What is the worst history book to be accepted by academia

>>2314672
Is it really accepted, though? Seem's it's more accepted by pseudo-intellectual normies rather than academic authorities.

All my History professors have literally shitted on that book whenever its brought up....

>>2314672

But this book is a laughingstock in academia.

>>2314672
I had to buy this book for my history class in middle school. Never did and just decided to fail all the tests associated with it

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons

>>2314681
My history professor likes this book.

is it really that bad of a book

i know that alot of people on the right hate it because it explains European's "victory" through geographical determinism instead of some concept of having a "superior" culture

but i know alot of leftists like it for that reason as well?

>>2314701

Yes. It's bad not because it puts forward an ideology that has been dead in academia for over a century (geographical determinism) but also because its author is not an historian, or an anthropologist, or even a political theorist, but an ornithologist.

>>2314696
Decline and Fall is outdated in the sense that Newton's Principia is outdated, but that doesn't mean its the "worst"

I mean Gibbon is probably the most important figure in modern history, Decline and Fall for its time was groundbreaking in its use of primary sources

(you can only really argue Van Ranke was more influential towards modern historiography)

File: diamond's college professor.jpg (18KB, 720x352px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 720x352px

>>2314703
>Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist dr Diamond.

>>2314698
mine does too, but he's also pretty big radical leftist..so alot of what he says is ideologically based

>>2314672
It's not accepted by the academia.

>>2314719

On the contrary he is an excellent ornithologist. If I wanted to know about the birds of Papua New Guinea, Diamond is the guy I'd ask. His error was in writing outside his expertise, a mistake that has basically destroyed his reputation.

File: stolen legacy.jpg (284KB, 800x1242px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 800x1242px

this book is

>>2314672
Someone tell me what it's about

>>2314672
What is accepted then?

>>2314720
Same for my professor. Really frustrates me, because all the students in my class agree with him. I grew up in a town where conservative bias was bad, but I find this opposite spectrum just as frustrating. People just want to hear good/bad/right/left assertions about the past rather than understanding how multifaceted it is.

>>2314758
>>2314720

What the hell kind of shitty college do you go to?

what's wrong with it

>>2314775

It's wrong about all its claims.

>>2314703
>geographical determinism
Why is it considered dead? Surely a large amount of a society's principles stem from geography, which is why certain peoples became naval or land powers and had influences on their religions.

Also, wouldn't the Mediterranean be a natural place for societies to succeed? They have the perfect climate to support large cities. You're not gonna get any Inuit city states. Also look at the Middle Eastern civilisations like the Babylonian Empire and Ancient Egypt, which were dependent on rivers sustaining their large populations

>>2314785
explain

>>2314768
It's only a gen-ed U.S. history class and the guy teaching it has his PhD regarding railroads or something.

>>2314793
>Why is it considered dead?

Cretinously simplistic.

>>2314794

What part of my post didn't you understand?

File: john.jpg (33KB, 320x321px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 320x321px

who is the worst historian with a degree, period?

>>2314672
No, it's literally anything written by Ian Cuckshaw and Paul Johnson.

>>2314696
This too.

>>2314834
John Green doesn't even have a degree in history

>>2314736
Lol

>>2314838
What is the matter with Ian Kershaw?

>>2314802
Well, now... you certainly put forth an excellent argument, what with your flat assertion and nothing to back up your claim. Bravo, sir. I am impressed.

>>2314847
He's an Anglo.

I dobut "geographical determinism is dead. Or rather geography definatly does play a part in the history of people but its only one point of view.
You cannot explain everything and anything. You always take a point of view and write down a certian narrative and causation line.

>>2314849
Not that tuy but If you actually want to know there's a lot of reviews out there discrediting the book you can read.

>>2314672
but it's not. I'm a history major and this book is never referenced in any major manual. I red it because it was an optional book in a optional program at uni, but it was never anything more than a theory, like all universalists

>>2314703
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism

Stop spouting bullshit.
/his/ the humanities and history disinformation board.

>>2315003
>Or rather geography definatly does play a part in the history of people but its only one point of view.

Exactly, this is why strict geographical determinism of the sort Diamond proposes is a dead idea.

>>2315060

So you link to an article that explains how geographical determinism is a dead theory to refute my claim that it's a dead theory? Kill yourself you waste of skin.

