Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


Yes, there is evidence of trade, just as there was evidence of trade with (forget tribe) that the Aztecs eventually supplanted between them and the Aztecs.

we're discussing the Incas and the Mayas, NOT the Aztecs and the Mayas.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. brief answer on why not china- Diamond thinks there are (other geographic reasons) why Europe triumphed, not say China. Some here (GePap) swear by them. Some deny them. Im in between, i think theres something to them, but think there may be other factors as well. read the above to see the arguments. In ANY case, WHICH eurasian civ triumphed is NOT the main point of the book, but rather WHY eurasian civs in general triumphed over everyone else.

2. east west spread - the key point is the spread of certain key grains, esp wheat and barley. They spread relatively easily from the fertile crescent, to southeast europe, to west europe, and also from fertile crescent to northwest India, with little modification. (you need to get clearer about local climates - wheat and barley emerged in the relatively well watered hill country on the edge of the fertile crescent, and thrive in mesopotamia itself with irrigation - and large parts of India are NOT jungle) Contrast with corn, which took much longer to spread north from Mexico to eastern US, for reasons of growing season length. This is explained in some detail in the book.

3. writing from mayas to Incas. In between is the Isthmus of Panama, a narrow band of mountainous jungle. neither civ being mariners, and there being little overland traffic, there was little exchange between the two americas. (for a what if, in which a more maritime group of indians in the carib establishes such contacts, go to Soc.history.what-if and search for "bronze age new world" or BANW, as its affectionately known.

The problem with the climate models is it does not take into account the post glaicail climates of Europe and Northern China. Western Europe was much warmer 8,000 years ago then it is today.

Likewise the germs and livestock issue does not take into effect the cultural norm which developed long ago in the West (and has not in the East or in most of the third world) whereby by custom, livestock and it's refuse are kept away from human habitation- especially high density urban style habitation. In the rest of world, including central and south America, there is a cultural norm in place that allows livestock to be kept in close proximity to dense human habitation- right in their homes in most cases. Bird flu viruses (of which the 1918 epidemic is no known to have been on such case- killing millions in America alone) but also livestock diseases themselves tend form and spread faster.

Likewise is the case of human waste disposal- a large issue even in Mesopotamia but most certainly in Roman cities as well as Greek cities. To this very day, raw sewage runs down the streets of major cities in the "3rd world" and rivers are used for defecation, laundering, bathing and drinking water. Though it is true that the Italians polluted the waters of Venice, the tidal aspect of the area worked as a self cleansing sewage system up until modern times.

The lowly plumber is often overlooked in the annals of Western civilization and it's road to human health and the stability to of it's urban areas.


Further note:

The third world (including the areas to the South of the US) still engage in the practice of using human feces for fertilizer in agriculture. This is particularly true in SE Asia.

I'd say that the above examples are all a matter of cultural practices and have nothing to do with geography beyond the location of the culture itself. What is interesting to note is that in both cases Asians carried the practice with them to the "New World".

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


we're discussing the Incas and the Mayas, NOT the Aztecs and the Mayas.

Can you read, did not I say "Yes there is evidence of trade, just as......"

the operative words here are "just as".

Sheesh, how did you ever manage to get through a book report...........

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
And?

NOT a commie hero. An ancient regime general and a czarist gunboat about which was made a commie movie.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Ecthelion


NOT a commie hero. An ancient regime general and a czarist gunboat about which was made a commie movie.

Point taken- I was referring to the ship, it's mutiny and the movie- i.e., "The Potemkin" being a source of revolutionary pride. I had to watch in a film class, though I thought it sucked cinematically, I cannot even remember anymore why it was considered cinema worth of watching, except perhaps as an example of propaganda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


Can you read, did not I say "Yes there is evidence of trade, just as......"

the operative words here are "just as".

Sheesh, how did you ever manage to get through a book report...........

You were vague - i didnt know if the end, was Inca-Maya trade AND Aztec - to intermediate tribe trade, OR Aztec - Maya trade, and Aztec to intermediate tribe trade.

Hint, when your dealing with multiple entities like this, in a forum where cross posting happens, its wise to make your references explicit and avoid pronouns.


Now, what is that evidence for Mayan - Inca trade? Does it necessarily mean the Incas were aware of the Mayans as a culture? Trade through intermediaries might not create such knowledge, esp limited trade.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
That raises another interesting question. Why did the American civilizations never take to the sea? While perhaps not as closed and calm a sea as the Mediterranian, the Carribean, and its many assorted bays and gulfs, seems at least somewhat friendly to ships. Obviously they had some, or people wouldn't have spread to the islands. But why not more?

