When this book is mentioned in a Geography class, it will provoke a lecture about how the author's argument is racist
But it's not racist, it's just geographic determinism.
>>6363954
This book was written specifically to argue against racism, your classmates are morons.
In what ways are Blood and Soil compatible with Guns, Germs and Steel?
>>6364098
soil contains germs
blood contains metal, similar to guns and steel
ez
>>6364106
It just seems to be that the Nazis believed in environmental determinism in a way, as well, which is kind of hilarious if you think about it.
I took an Anthropology class in college, and the professor assigned it for us to read.
Professor was pretty liberal, he agreed with pretty much everything that was said in this book, so checkmate OP.
>>6364003
Yes it was but the book itself is filled with bad history, eurocentrism and is racist as fuck because of it. He basically argues that all non-europeans were savages but it totally wasn't their fault. Its well meaning but racist
>>6364290
i haven't read it but the basic argument of eurasia being the only area with a big east-west axis enabling trade across one climatic area and europe being a large collection of peninsulas which fuels the development of different means of transportation etc seemed quite solid
is it worth reading for that?
Jared diamond is a confirmed faggot. His book sucks and he's only popular because of his- fake - last name
>>6364409
Jesus mother of god. Mackinder is rolling over in his fucking grave.
>>6363954
>it will provoke a lecture about how the author's argument is racist
it's very anti-racist.
>>6364944
>he's only popular because of his- fake - last name
So if I change my last name to Diamond I will become popular?
>>6364970
Yes
>>6364947
Mackinder is hated by current Geography scholars because left wing "critical geopolitics" are presently seen as the only acceptable study of Geopolitics in the field
>>6365157
Like arse. You'll find that all those "critical" geographers are actually liberal lickspittles, and support reductivist accounts that reproduce the hierarchy of knowledge formally and substantively.
>>6364968
This is true but objections on these grounds basically boil down to the fact that as >>6364117 states, the Nazis used the same arguments, thus causing any scholars who were cited as promoting the environmental determinism to be discredited in the field. To be fair, one of the most frequently referenced environmental determinist geographers, Friedrich Ratzel, was pronouncedly racist.
All of this eventually lead to Geography being dominated in part by Marxist scholarship and in part by Foucault fans years down the road but that's a completely different story. At present it's a very ideologically motivated and in some ways cringe-inducingly anti-intellectual field of study.
>>6363997
"environmental determinism = racism" is a common argument you know
>>6365164
>tfw liberal lickspittle critical geography
>tfw wasting my life supporting reductivist accounts that reproduce the hierarchy of knowledge formally and substantively
>tfw /lit/ is no longer a safe space
>>6364003
Environmental Science lecturers and Geography lecturers sometimes bring up Diamond as an example of what not to write or argue in the field
>>6365167
>Friedrich Ratzel's racism lead to Geography being dominated by Marxism.
The diachronic reasoning of the Geography, ladies and gentlemen.
>>6365200
>Friedrich Ratzel's racism lead to Geography being dominated by Marxism.
indirectly and over time, but yes
>>6365183
>tfw /lit/ is no longer a safe space
what is that even supposed to mean?
>>6364290
They were savages, though.
>>6366207
Can somebody summarise his argument? Was told it was a shit book so never read it.
>>6366228
only reason europeans came out on top is because they lucked out in every possible way. it's garbage.
>>6364290
>>6365179
Jared Diamond is basically addressing world history up to 1492: why and how was it that Europeans could and would build global empires and that other peoples would be ill-equipped to resist, let alone compete?
A lot of people have criticized the answers he came up with, but the "anti-racist" camp is basically just hurt that he would ask the question.
>>6366207
>David Harvey
lol zero growth economy
>>6365167
>Friedrich Ratzel's racism lead to Geography being dominated by Marxism
Good. Get bent reactionary fuck weasel.
>>6366890
>Marxism
>Scientific
Laughable
>>6363997
>implying Environmental Determinism isn't racist
>>6366898
>Genuinely believing that those who aren't as far in your direction of the political spectrum as you are reactionaries
This is the kind of belief of a person who thinks that even the most far left of European socialist parties are reactionary or right wing
>>6366931
If they aren't reactionaries they're liberals, and if they're not far enough but in the right direction they're wrongly admirable.
What you just said isn't true. Most left Europeans are liberals, they still admire the State.
>>6366909
Feel free to laugh at their beliefs, but your concept of "science" is hollow and dogmatic and will eventually get you into trouble.
>>6366931
While I agree that the term "reactionary" has been over-used and mis-used, given the impossibility of returning to an ancien regime even as an ideological fantasy, the term is now as full of political life as "anti-disestablishmentarianism"
>>6366373
>A lot of people have criticized the answers he came up with, but the "anti-racist" camp is basically just hurt that he would ask the question.
Can you not see how that argument has worryingly racist applications?
>>6364290
>He basically argues that all non-europeans were savages but it totally wasn't their fault. Its well meaning but racist
Give me a break, stop trying to attach value judgments to facts. He states, 100% accurately, that people who are born inheriting a wealth of valuable minerals and fertile land are inevitably going to rape the people who don't, and those who aren't born with those aren't going to be able to support a population capable of rivaling the ones that do.
The only reason you're not in the woods worshipping rocks is because agriculturalism and monopolization of property made traditional family roles obsolete. Deal with it and stop believing in spooks.
>>6365167
Wait. Geography is more than figuring out which colors to paint the map?
>>6367122
Not when the book what is arguing is the only biological advantage of Europeans (resistance to disease) is now more or less moot.
