Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Ironically, Northern and Western Europeans have contributed among the least to what we could consider human civilization. For example, there is no sign of relevant civilizations ever existing in Scandinavia.

African nations have been trading with other parts of the world for millennia. Ancient Nubia had strong trade relationships with nations inside as well as outside of Africa for thousands of years and at one point even ruled over Egypt. Ethiopians were also among the first people to adopt Christianity in 4th century AD. How could this have come about if there was little contact with countries outside of Africa? Yemen is only a stone’s throw from Ethiopia; the countries are divided by the “Bab el Mandeb” (Red Sea/Gulf of Aden).

To convince one’s self that civilization and technological advancement have only come about within the parameters of that arbitrary border confining what Jared Diamond refers to as Eurasia is ridicules, especially in the face of Archeological and Anthropological evidence to the contrary. Any first year Cultural Anthropology student would know this.

In East Africa Swahili were building ships for centuries that were superior in quality to early European ships called “mtepe;” and were trading with China, Arabia and India by sea, becoming very wealthy as a result. Most of China’s ivory for some time came from direct trade with the Swahili. According to many authors including Schmidt and Avery (1978, 1979, 1986) and a review in American Anthropologist (Kusimba, 1997), Africans between 1500-2000 years ago were smelting iron at temperatures not reached in Europe until the industrial age. These Africans (in Tanzania) are believed to be among the first to produce carbon steel, using a special preheating method.

In West Africa the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai and Timbuktu attracted people from all over the world. In the early part of the fourteenth century to the time of the Moroccan invasion in the late sixteenth century, the city of Timbuktu became an important intellectual and spiritual center of the Islamic world, attracting people from as far away as Saudi Arabia to study there. Great mosques, universities, schools, and libraries were built under the Mali and Songhay Empires, some of which still stand today.

A large number of innovations that many Europeans today recognize as being uniquely their own, such as fire arms and the old trade ships once used for commerce (The kind used by Columbus for example) trace their history back to technologies and influences acquired through Islamic contacts in the Iberian Peninsula. In the year 711 AD, Islamic invaders conquered that part of Europe known today as Spain and Portugal and ruled over the region for close to 800 years (711 to 1492). Europe as a result saw a number of improvements in various areas of life and interest, ranging from the medical sciences to military; to paved roads, and street lamps. The Moor also introduced Europe to its first Universities and the numerical system currently in popular use today.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and then gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also partially responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana — located in what is today Northern Senegal and Southern Mauritania — in and around the same time as the Iberian siege.

The spread of Islam into Africa is not mentioned in Jared Diamond’s theory, nor is the fact that the Saharan Desert is only between 5000-2000 years old, making his claims of isolation seem all the more ridiculous in from a broad perspective. Further, it has also been shown that the current inhabitants of Europe do not resemble Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans in craniofacial form, but share close affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace et al, 2006). I am curious why Jared Diamond does not incorporate these bits of historical, geographic and Anthropologic information into his makeshift post hoc hypothesis.

At the time of Columbus’s arrival in the America’s the Aztec were using math, astronomy and agriculture that was superior to Europeans. If it were not for contact with South American Amerindians (initially by accident) much of Europe would have likely died of starvation; as the continent was experiencing sever famine at the time. It was South American agriculture and crops that saved Europe from near death. Ironically, in exchange for this vitally needed learning the Europeans inadvertently killed off between 80-95% of Amerindian populations; completely wiping out many Aboriginal Caribbean native groups with new-world diseases, and then slavery.

THE REASON EUROPEANS CONQURED THE NEW WORLD IS BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE BLOCKING EUROPEAN PASSAGE TO THE SILK ROAD, AND SO THEY HAD TO FIND ANOTHER ROUT TO INDIA/CHINA. ATTEMPTING THIS BY SEA EUROPEANS EVENTUALLY DISOVERED THE AMERICAS; INADVERTLYING, THROUGH SHERE INCOMPETENCE (COLUMBUS WOULD ACTUCALLY NAME THE NATIVES AMERICANS “INDIANS”). THIS ENCOUNTER WOULD END UP WIPING OUT 80-95% OF THE NATIVE POPULATION WITH EUROPEAN BORN DISEASES. MAKING LATER CONQUEST ESPECIALLY EASY!

