NationStates Jolt Archive

These guys are the two premier historians in my academic life. Jared Diamond wrote the book Guns, Germs and Steel, detailing the rise of civilizations as according to mainly geographic factors whereas Victor Hanson wrote Carnage and Culture stating that a civilization's rise is based mostly on their culture/military. Which do you prefer, those who have read any of the respective authors books, there's more than one book for each, but I'm really focusing on the major titles.

I'm inclined to agree more with the Guns/germs/steel dude. Cultural practices are largely a product of geography. Also, the notion that Western culture is some kind of unique cultural recipe for world domination dating from the ancient Greeks is just ridiculous, because 1- Most so-called Western values haven't been reliable traits of Western civilization, and 2- Many other cultures can be argued to have had values similar to Western values at some point in their history.

shameless baldfaced bump for really good topic

Not having read Hanson, it's hard to argue. But I've read alot of other academics who agree with Diamond.

Hanson would be more credible if his conception of western military tradition didn't have a hole in it large enough to drive a bus the size of the middle ages through.

Diamond is a birdwatcher, that automatically disqualifies all of his opinions.

In sum, my theory is the only one worth a damn: The theory of cheese.

Quite honestly, I can't see much redeeming value in Jared Diamond's book. By Jared Diamond's logic, poor natural resources will lead to a region's downfall.

How then were the Ptolemies able to create an even more dynamic Egyptian civilization with the dwindling resources and increasingly salinized landscape left behind by their predecessors. Also, upon last check there was the same type of soil on each side of the Korean DMZ.

Or why did the palatial culture of Mycenae prove to be a dead-end society, and yet the radically different Greek city-state centuries later blossomed in the exact same environment?

More immediately, are we supposed to expect that there are several micro-climates between San Diego and Tijuana? Or that something changes in the geography that made Venice irrelevant in late Roman times, a world power in 1500, and once again a backwater by 1850, and a really crappy "tourist-city" today?

As for the matter of China, Prof. Diamond states, time and again, that China was united whereas Europe was staggeringly fragmented. It sure looked that way, at least on paper, but China during their Exploration Age was a hotbed of political fighting and intrigue, power struggles and clashes between the eunuchs and other factions within China. China had simply proven to be an infighing, xenophobic, ethnocentric mess during the 14th century, despite any attempts to put them on a pedestal. According to Prof. Diamond, the main factor in Europe’s rise over China was not the the Europeans were, in fact, more united than the Chinese, (Thank you Roman Catholic Church.) No, it happened because, apparently, Europe has a crinkly coastline, whereas China has a smoother coastline that made it easier to catch dissenters. Pardon me, but, WHAT? Does Prof. Diamond think that coastlines are the only places to hide? China was filled with massive, near-unplottable deserts that are far easier to hide in than any coastline.

Prof. Diamond's attempts to disparage any opposition as "racist and loathesome" is unprofessional, unscholarly and just puerile.

Victor Hanson is to Diamond what Robert Nozick was to Rawls- a whining, frothing contrarian clinging to the coat-tails and nipping at the heals of a work of lasting importance and brilliance.

Diamond. as said above, military and culture are shaped by geography.

Click Stand;13275831']Diamond. as said above, military and culture are shaped by geography.

Indeed, and to make the matter as clear as it can be, it should be reduced to a simple search for causes.

"If culture causes one group to succeed and another to fail, then what causes cultures to be the way they are?"

The answers are very limited

A) Magic, God, Master Race Theory (ie, innate merit, superior intellect, &c &c).
B)Random, chance, morally arbitrary, admission of defeat of the intellect.
C)Situation, e.g., geography in its most extended and elaborated sense.

Answer B, which is to say, "NO IDEA," is superseded by answers A and C, which leaves most people, who are committed to the most reasonable explanation, to decide whether to hold with the Master Race Theory or with Diamond's theory.

Agnostics may banter about how culture is the determining factor, but in doing so they cannot discount Diamond's work, which is an accounting for culture based on geography, because they don't offer a competing hypothesis.

