> Yes, I've actually read the whole book. It's okay in some ways, but his
> geographical determinism tends to undercut his avowed anti-racist
> stance--notions of chance (contingency) get lost, so Diamond winds up
> arguing, in effect, that imperialism is historically inevitable, and that
> the inhabitants of Europe (whether they had been "white" or not) would
> have dominated the world anyway. Also, it's so grand in its ambition
> that historically specific moments come off looking merely like
> manifestations of general, immutable laws. So much for agency,
> responsibility, and finally politics, or the notion that anything could
> have been (could be) different.
>
> Yes, he likes the New Guineans. And the Australian aborigines, etc. But
> then, so do lots of white folks. And liking the oppressed isn't the same
> thing as understanding/resisting oppression. To me, Diamond's book is
> another example of the ease with which scientific explanations of human
> society can make existing relations of power seem natural and
> irresistible--in his case, as if they're written into the very rocks and
> soil and coastlines of the continents.
>
> To be sure, he seems to have good intentions. But his main point is to
> show that imperialism isn't a result of racial superiority. Excuse me,
> but don't we already know that--at least those of us who care?
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jim Devine <jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu>
> > To: <pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 4:46 PM
> > Subject: [PEN-L:17898] guns, germs, steel
> >
> >
> > > (book review)
> > >
> > > I've finally finished with a very long (425 pages) but extremely
> > > interesting, well-written, and informative book of archaeology and
> > > anthropology, Jared Diamond's GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL (Norton, 1997).
The
> > > book argues for a reasonable theory about why the occupants of Eurasia
> > have
> > > conquered the other continents (especially the New World) during the
last
> > > 500+ years rather than being conquered by the rest of the world. In
the
> > > end, we of Eurasian extraction were _lucky_, having the right kind of
> > > geography, access to wild plants and animals that could be
domesticated,
> > > plus a relatively small number of ecological or geographical barriers
> > which
> > > allowed diffusion through trade, migration, or conquest. This allowed
us
> > to
> > > grow in population, grow geographically, and take over almost all of
the
> > > world. BTW, Brad DeLong has a good review of the book at
> > > http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/Reviews/diamond_guns.html.
As he
> > > notes, the book is "truly a work of complete of total genius." He's at
> > > least a genius at synthesizing others' research. But not being a
> > > professional archeologists or anthropologist, I don't know how
original
> > > this book is. (I've heard rumblings that say the book "isn't new,"
though
> > > that may be a protective response to a field being invaded by a
> > > non-specialist.)
> > >
> > > One thing that is clear from the beginning is that Diamond, despite
his
> > > origins and his residence (here in L.A.), makes a big effort to avoid
> > > Eurocentrism. In a strange way, he comes off "New Guinea" centric
instead,
> > > even asserting that he thinks the residents of the New Guinea
highlands
> > are
> > > superior to us White Americans. He doesn't see the Eurasian conquest
as a
> > > good thing, though he does see it as one example of a more general
> > > phenomenon that includes the Austronesian conquest of much of
Southeast
> > > Asia, the Bantu conquest of most of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Maori
> > > conquest of the Morioris in the Chatham Islands in 1835. And as Brad
says,
> > > the book really doesn't explain why those from Europe have dominated
the
> > > rest of Eurasia during the last 500+ years. Diamond's focus is on
broadly
> > > defined ecological zones (roughly, continents). For example, he
defines
> > > Eurasia as including North Africa. His time scale is even broader,
dealing
> > > with the 13,000-year time period before 1600 C.E. (A.D.) or so.
> > >
> > > Diamond's theory is ecological, inspired by evolutionary biology. At
one
> > > point he summarizes it as embracing "geographical determinism," though
> > that
> > > determinism is at a very abstract level over very long periods of
time,
> > > leaving a lot of wiggle-room for specific differences in different
areas
> > > and time periods. To summarize his story, it's a bit like the spread
of
> > > "opportunistic species" of plants and animals (like those invading
Hawaii
> > > now or the "killer bees" entering my neck of the woods), taking over
all
> > > other possible geographical zones. As I read the book, I began to
think
> > > more and more of a quote from Stephen J. Gould's concerning the
worldwide
> > > spread of McDonald's and similar restaurants. It "introduces
> > > standardization at the wrong level by usurping the smaller spaces of
> > > immediate and daily use, the places that cry out for local distinction
and
> > > an attendant sense of community. McDonald's is a flock of pigeons
ordering
> > > all endemic birds to the block, a horde of rats wiping out all the
mice,
> > > gerbils, hamsters, chinchillas, squirrels, beavers, and capybaras"
(EIGHT
> > > LITTLE PIGGIES, p. 244). When I looked up the quote, I found the
reference
> > > to rats and pigeons was not a description of fact. But the real world
> > seems
> > > to imitate Gould's fantasy: the process of urbanization seems to wipe
out
> > > all sorts of native species, allowing the pigeons to take over.
