In Guns, Germs and
Steel, author Jared Diamond clearly summarizes that his main point is that
“History followed different courses for different peoples because of
difference’s among people’s environments, not because of biological differences
among people themselves (25).” To me, this idea, and the supporting evidence
that he presents in the first portion of the book, seems a little obvious. Of
course the environment and geographical location have had an effect on people
and how societies develop. How would it not? I think the point of the book is
to explain specifically how different environments had an effect on different
societies, which is valid, but it seems like the author thinks this idea is
revolutionary, when it really is pretty self evident. It make sense that the
Moriori and Maori peoples would develop different types of societies due to the
fact that one environment encouraged agriculture while one did not. It makes
sense that a climate, which allows for a society to “advance,” enough to make
more effective weapons, would be able to conquer a society that doesn’t have
that type of weaponry. In the chapter “Collision of Cajamarca,” Diamond goes
into a long list of reasons as to why Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro and
his army were able to conquer emperor Atahuallpa and the Incas. The Spaniards
were able to get to Cajamarca by way of ship, they rode horses which was a huge
advantage in battle, and so forth. Again, the fact that these advantages were
caused by the environment in which the Spaniards lived in versus the
environment in which the Incas lived in seems inarguable. While it’s interesting
to read about this specific case, the reason behind it is not. Anyone that assumes
the reason societies have developed differently is that humans have inherent
biological differences is some sort of racist or extremely uninformed. Its weird
to me that Diamond would think that any sort of reasonable person would even
consider a biological argument to be logical, and that he would need to counter
it so strongly. His argument is already a known fact.
I agree that the reasons that Diamond gives in his book may seem obvious in that of course different environments produce different groups of people. However, I do think that there are some people out there who do feel that some nations develop faster and into stronger nations because of an inherent superiority rather than a milieu of chance occurrences. A few years ago, people had measured skulls of peoples to measure superiority of whites over Africans and indigenous peoples. Although the book is at times monotonous when it discusses how farming changes the ability of nations to develop technology and also develop strong diseases, I do think that it is important that he mentions that white superiority in the Americas and in the globe have happened through no force of their own. I enjoy the section where he highlights this advantage from chance that talks on Cortes defeating the Aztecs with the advantage of Smallpox in 1520 with “one infected slave arriving from Spanish Cuba” (210). The discussion on the Americas further discusses how infectious disease made the population decline maybe by 95% (211). The book does discuss things that appear obvious but I think that stating it is important especially to combat people who believe industrial nations have gotten to this place of dominance on their own.
ReplyDelete