Guns, Germs, and Steel thesis

[European Loyalist]

"The basic premise of this book is that the global dominance of Western societies can be traced to geographic advantages at its roots, rather than to biological or social superiority. Jared Diamond presents a well documented, coherent case that Western civilization was predisposed to success by an abundance of food crops, domesticatable animals, and a geography that facilitated migration of these skills and people. He presents those points well, and if you have not encountered discussion of the effect of geography and natural biology on the growth and development of civilizations, this book will present the basic ideas to you in a clear, if a bit rambling, style."

"Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel essentially argues that geography rather than social influences is the primary determining factor in the development of conquering civilizations. Europe and Asia, Jared maintains, have a geographical edge over civilizations that developed elsewhere because these continents have a "horizontal orientation of axes" - that is to say long, broad stretches of land in various climates rather than thin, narrow axes of climates as are found in the Americas and Africa. These axes, Diamond argues created "proximate factors" (more domesticatable animals, greater variety of food sources for example) that in turn allowed civilizations to conquer other peoples - and eventually conquer the civilizations on other continents in turn. A final critical contributing factor resulting from the orientation of axes is the susceptibility and ease of the spread of disease, a factor that was undeniably a factor in the conquest of the New World."

Opinions on it?

I think it is an interesting thesis with some valid arguments, but should not at all be considered the definitive answer to the question of European dominance.

There is a video series on it, part 1 of 18 below:
bgnmT-Y_rGQ

[rhiannon]

"The basic premise of this book is that the global dominance of Western societies can be traced to geographic advantages at its roots, rather than to biological or social superiority. Jared Diamond presents a well documented, coherent case that Western civilization was predisposed to success by an abundance of food crops, domesticatable animals, and a geography that facilitated migration of these skills and people. He presents those points well, and if you have not encountered discussion of the effect of geography and natural biology on the growth and development of civilizations, this book will present the basic ideas to you in a clear, if a bit rambling, style."

"Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel essentially argues that geography rather than social influences is the primary determining factor in the development of conquering civilizations. Europe and Asia, Jared maintains, have a geographical edge over civilizations that developed elsewhere because these continents have a "horizontal orientation of axes" - that is to say long, broad stretches of land in various climates rather than thin, narrow axes of climates as are found in the Americas and Africa. These axes, Diamond argues created "proximate factors" (more domesticatable animals, greater variety of food sources for example) that in turn allowed civilizations to conquer other peoples - and eventually conquer the civilizations on other continents in turn. A final critical contributing factor resulting from the orientation of axes is the susceptibility and ease of the spread of disease, a factor that was undeniably a factor in the conquest of the New World."

Opinions on it?

I think it is an interesting thesis with some valid arguments, but should not at all be considered the definitive answer to the question of European dominance.

There is a video series on it, part 1 of 18 below:
bgnmT-Y_rGQ

I've read much of the book....although it was several years ago:)

I found it very thought-provoking. Had no idea there was a video sequence to go along with it. Interesting....may have to watch those.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think Niall Ferguson's explanation makes more sense:


Published in 2011, Civilization: The West and the Rest examines what Ferguson calls the most "interesting question" of our day: "Why, beginning around 1500, did a few small polities on the western end of the Eurasian landmass come to dominate the rest of the world?" He attributes this divergence to the West's development of six "killer apps" largely missing elsewhere in the world - "competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic".

Environment and geography played a role, of course, but only insofar as it helped develop the cultural conditions whereby Western Europeans could come to dominate. I remain agnostic on the concept of innate racial superiority, even if I do believe we as whites have the right of rulership (and make no mistake, we do rule the world even now).

Incidentally, one liberal critic panned Ferguson's work as something akin to Lothrop Stoddard's racialist books.

Judge that as you will...

[European Loyalist]

I think Niall Ferguson's explanation makes more sense:



Environment and geography played a role, of course, but only insofar as it helped develop the cultural conditions whereby Western Europeans could come to dominate. I remain agnostic on the concept of innate racial superiority, even if I do believe we as whites have the right of rulership (and make no mistake, we do rule the world even now).

I would argue that it was more than that. Environment and geography gave advantages to European peoples that directly made them more advanced and prosperous, as well as fostering a culture and religion that led to their dominance. Those six factors seemingly ignore many of the roles of geography and environment.

[Joe McCarthy]

I would argue that it was more than that. Environment and geography gave advantages to European peoples that directly made them more advanced and prosperous, as well as fostering a culture and religion that led to their dominance. Those six factors seemingly ignore many of the roles of geography and environment.

Well, let's take the issue of what prompted the Age of Discovery and European imperialism - the things that really signaled Western ascendancy. Geography helped in that countries like Spain and Portugal were well positioned to sail across the Atlantic, but the maritime struggle with the Ottomans, i.e., competition, is what prompted them to look for new trade routes in a serious way. If geography were really the determining factor England, France, or other Western states would have taken a more assertive role earlier on.

One might also ask as well what role geography had in the Protestant Reformation, which originated in Germany, a place that remained politically second rate until the 19th century.

[Phil75231]

There's no one simple answer.

Personally, I think there's no escaping basic randomness - some people hit on certain ideas earlier than others; likewise for elite acceptance (or at least tolerance) of those ideas. Even so, the right kinds of seeds (rather large, easily stored and gathered, and high protein and caloric content, etc.) certainly was necessary to create an agricultural society - for from this civilization could take root (most of those seeds are native in the Middle East, with rice being native to East Asia).

Also, philosophies and religions that tend to value the individual and their dignity happened to develop in the West (including the Ancient Mid East). That's a prerequisite for freedom of expression, human rights, and so forth. Group-oriented cultures tend to stress conformity, which in turn tends to stress tradition. It is not a fertile ground for new ideas.

True, China did invent a lot of things before the West. In fact, they sent the first major sea expedition to other lands (Cheng Ho's Indian Ocean voyages). They came "this" close to making Mandarin Chinese England's (and the world's) second language! Yet, at the critical moment, the emperor forbade further overseas exploration (just why, I'm not prepared to say).

You may also say that NW Europe, being a relatively new civilization, wasn't trapped by tradition as much as the more easterly civilizations - although the Islamic civilizations did contribute in many fields, especially in astronomy, chemistry (or what passed for it) and medicine.

Europe's disunity also played a role, for if one nation stopped all its progress, another nation would quickly move ahead of them - thereby making them ripe for conquest. In this case, disunity worked to Europe's advantage.

In the end, I think it's a combination of geography and historical chance.

ADDED:

The "competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic". Did have its precedents (though all cultures look down on laziness, so I don't count that as unique to Europeans)

Competition - came from disunity, while China and large parts of the Islamic world had unity (only a few separate states in the Islamic Realm. India had a mulitplicity of states, but lacked a strong philosophy of individualism)

Science, Medicine, Democracy - from the path European philosophy took

Consumerism - ultimately from philosophy (of individual rights), but also due to pursuing comfort and even sheer vanity.