>>2314696
You read Gibbon as literature these days, not as history. Also this >>2314712

>>2314672
A People's History of the United States

>>2314672
Das Kapital

File: 1471608817937.jpg (57KB, 455x599px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 455x599px

>>2315359
Fucking this

File: 51ebFOEc2tL._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (44KB, 318x499px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 318x499px

>>2314672
I don't know whether this was embraced by academia but it was possibly the worst history book I've ever read in my life.

I think we can all agree that any history book written by an American is laughable.

>>2314672
The only "academia" that accepts that book is highschool teachers' boards. Historians, far and wide, have ripped it to shreds several times over.

>>2315885
Only the popculture meme historical books with typed out explosion noises, otherwise American historians aren't that bad.

What sucks utter cock is British historians though, all of them are like Lindybeige except without the obvious irony, shitting on the enemies of Britain nonstop while the rest of their books is hearsay, poor translations, virtue signaling and outright propaganda. A lot of historical common misconceptions especially regarding things like the Spanish empire or Austria-Hungary are the result of Anglo faggots having the stranglehold on the field of history literature.

File: 1483444714667.jpg (31KB, 326x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 326x500px

gulag archipelago

>DUDE prison is bad, why can't it be a holiday?

>>2315905
Not very subtle, are you?

>>2316350
Perfidious nation
Perfidious historians

Why is the Spanish Inquisition considered the worst when there were worse religious persecutions elsewhere? Anglo don't like Spain
Why is Napoleon demonized and mocked for short? Anglo don't like Napoleon
A lot of history is propaganda, a lot of history is written by the Brits.

>>2316442
>how the Irish became white
I am officially triggered

I got half way through and enjoy it, I just like reading about history and shit for fun, stories interest me, this seems to have a few good ones. Is the hate purely because people disagree with his theory?

>>2314793
Anyone got an answer?

>>2316458
Yes.
Wouldn't you rather read something written by an actual historian?

>>2316457
test

>>2316509
I read history books more out of interest, hardly anyone on this board is a historian, however, they tell some pretty interesting stories. As long as he is not making shit up as he goes along i am alright reading what he has to say. I also suck at finding history books i enjoy, feels like a gamble every time i buy one.

>>2316448
stay mad x

>>2314681
It isn't. Almost every academic book review shits all over the book.

>>2314698
Your professor is retarded. Anthros fucking hate it.

>>2314701
It's not, everyone here is just a racist and butt hurt because it doesn't agree with them.
>dead in academia
lol no
>ornithologist.
He's a biologist.

>>2314744
Central topic is a question of why Europe conquered the world in colonial times while places like Africa and south America didn't conquer Europe.

He explains it in many different ways, mainly the various domestic animals and crops available to each region, and geographical locations allowing them to produce a more abundant civilization. For example, Europe had sheep, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc. basically every farm animal while the Americas had llamas and that's about it. Also being an east-west trader is a lot easier than a north-south trader which made commerce easier. There were many other factors just read the book. Hard to negate his view because he just hits you with point after point and argues against his would-be contractors.

>>2317305
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/search?q=guns+germs&restrict_sr=on

badhistory leans pretty left and considers it pretty garbo

>>2317305
>t. has never read an academic book review regarding GGS in their life
Surely you have access to an online journal database if you claim to know so much about how academia treats the book. Go and read for yourself. Also: Ornithologists are biologists. Diamond's specialty is ornithology.

>>2314701
A lot of leftists think it's racist actually, because it uses 19th century notions of European supremacy and superiority uncritically.

>>2316978
read A little history of the world by gombrich for a nicely laid out timeline of civilization
read a short history of nearly everything by bill bryson for a kind of insight into how each branch of science came to

these 2 and Guns germs and steel are all terrific books for a normal person, Guns germs and steel is by far the heaviest, gombrich is the best one

>>2315904
"ripped it to shreds" = insecurely whine at a far, far, FAR more successful and admired academic with vague incoherent criticism, laughable appeals to amateurish feel good philosophy like free-will over determinism, and the tried and true accusations of racisms

I do not know if it is accepted by academia or not, but Salassi's "Cataline" is the single worst book on an historical topic I have ever read. Assumes modern political motivations based on modern ideologies dictated behavior of Catalina, Cicero, et al, misreads or ignores ancient sources, and consistently makes errors of basic fact (such as confusing the meanings of patricians/plebeians with optimates/popularis.) It is the only book I have ever abandoned in mid-read.

>>2314701
It is a bad book, if for no other reason than it makes up "facts" that are asserted as true because the author wants it to be true, from the amazing wonderfulness of New Guinean society to the assumed unsuitability of many species of animal to be domesticated (some of which have since been successfully domesticated) to the implication that anybody who disagreed with his theories was probably a racist.