Anything more then just cruising around coastal areas (which they did) requires some knowledge of math- specifically geometry- i.e. navigation by stars, shooting an azimuth, etc. Babylonians and Egyptians were credited with the beginnings of geometry, the Greeks with formalizing it into science and what we know as modern math.

There is no evidence of the use of math in any proto American culture. Other then very simple counting.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Epublius Rex


"The problem with the climate models is it does not take into account the post glaicail climates of Europe and Northern China. Western Europe was much warmer 8,000 years ago then it is today."


this is relevant to what and how?

"likewise the germs and livestock issue does not take into effect the cultural norm which developed long ago in the West "

WHEN???? we're discussing history. Drop "long ago" If you cant provide a date, we cant discuss it analytically.

And what do you mean by "the germs and livestock issue" What part of what diamond says is contradicted by this cultural norm?

Look, Diamond, if you read him, is NOT GePap. He does NOT say that culture isnt important in history. What he DOES say is that certain macrohistorical facts are explicable by geography. You two are arguing about some silly strawmen (culture explains nothing, culture explains everything)

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You were vague - i didnt know if the end, was Inca-Maya trade AND Aztec - to intermediate tribe trade, OR Aztec - Maya trade, and Aztec to intermediate tribe trade.

Hint, when your dealing with multiple entities like this, in a forum where cross posting happens, its wise to make your references explicit and avoid pronouns.


Now, what is that evidence for Mayan - Inca trade? Does it necessarily mean the Incas were aware of the Mayans as a culture? Trade through intermediaries might not create such knowledge, esp limited trade.

Sorry, I thought you were being snide, as so many on here seem to be.

Evidence of trade is in the form of jewelry and pottery. There were other smaller items and some cultural, such as similarity between gods and such. Methods of construction, etc. But the trade aspects were more then just chance, as gods and construction may have been. Unfortunately, the jungle quickly destroys any evidence of roads which may have confirmed travel routes.

[Epublius Rex]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


"The problem with the climate models is it does not take into account the post glaicail climates of Europe and Northern China. Western Europe was much warmer 8,000 years ago then it is today."


this is relevant to what and how?

Germs, the spread of disease, crop production, etc.

"likewise the germs and livestock issue does not take into effect the cultural norm which developed long ago in the West "

WHEN???? we're discussing history. Drop "long ago" If you cant provide a date, we cant discuss it analytically.

At least as far back as Roman times. The Romans did not keep livestock within the urban confines. Neither did Middle Ages Western Europeans, except in times of siege. Their is evidence of similar practices in Classical Greece, as well.

And what do you mean by "the germs and livestock issue" What part of what diamond says is contradicted by this cultural norm?

Look, Diamond, if you read him, is NOT GePap. He does NOT say that culture isnt important in history. What he DOES say is that certain macrohistorical facts are explicable by geography. You two are arguing about some silly strawmen (culture explains nothing, culture explains everything)

I understand that. But he makes the case that bacteria is one of the defining precepts for success, does he not?

So, okay, what is the difference between the various regions of the world and the methods of dealing with them. Was it geographical happenstance and climate? Or was it cultural norming based upon learned behavior? In my opinion, Europeans learned and adapted faster- finding methods of prevention quicker. I believe this is a result of Greek methods of scientific exploration.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
And?

And it were 3/4 of a post where you didn't justify the reason why you opposed GePap.

And for the record, I'm against GGS. I do not believe in any determinism, as human behaviour is something far too complex to explain with a simple set of variables (human mass behaviour is even moreso complex).

However, I remember you, and I'm not surprised that you'd jump on a GGS thread to reaffirm the European superiority. You seem to be very fond of it.

[Kuciwalker]

GGS isn't determinism. It's probabilism.

[Spiffor]

Well, indeed. Actually, I'm against GePapism, as I read GePap's posts, but didn't read GGS.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


So, okay, what is the difference between the various regions of the world and the methods of dealing with them. Was it geographical happenstance and climate? Or was it cultural norming based upon learned behavior? In my opinion, Europeans learned and adapted faster- finding methods of prevention quicker. I believe this is a result of Greek methods of scientific exploration.

Except that Europe continued to be just as vulnerable to epidemic disease in say, the late middle ages, as were other parts of the eurasian world. And they proved quite vulnerable to tropical diseases. Again the reason they had diseases to give is explained well by Diamond, and the reason the Americas had few diseases to give back is explained. And the reason the old world tropics had few diseases to give back.

These are the key points, and i dont see what youve said that contradicts them.

[Ecthy]

Jews and Asians are more intelligent than Europeans.