Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Your smartassery aside, you haven't justified how geography determined both decisions. I have expressed two "cultural" possibilities, which may be somehow related to China's geography. I'm eager to know how these factors have been not merely influenced, but determined by geography/biology.

China's unity (caused by it's supposed lack of geographical features that would impede trade or conquest; I won't get into that debate, as I really don't know or care much about Chinese geography) gave it the ability to build such a fleet, but also made it much more susceptable to political whims that would destroy it all at once. Europe, OTOH, was fragmented (due to supposedly much larger barriers to trade and conquest) and therefore had many more actors that could build fleets of exploration. It is much less likely that all of them would simultaneously decide to destroy or stop building these fleets.

[Spiffor]

Well, this is what I had in mind too, when I said that geogrphy could have contributed to the decision. However, I am still not convinced that geography determined such outcome. Determinism would say that this decision was the only possible outcome. Such a belief is patently absurd.

[JohnT]

But that's what Diamond offers, Spiff. To argue otherwise is to be insensitive to other cultures, to imply that they are lacking something crucial to modernize, to say that they're not as good.

The avoidance of cultural (and personal) explanations for the grand sweep of history is what drives GGS. Diamond came up with his theory specifically because he didn't want to offend anybody, not because it was good science or that it made sense. It's nothing but a "feel-good" theory of historical development, one that has some interesting points, but falls apart as a whole.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, this is what I had in mind too, when I said that geogrphy could have contributed to the decision. However, I am still not convinced that geography determined such outcome. Determinism would say that this decision was the only possible outcome. Such a belief is patently absurd.

Diamond doesn't offer strict determinism, to the smallest detail. It's broad and talks about probabilities.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
But that's what Diamond offers, Spiff. To argue otherwise is to be insensitive to other cultures, to imply that they are lacking something crucial to modernize, to say that they're not as good.

I actually wouldn't call the European conqueror's culture "good". The conquistadors and merchants that conquered the world were brutes only attracted by wealth, and the Aztecs are the only ones who didn't consider them as such

But yeah, Europe was more innovative than most other Civilizations, and the European leaders saw the unknown as an opportunity to tap power, whereas other civs saw it as a potential for trouble better left untouched.

[Kuciwalker]

And Diamond's contention is that that innovativeness is a result of the many nations of Europe which is a result of the geography of Europe.

[Spiffor]

Well, the geography most probably plays a part in it, but it's not the only reason. If it was, then Medieval Europe would have been as innovative as renaissance Europe (it wasn't).

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by GePap


False. No one else had the same chance to land on the Americas as Europeans, who had already done it by 1000ad given just how close it is as compared to how far away it was from the other advanced cultures.



Sorry JohnT, but I doubt you would be able even to define the cultural differences that mattered in a coherent way. Culture is a vague term with fuzzy borders, and currently not worth a damn for anything as ambitious as a grand history of human development.

Diamond's ideas are not even fully deterministic- there has been plenty of luck and random events and the acts of individual human beings that influenced history. But the grand macrohistory, which is what we seek to explain today, is certainly NOT run by something as vague and ill-defined as "culture".

Hell, economics has a better chance of expaling human development (and in essence, much fo Diamond's work can be seen as how geography influences the different "economies" societies have to work with) in the macor scale than "culture".

Nonsense. The Pacific Ocean is far more placid and easier to sail then the Atlantic. You're forgetting the hypothesis that Pacific Islanders made it all the way to South America long before the Vikings made it to Greenland. The Chinese, in their own words and in their own history make it clear that they honestly believed there was nothing else in the world worth knowing outside of China. Most Asians were in agreement in a similar way. Africa isn't worth bringing up- they can't even manage their own affairs today, let alone a thousand years ago. THat leaves the neolithic peoples of the AMericas- neolithic peoples tend not to build great sailing ships of war and cross oceans looking for new territories- that left the Europeans, now didn't it? The only people with the mindset to even wonder what was over the next horizon. And they did it while fending off attacks from other nations and from other Empires- imagine that. But they could only do it with the aid America's resources? Then how come the neolithic Indians didn't do it? How come the Spanish and Portuguese didn't do it? Why was it primarily England, France and later America that did it? And why was it mostly that tiny Island England? With nothing more then coal and English Oak for natural resources? Hmmm?

Furthermore, Russia has just as much in the way of natural resources as North America has- more, in fact. South America is also rich in resources- Mexico alone is the 10th wealthiest nation on earth. Explain their utter failure, if you will. By yours and GGS estimation, then Argentina should be a world wide powerhouse, not to mention Mexico should at least be on a par with France. What happened to them? Culture, that's what. Japan has no natural resources and yet they conquered Asia- the only thing that stopped them was the U.S.- go figure. It just so happens though, that the America of old was a nation that Japan adored and emulated to arrive at that position. That old America had a very different people and culture then it has today- and lo and behold, the Japanese Prime Minister has made it clear he sees no future on the world stage for that new America.