>>2315330
I read it as a "history of history," with a lot of value as information on how understanding and study of history has evolved. I have a "hobbyist" interest in the history of the Space Race, and read Oburg's "Red Star Rising"for the same reason--his look at what was "known" about the Soviet program in the west is fascinating as a study of how the US perceived and analyzed Soviet activities, even if much of what they thought they knew is now known to be incomplete or in error.

>>2316982
Not an argument faggot.

>>2316442
This drivel was actually accepted? I actually read it, it's a complete catastrophe of a book.

>>2314842

/this desu

>>2315816
What's so atrocious about it?

>>2314672
There's a good refutation tot his book by Scott Locklin.

>>2315936
>t. tankie
Fuck off, commie shit.

>>2319853
>I read this book some years ago, and provided many "aha" moments. Diamond's explanations are extremely compelling, even to someone with more than a passing education in history, geography and historiography. Of course, they are all a "just so" story, rather than an accurate representation of how things turned out. Geography *of course* is important in the historical development of different nations and civilizations. Is geography (along with associated factors of agricultural technology, domesticated animals and his pained explanation about why Europeans were better with guns than the Chinese who invented them) the only factor in why Western Civilization grew to dominate others? Of course it isn't. Europe had no unique access to these things: Asian civilizations had arguably superior such advantages. Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar "one factor" argument in his book "Carnage and Culture." Hanson's argument is that Westerners are simply better at war than other civilizations, because most Westerners were influenced by the Ancient Greeks, who developed a superior method of combat and of developing innovations than other nations did. Is Hanson's theory 100% the One True Answer? No, the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it's at least as important as geography. There are all kinds of "one factor" arguments possible, all of which could make for as convincing a book as this one.

>>2319900
>Victorian historians thought it was the vigor of "nordic" civilizations which made Western world domination inevitable: also convincing if that was the only book you had read on that particular day, and also ultimately deeply silly (basically, this means the West dominates because it is dominant). Other Victorian historians made out human history to be the product of great battles, all of which had a huge element of random chance. Spengler also famously thought of civilizations as "cultural organisms" which eventually get old, become frail and die, just like any other organism whose telemeres have gotten shorter. I would imagine, like in, say, finance, the actual explanation for history is kind of complicated. I bet the Greek way of war has something to do with it, along with geography, culture, the Catholic Church, language and a whole lot of random chance. It's nice to think we know exactly why something happened, but a lot of what happens in the world, especially the world of human beings, is just plain random noise. Putting one factor explanations on history as Diamond does is not particularly helpful.

>>2319902
>There is also the matter of historical perspective. Diamond writes as if everything leading up to the present time of European world cultural domination were some kind of historical inevitability, and that *of course* -thus it will always be. This is the sheerest nonsense. At various times in human history, "Western Civilization" consisted of illiterate barbarians living in mud huts. In very recent times in human history (like, say, the 1930s), it kind of looked like that's where the West was heading again. Other civilizations culturally and physically eclipsed or dominated the West through history: the Japanese, the Chinese, the Islamic civilizations, Egyptian, Assyrian, Mongolian, Persian or Russian (if you count them as different, which I do) civilizations made Western civilization irrelevant through vast swathes of human history. Such civilizations may again eclipse Western civilization. Just to take one example, the Zoroastrian Persian civilization lasted longer than Rome, covered more territory and was in many ways more advanced: they even generally beat the Romans in warfare in the middle east. Why should I privilege the Romans over the Persians, just because some nations who were rather vaguely influenced by Rome now dominate the nations who were influenced by the Persians? I privilege them because they are my cultural ancestors, though in 1000 years, the poetry of Rumi may be more important than that of Martial.

>>2319903
>Finally, there are the matters of Diamond's historical veracity and bigotry. To address the second thing first, he seems to take a sort of perverse glee in making racial pronouncements to the detriment of "Western" people. According to Diamond, Western people are dirty, and have developed special immune systems; something I find hard to believe, and doubt is backed up by anything resembling statistical fact. Why wouldn't east Asians have developed superior immune systems? They lived in cities longer than the ancestors of most Westerners. Also, according to Diamond, he can tell that the average New Guinean is "on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in things and people than the average European or American. (page 20, along with a tortured explanation of why Diamond's vacation perceptions are supposed to be superior to a century of psychometric research)" This is the sort of casual bigotry that used to inform Nordicist history about the dominance of the West, except somehow it becomes politically correct when pointed at Western people in modern times.

