Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

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 (atributed 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 thier 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.

"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