So what does /his/ think of this book ? (Note that I'm asking /his/ not /pol/)
>>1350742
Pretty bad desu, it uses an outdated theory, geographism than was deemed racist like 40 years ago and uses lots of flawed and uninformed pet theories of the author. For what I recall he had friend or was part of the nature billboard and that's why is so extended.
>>1350742
Never actually read it but from what I heard he seems to make a lot of false assumptions, like the supposed lack of large animals outside Eurasia.
I'm a geography student and my professors consider it quite mediocre.
>>1350766
He doesn't say outside of Eurasia lacks of large animals, he says it lacks of social large animals that can be easily tamed
>Indians had domesticated a fucking elephant
>Ankgor vat is a civilisation in a tropical jungle
Does anyone have a screencap of that list of everything wrong with this book?
>>1350772
That's what I meant. He seems to assume that bison, zebras, etc. are hard to domesticate because no one tried before whitey showed up.
>>1350772
Africa is full of social large animals easy to tame. Zebras are tamed a lot for example like gazelles were in roman times (I remember a toy/chariot for patrician kids than used gazelles) Marcus Antonius was going full Dyonisus in rome too, using large felins to pull his chariot. Cheetahs were tamed since ancient egypt too, but they couldn't be breed because they need a fuckton of space for they mating. And NA has Bisons/buffalos, elks etc. Elks are being farmed for milk in russia too, for an hospital.
>>1350789
And in those past threads someone did show that zebras actually are way more aggressive and harder to tame than horses, but people don't listen.
>>1350790
He in fact uses the example of Zebras being untamable... basically he did not research parts of his book to the needed level.
>>1350817
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etV8YAnyjcE
>Untamable.
Rotschild did tame them and used them to pull chariots, and you can see even girls can mount zebras.
>>1350742
It's rubbish. Diamond is an ornithologist, not an anthropologist or historian, and his ignorance fo history is extremely profound. No-one working in the field has accept environmental determinism for generations, certainly the environment matters but Diamond extrapolates to an absurd degree.
>>1350803
>And in those past threads someone did show that zebras actually are way more aggressive and harder to tame than horses,
This is abject nonsense. The ancestral horse, the one that was actually domesticated, was as aggressive and skittish as any other wild animal. Horses today aren't, because they've been selectively bred for thousands of years.
>>1350742
Typical after the fact claptrap
>>1350836
>The ancestral horse, the one that was actually domesticated, was as aggressive and skittish as any other wild animal
Evidence is needed. Because otherwise anyone can claim the ancestor of any domesticated animal was aggressive and skittish and that anyone who was too dumb to domesticate them is inferior. Disregard most animals have only been domesticated once, so that means there is some kind of domesticating ubermensch class of humans somewhere.
>>1350742
I thought zebras were unable to be domesticated due to their weak spines and inability to pull equipment/ hold the weight of people, and the fact they go insane after a few years in captivity?
>>1350866
Przewalski horse, they are agressive cunts than the mongolians avoid every time they see them. And the wolf was domesticated two times than I'm aware.
>>1350874
Actually zebras are quite strong for they weight, like ponies, and horses actually don't do well with weights even after all this time of breeding. Captain Horace Hayes broke a wild stallion of Mountain zebra in two days, he even let his wife to mount it to take photos. He considered Burchell's zebra easy to tame and a great start for domesticating them, or the Quagga ones than are now extinct (the later were very tame and friendly for zebras) but of course after the invention of automoviles they didn't have the motive for domesticating them.
>>1350866
> Disregard most animals have only been domesticated once
Based on currenty research dogs were domesticated at two to three different places in Eurasia, and the house cat at the two places.
I think we need another 2 billion threads about it.
Next up: "what does /his/ think of John Green?"
>>1350888
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVLY_5VBxao
Also a Zebra in trail riding. You can search for rotschild chariot-pulling zebras. And I'm sure some colonial fuckers used them for jumping obstacles.
>>1350921
And for the ones than bitch about the Zebras skitishness, lot's of old horses would go nuts with a clipper... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OlHOIzQn3c&index=5&list=PL91C074C43897097F
Zebras aren't domesticated because no one is serious enough to try.
>>1350941
Tame is a good start tough.For domestications you need time and choosing who the animal will be breed with, and choosing for breed the best prospects like the Russians did with Foxes than were domesticated in 50 years of selective breeding. Zebras pick all the domesticated animal traits,pack animals, are as easy to breed as horses (even produce hibrids like mules) and are very intelligent, and they have a very powerful bond nature, they will love another horse, human or dog if imprinted right and eat grass, leafs and even bark.