Western European culture was the determining factor. While they may have been immune to small pox- only after significant numbers had died, BTW, they also had survive the plague- something others did not. As well as measles and diphtheria, polio, typhoid fever. They cured most of those ills through technology- you know, science. The lowly plumber (lowly by western standards) is responsible for the higher state of cleanliness and potable drinking water- something two thirds of the rest of world still know nothing of. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is European maxim, barely known anywhere else in the world.

His theory also negates the continuum of knowledge from one Western civilization to another. From the Greeks to the Romans to the Byzantines (technically also Romans) to the Western Europeans via the Roman Church. No other people on the face of the earth ever put so high a premium on knowledge as did the Europeans- for 4,000 years.

They also displayed a wanderlust that no other people have displayed- beginning with the Hittite and Sythian invasions of Mesopotamia and ending with the lunar landings. No other people have displayed such penchant for knowledge and discovery- both of the self and the unknown.

GGS is nothing more then a Marxian diatribe against the West. Pure and simple. The reasons for laughing at it are voluminous, the reasons for believing it non-existant. It rather reminds me of "Chariots of the Gods" and the stories of ancient sky scrappers in prehistoric Africa. It is nothing more then a cheap attempt to denigrate the history of an entire people- the very peoples who invented modern medicine and all of the world's current scientific base. They are also the only people in the history of the world- to this day, who extend charity to even their enemies. Show me that kind of altruism in China, Africa or any where else. You cannot.

GGS is a book written by a hater of the European peoples for haters of the European peoples- so you can all feel good about your jealousy.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'd like to know what has changed so radically in China's geography, so that China:
1. Commissioned an ambitious expedition with the most modern fleet of the time (Zheng He)
2. Completely stopped exploring the world after Zheng He's voyage...

Obviously, the answers to that question must lie in a change in the Chinese geography or biology.

Where's your proof that the voyage ever occurred? or the fleet for that matter? The Chinese themselves make no such claim. The only one who makes that claim has been debunked by real historians including the chinese themselves. Where is your proof?

It was not the most advanced fleet of it's day- my god, they still can't build a ship, they buy the designs from Russia and before that bought the ships from them. You people are so gullible

[Theben]

His theory also negates the continuum of knowledge from one Western civilization to another. From the Greeks to the Romans to the Byzantines (technically also Romans) to the Western Europeans via the Roman Church. No other people on the face of the earth ever put so high a premium on knowledge as did the Europeans- for 4,000 years.

Uhh, actually he does mention that. He devoted an entire section of the book to that discussion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, the geography most probably plays a part in it, but it's not the only reason. If it was, then Medieval Europe would have been as innovative as renaissance Europe (it wasn't).

And what "cultural change" occured? What drove that "cultural change"?

Cultural determinism is inferior to geographical determinism simply by the fact that your basis in one is a fuzzy, hard to define base while the other has an easy to define base.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm not speaking about Diamond's theory, as I haven't read the book. I made a jibe at the geographic determinism. While Geography has certainly been an important factor in the development of civilization, the belief that it explains everything (along with biology) looks like a bunch of crap to me (I wanted to include the word "pseudoscience", but such belief isn't even worthy of that word).

It does not explain everything, and Diamond and no one else ever said it did. It explains the frame. The rest is random chance and happenstance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
But that's what Diamond offers, Spiff. To argue otherwise is to be insensitive to other cultures, to imply that they are lacking something crucial to modernize, to say that they're not as good.

The avoidance of cultural (and personal) explanations for the grand sweep of history is what drives GGS. Diamond came up with his theory specifically because he didn't want to offend anybody, not because it was good science or that it made sense. It's nothing but a "feel-good" theory of historical development, one that has some interesting points, but falls apart as a whole.

It obviously has your panties in a twist. I guess Diamond failed in one respect.

Perhaps of course he also wanted to derive a theory based on something more solid than an ill or difficult to define subject and stick to bits you can measure and explore and experiment with.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben

His theory also negates the continuum of knowledge from one Western civilization to another. From the Greeks to the Romans to the Byzantines (technically also Romans) to the Western Europeans via the Roman Church. No other people on the face of the earth ever put so high a premium on knowledge as did the Europeans- for 4,000 years.

Uhh, actually he does mention that. He devoted an entire section of the book to that discussion.

Don;t argue with him it only encourages him to stay here. Ignoring him is the better course.

[Theben]

But he amuses me.