Is this book actually any good, or is it Guns Germs and Steel tier?
I´ve read August 1914 by the same author. It was quite good.
>implying Guns, Germs, and Steel is bad
>>831260
oh fuck I´ve just realized it´s the same book. Sorry I read it in spanish.
>>831265
Youre right, Its not simply bad.
Its shit.
>>831270
What's wrong with it?
>>831242
Dan "JUST A BUCK A SHOW" Carlin cited it and rated it highly.
>>831265
It's not great, and makes some seriously sweeping generalizations. It's not bad for people just getting into history, as an example that one has to take huge numbers of factors into consideration when assessing historical events.
>>831623
retarded reductionism
>>831270
I don't think it's shit, but Diamond simplifies things down to level where actual facts are lost.
>>831242
Haven't read the book, but I will say this:
Barbara Tuchman is a highly regarded historian by my International Relations professor, and she's written for Foreign Affairs and teaches at Columbia. She had to postpone class for two weeks because of the whole "Russia annexed Crimea" business because they needed her in an advisory role at NATO headquarters.
>>831694
>. She had to postpone class for two weeks because of the whole "Russia annexed Crimea" business because they needed her in an advisory role at NATO headquarters
She died in 1989, so that is pure bullshit
>>831723
he's probably referring to his international relations professor.
>>831723
My professor did, not Tuchman.
I quite enjoyed it.
>>831807
the posters wording was partially ambiguous, such an error is completely understandable.
>>831265
Overhyped is probably a better word, it really doesnt deliver anything new aside from a worldview that attempts to simply apologize.
>>831807
it's not you, it's the English language
>>831629
He also cited GGnS and praised it.
>>831867
Anaphora ambiguities due to semantic gender have nothing to do with English itself.