>>6367739
Yes. Once you get past grade school level Geography, it is the study of place and space on different scalar levels.
>>6367209
but I'd rather be in the woods warshipping rocks.
>>6367209
Well put.
>>6363954
The author's argument isn't racist. That is absurd.
He may be wrong, and is, on many points but he isn't racist. Not every area in the world is best suited to help human life flourish. If you for whatever reason woke up in the ocean or on top of a mountain, you would have a harder time doing anything compared to waking up next to a freshwater river. There are many other factors that can help human life flourish, and understanding that can help us understand our history.
>>6366228
Environment determines civilizational success
Guess who loved similar arguments? Academics who supported the National Socialist German Worker's Party in the 1930s and 1940s
>>6368003
>2+2=4
>Guess who loved similar arguments? Nazis.
You're a fucking joke.
>>6368033
Nazis loved strict, unquestionable rules, so yes.
It's important to question and deconstruct arguments such as 2+2=4 and look at ways in which those arguments, which are based purely in ideology, may potentially be wrong. You could argue that universal, unquestioning acceptance of 2+2=4 as fact is based in a hegemonic concept of mathematics.
>>6368054
Actually, you can derive it from basic set theory if you work at it enough. Principia Mathematica proved it on page, what, 300?
>>6368077
>Not questioning the methodology of those proofs
>Not examining ways in which the argument is questionable or even objectively wrong
I hope you're not serious
>>6368054
Every group you could possibly name "loved similar arguments" to 2 + 2 = 4. Your rhetoric is boring and stupid.
You are delusional.
>>6367739
It's a much more interesting and readable field than that by far
>>6367209
Your statement about valuable minerals, or what I would more broadly classify as material needs, seems to miss the point. Diamond tuned to the example of the Industrial Revolution in the UK because it illustrated how scarcity had incentivized the creation of new technologies. It was this cycle that tuned them from a threatened supply of timber for heating needs towards coal powered technology. He then turns to societies, namely those in Africa that would one day come to fear European technology, as being beneficiaries of plentiful material wealth. And because of this, because of the levels of scarcity that they nominally did not face, incentives were not there to propel new technologies.
Im speaking in broad strokes with regards to Diamond's thesis here, and can agree that the other poster is being inflammatory for branding--what appears to me at least--earnest sociology as racist though.
>>6369205
There's a balance. Diamond points out that cultures in places like New Guinea have to put so much effort into just gathering daily food supplies that they have no time left over to come up with things like farming. He also points to a lack of draft animal nominees as a reason why farming doesn't take off in these regions.
>>6369231
Certainly it is about balance. Too much scarcity and a society is forced to shift from focusing on alternative technologies to merely surviving. But a sustained, yet dampened, threat to everyday activities does seem to breed a pattern of success. Or am I reading too deeply into this?
>>6369231
>He also points to a lack of draft animal nominees as a reason why farming doesn't take off in these regions.
How is that wrong? If a civilization wanted to farm having large and docile draft animals would make the process easier. It isnt a sufficient reason for why farming doesnt take place but it makes sense why animal labor is more beneficial than human labor for certain tasks while farming.
>>6366021
/lit/ triggers him
I had no problem with this book. Many of his arguments are sound.
Interesting how both right and left wingers get butt-blasted by its 'racism' in different yet similar ways.
>>6367209
>100% accurately
If that were true, Africa would be running the show, and Europe would never have survived generation one.
>>6370632
>mfw I dont give a shit why white and different than blacks - it's just life
>mfw when leftist are so fucking desperate to find any kind of explanation to the absolute western dominance over africa
They are just perpetuating "the race war" with their shit
>>6364970
Anne's career hasn't exactly sparkled in recent times
she is still a top milf tho
>>6370662
Oh, I know. I just find Diamond's tripe amusing. He tries not to be racist or honest, then winds up doing so anyway.
>>6370707
Please explain how you believe his historical account is racist. Environmental determinism does not necessarily equal racism.
>>6364409
>and that's just the way it had to be, us on top, them on the bottom, always, forever, it is meant to be, can't you see?
please leave history to historians.
>>6366373
my biggest issue is that he uses the blanket term "europeans" which in reality means brits, french and the low countries.
bad history is bad.
>>6367209
hmm interesting. so the muslim expansion across the east and mediterranean was successful due to their rich resources in the arabian peninsula. nice.
hmm interesting. so the viking raids across continental europe were successful due to their rich resources in the scandinavian peninsula. nice.
hmm interesting. so the invasion and capture of aztec and incan lands was successful due to the rich resources in the iberian peninsula. nice.
man, if only my teachers just told it to me straight like my buddy diamond does.
>>6364290
but that's true.
>>6363954
Say "prove it."
History HAPPENED. If she disagrees with the interpretation of events, tell her to provide an alternative
Has anyone read this? It kind of validates Diamond's argument combining the geography aspect with the history of warfare/firearms.
>>6370742
However it's so historically associated with racism that its arguments are widely reviled and feared by academics
>>6367209
>He states, 100% accurately, that people who are born inheriting a wealth of valuable minerals and fertile land are inevitably going to rape the people who don't
Except there are numerous occasions where that isn't the case. What of all those turkic horde movements east to west - nomads raping the living shit out of established communities?
History isn't a fucking game of Civ 5 you know.
>>6370767
You obviously have not read the book.
>>6370872
First time I've ever heard of this, you're sure you're not just constructing a strawman?