>>2319905
>Personally, I figure this just makes Diamond a garden variety modern bigot: a late 20th century version of a pith helmeted Kipling type who yammers on about "lesser breeds without the law." To make matters worse, he's also empirically wrong: New Guineans have an average IQ of around 85, wheras Europeans and Americans are closer to 95 or 100, depending where you look (source; wakipedia). His historical veracity leaves rather a lot to be desired as well. I don't think he actually *knows* any history, other than the type of silliness you pick up in High School history classes. Diamond is a professional zoologist by trade, and it shows. For example, his ideas about China would be laughable to a Chinese person conversant with their history. He also got some of the dates and a lot of facts wrong about the conquest of South America. Sure, lots of Aztecs and Incas died of disease: most of them *after* they were conquered by the Spaniards. In fact, the few Spaniards there were were far more afflicted by tropical diseases than were the Aztecs: this is recorded historical fact. Yet, it doesn't fit Diamond's "Westerner as plague rat" theory, so he doesn't think to bring it up. Either he learned his history of the conquest of South America in a comic book, or he's deliberately misleading the reader. This is a complete travesty, and rather indicates you shouldn't trust anything else he's stated either.

>>2319907
>When people find out I write about history, the often bring this book up. I tend to politely change the subject. Everyone who reads this book thinks they're uniquely enlightened for having read it. In reality, they've been duped by a half baked popular writer who knows very little about history, and has some very ugly views about humanity.

>>2319903
>russian civilization

>>2317787
Literally everything.

>author gets even basic civil war dates wrong and draws wrong conclusions from it
>tons of unsourced hearsay ("it is said", "they said" etc) throughout the entire book, makes you think he just outright invented many things to fit his narrative
>taking long debunked wartime Soviet propaganda at face value
>value judgements and virtue signaling out the ass, Palmer tries his hardest to portray the baron as some kind of proto-Hitler, also villifying Tibetan Buddhism for no reason
>made up assertion that Sternberg hated Slavs, with no source given (again, to fit the HE WUZ LITERALLY HITLER nonsense claim), despite him being a Russian patriot and some of his best friends being Slavs (such as the Pole Ferdynan Ossendowski)
>even despite outrageous, fictional dramatic narrative, the book's writing style is boring as shit

>>2314703
Not true. He's a geographer and anthropologist as well as ornithologist.

>>2315936
>t. Brezhnev

>>2319853
>>2319900
>>2319902
>>2319903
>>2319905
>>2319907
>>2319908
This refutation is pretty laughable. Locklin is creating the same issues that Diamond did; Diamond was not a historian and neither is Locklin. Just in this alone there is an abundant of factually incorrect information.
We all know that a lot of what Diamond says is false, but resorting to cherry picking and made up information is not the way to deal with this. Sometimes are feel like people hate Diamond so much that others will accept anything they say as fact just to discredit the man.

>>2314672
Why is it bad?

>>2314793
Look up Annales School critiques. Its been ages since I studied the historiography for it and am away from my books, so I can't give a real answer. Note that there is a significant difference between recognizing the impact of geography and geographical determinism.

Much of the critique early Annales took was that it placed geography as the only thing that had any real historical agency. Modern Annales is much more nuanced and does give more historical agency to individuals/socio-economic groups/natural disasters/accidents of fate in the face of broad geographic trends.

File: 1460747929804.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>2314672

But magical success clay explains everything. All we have to do is destroy the West so we can dig out the stolen success clay and give it back Africa to have true equality at last. Don't you want equality, justice, peace and free love?

>>2314672
I thought this was highly criticised for being left wing agenda dressed in pseudo-science

>>2319900
>explanation about why Europeans were better with guns than the Chinese who invented them
Which was?

>>2314703
well, dinosaurs WERE descended from birds, sweetie.

>>2320037
Read it, and then read an actual history book.

GGS is a propagandized version of history. It has half-truths and omissions everywhere.

>>2314672
This is a great book.

>trying to theorize human history

it's time to accept it was pretty fucking random

>>2314672
It seems to piss off both tumblr and /pol/'s narratives at the same time, so there's probably something to it.

>>2320552
It also pisses off scholars. It's just garbage.

>>2320561
But does it piss off scholars because of actual errors, or does it piss off scholars for ideological reasons (see >>2314703)? I thought it went too far in the explanations sometimes, but historical lenses are inherently all reductive or myopic in their own ways and I don't see why this one should be reviled in particular.

Name a better book about geographical influence on human history

>>2314672
What's so wrong with this book again?