> > > International transportation allows the spread of fire ants, "Dutch"
elm
> > > disease, and various weeds and germs, that wipe out or out-compete
native
> > > species, so that eventually we'll see pretty much the same plants and
> > > animals ruling the roost in similar ecologies all around the world.
Human
> > > cultures and technologies follow a similar pattern, while bringing
> > > opportunistic flora, fauna, and microbes with them. (You can see why I
> > > don't think he's Eurocentric.)
> > >
> > > Though genetics plays a role in Diamond's theory, he basically assumes
> > that
> > > all varieties of humanity and culture are equal in their inherent or
> > > biological ability to innovate and spread world-wide. Further, the
> > Eurasian
> > > conquest, like related conquests, wasn't done through a Darwinian
process
> > > of competition of species and propagation via genetics as much as
through
> > > competition of ethnic groups and propagation via organizational and
> > > technological advantage. The development of agriculture created an
> > > advantage over the surviving hunter-gatherers, so that the
> > hunter-gatherers
> > > were shoved aside into the hinterlands. Farmers -- especially those
with
> > > access to a wide variety of wild seeds and potential load-bearing
animals
> > > -- could produce surpluses, encouraging the development of large,
> > > densely-populated, sedentary societies that developed technology
further,
> > > including guns, steels, swords, ocean-bearing ships, political
> > organization
> > > (the state), and writing. (The graph on page 87 summarizes this for
all of
> > > us who think in pictures.) His story basically ends with the triumph
of
> > the
> > > farmers organized by states over other groups, since he has little to
say
> > > about industrialization or capitalism, not to mention the
> > industrialization
> > > and capitalization of farming.
> > >
> > > The process of conquest wasn't totally a matter of technology or
social
> > > organization, so that Diamond's description of the European conquest
> > > doesn't fit "social Darwinist" conceptions. One of the most
interesting
> > > parts for me was the discussion of how the domestication of animals
gave
> > > people various diseases, like small-pox, that spread in crowds. Those
who
> > > were lucky enough to have a lot of animals at hand to domesticate (the
> > > Eurasians) suffered dramatically from such diseases. Since the Native
> > > Americans and other extra-continental forces couldn't take advantage
of
> > the
> > > plagues to conquer them, the children of those who survived often had
> > > immunities. This made them a bunch of "Typhoid Marys," facilitating
the
> > > conquest of the populations in the "New World" who hadn't been lucky
> > enough
> > > to have lots of animals available to domesticate (and to catch
diseases
> > > from). It wasn't simply the horses, armor, guns, and organization that
> > > allowed Pizarro to conquer the Incas: the Incas had been weakened by
> > > European-borne diseases that killed the head Inca and spawned civil
war.
> > > (The Incas had also been isolated not only from Eurasian germs but
from
> > > competing cultures of a similar level of development such as the Mayas
and
> > > were thus inexperienced at war.) Diamond argues that 95 percent of the
> > > Native Americans were killed by Eurasian diseases.
> > >
> > > Of course, diseases didn't simply help the Eurasians, since tropical
> > > diseases blocked their spread to much of Africa and the rest of the
> > > tropical zone for centuries. The African natives, however, had
developed
> > > immunities to tropical diseases.
> > >
> > > For some reason, Diamond doesn't mention the possibility that human
> > > diseases might spread to animals (or between species of beasts via
> > > humanity). I'm no expert on this issue, but it seems like a
possibility.