>>6370931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism#Revival
>>6370949
>Environmental determinism
>the physical environment predisposes human social development towards particular trajectories
>Racism
>Modern variants are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples
So environmental determinism can't be racist by definition
>>6370884
>horses are not a resource
Lol
They would start small and build
>>6370931
If you are in university, conduct a database search through your uni library for articles on this book and/or environmental determinism
Anything written by a geography or environmental studies scholar since the book was published will make an often politically motivated argument for rejecting it
>>6364290
One b8 to rule them all
The book is racist.. against whites and other industrialized peoples
Page 19:
>"In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern "Stone Age" peoples are the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples."
Now imagine if the quote was reversed:
>"In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern "Industrialized" peoples are the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than stone age peoples."
How quickly do you think he would have lost his job and reputation if that were the case?
>>6371323
source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kLKTa_OeoNIC&pg=PA11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 20:
>"From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is"
and again in reverse:
"From the very beginning of my work with Europeans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average African or New Guinean is"
What evidence does he have to support his claim? Well he completely throws out decades of IQ testing in favor of some personal anecdotes and half baked theories
>>6371323
> muh noble intelligent savages
This book is trash and the people of Papua New Guinea would have been wiped out by disease if it wasn't for those "dumb westerners."
>>6367756
Pointing out and discussing the biological differences between different ethnic groups is not 'racist' in the first place.
>>6368003
Are you actually trying to claim that the environment a society lives in has no influence on its prosperity?
Or that ideas are wrong just because Nazis agreed with them?
>>6371323
What's worse is that in the same section of the book he says its racist to say European success is due to their greater intelligence or to say they are smarter in general.
>>6371369
It obviously has influence but Diamond grossly exaggerates that influence and completely ignores examples that don't fit his extremely simplistic narrative.
>>6371323
Did he say this had anything to do with genetics? No? Ok, then it isn't racist.
>>6371641
he does say it's genetic. how about you try reading a bit. one of his theories involves natural selection and it's effect on intelligence, specifically the natural selection of city dwellers vs hunter gatherer societies.
>>6371685
I mustve read a different version then, because in mine he says right in the beginning that all races have virtually no difference in IQ.
>>6371363
Physical anthropologists are uneasy about their own field because yes, it is
>>6371720
If that is 'racist' then the term is so broad it has no meaning and is no longer an insult or a useful criticism.
Differences exist and there is nothing wrong with studying or discussing them, to say otherwise is moronic.
>>6371844
>Differences exist
The naïve instrumentalist "realist", ladies and gentlemen.
>>6372155
Personally I prefer attacking it with the Needham question. Which is methodologically superior as an attack than handing out the slur of racism.
>>6372061
Do tell me more about how all peoples of all ethnicities can digest lactose and how everyone is equally capable of resisting damage from direct sunlight.
Also you realise that Realism and Instrumentalism are opposing philosophies right?
>>6372216
Oh, so your "difference" now includes the theoretical construct "ethnicity."People of all ethnicities can digest lactose because ethnicity is a cultural construct.
I also note lactose, sunlight, a theory of skin disease.
>realism and instrumentalism are philosophies
>realism and instrumentalism are opposing
Go lick the arse of the boss class until you get your next ethnographic grant.
>>6372155
Enlighten us, anon.
>>6372232
Okay now you are just trolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
And you cannot win arguments by calling everything a social construct.
>>6372270
No, not everything is a social construct, but ethnicity bloody is.
"lactose" "sunlight" and a theory of skin disease are all not simple differences. They require cultural theories, my favourite one is "Western Science," observation, experiment, classification, typology.
They are not immediately apparent to simple observation (scientific realism), but are theoretically situated. And to my mind true. But theoretically situated. Similarly, they are not immediately "apparent," they aren't instruments that you can lift up and appropriate from reality without having a prior theory.
>>6372270
>Okay now you are just trolling.
Differences are immediately apprehensible eh? Without a theoretical context eh? Ethnicity is being used as a code word for physical race eh? Get. A. Dog. Up. Yer.
>>6372284
>Evidence for theories are improper if they are not "apparent" (whatever that means)
I'm not the anon you're addressing and I even agree to an extent that ethnicity is socially constructed (and sympathise with your presumed moral reasons for such theories) but your line of reasoning is extremely poor.
>>6372284
Can you please explain what any of this nonsense you are going on about has to do with the absurd claim that its 'naive' to say there are differences between different ethnicities.
Because quite beyond the easily observable differences in hair, eye and skin colour, height, build and so forth between different groups you do not need a 'cultural theory' to see what happens when a white person does not protect themselves from the sun.
>>6372334
Not bothering with you, you're functionally illiterate.
>>6372341
It isn't naïve to say that there are differences between ethnicities, it is naïve to believe
>Differences exist
As if this is immediately apparent and not in fact a major theoretical conclusion, based off observations within a methodological frame.
> Because quite beyond the easily observable differences in hair, eye and skin colour, height, build and so forth between different groups you do not need a 'cultural theory' to see what happens when a white person does not protect themselves from the sun.
Which is strange, because that isn't ethnicity. That's "race." And these "observations" require a cultural conception of "whiteness" and "grouping".
Were you born this ignorant or did you work hard in bum-fuck Bible college?
Isn't the racist part that he doesn't give flying fuck whether different Peoples look at the World differently, and just naturaly assumes that domestication of animals and mercantalism and such, is things that every Culture would undertake, given the material circumstances to do so?
In other words, he naturalizes a specific modern (western) ontology to be the core of human nature.
>>6372389
Yep. Remember, the first thing to look for is a simple "human nature" attack.
But wait, Diamond says that regardless of desirability, some societies will simply destroy others based on their concentration of material competences. He isn't essentialising human nature, just pointing out that some ways of being will murderate others.
