Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Theben]

Pretty crappy DanSing job too.

I read the book and didn't get a feel that Diamond thought geography was the sole determinant- just that it played an important role. And I agree, it's pretty hard IMHO to say otherwise. If one guy is in a desert and one in a lush orchard who do you think has a better chance of survival? Propagating? Having leisure time to think of something besides where his next meal is coming from?

[chequita guevara]

I remember being highly annoyed by the program so far, but I only watched about half of the 1st episode, before my hippie friend showed up and whisked me off to Goshen, NY.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


While territorial expansion is exceedingly common among many cultures it is not a universal trait, and culture has an immense amount to say about how it's done, whether it is done etc. Some cultures are forced to self-regulate because they are surrounded by terrain that limits expansion, or surrounded by cultures they cannot compete effectively with for territory (such as the Bushmen for instance). Some cultures support finding new lands to exploit, while others specialize in warfare and taking what they need as their population increases.

MOst of those differences you imply are far more economic than cultural. For example,herding people's ususally have small populations and mobile forces- for them conquest is the obvious way to go, as they simply can;t compete evenly with others in the colonizing bit, specially since farming in the new areas would probably be more successful than a pastoral experience. To say the the lands nearby are not easy to exploit is to make a geographic and economic arguement. And the Bushmen come from such marginal lands that they never have had the resources or populations to do anything but survive.

Much of this fits into Diamond's thesis, but much does not. Some aggressive cultures have picked one fight too many and have been erased from the list of active peoples. Others such as the Japanese have proven to be so adaptable that they have been successful as insular island people, as a small counterweight to an enormous neighboring empire, as an empire in their own right and as one of the planets most successful trading people, all within the space of a few centuries. They don't seem to be a great example of geographic determinism to my mind, but rather nimble adapters of culture depending on the situation.

Japan is not a small Island, and not that isolated either. Like Britian, it was more than large enough to develop a strong civilization, strong enough to ward of foreign invaders (helped here or there by random chance). Japan is actually a good example against "culture" as the driving force. After all, Japan followed China's example of closing itself of to the world, purging foreign influences, so forth, which put it at a horrible disadvantage by the time Perry came. Then Japan, without adopting any cultural traits from the west, but plenty of technology, made itself a world power. Japan did not become a world power by adopting western culture, only its tools to augment itself. The same culture that kept Japan isolated for 2 centuries made it leap to a great power.

I think that there is certainly some truth to Diamond's thesis, but he applies it far too broadly. He focuses solely on hardware and completely neglects software.

The problem is this: 1. The capabilties of the software are based on the hardware. Software is designed for the hardware that exists, not the other way around. You can;t run Windows XP of a cell phone, so even before you start talking about who has what software, you have to know what software can be used.
2. Software does not make as much a difference as hardware when it comes to overall capabilties. Certainly it matters, but the huge difference between my computer today and mine 8 years ago have more to do with an 8 fold increase in RAM, a 15 fold increase in chip speed, a 40 fold increase plus is Hard drive space than the improvements between Windows 95 and XP.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Theben
Pretty crappy DanSing job too.

I read the book and didn't get a feel that Diamond thought geography was the sole determinant- just that it played an important role.

I think your charecterization of Diamond is correct. I dont think this debate is really about Diamond anymore.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by GePap
Then Japan, without adopting any cultural traits from the west, but plenty of technology, made itself a world power. Japan did not become a world power by adopting western culture, only its tools to augment itself. The same culture that kept Japan isolated for 2 centuries made it leap to a great power.

Your knowledge of the social and cultural changes that took place in Japan following the Meiji Restoration is as deep as your knowledge of Chinese geography, it seems...

[Kuciwalker]

That's why all of my mentions of geographical factors were preceeded by "supposedly"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Your knowledge of the social and cultural changes that took place in Japan following the Meiji Restoration is as deep as your knowledge of Chinese geography, it seems...

Care to detail them then, Klanman?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why would I explain anything to an ignoramus who has been reduced to labeling me a racist? You're not worth spending time on...

