Top critical review
3.0 out of 5 starsGuns Germs & Steel Book Review
Reviewed in the United States on April 14, 2011
Guns, Germs, And Steel is an influential treatise of competitive plausibility regarding the challenging question why population groups on different continents experienced widely divergent paths of development. Contrary to the voluminous objections cited in the many of the revisionist historians and anthropologists, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history in one compelling volume: "Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World?" This question has been answered by others before and Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause geographical determinism has also been proposed before. Any student of history or anthropology can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, suggested that Europe's predominance curtailed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate. However as an enthusiastic proponent of environmental determinism, Jared Diamond presents a set of premises consistent with evidence provided from a wide range of disciplines, but he does not attempt to answer the question of genetic diversity, including segregated intelligence among racial groups as many reviewers have inferred. If anything, implicitly, the author appears to support promulgations of differentiated intelligences; he sets out to demonstrate intelligence was not the root cause to Eurasian dominance.
The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle conjecture. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities. In order to back this idea, Diamond introduces a set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world did not have such access and so, their fertile soil went uncultivated. Beginning 13,000 years ago, the author illuminated the circumstances that may have smoothed growth for some groups and repressed the same for others. Diamond accepts the out of Africa theory for the dispersion of Homo sapiens to the other continents as well as the importance of location that they went. For Diamond, food production is the definitive cause of capricious rates of development for different peoples. He demonstrates how the abundance of wild plants subject to domestication and availability of large mammals served as immediate factors to transition from hunter/gatherer bands and tribes to sedentary agriculturally based chiefdoms and states. In this context, Eurasia was home to important number of crops and animals that readily and successfully domesticated. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production in turn, led to a number of adjoining causes related to the rise of the West:- farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers and it also increased population density.
After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into reiterating ideas about the creation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while clichéd, are still enthralling and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way. His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New World. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues such as smallpox which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old World people had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world.
These technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to fathomable way and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the prevalent skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book.
However, I have some concerns with respect to the credibility of this book. I felt that I had to second guess most of his evidence, because it was equivocal, lacking or incorrect. Firstly, Diamond uses the term "Eurasian" to describe cultures and societies. However, the term is essentially used to describe a geographical landmass or tectonic plates. All the way through the book, he uses the term "Eurasian" when it supports his hypothesis and replaces the term with European or western Eurasian to support another part of his thesis. He does not separate Europe and Asia to explain societies and cultures even though Europe and Asia contain different religions, cultures and languages. But then again, he separates "North Africa" from "Sub-Saharan Africa" even though they are part of the same continental landmass and have more commonalties. On page 161, Diamond attempts to explain his reasoning behind using the broad and vague term "Eurasian" when he states that: "my use of the term "Eurasia" includes in several cases North Africa, which biogeographically and in many aspects of human culture is more closely related to Eurasia than to sub-Saharan Africa". I believe Diamond confuses contemporary North African culture with the cultures that inhabited Northern Africa from 10,000 BC to 8th century AD. For example, from pre-dynastic to the mid-late stages of the Ancient Egyptian civilization, the ancient Egyptians had contact and traded with cultures in Ethiopia (sub-Saharan Africa). The Ancient Egyptian and Amharic language (Ethiopia) belong to the same language group which is Afro-Asiatic, and also belong to the same sub language group, which is Semitic. Diamond makes vague generalities in supporting his thesis and fails to engage significant evidence that challenges his thesis.
In addition, when studying the development of different cultures and the spread of food production and technology, he modifies the definition of different terms to fit his hypothesis. Any hypothesis can be supported if you continuously alter the variables you are challenging. I found this to be the most distracting facet of this book. He does this with the terms "North African" and "Sub-Saharan African" which are terms that carried little meaning between 13,000 BC until the 7th century, but are used to separate the significant accomplishments of Ancient Egyptians (Africans) with other Africans. On page 92, he states that: "the availability of domestic plants and animals ultimately explains why empires, literacy, and steel weapons developed earliest in Eurasia and later, or not at all, on other continents." That statement is false, since written records of the Ancient Egyptian (African) language have been dated from about 3200 BC, making it the oldest and longest documented language. The Sumerian language, as Diamond claims is the oldest language, developed around 3000 BC. Additionally, a recent archaeological discovery has suggested that some Gerzean pottery with early hieroglyphics located in Egypt could have originated since 4000 BC.
