Guys, I finished Manufacturing Consent and Guns Germs and Steel

>>9930616
good goy.

>>9930618
/thread

File: 1345028219316.jpg (21KB, 400x405px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x405px

>>9930616

I've read them. I'm actually not sure you have, considering the initially dismissive, ironic, and derogatory tone you're taking with them.

I found Guns Germs and Steel to be well informed and researched for the broad proportion, but disagree with the prevalence he gives to supposedly biasing facets such as the primary axis of individual continents.

As far as Manufacturing Consent, it's 80% Chomsky. Which to me means 90s intellectualism for the lowest common denominator, that we take for granted and obvious in our everyday lives.

You seem to want to make a point about the two works. What?

>>9930616
>if you haven't read two extremely popular books written to appeal to the idiot masses then you're a pleb

>>9930616
Fuck white ppl

File: 1340411367484.gif (407KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 250x250px

>>9930670

Yes, my Walmart cashier is going to read a book about 12,000 B.C. food production and another on media response, organization, and profitability.

Yes, the idiot masses picking up my trash on Tuesdays are going to want to hear about how Polynesian islands differed in hunter gatherer mentalities or farming depending on climate.

These books are obviously below such lofty intellects as yourself, on par with John Greene and Dean Koontz.
In all honestly, tossing a book because you've been biased is the least effective response. It is far better to actively read people and perspectives you disagree with, to better understand the mechanics of their thought and why they believe what they believe. In the case of at least Guns, Germs, and Steel, they use anthropological record and historical fact as a basis of relatively fair analysis. You not reading that does not make you superior.

>>9930754
>Yes, my Walmart cashier is going to read a book about 12,000 B.C. food production and another on media response, organization, and profitability.
No, but your tenured professor probably won't have read them either.
Middlebrow. That's what you are.

>>9930754
I actually have read both books. I'm commenting on the fact that you ascribe some sort deep intellectual content to two widely-read middebrow brooks.

And by the way, Guns, Germs, and Steel has been thoroughly debunked:
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_3_collision_at/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2cfhon/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_11_lethal_gift_of/

File: 1342630783177.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>9930765

The exact quote was idiot masses. You've upgraded from "This book is for drooling idiots." To "This book is for everyone below the intellect of a University Professor I've never met, with whom I am at least on par."

My tenured professors in Anthropology, Sociology, Linguistics, and Communications*, have probably read them all, but that's not my department. I can confirm that my neuroscience professor has read GGS, but started me on the idea that Chomsky is low-grade.

You're beginning with a holier than thou rhetoric with what are essentially two respected proto-academic books.

>>9930776

Deep? I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm ascribing content, and the fact that reading people you disagree with at minimum gives you a better understanding of their framework. Thank you for the sources though, I'll see what they have to say. Forgive me if I'm initially skeptical of two Reddit links as a debunking.

he's a fucking retard. he's starting with a premise and certain biases and working his way backwards to fit a political narrative.

at the end of the day, european cultures were better suited to world domination than their chinese or indian counterparts. eastern cultures were simply too stagnant and self-involved, despite the fact that in terms of population, resources, technology, and economy, they were light years ahead of Europe for centuries.

diamond's theories work somewhat well to explain why the old world dominated the new world, but even a fucking idiot could see that smallpox worked to a great advantage for the Europeans, and it doesn't explain why europe dominated india and china, where they were at a severe disadvantage initially but pulled ahead and colonized the world.

ultimately its a postcolonial propaganda piece but fails in many ways and achieves very little as a unifying historical theory.

Welcome to /lit/ OP, congrats on reading two books.
Society of the Spectacle might be a good next step from the Chomsky.

OP here. I only skimmed those two Reddit posts but damn, how can I even trust history books?

What do you think of the condensed argument, as presented in the epilogue? Pretty much a continent's good crops and animals determine its ability to form large agricultural society, plus the continent's size, east-west spread, and ability to get stuff from other continents all help precipitate the sparks and speed up the advancement of societies.

What is wrong with the above? I know it's reductive. Culture matters but it matters anywhere but you can factor it in to the above (as level of competition). On the other hand, Eurasia is a huge fucking thing that may make a mess of the whole need for the theory.

I only called you guys plebs because I've been posting recently about hating the feeling of having to read books for pseud cred. I thought you guys would recognise me.

Manufacturing consent's propaganda model is trivial and unnecessary. I honestly lost track of events later in the book. They didn't bother explaining much and the last 10 or so pages was Chomsky defending himself in some Cambodian genocide dispute (that I had heard of before but would've been even more confused if I hadn't)

To be honest, I do not like non fiction as reading experiences. They are written as information dumps for other academics, not books to be read through for entertainment. I knew I'd not enjoy both books because they could be easily summarised. I read for pseud cred.

File: 1356843851044.jpg (50KB, 457x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 457x500px

>>9930776

Thoughts in response to the first link:

The author takes critically to Diamond, which is painfully obvious. Probably hates him. Cites that his fame was inappropriate and accidental a few times, which was noticeable enough for me to question his motivations in writing the piece but that doesn't get to the meat of it.

What he is essentially complaining about is that Diamond distorted history by ignoring individual agency in the formation and movements of society. He further goes on to explain away consensus as hysteric fervor for a popular work. That the consensus is itself is a cancer of the original. Most importantly, the author provides no alternate or even remotely viable alternative for the problems addressed in GGS, despite claiming the existing explanations insufficient.

I don't understand why the author believes human agency as the ultimate deciding factor in human colonization, and I have a great example to prove, with Japan. After Europeans first made contact with the island nation, there was a political closure of ports and trrade with the outside, namely western world. Only the Dutch really had access. They were responsible, made no move to conquer, merely do good business. Then, the British, Russians, and Americans kicked the door in.

Agency matters little. The Dutch didn't kick the door in, so the British did. If Spain hadn't toppled the Inca it would have been the French or the British.

On to the Reddit articles, but I do have to get dinner with other humans at some point. I'd actually just like to say again, thank you for the reading material. Makes me think about my position quite a bit more.