Guns, Germs and Steel

person

Jared Diamond answers the questions, why were Europeans the ones to conquer so much of our planet? Why didn’t the Chinese, or the Inca, become masters of the globe instead? Why did cities first evolve in the Middle East? Why did farming never emerge in Australia? And why are the tropics now the capital of global poverty?

He looks to various basic environmental conditions for the explanation rather than some kind of superiority of Europeans for the answer and is quite convincing in his reasons.

There a 3 hour long documentaries that cover the basics of his book. I really enjoyed them.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/guns-germs-and-steel/

Dakini

I read the book when it first came out. There's more to the story than geographical determinism, though. The Chinese traded all over Asia, Europe and Africa. They sought to trade peacefully, and respected the people they encountered. They weren't interested in global domination at the time.

The real answer may be not the superiority of Europeans, but their innate aggression. They were, at one point, violent nomadic warriors who dominated parts of Asia thousands of years ago, and influenced the early Mongol, Turkic and Tibetan peoples of Inner Asia as they were emerging as distinct cultures and languages. The later Germanic peoples were known throughout Europe for being particularly ruthless warriors, and the Brits (and most Yanks) are descended from them.

person

I read the book when it first came out. There's more to the story than geographical determinism, though. The Chinese traded all over Asia, Europe and Africa. They sought to trade peacefully, and respected the people they encountered. They weren't interested in global domination at the time.

The real answer may be not the superiority of Europeans, but their innate aggression. They were, at one point, violent nomadic warriors who dominated parts of Asia thousands of years ago, and influenced the early Mongol, Turkic and Tibetan peoples of Inner Asia as they were emerging as distinct cultures and languages. The later Germanic peoples were known throughout Europe for being particularly ruthless warriors, and the Brits (and most Yanks) are descended from them.

That makes sense. Was it something in the book that wasn't in the documentary or is that from someplace else?

Dakini

That's from my own research. But the book must have noted that the Chinese were into peaceful trading, then suddenly quit just as the Portugese were rounding the Horn of Africa. I don't think it looked into the ancient pre-history of Indo-European peoples, except to discuss that they had cattle and horses, which he feels made a big difference, compared to other peoples worldwide.

This book is such a great discussion topic, but my memory of it is a little fuzzy. I think Diamond brought a fresh perspective to history, which is valuable, but I think there's more to be considered than the factors he presents.

person

The aggressiveness of European settlers certainly seems to be true but he also talks about the geographic and climactic similarities between Europe and America being a key factor in the expansion into America and why the similar efforts at expansion into Africa starting from the south ultimately failed.

So certainly the attitude of Europeans mattered but without the geographical and environmental advantages they had they wouldn't have been successful.

Dakini

I think it's a mix of factors. As I recall, Europeans in the south of Africa began to get bogged down (literally) as they headed north, toward the tropics. And in the south, they had hostile Native nations to deal with. Remind me: why did they need to settle Africa in the first place? Overpopulation in Europe?

Interesting to note that the Spanish managed to take over Central America, in spite of the tropical clime. Unlike the Dutch, I guess, they weren't trying to farm...?

Diamond got a MacArthur "Genius" grant to research and write that book, or maybe it was as a result of the book.

person

Yes, they did get bogged down heading north. The way it was presented in the video's was that since American expansion was east to west the climate stayed the same so the crops and animals (and the germs they created) Europeans brought with them sustained them. When African colonization started (didn't say why) the climate in South Africa was similar but since the expansion was south to north the climate changed as they moved so crops failed and new diseases beat the settlers. There were hostile natives, the Zulu were a large nation with a organized military, by then though Europeans had gatlin guns so a couple of those could easily defeat an army of thousands armed with spears.

I think part of the reason for the take over of Central America was the devastating effects of the germs they brought with. Part of the geographical advantage was a large variety of animals that could be domesticated and with domestication came new germs which was one of the main weapons for Europeans.

AMH

So as a flip side the book I looove, is The Years of Rice and Salt. It is a story as if the black death/plague killed off 90+% of Europe instead of the third or so. Based on that the Eastern and Asian countries did all the things that Europe did like 'discover' America.


I know it is a side note but dang I love that book.

DaltheJigsaw

Great book! Great find! And thanks for sharing!

Dakini

So as a flip side the book I looove, is The Years of Rice and Salt. It is a story as if the black death/plague killed off 90+% of Europe instead of the third or so. Based on that the Eastern and Asian countries did all the things that Europe did like 'discover' America.

Who wrote that book? They said the Chinese "discovered" America? That's controversial.
Oh, I see--it's fictional, not historical. Sounds interesting.
I think in parts of Europe, 90% did die from the plague, but these were localized incidents.

AMH

It is fictional, and I put 'discovered' in quotes because that is not how I see it but I couldn't think of a better way to say it quickly. It is by Kim Stanley Robinson

So the fictional book is fuzzy in my mind but I recall things like the few very pale skinned and red headed people left were considered exotic, and with Europe quite empty the middle east and eastern countries were the ones to expand up north into free land. Part of the blurb is that Buddhism and Islam are the major religions and Christianity a footnote in history.

Dakini

It sounds pretty cool. Yes, red-haireds are exotic. Red hair is a recessive gene, so it disappears unless there's a community for of red-heads to keep it going. That's why there were so many Vikings with red hair, but if you go to Norway and Denmark today, there are no red-heads left. But you can find pockets of Viking descents in Italy and here and there, where there are entire villages full of readheads. Something I looked into once, because I wondered where all the Eric-the-Reds disappeared to.

There's a book that details the theory that the Chinese made it to North America roughly 10-15 years before Columbus, that's why I asked. Supposedly there's an ancient Chinese junk in the bottom of the Sacramento River in CA, and Chinese-built watchtowers on the East Coast.