>>1350941
How do you think an animal is domesticated, idiot? First step: Tame a breeding pair.
>>1350742
I haven't red this book, but does he really claim that zebra, an animal that looks almost exactly like a horse, is 100% untameable, and that the ancestor of the modern horse was the same as the modern day domesticated horse?
>>1350968
Are you claiming otherwise? Because that's racist.
>>1350968
Zebras are more like donkeys tough, not horses.
>>1350967
>How do you think an animal is domesticated, idiot? First step: Tame a breeding pair.
t. doesn't know how an animal is domesticated
>>1350978
funny that you mention donkeys, cause they are an african species that was tamed and domesticated
>>1350987
Yup, the Egyptians did, doesn't it disaprove diamonds point?
>>1350996
Originally, its habitat stretched from Marocco to Somalia.
And it would be very strange that both of the very close relatives of zebra, donkey and horse, can be domesticated, while zebra cant, wouldn't you agree?
>>1350907
At this point, I think people just repeatedly make these same threads out of boredom or to troll retards. That, or this board is a reflection of our contemporary postmodern society etc etc
>>1350742
he has an obvious left wing ideological bent and you don't need to be a /pol/ fedora tipper to see it
https://archive.org/stream/fp_Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel/Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel_djvu.txt
>In case this question immediately makes you shudder at the thought that you are about to read a racist treatise, you aren't: as you will see, the answers to the question don't involve human racial differences at all.
>in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners
though at least it motivated him and others to think about history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox
Muh domestication.
I don't have to go home and watch it on my iPhone and it will be the same exact opposite of the best thing to me and you will be a great day for a while ago when the time of day and night in the morning to you in my life and death of a lot more fun and I don't think I have no idea what I want a boyfriend and the first time I get to the game and I love everything and we will be a great day and night in the morning is the only way to the game and I love you so much for the next two years of my life .
Why does everyone say this book is racist. From what I remember he says that it was basically the environment that made large-scale civilizations in *wherever* not possible.
>>1351235
>it's all environmental
>except New Guineans and Jews are genetically superior
>>1351249
Not that I mean, obviously what he says there is racist, but I mean lots from the left/liberal camp say it is racist against non-westerners, or rather the concept of geographic determinism is.
>>1351262
It's racist because it favours the white man. It's as simple as that. Poor non-whites never had a chance.
>>1351262
Yeah, that's racist.
>>1351269
Saying that New Guineans and Jews are genetically superior aren't racist?
>>1351269
You can't judge anything in post-modern identity politics, except white people. Everyone is right because they think they are, except white people.
It's actually fascinating how gender identity politics is like some bizarre dualistic mystic cult. The individual is always right because only they truly know the truth but if the physical body isn't the truth then it must lie in the soul. It's a fucking religion.
>>1351283
>Culture is determined by genes and IQ
>>1351304
>>>/pol/
>>1351304
>Yeah it makes much more sense that the only difference between Victorian England or 5th century BC Athens with the cannibals of Papua New Guinea is the lack of horses.
PNG didn't exactly have contact with the outside world. The biggest catalyst for advancement is taking ideas and technologies from others and improving upon them
>Also it's hilarious how (((Diamond))) talks about Singapore which despite being on the Equator it is a prosperous booming megacity. I am sure the fact that 90% of its population is ethnic Chinese has nothing to do with it.
Or it could be that a small city state made up of banks isn't comparable to a full sized country that has to balance a different set of issues
>>1350878
>>1350895
"Wolves" (they were more of a wolf like species) and cats both pretty much domesticated themselves, they came into human camps/areas because of the easy access to food (scraps for dogs and mice hiding in grain storage for cats). The individuals that were willing to risk being near humans were naturally more domesticable. So that right there pretty much discounts the "all animals are aggressive" idea when it comes to cats and dogs.
>>1351304
not a "libcuck", I frequently BTFO lefties here
However this makes perfect sense, in Papua New Guinea you can only grow taro and a few motley spices, fruit and vegetables. There just isn't enough surplus.
Even in Greece ~90% of the population were farmers and Athens only grew because it was a trade center which could import grain from elsewhere.
>>1351304
>I am sure the fact that 90% of its population is ethnic Chinese has nothing to do with it.
Ahah, what? It's full of Malays and Indians.
GHANS GURMS 'ND STEEL IS BAD M'KAY
>>1351379
3/4 of it is Chinese.
