Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics • Hacker News Board

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#121

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:41 AM UTC

gregjor wrote: post #100

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #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 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…

Never said it did. Just felt like making a little historical aside.

>> What "people" say or write the one-dimensional stories you repeat?

Lots and lots of people throughout my life. Sorry I don't have any references and so on. I've heard people say variously that it was gunpowder, horses, or steel. I've heard this from teachers at school, from friends at casual conversations, from fellow wargamers when discussing history, by people in the TV, read comics and watched movies where that was the theme, and so on.

As to Thermopylae, it definitely wasn't 300 that made people think that was the number of soldiers on the Greek side. 300 was made because that was the number people knew, as a bit of folklore. And btw, I'm Greek myself which should, I hope, suffice as evidence for my claim. Everybody always forgets the Thespians.

If you are aware that those are misconceptions, why do you mind a comment that doesn't suffer from them?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#122

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:45 AM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #108

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #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 Me…

This is covered in the article under the section "Native Allies": 'Diamond does not discount the fact that native allies assisted the Spaniards in seizing the Americas. He is more concerned that Spanish victories should not be "written off as due merely [emphasis mine] to the help of Native American allies"' ... 'Diamond's suggestion is that Native peoples would have found it irrational to help tiny bands of Spaniard…

Thanks, I confess I haven't read that far yet. It's a long article and I'm already convinced anyway; I didn't know Diamond is cancelled now. I read his book a long time ago so I forget the details, but I remember Yali's question and it never crossed my mind that trying to answer it might be read as racist.

Victory against overwhelmingly superior forces is not unheard of in history. As a classic example, see the Battle of Agincourt (~7000 Englishmen vs many tens of thousands of French, and it was a rout... for the French).

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#123

Post by swombat » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:05 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #28

swombat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Roberts explanation is subsumed by the Diamond explanation. More fragmentation meant more competition. This helped ensure that states which, like China, might have sub-optimal belief systems (like "it's not worth trying to explain things") were outcompeted and conquered by states that did. Similarly, states with markets that were more free outcompeted those that were less free, and so the innovation spread. The D…

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

Yes but, as Diamond argues, they didn't have large enough animals to domesticate because large american mammals that hadn't co-evolved with humans were exterminated in about 1000 years when the Americas were colonised by humans about 11k years ago.

Not having cows and pigs and horses is a huge disadvantage.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#124

Post by swombat » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:06 AM UTC

haroldp wrote: post #80

worik wrote: 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…

There's a lot of silliness in this comments section. I guess it's what the article is talking about.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#125

Post by swombat » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:11 AM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #112

WalterBright wrote: post #32

> Diamond absolves Europeans of blame for the crimes of imperialism through his geographical determinism, since the conquerors couldn’t help but seize the helpless Americas. Running through the article is the notion that somehow Europeans were uniquely interested in brutal empire building. I can only infer that such notions stem from never having read history books about other cultures. For example, "Empire of the Su…

Yeah. The Mongols were on a summer vacation, the Persian Empire wasn't invading ancient Greece, they were just sightseeing, the Vikings (Scandinavian not central european IMO) were just doing some exuberant boating, the Hans just wanted to sojourn in the Jungles of Vietnam, the Ottomans were just misguided proseletyzers, the Rus were just bored from Winter, etc. The Japanese in WWII were just looking for some iron an…

For anyone interested, I highly recommend George Carlin (not the comedian)'s podcast series (4 episodes iirc) about the Mongolian conquests. Really interesting.

Also, on the "almost conquered Europe", I always find it quite mindblowing that they almost conquered Europe - with their light reconnaissance force. The main army was waiting while the lighter 10k horse force did some recon. While doing their recon they wiped out the Georgian army which had been preparing for war for years and so was probably the best prepared army in Europe at the time. The rest of Europe was totally unprepared even for that small 10k force.

Luckily for us, soon after, Genghis Khan died and the entire army turned back. Otherwise Europe would for sure have been conquered with no challenge. Luck of the dice.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#126

Post by swombat » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:17 AM UTC

worik wrote: post #72

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Gui…

> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "

> Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "

His thesis is precisely that, so he can definitely bear it.

Ultra-summarising:

- The Americas fell behind because they eliminated large mammals before inventing domestication, and not having horses and cows is a huge setback.

- Sub-Saharan Africa fell behind because it is oriented north-south and there are a lot of different climates you have to travel through, and therefore technology exchange is harder.