[GePap]

Oh, poor Drakie pooh. Its the company you keep Potemkin. Next time you decide what someone like ER says is funny and declaring how much you like them, think (thought its not like you do that very much)

Now, since you are obviouly incapable of doing it (anymore than you know European geography, it seems)

Here is a nice link:

http://www.aems.uiuc.edu/HTML/Handout1.htm

Simple overview. Lets look at the most relevant quote:

In addition to admiring Western technology, the Japanese in power were very interested in Western ideals, such as progress, democracy, equality, and freedom, which they felt had made the West (particularly the United States) strong. They felt that their country could achieve its potential only if all of its people could achieve their potential. Thus, the terms, "civilization and enlightenment," referred to Japanese appreciation of Western culture and values. Japanese leaders were especially interested in Western culture and values in the early stages of the Meiji Period.

The following new social institutions appeared during the Meiji Period.They are listed in order of their appearance, which gives some indication of the priorities of the new government.

* modern educational system (1872)
* universal draft (military conscription, 1873)
* new economic institutions (land tax, banks, government offices, etc., mid-1870s to mid-1880s)
* Constitution and Diet (two-house parliament, 1889-1890)

This leads to the question, how are those ideas "Western Culture"? After all, " progress, democracy, equality, and freedom" were not part of the European value system in parituclar when Europe began to expand outwards. How many people would call those the values of Habsburg Spain, the European state that began the great wave of world conquest by Europeans? IN fact, those notions were the outcomes of thought in the 17th and 18th centuries, well aftyer Europe had already been set on the path to global domination.

None of those values really applied to Russia either, yet it was carving itself the largest land empire since the Mongols, and was one of the great European powers.

another quote:

As time went on, however, many intellectual and political leaders became increasingly negative about whether Western culture and values fit Japanese society. One prominent example of this questioning of Western ways was with regard to the position of women versus men. Although many Japanese women called on government leaders to grant greater freedom to women during this period of change, few prominent leaders believed that women should have rights equal to those of men.

This gets to a deeper question: what was this "Japanese society"? Is that the true Japanese culture, with the other bits mentioned simply the technological superstructure on top of the true cultural basis?

Japan today is certainly one of the most modern states in the world when it comes to economics and technology. Its is an advanced Liberal democracy.

Is it then a Western country now?

Anyone who wants to tout the line "it is culture" that matters needs to answer that simple question- the question that has bedevilled countless modernizers since the beginning of the 20th century.

[Kuciwalker]

Dude, Drake automatically pwns you on Japanese history. Hell, he pwned molly. You have no chance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Dude, Drake automatically pwns you on Japanese history. Hell, he pwned molly. You have no chance.

Oh, your dog got in trouble?

If Drake knows so much, he would be able to discuss it effectively. I don;t see him doing it thought.

Beside genius, this is not about simple history. This is about defining what Japanese culture is, and how adopting Western ideas may, or may not, equal cultural change.

Do you get that?

[lord of the mark]

obviously it took something different to achieve world power in the 19th/20the century, than it did in the 16th century. It would have been foolish of the Japanese to attempt to borrow the institutions of 16th c Spain, and to go out in search of Aztecs and Incas to conquer.

There are two relevant cultural questions about Japanese modernization

1. To what extent did Japan actually transform itself culturally in the process (whether we want to call this westernization, modernization, or something else)? My understanding is that real cultural change, in self perception, in ideas of innovation and technology, etc were significant, though the course was uneven, and even today Japan is still quite distinctive.

2. What was the role of pre-1870 Japanese culture in making possible the modernization, both in the sense of adopting new technologies, and being open to later cultural change? Some have said that Japan changed out of sheer necessity - though its hard to see that such changes were any less necessary for other pre-modern societies. Some have said that Japan historical receptivity to cultural influence from China made it more receptive to outside influences than other pre-modern societies - one could say that this too has geographic roots, in Japans geographic relationship to Chinese civilization - but that geographic relationship is MEDIATED by culture - it wasnt Japans geographic situaiton IN 1870 that was determinative. Alternatively, some say it was the structure of the Japanese polity that made transformation easier.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
obviously it took something different to achieve world power in the 19th/20the century, than it did in the 16th century. It would have been foolish of the Japanese to attempt to borrow the institutions of 16th c Spain, and to go out in search of Aztecs and Incas to conquer.