I'm a pseudo-intellectual at best.

>>2320928
It has some good points to make at its base, but it's also incredibly reductionist and also gets a few facts wrong.

Also retards on one end of the spectrum hate it because they think it's spouting eighteenth century super racism while retards on the other end of the spectrum hate it because it's refuting their eighteenth century super racism.

>>2320939
From what I understand it's about how geography affected the development and general industry of different societies, no?

I think it makes logical sense that Mediterranean areas would become more developed due to climate, better access to naval trade, and a large array of nearby areas with a variety of different resources.

Is the problem with the fundamental theory itself or simply whittling it down to such a simplistic explanation like the one I just gave? Obviously I understand it's much more complex than that.

As far as political motivations go fuck that, I want to major in history once I graduate from high school and I want to try my best to not let politics cloud my judgement on these issues,

>>2320949
The retard haters are mostly for political reasons, but the academic haters are more down to a difference in worldview and the fact that the author discounts almost entirely human history in favor of treating humans like effectively robots carrying out the programming of geography and proceeding down an inevitable path.

(plebbit)/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22

That should have all you need.

>>2320994
Thanks anon, that makes more sense.


So why do normies usually eat that shit up though? Is it simply because it's easy to digest and makes them feel like they learned something?

That's how I felt reading A Short History of Nearly Everything, although as far as the accuracy of that book goes I'm entirely unsure. Bill Bryson seems to show his work and give plenty of primary sources.

>>2314712
There is no defending the shit Gibbons wrote about the Eastern Empire and I hate byzanboos. Writing in the 18th century is no excuse here.

>>2321004
It's in a book, makes some sort of sense, and conforms to their beliefs.

>>2320078
Honestly all of these "determinisms" are shit. Geographical is just the worst.
>dur dur free will or agency not real or relevant
At least the racial part has some vague predictive power to it.

File: lt.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>2321023
>and conforms to their beliefs
Except when it doesn't because people are morons.

>>2321133
I think that attacking GG&S actually helped to generate the backlash that got them to can the series, since a lot of normies read and liked the book and don't take kindly to being wildly accused of super racism for it.

Although the book is bullshit he was completely right about Anglos and the whole of Brittania they literally have a huge island

>>2317603
>some of which have since been successfully domesticated
name one

>>2314672
It isn't accepted by academia, fortunately.

>>2317305
>>2317563
>>2320610
>>>/b/

>>2320024
Nope, everything he said it's true, and that's a good analysis of Diamond's bullshit. That book is ideology-driven trash, and its fanboys should grow up and stop defending it.

>>2321133
>>2321288
This looks cringy.
What is it?

>>2315359
Why?

>>2314802
What's the alternative? Racial superiority?

>>2320446
If it's bad why should I bother reading it?

>>2320434

Europeans are innately more violent and murderous than other races. Also, race doesn't exist. Yes, GG&S argues both these points simultaneously.

>>2320442

Other way round, fucktard.

>>2320949
>From what I understand it's about how geography affected the development and general industry of different societies, no?

No. It's about how geography and geography alone determines everything about a society. This is an ideology that has been rejected as simplistic nonsense since the Victorian era.

>>2321004
>So why do normies usually eat that shit up though?

Because it's completely in harmony with modern anti-racist ideas that Europe achieved global domination thru pure luck.

File: racememe.gif (861KB, 2406x1936px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 2406x1936px

>>2323406
>race doesn't exist

>>2323425
Ever ehard of quantom mechanics? everything in the world happens thanks to pure luck.

>>2323539

You're a fucking moron. Quantum Mechanics is deterministic, no randomness or "luck" involved.

>>2314834
He's so dreamy

>>2316442
Cool cover.

>>2314672
>>2315936
This one, The Gulag Archipelago.
Political criminals being sent to work chopping wood, moving stones or mining, for minimum wage that they are paid after they go free, so they can afford a living and not be beggars.
Conditions were shit, as were across the poor country. Human life was cheap, as it was in all of Asia at the time.
Yet we look at this as if it was a facility in the middle of London, instead of as a forced labor camp for people who would otherwise been executed in the terribly poor and destroyed by war Russia.

>>2321838
>this is a poor argument because such and such
>no, fuck you, its good and its true.

How about something more than your amateur opinion to support that other guy's amateur opinion?

>>2324683
>Locklin makes an accurate analysis of the book and its shitty ideas
>a fanboy's only arguments against it is"they were both not historians" and"cherrypicking" (false, by the way)
>tell him to fuck off
>"waaah, why can't I pretend to not be called out on my bullshit, leave Diamond alone!"
Get out, faggot.