- Eurasia had the east-west orientation that enabled tech exchange, so it was going to happen there.

- Of the Eurasian regions, China could have been first but being too unified meant that they were less competitive and less likely to repeat high-risk ventures until they worked. Europe was fragmented and competitive which led to faster innovation, including more focus on turning anything into a weapon (e.g. gunpowder, invented in China but turned into war devices in Europe) or a disruptor (paper & printing press).

All seems pretty logical, and does not ascribe Europe any superior moral character. It's just luck.

Unless, of course, you believe that being born in the right place at the right time is related to moral character rather than luck. But I don't think Diamond does that in his book.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#127

Post by mdhen » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 10:10 AM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #105

Barrin92 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it tried to explain the shape of history with an overly simplistic model that tossed out every nuance which didn't fit the thesis I think it's worth quoting Friedman from his essay on positive economics[1] "In so far as a theory can be said to have "assumptions" at all, and in so far as their "realism" can be judged independently of the validity of predictions, the relation between the significance of a theory and t…

The availability of suitable species for domestication always struck me as the most interesting part of his argument, as it's not one I'd seen before - but strangely it's the one that's not captured by the title "Guns, Germs & Steel" (which are, I suppose, the main proximate reasons why Europeans ended up decimating/overpowering populations elsewhere in the world, rather than more interesting fundamental reasons why…

Germany and Italy weren't even countries until the late 19th century.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#128

Post by gregjor » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 10:30 AM UTC

George83728 wrote: post #120

gregjor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim that perhaps as few as two individuals in all of history thought of the wheel seems far-fetched, and presented without evidence. You aren't even addressing Diamond's argument. Diamond doesn't claim that the wheel only got invented twice or a few times in history. He asks why the ancient Mexicans apparently didn't use wheels for transport, and why the invention of the wheel didn't get transported south or n…

Across Eurasia you had about 2000 years where people were riding around on chariots with strong spoked wheels, but farms didn't have even primitive wheelbarrows to move rocks off their fields. Moving rocks off fields is back breaking work and even a primitive improvised wheel barrow gives you an order of magnitude advantage. The prerequisite technology, conditions, demand, etc were there, but it took thousands of yea…

Wheeled carts predate spoked wheels, chariots, and wheelbarrows by thousands of years. Those could get pulled by people or animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel

Why do you think ancient farmers cleared fields of rocks to plant or graze? They didn't have machinery that would break. Farms were small. They could just avoid or work around large rocks, and throw the smaller ones to the side to make walls or rock piles. The plow was invented long after agriculture began, and a plow pushed or pulled at human or ox speed wouldn't break on a rock. I agree that moving lots of heavy rocks off of fields would be back-breaking labor, but why would ancient farmers choose such sites to plant? Just because modern farmers clear fields to open up more land to farm doesn't mean ancient farmers had to do that -- they could plant and harvest where the wild grasses already grew.

I don't know why the wheelbarrow turns up so late in history. Perhaps they were made entirely of wood, left no artifacts to find, and were common and unremarkable so don't show up in art or monuments. We don't find many spears for the same reason, only the spear tips. Wood gets recycled, burnt, and decays.

It's an interesting question but since people invented spoked wheels and chariots quite a long time ago I don't think no one ever thought of making carts or wheelbarrows.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#129

Post by cassepipe » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 10:38 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #32

> Diamond absolves Europeans of blame for the crimes of imperialism through his geographical determinism, since the conquerors couldn’t help but seize the helpless Americas. Running through the article is the notion that somehow Europeans were uniquely interested in brutal empire building. I can only infer that such notions stem from never having read history books about other cultures. For example, "Empire of the Su…

For those who did not no read the article : That sentence quoted in this this comment above is one of the theses the author of the artcicle is arguing against

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#130

Post by gregjor » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 10:38 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #121

gregjor wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Never said it did. Just felt like making a little historical aside. >> What "people" say or write the one-dimensional stories you repeat? Lots and lots of people throughout my life. Sorry I don't have any references and so on. I've heard people say variously that it was gunpowder, horses, or steel. I've heard this from teachers at school, from friends at casual conversations, from fellow wargamers when discussing his…

We can agree that too many regular people don't know much about history, and what they do know comes from movies and story books.

I thought you meant to refer to historians or scholars, who should know better.