>>6372400
Well, he does go to great lenghts to argue that the environmental determinist explanations to the European succes is the right one. If he didn't believe that western ontology was human nature, Why do he need the argument?
Why not, like so many others, show that some Peoples, with all the conditions of domestication available, don't do it?
It's true, he doesn't glorify the western society, but that still doesn't render his reasoning Sound.
I'd say that he do essentialise human nature.
There isn't a single piece of racist "evidence" in this thread yet
fucking autists everywhere
environmental determinism isn't racist, and he was using it as a means to combat the racists saying "europeans conquered because they're genetically superior"
jared diamond traveled throughout the world, to papa new guinea especially, and contemptlessly befriended the tribesman there and repectfully learned their ways
If he is covertly racist, there's no adequate evidence to support it and when he says that the tribesman from papa new guinea are maybe MORE intelligent, it's obviously because of how bogged down most people are by dumb shit in contemporary society -- he already clarified he's not talking about genetics
>>6372453
>Environmental Determinism isn't racist
...and yet there are so many geography PhDs who will completely disagree with you on that.
>>6372453
The environment determines a population's genes.
>>6372389
but that's not racist dumbfuck, that's just ignorance
Inserting a "western ontology into the core of human nature" isn't racist because it's discriminate towards everybody equally, not a particular race
>>6363954
Then your geography teacher didn't read the book, or is too dumb to understand it. Neither should be surprising.
>/lit/ is actually trying to uphold and propagate the discredited far-right, pro-imperialism doctrine of Environmental Determinism
Only natural after all the Fascism threads
>>6372468
Except that perspective on Guns, Germs and Steel is widespread among Geography teachers
>>6372475
>people who are more educated than me are "retards"
>even though they know more about that field than I do
>>6372463
>Environments are one of the major factors contributing to genetic mutation.
Not only do you not understand genetics but you don't understand that Diamond specifically argues that it's environmental resources (including disease) and NOT GENETICS that lead to European peoples to dominate other populations. Did you even TRY to read the book?
>>6372378
>That's "race." And these "observations" require a cultural conception of "whiteness" and "grouping".
Your pseudo-philosophical posturing is sickening and your classist ad hominems do you no favours. You would call a cat a dog given half a chance if it fit your ideology.
>>6372474
/lit/ is a place filled with idiots. Nobody here has a thorough understanding of political philosophy. It's just a bunch of edgelords who skimmed through a few Wikipedia pages until they discovered their new epic meme ideology. Proceeding to make a list of all the important buzzwords and then spam it all over this board as a fashion accessory for shaping their own personal image.
If you want to observe an actual political discussion. Read literature. Starting with the Greeks.
>>6372487
yes, that's exactly what I'm saying
go on, try me
I'm not going to go get a redundant, boring degree just so I can tell people environmental determinism isn't racist
I think it's best to summarise this thread as "bizarro tumblr" and then let it die
>>6372480
That's just conflating Diamond's conclusion with something else entirely. You're saying "Diamond believes that Western ontology is human nature" when all he's really saying is "the reason that Western populations became global powers is because of environmental resources that they coincidentally had and harnessed towards the ends of dominance."
>>6372464
True, it's not racist, it's just a misrepresentation of Peoples from a variety of cultures that is not his own, creating the effect in the reader that Said peoples are (purely due to Bad luck), less culturally evolved than his own people.
On this basis you Can further hypothesize that that the technologies and societal inventions of the more evolved Culture Will be received as welcomed gifts among the primitive cultures, once our troubles with sharing is overcomed.
ITT: Anons that have read the wiki article on "environmental determinism" and not "Guns, Germs, & Steel"
>>6372550
i loled
>>6367122
A fact can't be bigoted, and, therefore, neither can a well-premised question.
>>6372537
But, again, he argues that ALL PEOPLES would've done the same, given the same opportunities. If he didn't, Half the book wouldn't be occupied with evidence that the material circumstances weren't present on other Continents.
>>6372568
>But, again, he argues that ALL PEOPLES would've done the same, given the same opportunities.
Where in the book does he argue this? I'd like to see a quote.
>If he didn't, Half the book wouldn't be occupied with evidence that the material circumstances weren't present on other Continents.
No, I think there are more possible reasons. For example, that certain material limitations in any particular peoples' environments would necessarily limit those particular peoples' ability to dominate other peoples and their environments, whereas peoples with environments that coincidentally supply all known and unknown resources for domination make the enterprise of domination much easier (keeping in mind that "easier" DOES NOT mean "necessary").
>>6372513
>Your pseudo-philosophical posturing is sickening
If you really care, look up what the Greeks considered ethnoi.
>classist ad homs
Mate, you're a fucking cunt and we should hang you. It isn't an ad hom, its an ad bacc. Learn your fallacies you dickwit.
>>6372435
>If he didn't believe that western ontology was human nature, Why do he need the argument?
That's a meta-critique, that Diamond's research project is racist, not that his research report, his monograph, is racist.
>I'd say that he do essentialise human nature.
But not Western ontology. He essentialises dominance.
>>6372550
Do you really need me to point you to the extensive published academic literature on why environmental determinism is wrong and historically an ideological tool for exclusion and oppression?
>>6372607
>If you really care, look up what the Greeks considered ethnoi.
Whilst I don't know the greek opinion on ethnic groups, I concede as right what you seem to be a proponent of - in that ethnicities are fluid bodies in the sphere of humanity with definitions created by culture.
This fluidity does NOT negate, however, differences in biology between ethnic groups as per their genetic haplotype profiling, which was what the original poster was trying to get across.
