Live data from Hacker News

Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

blog.daviskedrosky.com

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#91
post #74
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. What is racist is to say it happened for a reason, not blind luck

But it did happen for a reason and it’s luck.

There’s lots of random chance involved (New Guineans could have started in England) but because of those chance positions there are reasons things happened.

How is that racist?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#92
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have an upvote. I can't argue the fish. The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. Doesn't he also outline poor soil and over-grazing, and the climate change when warm period ended. It is possible that there were enough negative variables that fishing alone couldn't save it. And it is a 26 year old book, so maybe he was speculating on what was known at the time. Like if it did fail, and they were…

>The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack. If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making…

Now I can't find link. It must be second edition, not published freely.

From web site, just overview of the updates.

But while searching for this. Found another popular book that had theory that it was rats, and the rats had no natural predator's and ate all the palm tree roots.

EXTENSIONS

Since my book’s initial publication in 2005, information has continued to accumulate about collapses, and about avoidances of collapses. I shall mention here three of these recent extensions, to our understanding of Easter Island, the Maya, and Angkor.

First, I summarize below the striking new evidence that Andreas Mieth and Hans-Rudolf Bork have published concerning the widespread Polynesian felling and burning of trees on Easter Island long before European arrival.

Second, measurements of markers that reflect paleoclimate have provided increasing evidence for severe droughts that contributed to the decline of Classic Maya cities in the Southern Maya lowlands.

Finally, the biggest recent advance (summarized in a new chapter included in my book’s 2011 edition) has been in our understanding of the decline of the Khmer Empire based at Angkor

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#93
post #50
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Diamond also attempts to explain why European, rather than Chinese, conquerors were the ones who did all the colonizing. This is a simple balkanization theory—Europe divided into many areas conducive to states, China formed a great homogenous core—that does not need lengthy restatement. Europe has a highly indented coastline with multiple large peninsulas, all of which developed independent languages, ethnic grou…

> It's like he knows nothing about China Oh yes. And East Asia is much more than, much bigger than, China. It is a ludicrous infantile argument from a Western POV Jarrad never notices. He is a fish, swim g in a racist sea that does not know what water is

It's funny when people are so anti-racist they become racist.

I lean really far left, and know I am, so have to guard against bias being on the left. But this entire thread has really lost track of what racism is. So many people are arguing against Jared for being racist, while making racist arguments to justify it. Its getting bit crazy.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#94
post #90
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He mistook his post hoc analysis for historical and geographical determinism Not all writers do that

I think the geographical determinism is the whole point though, right? That’s the argument is that geography contributed heavily to what we have today. Not that we’ll have this forever. I remember reading about the East/West spread vs North/South spread of technology and it seems clever to me.

> I think the geographical determinism is the whole point though, right?

My point is that it is post hoc a theory to fit the facts.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#95
post #80
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at a map It has a huge east west extent https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1...

You are being very silly. North Africa is oriented East-West in a way that allowed it to participate in the easy exchange of flora, fauna, culture and technology with the greater East-West zone that extends from Portugal to China. Saharan Africa is dominated by the Sahara Desert, which is a huge barrier to exchange. Sub-Saharan Africa is oriented mainly North-South, in comparison with the greater Mediterranean exchan…

Africa has more East West in the temperate zones than Europe. Africa has two of them.

It has North South as well

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#96
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack. If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making…

Now I can't find link. It must be second edition, not published freely. From web site, just overview of the updates. But while searching for this. Found another popular book that had theory that it was rats, and the rats had no natural predator's and ate all the palm tree roots. EXTENSIONS Since my book’s initial publication in 2005, information has continued to accumulate about collapses, and about avoidances of col…

Yeah, the idea it was rats in the link I gave too. The counter-argument is that it was an ecological problem in the strict sense, but not a ecological problem for humans. The people adapted and ate rats (yuck) among a few other things. It's not pleasant, but it's argued it was stable for a long time.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#97
>> But military histories of the conquest support the assertion that the small parties of Spanish soldiers were able to defeat much larger Native armies thanks primarily to their superior steel weapons and organizational capacity, in line with Diamond’s argument.

