Jared Diamond

[Wrymouth3]

I think quite a bit too much of this discussion is focused on Diamond's thesis, which, even his critics will admit, is not implausible. He's not Daniel Goldhagen.

I would CERTAINLY hope no well-renowned historian or any person ever would give a thesis like Daniel Goldhagen's.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would CERTAINLY hope no well-renowned historian or any person ever would give a thesis like Daniel Goldhagen's.

Well yes, but "what's wrong with Daniel Goldhagen" is genuinely a question not worth it's own thread.

 

[North King]

That didn't actually happen. What really happened was that successive Chinese dynasties used incentives - like remission from taxes, positions in the bureaucracy, land and so forth - to "civilize" the Miao. Notable signs of civilization included a veneration of ancestors, Confucian learning, proper dress, the adoption of non-Miao languages, and adherence to Han gender and family norms. Sometimes this approach failed as in the "Great Rebellion of 1854-73. But at no stage did the Qing or any other dynasty make a conscious attempt to eradicate the Miao. Sure they beat them in battle and imposed terms designed to ensure peace and kick them along the path to civilization. But for the most part the process was peaceful and it had to be because it's surprisingly hard to inoculate cultural norms through force.

I don't see how this kind of cultural imperialism is "benign", though it's certainly a good deal less messy than the European model.

I doubt this is an accurate reading of the text, and if it is I'd be highly surprised because it seems improbable.

That is exactly what that chapter says.

I don't think you know enough about the subject matter to draw that conclusion. I also can't think of a single instance in the New World where Europeans actually managed to more or less successfully effect the cultural "conversion" of an entire group of people over a huge area to the extent that China did. I actually can't think of a single instance where Europeans decided to even try to do that on a large scale.

I don't think it's the usability of ammunition for those sorts that's even the problem. I think the problem is that he takes colonization of the Americas an absolute given in the circumstances.

The capability of a society to do something does not imply a lack of culpability. For the last time, just because someone points out the mechanisms by which one culture dominates another, it doesn't mean they are excusing the behavior of the overlord.

Even if we suggest that things were destined to end badly between Native Americans and Eurasians -- which I think is totally true; there's no way that the Columbian Exchange doesn't end in tragedy -- that doesn't suddenly mean it was a-okay for Spaniards to cut off the hands of Tainos, or for Englishmen to start the practice of scalping their enemies in the Dawnlands, or for Americans to systematically rape the women of pretty much every Plains Indian tribe on their way across the continent. There is some abandonment of human agency in that there is literally no way that a human society -- even a utopian one -- could have made the Columbian Exchange not end with utter catastrophe.

But there's a huge amount of agency buried within, because the way Europeans used those mechanisms to extirpate and replace their counterparts across the Atlantic is utterly unacceptable. That a European had guns, had caravels, and came across the ocean bearing presents of smallpox and ecological demolition machines is completely understandable, and for the most part can be derived from environmental factors that were out of anyone's control. That, to this day, they have used those guns to force Native Americans onto reservations, or into parallel economic structures, or the forests, or what have you -- that no truly Native society survived past 1900 -- that the way we deal with racism against Native Americans in the USA is to poo-poo the idea that it's even an important issue... all of that is on Europeans, and a million mea culpas on my part or Jared Diamond's part or large segments of the whole race won't fix that.

What his thesis is supposed to do -- and by and large, in my opinion and many others, does do -- is relentlessly attack the idea that one race or the other is intrinsically superior to the other, either based on genetics or culture. To think that in the face of implicitly racist arguments, a geographically deterministic one is somehow "colonial apologism" is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

All this is not to say that large pieces of this argument haven't been made better in other places. The Native American piece, and in particular the disease piece, has been explained a hundredfold better in the popular 1491, while his examination of the ecological factors that enabled European success were done rather better by Crosby in Ecological Imperialism. But the fact that people continually attack him over very minor differences -- or call him some sort of apologist -- when the major popular alternatives are trash like Carnage in Culture is irksome.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The capability of a society to do something does not imply a lack of culpability. For the last time, just because someone points out the mechanisms by which one culture dominates another, it doesn't mean they are excusing the behavior of the overlord.

I didn't say anything about culpability. My point was that Jared Diamond's thesis has nothing to do with explaining the mechanisms for the development of colonialism, and that he takes colonialism as a natural given that needs no mechanism, only an opportunity.

Though I do find it very strange that you insist Diamond is only providing mechanisms for the development of colonialism, and Louis XXIV insists Diamond isn't interested in discussing those mechanisms at all.