> > It
> > > also might help us understand the mass extinction of large animals
when
> > > humans enter their ecological niche. By the way, Diamond is agnostic
about
> > > the hypothesis that when the Native Americas invaded the New World,
they
> > > hunted the native "megafauna" to extinction (which would have been
easy
> > > given the fact that those creatures had lived for millions of years
> > without
> > > encountering people), suggesting that their deaths might have been a
> > > coincidence. But isn't it possible that some of the extinctions were
due
> > to
> > > germs? (Linking with the discussion above, in Diamond's story the
> > > extinction of the megafauna gave the Native Americans a big
disadvantage
> > > when the Spaniards arrived, not only in terms of germs but war.)
> > >
> > > The Eurasians had an advantage because they started with a large zone
of
> > > origin that was unified by similar ecologies and climates, not blocked
by
> > > large deserts or jungles. Since the megacontinent's axis runs
east-west,
> > > uniting temperate zones there were few long-term ecological barriers
to
> > the
> > > spread of cultures, technologies, and germs. (Note the qualifier
> > > "long-term": that's Diamond's frame of reference.) Within this large
zone,
> > > some cultures, technologies, and germs could beat out others. This
gave
> > > them the ability to conquer areas with similar climates outside
Eurasia
> > > once adequate transportation was developed (and eventually the ability
to
> > > conquer the tropics, once modern medicine took off).
> > >
> > > In the end, the book reminded by of Frank & Cook's THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL
> > > SOCIETY, in which in many labor and product markets, there are a very
> > small
> > > number of winners who get the lion's share of the winnings, while the
vast
> > > majority get just enough to survive in the market. Their examples are
> > often
> > > from professional sports (such as tennis), where a small elite get big
> > > salaries, lucrative product endorsement contracts, etc., while the
rest,
> > > including those who are marginally worse than the elite, get almost
> > nothing
> > > beyond the cost of staying in the field. In their book, the phenomenon
of
> > > winner-take-all markets becomes worse when the market gets larger. For
> > > example, before inexpensive recording technology developed, there were
a
> > > large number of local orchestras and a variety of different styles of
> > > music. But with mass communication and cheap recording, only a few
> > > orchestras and styles could survive, while the elite of highly-paid
Big
> > > Stars arose. They see this as part of the explanation of increasing
> > > inequality in labor incomes in recent decades: increased marketization
> > > encourages inequality.
> > >
> > > Diamond isn't talking about market competition, of course, since
markets
> > > connecting various ethnic societies did not really take off until
after
> > his
> > > period of analysis. But military and political competition can and do
have
> > > similar "winner-take-all" characteristics, encouraging increasing
> > > inequality (along with death and destruction). The alternative to
economic
> > > (market) competition and military (political) competition is
democracy, or
> > > more correctly, socialism, a generalized version of Frank and Cook's
> > > "positional arms control agreements" that prevent winner-take-all
> > > (positional) competition from having its destructive effects. But this
is
> > > getting us beyond Diamond's concerns...
> > >
> > > At the end, Diamond qualifies the main theme of his analysis to
suggest
> > > that the existence of a large unified ecological zone can actually go
too
> > > far. He suggests that because of the natural unity of China, an empire
> > > could arise that could suppress innovation. In contrast, Europe was
> > > naturally disunited, and therefore was driven by constant
> > > military/political competition to innovate. This is the beginning of
his
> > > incomplete discussion of why Europe won out in the competition amongst
all
> > > the Eurasian subregions. Within the context of his framework, however,
one
> > > could easily say that Europe just happened to be _lucky_, to conquer
most
> > > of Eurasia before some part of the rest of Eurasian conquered it,
> > > especially given the advantage of being relatively close to the New
World
> > > (which in his framework was destined to be conquered by _some_ part of
> > > Eurasia). If Europe had been further from the Americas, perhaps a
> > > continent-wide empire could have been solidified which ended
> > intra-European
> > > competition, so that non-Europeans could have won.
> > >
> > > Though his writing is lucid, Diamond doesn't really make it clear what
his
> > > theoretical framework is. It seems to be a matter of different groups
of
> > > human beings competing within ecological/geographical boundaries, then
> > > developing new technologies that break down those barriers (as when
the
> > > invention of the outrigger canoe allowed the Austronesians to spread
out
> > > from Taiwan to become Polynesians, Indonesians, Malagasies, etc.) But
> > > Diamond doesn't tell us what type of unit it is that is competing.
> > > Families, extended or otherwise? or individuals? I guess it makes
sense to
> > > leave this vague, because human organization has changed so much over
the
> > > millennia. It's good that he doesn't focus on individuals, the way
> > > economists do, since it's only recently (in his time frame) that
> > > individualism has become dominant.