>>6372715
No, that was a statement of fact.
>>6372706
>This fluidity does NOT negate, however, differences in biology between ethnic groups as per their genetic haplotype profiling, which was what the original poster was trying to get across.
It does mate, it really fucking does. Do you know how many Poms have haplotypes normally associated with being a curry muncher? That's because their grandparents were curry munchers, but now they're poms. Ethnoi are culturally configured.
Guess how many Greeks were Greeks before Athens and Sparta went to war?
>>6372736
/pol/... we've been over this.
>>6372457
Muh appeal to authority fallacy
Academics have to censor their very own thoughts due to how bogged down in politics their peers are.
>>6372736
>>6372743
>Do you know how many Poms have haplotypes normally associated with being a curry muncher?
Quite a few I imagine, but do a bunch of statistics (boo! hiss!) and you'll find significant differences in good confidence limits for various genetic polymorphisms.
Besides this point, why do you believe ethnicities have to be static and unchanging in their profile to have meaning? We are not talking about greek concepts based on their gods here - such values are ascribable by science.
>>6372748
No fuck you. You have race right? A broad category. Below this you have ethnicity, as in the subcategories of race. Once again are you telling me you can't tell the difference between an Italian and a German? Theyre both European, you telling me that any differences below that are 100% imaginary? Do I need to get my eyes checked doctor?
You people are the racist ones here, try telling a Japanese that he's exactly the same as a Korean. See what response you get.
>ethnicities are a social construct
Holy shit you people are actually deluded. Leave the ivory tower every so often.
>>6372768
>Besides this point, why do you believe ethnicities have to be static and unchanging in their profile to have meaning? We are not talking about greek concepts based on their gods here - such values are ascribable by science.
Ethnicities aren't static, they're constantly changing, but they're not biologically oriented. Plenty of ethnicities structure non-biological in group behaviour, and EVERY ethnicity has a position inside it for "the other who is us."
They're cultural phenomena.
>>6372776
>differences [are] imaginary
No they're symbolic. They exist in a context of theory. Your reading of difference is always presupposed by a theoretical positioning.
>A Japanese
Which? The citizens of the state? That includes Ainu and Koreans. The residents? That includes Koreans and gaijin. The culture? That includes Koreans and some Ainu? Great Yamato Culture Ethnics? Again, includes some "Koreans."
p.s.: Some communists in Japan aren't Japanese even though many Japanese would identify them as Japanese.
All of the "differences" you point out are theoretical, they're the result of you already theorising social practice.
>>6372232
>ethnicity is a cultural construct.
culture is an ethnic construct
>>6368083
All you need is basic sensory organs to be able to establish the principle that 2 +2 =4 with in the physical environment. So no anon, you're stupid.
>>6373153
Go read Russell's Principia
>>6373153
No-one has been stupid enough to think that mathematical facts are established empirically since Mill.
>>6372474
You read the book? How do you know he advocates for imperialism just because he admits people were simply born into different circumstances that required and/ or result in different things?You can't just take that as an implication that we suddenly must "share with the less fortunate" and they shouldn't just be left alone.
>>6372568
Wouldn't it be racist towards whites and some other races or groups since it argues that some races are more morally superior than others such that they may or may not have done that exact same thing and conquer?
>>6372568
>All peoples are the same
Race blindness is a more misguidedly well meaning and subtler form of racism than overt racism, you know
>>6372783
ethnicity =/= race
I will argue that it's not always so clear but for one thing, there isn't much difference between difference between Koreans and Japanese except for cultural. Same with most Europeans and Africans. Probably except Italians Vs. Scandinavians but literally the only difference there is hear color.
>>6373229
He doesn't advocate it himself. He is using arguments that history shows can be used that way by people in power who wish to apply those concepts and lines of argumentation.
>>6372589
Quote when?
>>6373266
>racism is where races are treated differently
>treating races the same is racism
LIBERAL DOUBLETHINK IN ACTION
>>6373386
Is that a character from Babar?
I vaguely remember seeing an animated movie of Babar the Elephant as a kid and am pretty sure there was a similar looking character
>>6373401
It's from a tv show called Ugly Americans. I don't remember any koala in Babar
>>6373428
I just remember there being a movie of Babar that was really edgy and involved explosions and an assassination attempt. It was too much for my young mind to grapple with.
>>6373295
Well, that's obviously not his intention and I'm sure he's rather such things did not happen. So there is no real reason to disregard everything he says.
Here's some reading material for those wondering why the criticisms in the OP might be made:
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_1982_001_sum10/Blaut%201999.pdf
>>6372505
How is disease resistance not genetics?
>>6372872
So you point out that there are sub-sub categories, such as Sicilians and the mainland french, Ainu, etc, but what does that prove? Nothing, you haven't refuted anything. What are you Ainu, if not an ethnicity? A culture? They are a culture connected by their genetics, so what do you call that if not an ethnicity?
>>6373506
That's not what the post says. The post says it is not Diamond's position that genetics (race) led to European dominance but European utilization of many key environmental resources, which includes disease, that led to dominance.
>>6372505
Still an argument based on Eurocentrism
>>6373540
>They are a culture connected by their genetics
There is no point in this correspondence.
>>6373336 I've been sleeping.
I think that you have to be autistically literal when you're reading the book NOT to come to the conclusion that I've argued for, but even so, here's a quote:
>"I would say to Yali: the striking differences between long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the peoples themselves but to differences in their environments. I expect that if the populations of Aboriginal Australia and Eurasia could have been interchanged during the late Pleistocene, the original Aboriginal Australians would now be the ones occupying most of the Americas and Australia, as well as Eurasia, while the original Aboriginal Eurasians would be the ones now reduced to downtrodden population fragments in Australia." Page 405, i.e. that's the fucking conclusion.