To think that in the face of implicitly racist arguments, a geographically deterministic one is somehow "colonial apologism" is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

But I explictly stated I don't think Diamond is a colonial apologist.

 

[cybrxkhan]

trash like Carnage in Culture is irksome.

Good lord, I just looked that up and...

[insert relevant meme picture expressing... Whatever]


Well, I'll just say I'd rather have Diamond be taught in History 101 than that trash. And as mentioned I don't even fully agree with Diamond anyways. (Though I do wish to mention I don't think he is racist or a colonial apologist - far from that - but I do think his ideas could easily be used by colonial apologists.)


Edit: of course I have not read Carnage in Culture, but judging from the summaries and praises/criticisms of it, I can tell right off the bat this is a heavy pro-eurocentrist argument with that, one that is intentionally eurocentrist unlike Diamond

 

[North King]

I didn't say anything about culpability. My point was that Jared Diamond's thesis has nothing to do with explaining the mechanisms for the development of colonialism, and that he takes colonialism as a natural given that needs no mechanism, only an opportunity.

I did go off on a tangent. But I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part.

Though I do find it very strange that you insist Diamond is only providing mechanisms for the development of colonialism, and Louis XXIV insists Diamond isn't interested in discussing those mechanisms at all.

*shrug*

But I explictly stated I don't think Diamond is a colonial apologist.

I get that. I'm responding to more than one person.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You know, if we're drawing things down to this, we have a rather obvious thesis (Native Americans offered less military resistance to Europeans because of the devastating effects of disease and having a lower population), combined with shoddy research in the specifics, we've got a recipe for a rather terrible, unimportant book.

I don't think it's that conclusion that's important, but his theories for the mechanisms leading to it. The North-South axis slowing down agricultural development and the lack of domesticatable animals (combined with argument that it doesn't take much to make an animal difficult to domesticate and the theory that humans killed off wild horses, etc. in North America) are the two biggest things - the latter explaining disease in addition.

I'll admit that I might have overstated the emphasis on the macro, but things are never at the micro level. The Bantu migrations is about as specific as he seems to speak confidently. Then again, he admittedly takes a stab at China and a stab at explaining the ethnic origins of the Japanese, but the former seems to be done to encourage others to take a stab at it and the latter seems to lack empirical data to confirm or deny his hypothesis.

If I figure out what the hell I did with my copy, I'll actually quote him. I'm not even all that concerned with whether people agree with his theories, but there does seem to be a basic lack of understanding of what he actually wrote. To me, that's at least a basic requirement to criticize an author.

 

[Masada]

Masada already showed an example of Easter Island whose tragedy of the commons narrative is being questioned

The traditional narrative is dead, it isn't being questioned

I don't see how this kind of cultural imperialism is "benign", though it's certainly a good deal less messy than the European model.

I don't much like Imperialism however you split it. But that approach is hilariously quaint and benign when compared to the usual European modus operandi of kill, kill, enslave, enslave, kill some more, rinse and repeat.

That is exactly what that chapter says.

Then the chapter likely isn't correct.

The capability of a society to do something does not imply a lack of culpability.

Winner was basically arguing that. So yeah. Thanks for making my case for me

I didn't say anything about culpability. My point was that Jared Diamond's thesis has nothing to do with explaining the mechanisms for the development of colonialism, and that he takes colonialism as a natural given that needs no mechanism, only an opportunity.

I actually find it telling that people here accept colonialism as natural and sort of worrying at the same time because it was historically speaking very unusual in the sense that the factors that underpinned were so unusual. A technological edge. Institutionalized racism. Etc.

 

[Mouthwash]

I actually find it telling that people here accept colonialism as natural and sort of worrying at the same time because it was historically speaking very unusual in the sense that the factors that underpinned were so unusual. A technological edge. Institutionalized racism. Etc.

Then how do you explain this blue-colored world?

(Yes, it includes the Ottoman empire and has its fair share of errors, but it gets the point through).

 

[North King]

I think he means it's localized more temporally than locationally.

Which is true, if you're referring to colonialism in particular.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think he means it's localized more temporally than locationally.

Which is true, if you're referring to colonialism in particular.

Yeah, I suppose vast technological disparities and racism were never a factor in Australia or Asia or Africa or South America.

 

[North King]

Yeah, I suppose vast technological disparities and racism were never a factor in Australia or Asia or Africa or South America.

What?

That's the exact opposite of what I just said.

Colonialism as a package is a recent thing, but it obviously spread pretty far.