> > >
> > > This book is far from being about cultural anthropology. Instead, he
> > > basically sees culture as a "wild card," a random factor in the
ecological
> > > competition. Some cultures are technologically or organizationally
> > > progressive whereas others are regressive (as with the Japanese
> > suppression
> > > of firearms after 1600). The former eventually win out over the latter
in
> > > the competition, unless they have the advantages of isolation, as
Japan
> > did
> > > until the advent of Admiral Perry. So in the end, the cultural factors
> > > don't play a big role.
> > >
> > > Diamond presumes that people are, by their very nature, inventive,
> > > developing new ways of surviving. Maybe. We should remember that
> > > "innovation" has different meanings in different societies. There is
kind
> > > of innovation that favors human survival (which Diamond emphasizes),
but
> > > innovation under capitalism only includes those that promote
individual
> > > profitability and advantage in a competitive battle that can be
> > > destructive. A couple of times, he hinted at a naive belief in the
> > > benevolence of technological change. Luckily, this is not relevant to
his
> > > subject matter. Given his focus, technical and organization "progress"
> > > increases the ability to win in competition with other cultures. But
when
> > > we start thinking about a future world in which such conquest has
become
> > > irrelevant, this kind of definition of progress means nothing.
> > >
> > > Diamond also seems to presume some sort of Malthusian mechanism in
which a
> > > given situation encourages innovation, migration, and conquest. I
guess
> > > that makes sense, since it's only recently that Malthusian theories
have
> > > been rendered obsolete by technological changes.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to see what the similarities and differences
are
> > > between Diamond's book and the Marxian tradition. (As a liberal, he
might
> > > be upset by the similarities of his vision to that of Marx.) He is
clearly
> > > a materialist in his method. His discussion of the rise of the state
and
> > > organized religion seem very close to that of Marx. A lot of the
book's
> > > discussion is similar to the old Marx-inspired anthropology book by V.
> > > Gordon Childe I read in college, MAN MAKES HIMSELF, though obviously
the
> > > two books try to answer with different questions and Diamond has the
> > > advantage of access to a lot more information. As noted, the time
period
> > > he deals with ends roughly in 1600, so Diamond really doesn't deal
with
> > > capitalism, unlike the Marxian tradition. At one point, in a table on
page
> > > 269, he asserts that modern religion doesn't justify kleptocracy. But
this
> > > ignores secular religious such as neoclassical economics, that justify
a
> > > kind of kleptocracy that's diffused beyond the bounds of the state to
be
> > > shared among individual capitalists.
> > >
> > > I was frustrated by the way that Diamond does documentation. It's like
a
> > > textbook, with a "Further Readings" section at the end. I don't mind
the
> > > absence of footnotes, but the lack of bibliography is a problem.
Lacking
> > > the patience to slog through all the pages of suggested readings, I
> > > couldn't see if Diamond had ever read MAN MAKES HIMSELF. (He did read
> > > another book by Childe, though.) Further, at one point I felt that
Diamond
> > > was either quoting or paraphrasing an article by Robert Carneiro on
the
> > > origins of the state. He does cite Carneiro in the back, but it veered
> > > toward plagiarism, something we should discourage. I can imagine that
a
> > lot
> > > of professional archaeologists are a little miffed at this book as a
> > > result, seeing much of it as the same old stuff.
> > >
> > > At the end of the book, as his discussion begins to be
overly-repetitive,
> > > Diamond begins to ponder methodological issues, concerning "historical
> > > sciences." Here the sense of _deja vu_ really took over, since his
> > > discussion seemed quite similar to that of Stephen J. Gould or
> > > long-established discussions amongst Marxists and even among
economists.
> > > His discussion of "comparative method" seemed naive compared to that
of
> > > Theda Skocpol (who herself learned from Barrington Moore and John
Stuart
> > > Mill). Despite his efforts to eschew physics envy, he doesn't seem to
be
> > > acquainted very well with the social sciences. So he re-invents the
wheel.
> > >
> > > In the end, I think the book is very worth reading. Marxists and
> > > non-Marxist leftists can learn from it.
> > > Jim Devine jdevine at lmu.edu &
> > http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
> > >
> >
> >
>