In the epilogue of “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” Diamond brings
up an interesting argument. He believes that history should be studied more
scientifically and be viewed as a scientific subject. While he acknowledges
that cultural factors and unpredictable actions of individuals can make this
difficult, he concludes, “ I am thus optimistic that historical studies of
human societies can be pursued as scientifically as studies of
dinosaurs…(425).”
In some cases I think that a more scientific view of history
is beneficial. For example, Diamond uses science to explain how Europeans
conquered Native Americans and their land and not the other way around. He
methodically explains that environmental differences between the two continents
lead to disparities in food production and so forth, which allowed Europeans to
conquer. In this instance, scientific explanation was valuable. It effectively shut down racist
arguments that Europeans were able to conquer because they were genetically
superior. It illustrates clear
causal factors as to why Europeans were able to conquer that have been ignored
or glossed over, in previous historical accounts that I’ve read.
However, I don’t know if it’s possible for history to be an
entirely scientific pursuit. For me, history seems extremely subjective and
political. The way history is told is dependent on the historian and historians
disagree with one another constantly. One historian’s account of the Vietnam
War or the Regan presidency will differ dramatically from another historian’s
depending on their ideology. Howard Zimmerman’s’ “A People’s History of the United
States” will differ from U.S history as accounted for in a Texas elementary school’s
textbook.
In short, history is much more up for interpretation that something
like neurobiology and I don’t think it’s possible for it to be a completely scientific
subject. Still, it’s obviously valuable to look at historical events in as scientific
of a way as possible the way Diamond does.
I agree with your sentiment that history is dependent on many things besides science and it also can be extremely subjective. As Winston Churchill said “history is written by the victors,” and this is almost entirely true when we read books that glorify manifest destiny, the creation of America and many actions that symbolize the destruction and genocide of many indigenous peoples. Even in the series America the Story of Us chronicles the story of the Pilgrims, the original illegal immigrants, and how dealt with the Revolution, World War I and II, the Civil War, etc but seldom was the narrative from a Native-American or slave point of view. However, I do think that Diamond’s hope is that the delusion of grandeur that so many Western countries have can be grounded in the fact that these countries were only able to rapidly advance out of sheer luck and circumstance. He may even be trying to say that history shouldn't be too much of an interpretive subject because it attributes victories, failures and revolutions to human sources rather than ecological climate or biological circumstance that were the true determinants of victory.
ReplyDelete