Ancient Egyptians were also the first to develop mathematic concepts such as the Decimal system and science such as astronomy and medicine during that time period and significantly influenced Greek science and mathematics. Diamond does not mention any of this and I believe that he leaves out noteworthy attainments by non-Europeans to support his thesis. Throughout the book, Diamond also poses the following question in the background: "Why were Eurasians, rather than Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans, the ones to invent firearms, oceangoing ships, and steel equipment?" Nevertheless, Diamond does not engage in the most basic question relating to the motivations of these cultures: Did Native Americans or Sub-Saharan Africans have a need for firearms/oceangoing ships? More to the point, did the Native Americans, sub-Saharan Africans, and other so-called non-Eurasians, want firearms or oceangoing ships? The answer would have forced Diamond to research the cultures and religions of Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans in more detail, rather than explaining it with geography and/or food production.
Also, he does not include the significant accomplishments of Ancient Egypt, including papyrus, an early form of paper that originated in Africa not Europe or Asia. On page 190, Diamond states that: "Continental differences in axis orientation affected the diffusion not only of food production but also of other technologies and inventions." It is known that Ancient Egyptian technology including scientific or medical discoveries traveled along the north or south axis towards the Middle-east and eventually to ancient Greece. Diamond doesn't mention any of this, which further questions the credibility of the book. Another problem with Diamond's style is that he seems to negate the influences of Non-Europeans, specifically Africa and China, to the current Western hegemony such as gunpowder from China, natural resources from Africa by either not mentioning them at all or under-emphasizing their importance. It is quite likely that without the influences from non-European civilizations that current Western hegemony would not exist today. He also makes downright false statements such as in page 247 when he states that: "Delivered in grenades, rockets, and torpedoes, those incendiaries played a key role in Islam's eventual defeat of the Crusaders." According to historical records, there is no evidence to suggest that grenades, rockets and torpedoes were used during the Crusades.
I agree that the domestication of plants and animals could predispose agriculturalists to further development. However, geography and domestication of animals and plants alone is inadequate to support his thesis without explaining the role of the people and societies occupying the geography. Geography might be a factor to explain how Western Civilization became the dominant civilization in the world today. Though, European civilization did not arise in a vacuum. Regardless of the plausible geographic advantage of Europe and Asia, factors such as political intentions, morals, ethics, religion and culture all served to explain why some civilizations were determined to expand and build empires through conquest, while others did not. Diamond claims that his theories offer an alternative explanation to traditional racist dogma. Conversely, I believe his theories do just the opposite. By stating that Europeans developed into the dominant civilization by "chance" or "luck" with respect to geography strengthens racist theories that European civilization was "destined" to become the most powerful.
Moreover, Diamond dismisses politics, religion, culture, individuals, and timing. For example, consider Cortez's victory over the Aztecs. Cortez's victory was not assured. Many elements had to be aligned for a few hundred Spaniards to overcome a mighty empire. The odds were really in Montezuma's favor. Even with horses, armor, and guns, the Aztecs were easily a match for Cortez. The Spanish armor was superfluous. According to Keegan, they even shed their heavy armor in favor of the native quilt vests. The firearms at that time were not quick to reload, so sheer numbers could have overwhelmed the Spanish. The Aztecs lost because of politics, religion, and individuals. The brutal politics and religion of the Aztecs made their subjects hate them. The Spanish were immediately supported with armies and food by the smaller nations like the Totonacs that hated the Aztecs for their cruelty. The insatiable appetite of the Aztec gods for human sacrifices insured that Cortez found ready allies. If either Montezuma or Cortez had been composed of slightly different temperaments the war could easily have gone the other way. Had Montezuma been more decisive, he could have had Cortez killed at the coast. Had Cortez not been so incredibly determined to take the country, he could have just returned to Spain with a load of the early gold presents sent to him.
History is determined by far more than geography, plants, and animals. Culture, religion, individuals, politics, and timing all play important roles. My criticisms have nothing to do with "political correctness", but rather I take issue with Diamond's style of revisionist history that does not emphasize the influence and significance of non-European civilizations towards current Western civilization. While reading the book, I was frequently second guessing the facts of Jared Diamond because they were either inexact or vague.
In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. However, it needs to be approached with an open-mind as it has some of its faults. Reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book. As for me, this book is one of the best revisionist histories on the Ancient Civilizations but as the case with revisionist history, it has its share of one sided and extreme arguments. It is a good book but not great. Still, it is very simple to read and very easy to cognize which I think deserves the Pulitzer Prize it won.