>>6372615
>That's a meta-critique, that Diamond's research project is racist, not that his research report, his monograph, is racist.
No. Diamonds research project is to find out if there can be an explanation to wealth and power gaps, that can be due to something else than genetic differences. That's not racist.
His "monograph" claims that the explanation that humans have an essential nature, and differences are ONLY due to environmental differences (see quote above). That's a misrepresentation of the potential of different ontological systems between cultures.
>But not Western ontology. He essentialises dominance.
He essentialises a given way of aproaching nature (that of production and domestication), which is intimately connected with how you perceive the world - in other words, ontology. Dominance is a product of that ontology.
>>6373243
Why? Some peoples don't conquer others, some peoples do. Material circumstances can explain some of it, cultural differences can explain others.
>>6373266
I know... that's what I'm saying?
>>6373386
Racism is when measures of ONE race/culture are used as the measures of all.
This can have two consequences:
>1) Primitive cultures -> they can't do what we do, so they're primitive.
>2) It must be because of their genetics, they're probably stupid
Diamond disproves nr. 2, and that's great, but he is guilty of nr. 1.
It's an anthropology book written by a bird watcher who was never trained as an anthropologist. It's about on par with Dawkins and Harris doing philosophy and only slightly less ridiculous than if Stephen Hawking wrote a book on running.
>>6364120
I've taken a lot more anthro classes than you and will be graduating with a degree in it this semester. Diamond is a hack and my professors agree, including some pretty leftist ones.
>>6372457
well there's probably a guy with a PhD in engineering birdtables that would disagree with you. So?
Meh. I think his argument is too narrow and doesn't include aspects of culture and human brilliance. Look at the aboriginal peoples of Australia. They didn't discover fire by the time Rome expanded greatly. There were basins in Australia where settlement was possible but they ran around like crazy nomads, ended up settling in distinctly horrendous parts of Australia for implementing civilization
>>6374426
On the contrary, you're the one that's taken the "autistically literal" reading here. All he's done in the quote is affirm his stance that it's the environmental conditions of Eurasia that made those people able to "create so much cargo" and bring it to New Guinea where the natives had "so little cargo", as Yali puts it. You're stretching Diamond's words to find racism where there isn't any.
>>6375422
Holy shit you can't read. Nice talking to you.
>>6374906
>ridiculous than if Stephen Hawking wrote a book on running.
That's rather ableist of you
>itt people who haven't read Ratzel or Blaut and don't understand why critical geopolitics is a preferable approach to the field
>>6375582
It was kind of a rude example to make. If you have trouble walking, I apologize. But I don't regret suggesting that, if possible, someone should have experience with something in order to write a book about it. Yes, I would trust a book on running written by an Olympic runner over one written by someone who never runs. Likewise, I'd trust an anthropology book by an anthropologist over one by Jared Diamond.
>>6375541
Sorry you had your criticism turned around on you mate.
>>6364120
You have a shitty anthro prof. Community college-tier shitty.
Diamond is terrible pop-sci written by a guy who thinks that because he's pretty good at his own field he must be fucking awesome at everything. It doesn't work that way.
I mean, the introduction to the book is basically one giant noble savage story. Of course the rest is going to be racist as hell.
>>6374426
You described ethnocentrism though. Which often leads to racism not the other way around. Racism more has to do with the hatred and systematic mistreat of a race of people due to ideas of superiority. He doesn't seem to disregard the cultures and think industrialized cultures anymore inherently superior. In that case, can't primitive simply be an operational definition?
>Why? Some peoples don't conquer others, some peoples do.
I only mentioned morality because that tends to be a measure of it but perhaps wrongly. The non material cultural differences btw would play a role in that.
>>6364947
Mackinder is nowadays considered an imperialist propagandist in the field to which he contributed
>>6372872
>All of the "differences" you point out are theoretical, they're the result of you already theorising social practice.
You're overusing the word Theory here. The differences exist, but not necessarily in a physically tangible way (culture, etc). Skin color is generally a modifier in identity of oneself and group.
>>6366921
I guess the truth is racist then, or in other words the most logical theory.
Why is it that Europeans have always been economically, socially, and technologically superior for the last 2200 years or so?
Then you've got the Arabs, the Persians, and the east Asians for a few centuries.
>>6364290
>totally wasn't their fault
KEK
Stay delusional.
This is a book written by a fucking baby boomer that lived his life "looking at biiiiirds maaan" and believing that "race is a social construct maaaaan" while his jewish contacts managed to get him in to Cambridge. Now that the 70´s and 80´s are over and everyone knows what a DNA strain is they also realized that the reason why niggers act the way they do he decide to publish this rubbish; a last and weak attempt to try to help the savage niggro that cant be helped.
>>6366898
>supporting Marxism
on my dead body
>>6376664
The phrase is "Over my dead body" not "on my dead body".
Just here to help!
>>6367209
It's the opposite man.
The lack of resources forces civilizations to come up with alternative ways of extracting resources for the civilization to survive.
This is probably why Africa, among with many other populations with plenty of access to resources have always been doing shit.
Also the fact that cross breeding between neanderthals and homo sapiens in Europe and Asia created a more intelligent homo sapiens than the original one, which still exists in Africa.
>>6368003
This is why liberals will never be taken seriously.
This is why you're fucking over yourself and everyone believing in the same ideas as you.