I don't have a bone to pick with Diamond, but this widely disseminated narrative lacks nuance. When people say that a few Spaniards conquered the largest Mesoamerican empires, at least when it comes to Mexico and the Aztecs, they are forgetting an important detail. When the ragtag band of mercenaries and adventurers following Hernán Cortés arrived at Mexico, they landed smack in the middle of a long-running regional war between the "Aztecs", i.e. the people of Tenochtitlan, and, basically, everyone else in the area. And of course, in the typical fashion of foreign invaders, the Spaniards immediately became fast allies with the enemies of Tehnochtitlan as the dominant power [1].

Thus, every time the Conquistadores fought the armies of Tenochtitlan, besides their guns, germs, and steel, and horses [3], they had with them thousands of allied local warriors, mainly from Tlaxcala, if I remember correctly, at least enough to stand up to the numbers of the Aztecs' armies [2].

Note that towards the end of the campaign, Tlaxcalla and the other kingdoms were indeed devastated by smallpox. But the same disaster was suffered by the people of Tenochtitlan, also. The Spaniards really were the plague [4].

_________________

[1] This is a story that has played out many times in history. For instance, when the Crusaders landed in the Holy Land, they immediately found themselves enmeshed in the constant churn of alliances and wars in the Middle East. Half of the time, half of the locals tried to kill them and the other half they tried to get them to help them kill the other half. The same thing happened in Iraq, when the US invaded. It is a story as old as invasion.

[2] In much the same way, when the Spartans held Thermopylae, until that dog Efialtes, gave them to the Persians, the 300 were not, well, 300; more like 7000, at least at the start of the battle. Even in their famous last stand the 300 Spartans were accompanied by 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. The rest of the 7000 left to fight another day. Not that it would have made any difference anyway, not against the fully might of the Persian empire. Remember Leonida's apocryphal quip: when he was told that the Persians' arrows would be so many that they would darken the sun, Leonidas said "good, we'll be fighting in the shade".

[3] And La Malinche, a formidable woman who acted as their interpreter and go-between, and was probably a main reason the Spaniards managed to ally themselves to the locals in the first place.

[4] My source in all this is the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España by Bernal Díaz del Castillo who was there and saw it all with his own eyes, so god be his witness. My source for the Crusades is "Les croisades vue par les Arabes" by Amin Maalouf.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#98
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.

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 keep seeing this robot-like criticism of Diamond as "over-simplistic" or "hyperreductionist". But it's just a model? The map is not the territory, and Diamond has never claimed to explain all human development. His thesis is merely that geography and environment contribute to biological and cultural dominance to a disproportionate degree compared to other factors. I don't see how this is controversial.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the irony is that I've seen Guns, Germs, and Steel get trashed by people on the right for downplaying the idea that Western culture was/is special and the key to success/wealth/innovation and attacking Diamond for saying it was only due to geography and other random factors rather than Western culture itself Universities and academics have shifted so far left that they are increasingly eating their own, the entire po…

Free markets are a big deal. They are indeed the key to success/wealth/innovation.

And part of Diamond's book was about how geography helped form free markets.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#100

>> But military histories of the conquest support the assertion that the small parties of Spanish soldiers were able to defeat much larger Native armies thanks primarily to their superior steel weapons and organizational capacity, in line with Diamond’s argument. I don't have a bone to pick with Diamond, but this widely disseminated narrative lacks nuance. When people say that a few Spaniards conquered the largest Me…

What "people" say or write the one-dimensional stories you repeat? Not Diamond. He discusses the pre-existing conflicts among the Aztec groups, and how some allied with the Spaniards. No one who studies the Spanish conquest says a small band of mercenaries and fortune-seekers could have conquered a united Aztec empire. The article these comments refer to also explicitly mentions that. Maybe people ignorant of history, who only know about Thermopylae from watching 300, repeat these stories, but historians don't, and Diamond doesn't.

The fact of rebellious locals allying with the Spaniards, possibly because they saw the significant advantages of the Conquistador technology and how it could help their cause, doesn't change Diamond's thesis. Nor does the fact that introduced diseases killed allies and enemies alike.

Post reply on HN