/his/ books

>>2763246
>DUDE LUCK LMAO

Uh, that's racist, gender-nonspecific comrade

>>2763265
wat

>>2763246
Racist garbage

>>2763406
why is it racist?

what are you talking about, /his/ hates that book.

>>2763419
The left, the right,/his/, academics,/pol/ and sjw all hate that book. But for different reasons.

WHY IS THIS BOOK RACIST? SOMEBODY ANSWER ME.

File: b9c.jpg (54KB, 680x598px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 680x598px

>>2763427
>tfw to intelligent to dislike that book

>>2763246
Historically illiterate, pseudoscientific, and opinionated without any expertise or credibility?
Yep, sounds like /his/ to me

>>2763463
>>2763427
>>2763419
>>2763252

Can I get a quick rundown on why this book sucks so much?

>>2763468
The whole premise is that Europeans are so powerful because they got lucky with where they are, not anything biological, cultural, or anything else.

I don't think he ever brings up China, the Incans or the Middle East at all

>>2763468
Because it tries to explain a complex issue (why/how didd civilizations develop so differently) relying on only one variable/explanation. Geographic determinism.

>>2763480
Well, to be more precise it says that europe's culture, genes and everything else are a product of their geography

>>2763480
>biological
>>/pol/

>>2763468
Because people get triggered when books say European's aren't innately better.

Just look at these comments
>>2763480
>>2763482
>>2763486
, these people haven't even read the book, they just parrot the talking point or base their judgements upon reading a 2 paragraph synopsis and this type of thread is usually skewed where only about 5-10% of the criticism is actually well founded and deserved (and don't get me wrong, this book deserves a lot of criticism).

>>2763494
Then explain how you know I didn't read the book

No it's just an attempt to explain Euopean achievement.

It leaves out critical social factors and events in a reductionist effort.

That's pretty much it. Plebs cling to it like a bible though. Plebs like op I suppose

>>2763499
Well which comment is yours?
The one about only geographic determinism being the variable or the one where it says he doesn't talk about the middle east and incans at all?

Because, he does talk extensively about those regions.

And although biodiversity is in a way related to geograhical location, he specifically tries to separate the factors.

Too bad he doesn't even attempt to isolate his case from socio-economic factors in a methodologically satisfactory way.

File: 220px-Le_Livre_noir_du_communisme.jpg (16KB, 220x342px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x342px

No, this book is more meritorious of such title.