>B-b-but
No dude.
>>1351390
Part of New Guinea is on the same latitude, but there must be differences in topography, rainfall, soil fertility etcetera.. According to the koppen climate classification scheme most of Java is tropical monsoon and tropical wet and dry as opposed to tropical rainforest.
Regardless, Java always had relatively low population until the 19th century.
Java's rulers would have been preoccupied with maintaining political power, fighting wars, spending on their palaces and temples. Any investment in science and the economy had high risk and low returns (unless they were rebuilding after a war/disaster, in which case there would be few innovations) and they had far less to invest than say some large city in more productive regions of the world.
>>1351390
Papua is notoriously poor in nutrients in the soil. The plant and animal life have evolved to make do with very little.
>>1351446
There's a good reason carnivorous plants are rampant in Papua. Hell some attract rodents with delicious nectar so they'd shit directly into their trap pouches. Otherwise the vital nutrients might go to something else.
>>1351446
>It's like you are trying desperately to find an environmental factor to explain the cannibal hunter gatherers when there is none.
oh fuck off, even if you introduced steel and water buffalo to Papua New Guinea in 1 AD it still wouldn't be as productive as many other places in the world, you're the one clutching at straws
>>1351341
Completely ex post facto bullshit. You have no idea how it happened and neither does anyone else.
>>1350790
We don't even know why these animals were first tamed. As he says in the book, the perspective of a early farmer or hunter gatherer looking at a wild animal was drastically different than when we look at it. We have foresight
Every fucking time.
>muh zebras
>>1351480
What is this contrarian denial, lol.
>u can't know nuthin
>>1351516
>Meme anwer.
This is a thread about what people think of GGS, and why is shit. He said Zebra are untamable, and thus impossible to domesticate, we have said we this argument is horse shit. At least point what part of the zebra being tameable and a good starting point for domestication are wrong instead of projecting so much.
Pretty sure politically I'm what most of you fags would call a gommie, but when I first read the book it was as clear as day Diamond loves psudeo-science. Still amazes me that my old middle school now gives their students copies of this trash.
>>1351539
How come most critiques of GGS are anons who just happens to be experts?
>>1351429
Papua has been covered by a rainforest for a very long time. Rainforests are not the best land for farming. Just ask Brazil and the Congo.
>>1351599
Amazon natives actually had some way of making extremely fertile compost but alas they all died from Spanish diseases before encountering Spaniards themselves.
Am I right to believe that the reason why Diamond focused his argument on whitey being 'racis' and that its all whitey's fault because geographic determinism was seen as a racist belief 40 years ago?
Also what is your belief as to why Africa fails so hard?
I think its isolation. Subsaharan Africa, being cut of from much trade in the world suffered for it. The parts of Africa (West Africa and East Africa) prospered for a time because they made contact with other civilizations, such as Mali and the trans-saharan trade and East Africa's conversion to Islam opened up the Islamic world to them. Look at the New world, they were very much lacking in technological progress and this is because they were cut off from the rest of civilization. China under the Ming dynasty suffered because they started looking inwards to preserve culture. Similar to Japan as well, but lucky for them the US forced them into interaction with the rest of the world.
>>1351621
>Spanish disaes.
Euro-Asiatic and African disaes bruh, no one of the disaes was endemic of Spain proper.
>>1350964
Jared Diamond says something in the book about African megafuana being more skittish because the environment is so "tough". There are lions and leopards and huge crocodiles and hyenas and painted dogs
>>1351646
But the Americans, like the Mayan, Incas and Aztecs triple alliance or the Missisipians prospered a lot, having giant cities and having very civilized and stratified societies of they own. They only lacked in military power if you compare them to Spain and other Euro-Asiatic powers than were so focused in war, but they would have wrecked any sub saharan empire if only for they good logistics and top crops were.
>>1351657
Europe had saber tigers, hyenas, cave lions, wolfs, bears and mortal winters until not so long ago. Be times of the Romans we killed nearly all of them, but they were biggers and meaner than african megafauna.
>>1351670
>Europe had saber tigers, hyenas, cave lions, wolfs, bears and mortal winters until not so long ago. Be times of the Romans we killed nearly all of them, but they were biggers and meaner than african megafauna.
Dogs were tamed from a wolf like species possibly up to 30,000 Years ago. But by the time early farmers came to Europe most of the megafauna carnivores had died out. There were still normal lions, but I think only in certain places and in far less number than in Africa.
>>1351694
>He also assumes that Africa doesn't have fucking cows which is false.