 

[cybrxkhan]

One thing I would like to have seen Diamond investigate more was Japan, particularly early modern. Japan and Meiji-era Japan. I understand Diamond's focus is mainly the pre-modern era, but I believe Japan is crucial to this issue since it was in my opinion the only non-European state to successfully engage in Wuropean-style imperialist shenanigans (along with the racism), as well as industrialize and "modernize" to become an important part of the world economy (before WWII at least). Additionally a number of trends and events in Japanese history, so one of my professors have implicitly hinted, especially around the Sengoku and early Tokugawa eras, have interesting similarities with that of Europe. In a sense it provides us with the most solid case of a non-European state more or less matching up to the "West", which is why I consider it important here.

 

[Gucumatz]

I don't remember if Diamond looked at Japan in GGS. You are right though - I am curious how the fauna in Japan stacked up relatively - I suspect/guess from a purely deterministic stance the environment in Japan wouldn't be enough compared to criteria examined by Diamond to suggest it should have been able to do what it did. I suspect he would also argue the North/South element played some factor too on why the uneven population occurred on some of the islands [I wonder if he would apply the same logic to Scotland too - to explain (some) of its results.]

 

[dutchfire]

I actually find it telling that people here accept colonialism as natural and sort of worrying at the same time because it was historically speaking very unusual in the sense that the factors that underpinned were so unusual. A technological edge. Institutionalized racism. Etc.

I quite agree with a lot of the things you are saying in this thread, but what exactly do you mean by colonialism here? Colonies also existed e.g. in antiquity and with the Vikings, didn't they?

 

[North King]

I don't remember if Diamond looked at Japan in GGS. You are right though - I am curious how the fauna in Japan stacked up relatively - I suspect/guess from a purely deterministic stance the environment in Japan wouldn't be enough compared to criteria examined by Diamond to suggest it should have been able to do what it did. I suspect he would also argue the North/South element played some factor too on why the uneven population occurred on some of the islands [I wonder if he would apply the same logic to Scotland too - to explain (some) of its results.]

It's not really relevant. The fauna and flora in Japan -- the ones most impactful on humans, anyway -- are almost entirely borrowed from mainland Eurasia. The factors that made Japan a technological giant compared to its immediate neighbors are owed mostly to contingency rather than geography. Diamond's geographic determinism is only really applicable on a very large scale -- we're talking continents here.

I quite agree with a lot of the things you are saying in this thread, but what exactly do you mean by colonialism here? Colonies also existed e.g. in antiquity and with the Vikings, didn't they?

Colonies aren't colonialism. Colonialism refers to a very specific bundle of beliefs and practices -- essentially that Europe (and Japan, and perhaps a few others) viewed themselves as racially superior to the rest of the world, and used their technological superiority to subjugate and exploit other peoples, justifying it all along by pointing out how they were "bringing civilization to the savages" or that "this is the natural order of things" or what have you. Viking colonies rarely carried that racial component; they were mostly the product of wanting a place to plop down and start trading, or of finding literally uninhabited land. Greek/Roman colonies... I'm not going to bother speaking to them because I'll probably say something stupid; antiquity isn't my strong point, but I can say that they didn't carry the racial component.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, basically what NK said. Colonialism and, to some extent, Imperialism are historical aberrations.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Greek colonies in Italy (Magna Graeca) didn't carry a religious component, but they did carry a belief that Heracles had blazed their path and, because of that, they had a superior right to take the land (they likewise took land in Sicily under a similar justification and pushed out the Sicels). They didn't have technological superiority, of course, but I don't think it was devoid of elements that could be compared to later colonialism and imperialism (fwiw, when talking about the racial component, it's better to talk about Imperialism, because the colonization of the New World didn't quite have those components either, at least not initially and perhaps only as a backwards justification after it had already been done).

 

[Gucumatz]

Yea racial components in general in the Americas really only came into significant play - to later control populations

 

[North King]

Greek colonies in Italy (Magna Graeca) didn't carry a religious component, but they did carry a belief that Heracles had blazed their path and, because of that, they had a superior right to take the land (they likewise took land in Sicily under a similar justification and pushed out the Sicels). They didn't have technological superiority, of course, but I don't think it was devoid of elements that could be compared to later colonialism and imperialism (fwiw, when talking about the racial component, it's better to talk about Imperialism, because the colonization of the New World didn't quite have those components either, at least not initially and perhaps only as a backwards justification after it had already been done).

You can make the argument that the very first part of the colonization of the Americas didn't have a racial component, but from at least the mid-1500s on it was incredibly racialized, especially outside of the former Aztec and Inca Empires.