>>2324955
Jesus fuck, what a triggered post.

>>2314685
The idea of germs brought from eurasia/africa to the Americas was probably the most significant thing that led to the collapse of the cultures in America.

>>2317284
>seriously implying anthros aren't a laughing stock by themselves in academia

>seriously suggesting anybody should study anthropology in 2017

LOL

>>2314736
>WE WUZ KANGS!

>>2316457
>implying they are white

>>2314842
WHAT
Then why is he allowed to open his god damn cucked blabberbox? Holy shit, I always thought he was awful, now it turns out he's literal shit. Scum.

>>2324990
That isn't in doubt.
Almost everything else in the book, however, is.

>>2324992
t. mad that intro anthro professor called you out on racism in class

>>2325155
He does the job well enough for normies. People more interested will selve into the subjects and find better people. My only thing with him is he inserts too many jokes which is distracting and wastes time.

File: 757.jpg (56KB, 1022x547px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1022x547px

>>2320939
>retards on one end of the spectrum hate it because they think it's spouting eighteenth century super racism while retards on the other end of the spectrum hate it because it's refuting their eighteenth century super racism.

If the Sahara Desert didn't exist would the rest of Africa had developed at a comparable level to North Africa?

>>2321013
" Writing at a time where information was incredibly scarce and where it took an entire lifetime to accumulate enough sources and information to properly write about one subject. "

As many other anons have said it definitely isn't accepted. It's shit pop history. You probably assume it is accepted because your experience with "academia" is highschool teachers and reddit.

If racial realists and supremacists were allowed to have as low a standard of reasoning and argument as Diamond then their job would be significantly easier

It's confirmation bias and feelsies, the book

>>2314842
At least some pop historians like Dan Carlin explicitly state that they are just fans of history and not actual historians. This guy acts like everything he says is just accepted fact.

>>2314672
In my class this semester we're reading Origins of the Modern World by Marks.

Its just constant muh Chinese population muh Chinese manufacturing, but Europe just got lucky with their accomplishments because of their geography and natural resourcIt, oh but also they stole everything from Africa and AmErica.

>>2326723
What subject

>>2326976
Its called "global studies"

Its funny because we're reading a book written by a purely Chinese and Asian historian. The guys takes every chance he can to dismiss European accomplishments. At one point he says Europeans were "fortunate" to have church bell smiths, so that's why they were able to make better cannons than the Chinese.

So I understand diamond's arguement as to why Africans or Americans didn't conquer europe, but how does he explain why the middle east or far east never became major colonial powers?
They had many of the same science, technology, animals, crops, resources and cultural exchanges, right? It would seem to me his arguement falls apart because they not only had the supposed advantages of europe but they also had them earlier, yet they never achieved what europe did.

>>2314703
And George Miller is a Physician, so lets pretend like all the mad max movies are garbage not worth talking about.

>>2314775
It's claims that geography is what caused European success.
Now there are many things wrong with this, but diamond's book takes this school of thought to new lows.
He includes all peoples of Europe and asia as one group. He out right lies in many parts of his book, saying llamas and alpacas are the same species (there not even domesticed from the same species), claiming that certian diseases came to man from animals, despite most of them infecting humans long before the domestication of animals. he takes an absurdly simplistic view of conquest. he claims that the america's struggled because of the fact that they had a north south axis (because in his mind russia and the middle east have the exact same climate and livestock I guess). He ignores the fact that asia had the exact same advantages if not more compared to Europeans and yet they never achieved the same success. He ignores the fact that the americas have many domesticated crops, claiming they had to "struggle" with just corn.

tl;dr: Jared Dimond takes a long discredited view of history and lies, miscontries facts and ignores anything that opposes his view as he claims that Europe conquered the world because of geography.

>>2321685
Do I need to go take a picture of the American bison herd being raised for meat about 45 minutes up the road from here, or will you accept my word as a gentleman that it exists?

Sadly, the ostrich ranches around here are mostly gone -- not because keeping the birds as domesticated crop animals was impossible, but because there turned out to be no market for ostrich meat.

>>2327093
He gives his explanation about that. Something about the desertification in the Middle East and the Chinese Emperors being too insular and actually capable of extending that insularity to the whole country by dismantling the navy and forbidding further expeditions. Still doesn't explain why Korea didn't colonize.

>>2317412
That's what I had seen. I thought right wingers liked it for those reasons.

File: george gm james.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>2314736
here's a picture of the author