Buffalo=/=Aurachs
>>1351846
>There were still normal lions, but I think only in certain places and in far less number than in Africa.
At least in Greece and Anatolia.
>>1351866
Spain too. El cid found one of the last if I recall well.
>>1351846
Yup, but the genes of wild animals don't change that easily, and 10.000 years is a blink. Euro-Asians animals were hunted be large predators like African ones, and bigger ones at that, so that argument of Diamonds, like a lot of others, is poorly investigated.
>>1351853
Aurochs are wild animals, Africa had domesticated cattle from very early on.
>>1351891
>Yup, but the genes of wild animals don't change that easily,
The Soviets domesticated a species of Siberian Fox in a single generation.
>>1350742
It's for the mentally defecient
>>1351853
No, I mean actual fucking cattle. The largest cattle breed in existence is from the Rwanda/Burundi area. Fucking educate yourself before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot.
>>1351894
Cows are descended from auruchs and they were not domesticated in Africa. Not sure if you know that already but I thought you didnt in my original reply
>>1352023
>they were not domesticated in Africa
Holy shit, yes they were. Europeans didn't bring cows to Africa.
>>1352023
They weren't domesticated in Europe or China either, so what? Subsaharan Africans have had domesticated cattle, sheep and goats for well over 2,000 years.
>>1351891
10,000 years isn't a blink when the environment is rapidly changing, like it did after the ice age. And I left out that another piece of this argument argument of his is that humans were hunting in Africa for millions of years, giving African animals a lot more time to become adjusted to them
>>1352008
I didnt read what you were replying to. oops
>>1352030
Europe didn't invent the type of agriculture (wheat/grains farming) that went along with cattle, they just adopted it. China's agriculture system (rice) perhaps didn't mesh with cattle. The did domesticate water buffalos though. I'm assuming that cattle were first used to plow before being farmed for meat and milk. But Idk I'm ignorant.
>>1352028
Middle East you fuck
>>1352061
Middle East didn't bring cows to Africa either.
>>1352060
I don't know what your point is and, I suspect, neither do you. Contrary to Diamond's ignorant assertions, Africans DID have domesticated animals and agriculture, from very ancient times. Also, Africa DID invent agriculture independently, unlike Europe, as well as having access to the same crops Europeans had (albeit wheat doesn't do well in tropical climates). Diamond is simply wrong in this, as in so many of his claims.
>>1352067
Anatolians farmers did, the one than domesticated cattle in the Taurus mountain. African cattle was mixed with Indian ones than were more resistant to drought tough.
>>1352079
Except they fucking didn't. Cattle are indigenous to Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanga_cattle
>>1351646
I think you could make the argument that one of sub-Saharan Africa's problems was that it was isolated not only from the rest of the world, but also that it's A) fucking huge and B) merciless to traverse. I remember watching a documentary about trucking in the Congo, and how it took them weeks to travel 50 miles, and this is with modern motorized transport. Imagine how that must have been for people with only stone tools. I don't know very much about this subject, but I imagine there wasn't much in the way of inter-African long distance trade going on south of the Sahara, and thus not as much spreading of ideas and innovations within the continent.
>>1352083
It isn't conclusive, the modern breeds are heavily mixed with Taurus and specially indicus, so we can't be sure of the origine of the breed because we don't have enough bones of ancient cattle to know... So until then it's only an hipotesis, the native origin.
>>1352085
China is also immense and geographically varied, civilisation there spread along the rivers, of which there are plenty in Africa. There is no doubt that isolation from other Old World cultures is the main reason for Subsaharan Africa's technological backwardness, but their societal backwardness is all on them. Far more isolated cultures in Mexico and the Andes sustained highly complex civilisations despite having no domesticated animals and only maize as a staple.
>>1352085
>that one of sub-Saharan Africa's problems was that it was isolated not only from the rest of the world, but also that it's A) fucking huge and B) merciless to traverse
This is wrong on a lot of levels. While most of this may be true for West Africa, East Africa traded extensively with Arabia and India. In fact, they were absolutely crucial to trade in the Indian Ocean for multiple reasons. Arabs had no lumber or food stocks since their land was primarily desert, and thus most of their ships (the infamous dhow) were built in East Africa and their food came from the same place, generally the Swahili coast. West India was highly dependent upon trade for their economy and even after the Europeans moved in the Swahili Coast was the primary trading partner of cities like Goa and Gujarat. Plus, East Africans had caravans usually run by Arabs across the Congo to coastal cities like Lindi and Mombasa to bring slaves.