And yet Russia, certainly not in the Vanguard of Liberal thought, was itself one of the Great Powers.

There are two relevant cultural questions about Japanese modernization

1. To what extent did Japan actually transform itself culturally in the process (whether we want to call this westernization, modernization, or something else)? My understanding is that real cultural change, in self perception, in ideas of innovation and technology, etc were significant, though the course was uneven, and even today Japan is still quite distinctive.

2. What was the role of pre-1870 Japanese culture in making possible the modernization, both in the sense of adopting new technologies, and being open to later cultural change? Some have said that Japan changed out of sheer necessity - though its hard to see that such changes were any less necessary for other pre-modern societies. Some have said that Japan historical receptivity to cultural influence from China made it more receptive to outside influences than other pre-modern societies - one could say that this too has geographic roots, in Japans geographic relationship to Chinese civilization - but that geographic relationship is MEDIATED by culture - it wasnt Japans geographic situaiton IN 1870 that was determinative. Alternatively, some say it was the structure of the Japanese polity that made transformation easier.

Well, you can ask that question of all the Asian Tigers and their growth lately.

Or even China. China's accent today has been incredible, yet has China really adopted any cultural change? Heck, The sauds got immensely rich and modern simply because they became fabulously wealth and could then buy anything, uncluding knowledge.

Or take Turkey, a land stepped in endless cultural exchange for the last 3000 years, a true crosswroads. The early leaders saw secularism as the great European value, and fought vs, islam as backwards. They succeeded to a certain degree, but Turkey is not today anything like the power she was in 1650.

One idea bandied about was that Europe's rise was based on its culture, but then, its culture in 1750, at least in various places, was not even its culture in 1550. So, how can we speak of "culture" when itself changes constantly, and rapidly?

And what drive these changes? Are they based on some internally decided mechanism (which is what you get into the second paragraph), or do they change because of concious political actions (Japan's change was obviously mandated top down), or economic realities?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"And yet Russia, certainly not in the Vanguard of Liberal thought, was itself one of the Great Powers. "

Of course the russian elite, from Peter the great through 1914, was heavily commited to westernization. Westernization != liberalization, necessarily, if you mean political liberalization. Catherine the Great certainly WAS commited to enlightment thought, though she did not follow through politically. Certainly most Russian political and military leaders were more open to administrative and technological reform than, say, the Ottomans, or China at the time. And, IIUC, to educational reform as well.



"well, you can ask that question of all the Asian Tigers and their growth lately. "

Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting.


"Or even China. China's accent today has been incredible, yet has China really adopted any cultural change?"

Chinese have been wrestling with the question of cultural change since the 1920s and the May 4th movement, if not earlier. Certainly both the KMT regime and even more so the Communists destroyed many aspects of traditional Chinese culture, thus laying the ground work for post 1989 modernization. Where did the Confucian scholar elite go? Could Dengism had gotten under way if 80 years of revolution had not done them in?

"Or take Turkey, a land stepped in endless cultural exchange for the last 3000 years, a true crosswroads. The early leaders saw secularism as the great European value, and fought vs, islam as backwards. They succeeded to a certain degree, but Turkey is not today anything like the power she was in 1650."

Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part.


"One idea bandied about was that Europe's rise was based on its culture, but then, its culture in 1750, at least in various places, was not even its culture in 1550. So, how can we speak of "culture" when itself changes constantly, and rapidly?"

One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history.


"And what drive these changes? Are they based on some internally decided mechanism (which is what you get into the second paragraph), or do they change because of concious political actions (Japan's change was obviously mandated top down), or economic realities?"

Obviously these interrelate at different levels. Culture does have its own dynamics of change, I think. The political sphere can attempt to influence that, but is constrained in what mandated changes will "take"

[lord of the mark]

I also wonder if we're being too glib in our charecterization of 16th century Spain. It wasnt all inquisitions, torture racks, and mystics, ya know. Spain at that time still had a considerable renaissance culture, and strong cultural influences from Italy and Flanders. It was really only toward the end of the 16th century, and esp in the the 17thc, that Spain turned inward on itself. And that was also when Spain went into decline, though the direction of causality is not quite clear.