this book to be very interesting and a good read, and made me think about certain things in new and different ways. Unfortunately, Diamond has a tendency to repeat himself from chapter to chapter, so that something he talked about in depth two chapters before he finds the need to mention again in the current chapter. I have also read "The Third Chimpanzee," and overall I found that to be a better read. Having read "Guns" before, though, I was able to follow the arguments in "Chimpanzee" a bit more easily, since he made references to people and places there that he did not elaborate on. Overall I find him to be a very interesting writer and for anyone interested in human evolution and history I would certainly recommend his books as an introduction.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful counter-factual
Review: Could Europe have been conquered by Bantu warriors mounted on domesticated zebras? Why could this have not happened? Well, says Jared Diamond, the geographical factor of the Sahara desert for one thing. Also, the zebra because of its short temper, is not domesticable. The nature of African geography led Bantu expansion to the more clement weather of the South. This is one of the fascinating counter-factuals that Diamond uses to illustrate his case for geographic and biologcal determinism in human history. The Fertile Crescent and the Southern Steppes of Russia providentially had most of the plants and animals most easily domisticated - wheat for example is the best cereal and the horse is the most useful for warfare. Strangely, Diamond does not draw attention to the obvious factor of the Mediterranean as a highway for commerce and ideas, but he does show that at the beginning of the modern era, Europe was best positioned to conquer the other continents for demographic, geographic and general biological reasons, not for reasons of racial superiority.
Rating:
Summary: History As Science
Review: Guns, Germs, And Steel Jared Diamond History As Science If the Aborigines had originally inhabited Europe, and Caucasian Europeans had started their civilization in Australia would anything be different? Your average racist would say that Australia would have developed a great civilization while Europe would have remained a region of the world where people today would still be throwing spears about. Mr. Diamond explores the progress of humanity by scientifically studying the factors that permitted and encouraged the growth of complex societies. A society is where it is because of geographical factors, and not because of any variables of intelligence or physique. What are these factors? The answers are fascinating: Societies moved from hunter/gatherer types to farmers because they lived in areas where potential food crops grew, and where animals capable of being domesticated lived. Most of the world's food crops originated in the Fertile Crescent of the Mediterranean. Many areas of the world such as Australia and much of the United States had no original food crops. Could it be that some people were just too stupid to recognize a plant's potential? No. Amazingly almost all edible plants were domesticated thousands of years ago, as were our domesticated animals. Australia had no animals capable of being domesticated while horses, sheep, goats, and pigs originated in, and spread quickly through the Euro-Asian continent. We learn some interesting facts about food plant development. Many plants became food because of defective genes. The wild almond tree is poisonous, but some trees were found with defective cyanide producing genes. They were cultivated. Wild peas have a gene that causes the pea pod to explode when ripe, which would make harvesting impossible. Pea plants were found that lacked this "explosion" gene, and so today we eat peas. Societies with domestic animals developed diseases that originated in these animals. (Measles, tuberculosis, and smallpox come from cattle; influenza from pigs). Thus Europeans decimated the Incas and Native Americans by passing on these germs. Incas and Native Americans had no domesticated animals (only the llama in Peru), so they could not fight back with germs of their own. Mr. Diamond presents an immense amount of evidence to show that all peoples are intelligent, and that the development of large, organized societies hinges entirely on varied local natural resources, and being in locations where natural barriers (deserts, mountains, oceans) did not preclude the sharing of resources with others. This is a most impressive work that provides the reader with insight into why hunter/gatherer tribes live together on the same planet with highly complex technological nations.
Rating:
Summary: Worth the time to read
Review: Overall a fine book; well worth reading. I learned more about the history of man from 500,000BC to 4000 BC in this book than in the rest of my life put together. The overwhelming global perspective this book makes it even more valuable. Truly a fine description of many of the core formative elements of society. The books bends over backward to avoid any taint of racism. However, Mr. Diamond oversteps his bounds when he claims that he has resolved all issues that deal with how racism arises. I wish that these issues were as easily resolved. The older deeper issues that arise before the foundation of human society still exist. And Mr. Diamond's smug self importance taints an otherwise fine book.
Rating:
Summary: The World Looks Different After Reading This Book
Review: This is one of 3 or 4 books I've read that profoundly changed the way I look at the world.
Rating:
Summary: An engrossing explanation of why Europe took over the world!
Review: Why did Europe conquer the New World so easily? Why didn't the older populations Africa dominate the world? Why did some civilizations advance quickly and some remained "primitive"? Why did the Europeans develop the printing press instead of the more civilized Chinese? This outstanding book answers the questions that nag us about why the world is the way it is. Diamond backs his opinions with clear data on why and when advances became available. This is a must-read book for anyone with any interest in anthropology and why things are the way we are.
| 
