Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

blog.daviskedrosky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#61

Post by worik »

I no longer have a copy, so from memory....

The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around

He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex)

Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of international trade and commerce. Which he ignored

At one point in time Europeans are dominant. He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever.

Europeans (we) had our experience of world domination. It is not the natural order, as Jarrad suggested, but an historical blip.

If the Industrial Revolution had gotten under way in India and it was the West Euro company from Bengal conquering Britain, then some India Jarrad would be telling a different story

That is what is wrong with it. Post Hoc analysis and story tel.ing dressed up as scholarship

Or racist drivel, to call a spade a spade

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#62

Post by amateurCoder5 »

worik wrote: post #52
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

N & S America civilizations were quite fragmented, as well as African ones.

And Africa has east west orientation too Jarrad had to make North Africans "honary europeans" to make,e his theories work

Africa doesn't have East-West orientation, it extends across the tropics and into the North and South temperate regions.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#63

Post by thaw13579 »

worik wrote: post #61

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex) Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of inter…

Did you stop reading at the intro?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#64

Post by George83728 »

jrh3 wrote: post #17
angst_ridden wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Diamond's greatest fault as a researcher is his reliance on reductivism. Anyone can cherry-pick history to support "5 simple rules that explain X" if the rules are even reasonably sane. It may be satisfying and entertaining to read, but human history is much more complex than just a few rules.

I took his rules as high level observations of the environment's impact on human evolution. But human experience is much more nuanced like you say. I do remember thinking some of the observations could come across as very blunt. There is a video on the internet of him trying to shoot an old style gun... pretty funny... needless to say it's not his greatest skill. Jared Diamond Funny video: https://youtube.com/clip/Ug…

No ear protection... most people not yet accustomed to guns would probably react about the same way.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#66

Post by worik »

thaw13579 wrote: post #63
worik wrote: post #61

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex) Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of inter…

Did you stop reading at the intro?

I got about two thirds through

Whatever you think about him, he really needed a more dominant editor.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#67

Post by prepend »

worik wrote: post #61

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex) Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of inter…

> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever.

He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just presents theories as to why Europeans are dominant now (or were 40 years ago when the book as published at least).

It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. It’s racist to say that’s a good thing or destined or will last forever, but Diamond never argues that. I think you have some headcanon there.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#68

Post by FrustratedMonky »

worik wrote: post #61

I no longer have a copy, so from memory.... The book opens with a sequence of Jarrad discussing with a New Guineaian, why it was Europeans that went to New Guinea, and not the other way around He goes on to discuss this, as if Europeans were the first outsiders there (we are not talking about the Highlands, that is more complex) Where he was having the conversation there had been at least four thousand years of inter…

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order.

He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple.

I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Guinea" had developed technology sooner, they would have dominated and killed everyone. It isn't like there isn't evidence of wars and slaughters in Polynesia, they just didn't get the technology.

What I took away from the book is not that "Europeans" are evil (which would mean they are genetically pre-disposed doesn't it?), it is that all humans equally dominant whenever and however they can, and technology heavily tips the scales. And Europeans just lucked into it.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#69

Post by prepend »

vanderZwan wrote: post #25
jrh3 wrote: post #5

Wow. I read that book in college. No idea a backlash like that developed... That is crazy if that is how skewed university's have become. Guns, Germs, and Steel is an incredible academic work. Dang.

Are you active in any of tho relevant fields? If not, then why do you think you are better qualified to judge the academic quality of his work than actual academics with the proper background?

What’s the “proper background” to comment on a pop anthropology book?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#70

Post by worik »

amateurCoder5 wrote: post #62
worik wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Africa has east west orientation too Jarrad had to make North Africans "honary europeans" to make,e his theories work

Africa doesn't have East-West orientation, it extends across the tropics and into the North and South temperate regions.

Look at a map

It has a huge east west extent

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1...

Post reply on HN