Africans had access to guns, too – but like the Arabs, who introduced the weapon to Europeans, initially found them inconvenient for traditional warfare. In effect, Africans also had guns germs and steal, which refutes a large part of Jared Diamond’s ridiculous theory.

Report this comment

The New York Times preview of Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms has prompted a flurry of responses by people who haven’t yet read the book. Hrrmrmrmrm… Obviously, it’s touched a nerve among historians, perhaps moreso than the flurry responding to…

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

I would say that large-scale Classical Mediterranean slavery–latifundia, ergastula, et cetera–was probably equally immoral. Who was the Roman Senator who said that Rome was doomed because the armies were no longer bringing in slaves by the hundreds of thousands, and so now a pretty-boy cost more than a sword?

Report this comment

Secondly, the approach Diamond uses is loosely ‘ecological history’. An earlier version of the same topic Diamond presents is in the historian Alfred Crosby’s book, “Ecological Imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900-1900″ (published 1986). The effects of disease in the colonial history is presented in William MacNeil’s “Plagues and People”. It is worth contrasting Diamond’s book, with its primary emphasis on the role played by geography, with another recent work by Alan Taylor, “American Colonies”. While Taylor presents the ecological consequences of colonization, it is the role of empires that is most profound in the history of colonisation. In short, geography has a role, but empire is more the primary causal agent.

Thirdly, the emphasis on Europe and America does not explain the more interesting questions raised by historians. Why was it Columbus and Magellan et al. who sailed the oceans and not the Arabs? If one had to place a bet in 800 AD as to the success of regions in the world, India, China and the Islamic nations were better bets than Europe. This is the fascinating question, and historican have focused on it in two directions. Historians, such as Janet L. Abu-Lughod have focused before European dominance in “Before European Hegemony: The world system A.D. 1250-1350″; while Kenneth Pomeranz in “The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the making of the modern world” look to the role Empire plays in the political-economy of the near past and its role in the rise of the west. These are debates that are ongoing within the field of history. Unlike Diamond, who traces the rise of the west into the Neolithic, these historicans see the origin of the modern world in the last 500 years. In short, it is not just guns germs and steel, but better ships, long terms bonds to pay for such voyages, navigational advances, emmigration enmass, diplomatic overtures (Niall Ferguson is correct in asking how so few Englishmen could control all of greater India: clearly it is not just guns germs and steel).

Fourthly, Europeans did not fare as well as might be thought. In America, the planting of tobacco in Virginia occured because it was easy to grow and not physically taxing. As Ferguson notes for the Plymouth settlers, disease rid the region of indigenous people occuring only after they had tilled the land and buried stores of corn for the winter. Without this helping hand, it is likely the Plymouth settlers of 1621 would have vanished as did those at Roanoke. By contrast, Africa and the Caribbean were death sentences to most who went there, including Africans repatriated to Liberia and Sierra Leone. In the early nineteenth century, chances of dying in Sierra Leone, 1:2; in Jamaica, 1:8. As Crosby notes, these regions of high mortality did not become the Neo-Europes. Queensland is an exception and worthy of study.

Finally, the solution of disparity has less to do with the legacy of guns germs and steel, and more to do with governance and capital investment. This is the realm of economists (and beyond my epxertise), but it is one in which progress is being made. However, in this age of globalisation, the flow of capital investment is principally directed towards developed nations (eg. Japan, China, Europe, India). The basket case of the world is Africa, and it is the absence of capital development which in part is holding back this region. What monies these nations generate is siphoned off to repay debt to banks, or simply removed from the country into foreign banks. Amatyra Sen’s latest book addresses such questions of underdevelopment, and is worth anyone’s time to read.

Well, there is my review. Not scathing, but hopefully presenting Diamond’s book within a broader context. However, as a lay reader, I would recommend people read Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, but then also give over to some of the other texts mentioned above.

Report this comment