You guys will either become irrelevant or you'll cause the destruction of an intellectual West (I assume you're from the West.
Or you're just baiting.
>>6376660
Can anyone blue pill me on racial IQ differences?
>>6376696
That argument isn't specific to a political platform. It is a commonly voiced argument among lecturers in the halls of academia.
>>6376696
More likely than not, you're a liberal.
Stop saying words you don't fully understand!
>>6368003
Is this trolling?
Guns, Germs and Steel, the fucking book that liberals and SJWs beat themselves off to every night is now considered racist?
>>6376699
It is only a social construct ;)
You see blacks live in poorer and more uneducated areas because of systematical racism and suppression
So the next time you see a black man get down on your knees and plead for forgiveness and ask him politely if he wants to fuck your white gf/wife
>>6376699
>>6376723
>>6376660
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7ON_kqK8mq0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Rouvroy,+Antoinette+%282008%29.+Human+genes+and+neoliberal+governance:+a+Foucauldian+critique&ots=iCBNhXcS0e&sig=IRFON6aXu6SAX-6fapfoDVxtXk0#v=onepage&q=Rouvroy%2C%20Antoinette%20%282008%29.%20Human%20genes%20and%20neoliberal%20governance%3A%20a%20Foucauldian%20critique&f=false
Read an academic source for once.
>>6376699
You can fuck off with catchphrases from the other place, delete your post, and ask your question like a civilised human being.
>>6366890
>Marxism offered social science the tools to become properly scientific
What were the tools that maxrism offered?
>>6376751
Mass fascist extermination. And it succeeded.
>>6376751
Analytical approach to discussing inequalities in class, etc.
The core-periphery model of Wallerstein's World Systems Theory was based on Wallerstein using academic Marxism to critique inequalities between regions and countries.
>>6376762
You must feel very euphoric now
>>6376789
You're a fascist in 2015 have you tried shaving or cleaning your ass yet
>>6376734
>m-m-muh academia
Yeah it isn´t like those institutions are corrupt and rotten to the core, especially when it comes to the social sciences
It is really easy to dismiss this article; it is written by a doctor of law, a person that most likely have little to no understanding of genetics.
>>6376794
You have no idea what that individual's beliefs or political stances are.
Learn what words mean before they use them.
>>6376787
This is very different from what I expected from >>6366890. I am somewhat familiar with the concepts going through that wikipedia article. Judging from how it represents it self, this just seems like circle jerk material and rationalization for why all socialist states so far have failed or are horrible to live in. This far from being any kind of sciene. It is a study at best.
>>6376797
As opposed to Storm Front, The Dark Enlightenment, and /pol/ All Shining Examples of Citable Sources and Reliable Information™
>>6376804
Someone hasn't shaved their butt
>>6376837
>This is far from being any kind of sciene
Given your spelling, I'm really comfortable with your judgements of what is science.
Marxian categories, and the manner of producing categories (multi-scalar discursive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of material relations) was something new, and real, and points at objects of inquiry that can be independently evaluated using shared methods and apparatus.
Unlike instrumentalism it produces theory adequate to the objects, and has an awareness of the "discursive" in the sense of the "open ended" nature of human relations.
Consider, for example, the disputed category of class between the Marxist historians and the sociologist E O Wright, who produces closed monachronic systems.
>>6376847
It's not impossible to argue that there are no objectively reliable sources in the whole of human existence, you know
>>6376857
>Cite me a source
>*Cites you a source*
>ACADEMIA IS CORRUPT, YOU MUST LOOK BEYOND
>But there's no peer review beyond
>NOTHING CAN BE CITED. ALL IS FALSE, UNREAL.
>>6376857
No, its a truism. Hume. Goedel.
That's why we do science instead of doing truth.
>>6376804
Samefag here, he is indeed correct that I am a fascist. By the standard he has set. I think it is the one in which the entire spectrum form center-right to anarcho-capitalist to fascist and teocrats are all fascists. I fairly sympathetic to a mixed economy, where you capitalism with few market restrictions.
Also, shaving your ass is weird.
>>6376847
Go to fringe elements on youtube and get academia out of your ass, they have have a cultural monopoly on science so they can almost say whatever they want and make it fact.
But give it to me, I am not going to read her entire book m8tey, just tell me her rational why race is only a social construct ;)
>>6376886
>By the standard he has set. I think it is the one in which the entire spectrum form center-right to anarcho-capitalist to
Except that's not the fucking definition of fascism
That tripcode wielding clown is doing the rhetorical equivalent of trying to behead people with a foam sword
>>6376902
well I am not going to read your fucking book
>>6376909
Do you want to read another book, son? How about Hop On Pop. You'd enjoy it. It's about the newer stronger generation triumphing over the weak.
>>6374915
>Diamond is a hack and my professors agree
any other reason you feel diamond 'is a hack'? what the fuck does that even mean?
>>6376922
>You'd enjoy it. It's about the newer stronger generation triumphing over the weak.
You're objectively a fucking idiot for not being aware that this is completely the polar opposite of Dr. Seuss's opinions or what he intended by his stories.
>>6376886
wait I totally missed this
>anarcho-capitalist
>>6376922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ-e5XjlmZA
Let´s put on a vhs for junior
>>6376942
A hack is someone whose work is subjective and polemical but who tries to act like a prophet handing out the golden truth to their followers
>>6376867
This is an example of a bad paper published in nature:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3983.html
The study finds a correlation between brain size and poverty. The authors then conclude that poverty hinders brain growth during adoulecense.
The researchers did not control for any form of self-selection or any other variable that could cause the difference.
