1123 of 1751 people found the following review helpful:

Reviewer:

P. A. Agnew (Wellington New Zealand) - See all my reviews

Needless to say, a legion of grateful left-wing scholars and academics labeled Diamond's book a revelation, and a Pulitzer Prize soon followed. Alas. "Guns, Germs and Steel" testifies why nobody should allow literary awards to influence their book-buying habits. Although Diamond's basic thesis does have some validity, he ignores too many important issues that needed to be discussed.

Firstly, Diamond's "geographic" theory is neither "original" nor "revolutionary" as so many have claimed. By arguing that all the world's civilisations were dependent on their geography, Diamond is following a line of reasoning that dates back to Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre's "Annales" school of history. Environmental historians such as Donald Worster have also reiterated the ideas of the "Annales" school in recent times. Diamond certainly recycles these theories admirably enough, but if you are familiar with the work of the above historians, you will find little to appreciate here.

Although Diamond's thesis seems coherent enough, much of it is theoretical, and suffers from a lack of concrete evidence to back up his arguments. Instead of material facts, we get highly theoretical "chains of causation" with words such as "surely" and "must have" to provide the connections. One might be able to see how metal implements might develop from fertile lands, but can Newton's theory of Gravitation or Shakespeare's plays be linked directly to the development of metal tools? It is a little difficult to believe.

An examination of history also exposes the major flaws of Diamond's case. Between 1500 and 1750, for example, Europe was wracked by continual bouts of famine, disease and economic instability. (See David Fischer "The Great Wave," Jan De Vries "The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis.") But in spite of these titanic problems, European nations began an unprecedented wave of expansion. In addition, the philosophies that made up The Enlightenment also flourished in this period of economic uncertainty. According to Diamond's thesis, none of this could have happened as European farms at the time were in such a precarious state. The fact that these things did occur strongly suggests that there were other factors at work in the development of European civilisation.

By contrast, civilisations in tropical regions had ready access to abundant foodstuffs that could grow easily in such a warm climate. Tribes of native North Americans ranged over land that is now considered the most fertile in the world - and yet, none of these civilisations, despite their favourable geography, progressed as European nations did.

Diamond also overlooks important issues such as differing cultural prespectives. Between 1400 and 1600, the European depiction of nature underwent a fundamental change. (See Keith Thomas, "Man and the Natural World," Michael Adas, "Machines as the Measure of Men.") In this period, Europeans began to look upon nature as something that must be tamed. Europeans realised that technological innovations could overcome the obstacles of nature and improve lives. Thus, innovation and progress were encouraged by all. By contrast, until the arrival of Europeans, all the other civilisations of the world resigned themselves to the limitations of their environment. African and Pacific civilisations sought to harmonise themselves with nature, rather than try to change it. The people of New Guinea, where Diamond apparently grew up, were no exception to this rule, as Roy Rappaport's "Pigs for the Ancestors" so convincingly shows.

Diamond also refuses to take the impact of religion seriously. And yet, the Christian faith, which demanded the "spreading of the gospel" encouraged Europeans to look far afield, while the doctrine of the "civilising mission" was a primary motive for Britain and France in their colonial expansion.

Perhaps the overriding problem with "Guns, Germs and Steel" is its political correctness. Human variables such as culture, religion and environmental perspectives have played decisive roles in the development of the world's civilisations. This remains the case today, no matter how politically incorrect it might be to say so. Certainly, geography has played a role in the development of world history, but not to the extent asserted by Diamond. By ignoring the human variables, Diamond has greatly distorted the history of human progress

1313 of 1544 people found the following review helpful:

Reviewer:

Christopher A. Smith (Houston, TX) - See all my reviews

Diamond, therefore, argues that all differences between the world's societies can be described by geography. However, there's something a bit fishy about his logic. At one point he rejects a potential theory simply because it is not geography-based. Classic circular reasoning. In that Diamond conveniently discards any evidence that indicates that factors other than geography might have influenced the course of history, he is essentially ensuring, sight unseen, that he will arrive at the desired conclusion.

Diamond states that "those four sets of factors [above] constitute big environmental differences that can be quantified objectively and that are not subject to dispute." Fair enough, but what *is* subject to dispute is that there might be some other factors at work. Thomas Sowell in Race and Culture does a good job of developing the thesis that the exchange of information among European cultures, facilitated by Europe's plentiful navigable rivers, was the key to Europe's technological and economic rise. David Landes in the Wealth and Poverty of Nations attributes China's conscious decision in the 1400's to isolate itself form other nations as the key event (decision) that caused it to lose it's technological advantage and fall behind Europe. (Diamond briefly touches on 15th Century China in the final chapter, but manages to boil this as well down to an accident of geography.)

This is unfortunate, because the book contains a wealth of excellent material which is excellently explained. Many of the core causes which Diamond explores ring very true, and his points are persuasively argued. The connection between the development of agriculture and the subsequent unequal rise of military capability worldwide is very convincing. But convincing though they may be, reading these theories one can't shake the sneaking suspicion that Diamond is selectively presenting evidence which he's has found to support his previously drawn conclusion, and neglecting evidence which runs counter.

Diamond plants these doubts through his sometimes-careless prose. Consider the following statement, which he includes in the introduction to his chapter on the rise of food production:

"My fellow farmhands were, for the most part, tough whites whose normal speech featured strings of curses, and who spent their weekdays working so that they could devote their weekends to squandering their weeks' wages in the local saloon. Among the farmhands, though, was a member of the Blackfoot Indian tribe named Levi, who behaved very differently from the coarse miners - being polite, gentle, responsible, sober, and well spoken"

I thought for a moment that I'd wandered into the script for "Dances With Wolves." Note that had this statement been turned on it's head (had he, for example, recounted an anecdote about "fire-water drinking Indian drunks" or "lazy black layabouts") my instincts, obviously, would immediately warn me that the author's biases might be influencing how he chooses to present the evidence. I myself am a Black American, I'm all too painfully aware that we've had to wade through some pretty grim stuff penned by authors clutching at straws to support their racist white supremacist views of the world. In this case Diamond does the reverse by aiming his negative bias towards Caucasians, but if I'm truly interested in unbiased science then my skepticism should remain the same.

That I lead with these criticisms is evidence of my disappointment in what could have been an excellent book, and indeed much of it *is* indeed excellent. This is a book that taught me much and has indeed changed my view of world history in many ways. I do recommend this book - the details are good and many of the theories ring true, but in the same breath I would warn against accepting Diamond's conclusions in their entirety without a bit of skepticism.

In summary, Guns, Germs, and Steel contains an important feature which David Landes's Wealth and Poverty of Nations so conspicuously lacks: a grand unifying theory which links the disparate growth rates of diverse societies worldwide. But Diamond's tidy conclusion that world history is simply a deterministic result of geography and nothing else is not entirely satisfying, especially in that it might cause us to be complacent about the future. I accept that accidents of geography have had a huge effect on mankind, and Diamond convincingly argues this. But culture and human decisions do matter. Diamond argues that human ingenuity is simply the result of the accident of having a larger population from which to draw innovations - but societies that internalize this philosophy do so at their considerable peril.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Reviewer:

B. DeClue "a reader" - See all my reviews

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Reviewer:

N. Eames - See all my reviews