In any case, I think the main questions Diamond poses to anthropologists relate to your initial reactions to the book. Why has the non-anthropologist Diamond written a more popular book than anything anthropologists have produced in a long time? On what other basis, besides Diamond’s blinkered and outmoded one, could anthropologists reach a wider audience? Those questions are not for me, as a historian, to answer, much as I’ve enjoyed this opportunity to be a participant-observer (more the latter than the former) among anthropologists.

In terms of colonialism, I don’t think he says colonialism is the inevitable outgrowth of geography. In Natural Experiments of History and GGS (at least the PBS version of it) he points out the role of chance and human agency in making history. The problem, imho, with Diamond’s theory of history and causality is that he doesn’t have one. Sometimes its all geography, sometimes its the actions of kings and leaders… but how do all these factors add up and interrelate? This is what the Annales school (among others) have tried to theorize, but which Diamond never gets around to.

In terms of life-changing events I’m thinking of the story of him almost drowning. That was pretty powerful to read, given some of my own experiences in PNG.

His reading of his prior works is similarly flawed. The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel is not that out-dated racist theories are poor predictors of social outcomes, but that biogeography has much to offer us in explaining why some societies have a lot of ‘cargo’ and others don’t (he was criticized by some for downplaying the role of human agency because of this). Moreover, he was building on a tradition of cross-cultural history which owed much to William H. McNeill (Plagues & Peoples; The Rise of the West; Pursuit of Power; etc.) which looked to both institutions and geography to explain social outcomes.

Collapse in many ways was about addressing the criticism about lack of attention paid to agency; it is, after all, titled “How Societies Fail to Choose or Succeed.” This lead to him be criticized for suggesting that indigenous people were responsible for their own suffering (never mind that he also showcased the failings of European Christian societies in the book). Now Diamond addresses the criticism about indigenous people by showcasing cultural practices he sees as superior to our own and he is criticized for not criticizing the west enough? Not criticizing colonialism enough? Not offering a political program or massive theoretical framework? I have read a couple other reviews of this book in which the argument goes: ‘anthropology is for showing alternatives to our own way of life– but it is not for us to “learn lessons” from other societies and apply them to our own!’ Those arguments strike me as trivializing the lessons of anthropology (why should we practice anthropology if it offers no practical purpose, only alternatives we can’t take?). Then again, that’s another discussion.

Diamond’s scholarship is not perfect by any means, but you cannot fault a scholar for not supporting a thesis he didn’t make. His edited volume, Natural Experiments of History, is a very stimulating read, and more academic than the three popular volumes mentioned earlier, but it is not discussed in Wertheim’s review, nor are Diamond’s two books on human evolution. Wertheim and other critics of Diamond would do well to examine Diamond’s arguments and the ways he supports them– Is his thesis logical? Does his evidence support it? Does he overlook anything that might better explain the outcomes he attempts to explain?– rather than arguing against ghosts of their own creation. Maybe one could even compare his work to other modern scholars attempting to answer similar questions– William H. McNeil, Ian Morris, Peter Turchin come to mind– rather than Margaret Mead. There are certainly valid criticisms you can make of his work (Wertheim comes close with pointing out China as an example of “Yesterday” that isn’t tribal, but then again I think Diamond’s “Yesterday” is composed of pre-state societies, which on the scale of human history and prehistory, is most of our time as a species on Earth), but I have yet to read any truly compelling criticism of this book in particular.