This is why Victor Hanson is merely riding Diamond's coat-tails - his argument is moot unless it offers a competing theory for the origin of cultural differences.

Quite honestly, I can't see much redeeming value in Jared Diamond's book. By Jared Diamond's logic, poor natural resources will lead to a region's downfall.

How then were the Ptolemies able to create an even more dynamic Egyptian civilization with the dwindling resources and increasingly salinized landscape left behind by their predecessors. Also, upon last check there was the same type of soil on each side of the Korean DMZ.

Or why did the palatial culture of Mycenae prove to be a dead-end society, and yet the radically different Greek city-state centuries later blossomed in the exact same environment?

More immediately, are we supposed to expect that there are several micro-climates between San Diego and Tijuana? Or that something changes in the geography that made Venice irrelevant in late Roman times, a world power in 1500, and once again a backwater by 1850, and a really crappy "tourist-city" today?

As for the matter of China, Prof. Diamond states, time and again, that China was united whereas Europe was staggeringly fragmented. It sure looked that way, at least on paper, but China during their Exploration Age was a hotbed of political fighting and intrigue, power struggles and clashes between the eunuchs and other factions within China. China had simply proven to be an infighing, xenophobic, ethnocentric mess during the 14th century, despite any attempts to put them on a pedestal. According to Prof. Diamond, the main factor in Europe’s rise over China was not the the Europeans were, in fact, more united than the Chinese, (Thank you Roman Catholic Church.) No, it happened because, apparently, Europe has a crinkly coastline, whereas China has a smoother coastline that made it easier to catch dissenters. Pardon me, but, WHAT? Does Prof. Diamond think that coastlines are the only places to hide? China was filled with massive, near-unplottable deserts that are far easier to hide in than any coastline.

Prof. Diamond's attempts to disparage any opposition as "racist and loathesome" is unprofessional, unscholarly and just puerile.

This post makes it painfully obvious that you have not read any Jared Diamond beyond a snippet for reviews or that quoted out of context in order to argue against him. Read the book all the way through and tell me if you can repeat your post with the same confidence. No hunter-gatherer culture has ever advanced. No food surplus, no significant advancement.

Not to toot my own horn of course, but it bears mentioning that I had the great pleasure and privilege of hearing Diamond give a talk about two years ago and having him sign my first edition copy of his book.

He is an excellent, lucid and engaging speaker, and deserves three Michelin stars - "worth a journey."

Not to toot my own horn of course, but it bears mentioning that I had the great pleasure and privilege of hearing Diamond give a talk about two years ago and having him sign my first edition copy of his book.

He is an excellent, lucid and engaging speaker, and deserves three Michelin stars - "worth a journey."

Unfortunately he doesn't seem too well known over here. I've only met one other person who had heard of him.

I can bought my sister Gun, Germs and Steel and Collapse last Christmas. Saying that they might come in handy for her university course commencing the following September. Unfortunately I don't think she has read them :(

I have to admit though, I haven't heard about Victor Davis Hanson. I might check him out. Though New Granada doesn't seem to rate him for good reasons.


EDIT: After a quick look at his wiki page I'm already not warming to him. Military historians seem to do that to me ;)

/snip

You're not Victor Davis Hanson are you?

Just it seems odd you sign up, register, post and then dissappear. All on the same day :confused:

Definitely Jared Diamond. Victor Hanson sounds painfully like a corollary to the old racist ideas of "white man's burden" or "manifest destiny". That said, I haven't read him, so I don't know how nuanced his argument is, but he's definitely treading on thin ice.

As many other posters pointed out before, regardless, Hanson's theory itself begs the question "Where does culture originate from?" A question that Jared Diamond conveniently has already answered. :cool:

Click Stand;13275831']Diamond. as said above, military and culture are shaped by geography.


Largely, yes.

Hanson is a crude, right-wing hack. And if you've any doubts, read his "political" cack.

Diamond. He points out the origin of cultures.