A very detailed book with a cogent and very well developed thesis: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves."
The case is well made and worth much more careful reading than I could spare. I am uncomfortable with a few things. A feeling of a priori dismissal of genetics having an influence and then proceeding to prove this. A lack of regard for religion. Basing huge decisions on a very few skeletons - sampling error. Dependence on dating methods.
Many fascinating facts and insights. The significance of north/south versus east/west axis on development. Taming vs. domestication.
Evolution and New Guinea and birds are the author's expertise but his general skills are formidable. This book is a major achievement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I too was impressed with the breadth of Diamond's research. It's well-written too. However, it falls a little short as an ultimate explanation. The best example is the discussion of domesticable animals, which proved a crucial advantage for Eurasians, while Americans and Africans had few or none. But Africa today has far more large mammals than any of the other continents. Why did none of these prove domesticable? Maybe we can never know. Of course it's part of the book's success that it can provoke questions like this.
I agree with you and Daniel. The book is interesting but rather simple. The strong dominate the weak. The reasons given seem somewhat obvious. I feel that Diamond's book is interesting because he tied all of these seemingly unconnected events into a coherent theory for dominance.
Post a Comment