>I don't know very much about this subject, but I imagine there wasn't much in the way of inter-African long distance trade going on south of the Sahara
That's pretty evident. See above.
>>1352107
There are Sanga bones everywhere from 1600 B.C.E. to 7000 B.C.E. Taurus bloodlines only show up in the last few hundred. Cattle are indigenous to Africa. Take your bullshit elsewhere.
>>1352124
>in the last few hundred
in Africa* before you even flame me for it.
>>1351304
what the fucking fuck are you on about?
culture is determined primarily on a people's history and environment
>>1352075
I'm going by what it said in his book, but I thought that Africa did not domesticate any animals on it's own and that they were brought in from the Fertile Crescent area. He also says that Africans domesticated only a few crops.
>>1352124
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to West, Central and South Africa. You know, all the bits that the post I was replying to mentioned not hooking up with Arabs.
>>1352161
>Blanket statements Sub-Saharan Africa
>Moves the goalposts when wrong
South Africa had extensive contact with East Africa, as did Central Africa. Again, Central Africa was part of the cross-continent caravans to Lindi. West Africa also wasn't that bad off before colonization. There were actual cities along the coast in places like Togo. Pre-colonial Africa wasn't like fucking Tintin books make it out to be. Even the Congo had cities, like Brazzaville (before it was named as such).
>>1351176
I have a feeling Diamond wrote the book as a counterpoint to what had been going on in the late 80s and 90s with the reevaluation of Columbus and the conquest of the Americas, as well as the "history wars" in Australia. There was a lot of "evil white men" talk replacing the previous triumphalist view, so I think Diamond wanted to present an alternative view that would appeal to left-wing people and seem more morally neutral without any racism. Unfortunately it ends up being extremely deterministic.
>>1352174
Well, shows what I know.
>>1352188
>before it was named
Don't get me wrong. Europeans built a lot of the cities found in Africa today, but it wasn't a barren squalid shithole before colonization either.
>>1352111
>Far more isolated cultures in Mexico and the Andes sustained highly complex civilisations despite having no domesticated animals and only maize as a staple.
That is because the gauchos fucked all their women (the few remaining ones who survived small pox at least) and they became a mixed breed.
>>1352200
Do you happen to know any good books to read about pre-colonial Africa? Preferably something that looks at the interior, too.
>>1351269
I'm pretty far left, but some reviews from the modern leftist crowd are ridiculous; I read one that said GGS was just a ploy for white people to free themselves from guilt for colonialism. Would they have preferred he wrote "sorry" for 600 pages?
>>1352214
The books by Thaddeus Sunseri are absolutely delightful for pre-colonial Tanzania. He is, in my opinion, THE expert on the region. Vilimani is my personal favorite and it covers how the region changed after colonization. A portion of The Devil's Handwriting covers pre-colonial Namibia (and German post-colonial). I can't recommend any books for the Congo, unfortunately, as it doesn't fall under my expertise (German colonization in Africa).
>>1350742
Valid arguments yet still cannot explain why modern Africa is mostly hell on earth in all but a few areas.
>muh poverty
Poverty cant explain the rampant chaos in Africa you stupid fuck.
>>1352246
Alright, thanks senpai.
Can one of you educated muhfuggahs just enlighten us all please? You post very interesting tidbits and sometimes large fragments, but muh uneducated ass still sits here feeling like Im missing a lot. So just type a few walls of text so we can know what you know without having to grind as hard to find succinct juicy summaries.
>>1350742
I think it's a good book, taken on the assumption that it's trying to explain the world while banning genetic differences as a cause.
I can't really imagine anyone doing a better job. But in the end, it seems so desperate on some points, that it ends up convincing the reader that Diamond really is leaving out something important.
Jared Diamond is unusually honest, he literally says early on that he refuses to think about racial differences for the totally irrational reason that he has lots of friends he admires in Papua New Guinea.
>>1353707
But even then is wrong in so many levels than is hilarious. He doesn't know shit about a lot of things and geography determinism was debunked so long ago than is hilarious, and even then it was considered racism because manifest destiny. Seriously it isn't a good book.
>>1350742
>umm how dare you suggest that whites and east asians are smarter than natives, that's racist!
>but New Guineans are totally genetically superior
>>1351558
Academic reviews of his book are almost always "meh" or entirely negative. The public rarely cares about academic reviews.
>>1351495
>lunch and dinner and oh shit that looks dangerous
Yep