>Muh academia
>>6376943
Dr Seuss is a neo-reactionary. Isn't this common knowledge.
>>6376948
did you just link me the equivalent of Niburu 2012
>>6376956
Except for the fact different portions and different elements have more merit than other,s and mostly everyone is working off the work of their previous.
It's not a constant creation set at any given year, month, week, etc. Most work has been pretty much accepted as fact because it is testable, and observable, therefore, some work has more merit than others.
I'm sorry, do you want to go on? I enjoy teaching The fucking Scientific Method
The intro lecture of any Geography class past the intro one where you take map quizzes is literally just "environmental determinism is racism, and marxism and post structuralism are most useful theoretical bases"
Which leads to publications like this one:
http://www.unm.edu/~dcorreia/David_Correia/Research_files/Correia_F**K_CNS.pdf
>>6377000
>I'm sorry, do you want to go on? I enjoy teaching The fucking Scientific Method
Feel free to do so
>>6377000
Are you trolling? Dr. Seuss is widely remembered as very leftist
>>6377000
>did you just link me the equivalent of Niburu 2012
>adhominems
Oh i forgot he is not a fucking professor therfor his arguments are flawed, thanks for proving me right that academia do have the cultural monopoly on what is "correct"
Questions
>why is there a difference in the average brain size among the races?
>>6377034
>Brain size doesn't even equate to intelligence.....
I doesn't need to, it need only correlate. Which it does.
>>6377034
No but it is an organ that consumes calories, so why have some races developed a big one and others not?
>>6377065
>To say that's an assumption would be giving credit to naivety
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter
>Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range.
>>6377111
But that's literally not true. I have no idea how to discredit someone at Stanford saying something wrong, but it's been academic, for over 40 years now larger brains do not equate for larger intelligence.
The only thing I can consider from this, is you're taking it out of context.
>>6377065
>whad da fug XD
Why have some races developed bigger brains, an organ that consumes energy which in evolutionary terms this is known as an expensive organ while others races have not done so?
Why does the inuit have a bigger brain than the black man?
>>6377127
Equate is not the same as correlate. Correlate simply means that traits walk hand in hand. At least a certain part of the measurements.
I wish I could find the study where they found that uglyness correlates with leadership skills. It seems fitting for this moement. No-one would confuse uglyness with a personality trait, but it does correlate with leadership skills.
There are many ways for things to walk hand in hand.
>>6377127
I don't know what you mean by equate. Are you talking about interspecies comparisons? That an elephants brain is larger than a human but a human is still smarter?
Take a group of people, measure their brain size as well as possible and give them tests that measure their abstract reasoning abilities. Plot to two variables and you will have a positive correlation. There is a casual relationship.
>>6377182
uhuh so we can agree that mentality between races are biological and not a merely a social construct.
>>6377182
dat recovery
>>6376219
Yes that's true. I've adressed that here >>6372542
I don't consider Diamond a racist at all. I loved the book and have read two others of his books. I enjoy Them, and find his perspectives enlightening, but I don't accept Them unconditionally. His determinism and disregard for genetic explanations are admirable, but in No way sufficient. Whether you're leftist or right-wing I would expect that kind of literacy from /lit/, but evidently that's asking too much.
>>6364290
How about we stop using "racist" in lieu of an actual argument? It brings nothing to the discussion.
>>6377483
We're discussing the charge because that's precisely what academic writers in numerous fields say, in slightly more eloquent language, in their critiques of Diamond's writing
>>6368003
You are absolutely right.
Good genes determine civilizational success. Please step in that room over there, untermensch, don't mind the grates.
>>6377489
>We're discussing the charge because that's precisely what academic writers in numerous fields say, in slightly more eloquent language, in their critiques of Diamond's writing
No academics say that Diamond's writing is racist, how long will you keep up this charade. You've been told multiple times in this thread but you keep on repeating this shit, spamming up the place.
Environmental determinism != racism
>>6372480
holy shit this I why /pol/ will win. If it's so easy to be racist, might as well be a damn racists.
What does /lit/ think about Victor Davis Hanson? Do you guys recommend some of his books?
>>6377520
Except that there are at least two articles linked in this thread that explicitly make that point.
>>6377520
Oh, look:
>James Blaut has criticized Guns, Germs, and Steel for reviving the theory of environmental determinism, and described Diamond as an example of a modern Eurocentric historian. Blaut also criticizes Diamond's loose use of the terms "Eurasia" and "innovative", which he believes misleads the reader into presuming that Western Europe is responsible for technological inventions that actually arose in the Middle East and Asia.
...and here too:
>Such a revival of the environmental determinist theory that the horrendous living conditions of millions of people are their natural fate would not ordinarily merit scholarly discussion, but since GGS won a PulitzerPrize, many people have begun to believe that Diamond actually offers a credible explanation of an enormously deleterious phenomenon.GGS therefore has such great potential to promote harmful policies that it demands vigorous intellectual damage control.
>People choosing Jared "Island Hopper" Diamond over based Toynbee.
>>6377623
>not a single mention of "racism"
you're disproving yourself boyo
>>6377666
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
If you've left primary sources behind you are a mystic, not a historian.
So how is the noble savage racist?
>"Brown people aren't primitive, they are actually smarter and healthier than we are, and we could learn a lot from them."
Rather then
>"Brown people are primitive sub-humans who need to be taught civilization."
If anything, I'd imagine the noble savage cliche was invented by imperialists who resented what they saw their fellows doing.
Can anybody explain this? I mean it's kind of patronizing, but I'd hesitate to call it racist.
