Guns Germs and Steel

[mindtonic]

Did anyone watch it last night? After reading the book, I was a little dissappointed with it. They seemed to skip a lot of the points that I found to be important to his central thesis.

Oh, well, there's still two more episodes to come.

[FishSeller]

What is it about?

[mindtonic]

This guy seems to have constructed a working theory as to why certain populations of the world grew out of the stone age and developed faster than others. IE: Why did the people of the middle east and Europe begin farming, building cities............climaxing at the wonder that is our current technological society, and others, like sub saharan africa, parts of the pacific rim, and the new world, seem to get such a slow start, or never get out of the starting gate at all?

In his theory, it turns out that the largest factor was geography, and the biology of the plants and animals whithin that geography that determined who developed GUNS, which cultures developed immunities to particular GERMS, and who developed STEEL--all of which he says were determining factors over which cultures rose and conquered the "lesser" peoples of the world.

It was a very interesting read, and I've seen some other AC members reference the book in a few other threads. The book was turned into a three part series that is being aired on PBS.

[FishSeller]

I've read about that before. If I'm not mistaken, it's basic Anthropology. I'm not at all saying this guy is wrong, but you see what I'm getting at. However, it is interesting that many of the people in hunter/gatherer societies were barely beginning to combine metals when they were scooped up by colonists with guns, put onto ships, navagated through the ocean, and sold into slavery. On the other hand, look at some of the oldest civilizations. It seems as if many of these groups are moving backwards.

[mindtonic]

It is basic anthropology to a point. But, in my limited understanding of anthropology, having only ever had a 101 class in college fifteen years ago, it doesn't explain why, say the Inca never rose to the same level of sophistication as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. Farming arose in sub-sahara Africa not long after it did in the fertile crescent and egypt, yet their culture never rose to the same levels either.

This book (and I hope the PBS series as well) offers the best layman's terms explaination I've seen.

For instance, why did civilization spread so far so quickly in Europe and Asia, yet, in the new world, there were only relatively small pockets of civilization at the time that Europeans arrived? Consider the geographical axis of each region. Euraisa runs along an east-west axis. People could easily replant crops a thousand miles east or west of their point of original point of domestication because in an east-west axis because a large stretch of geography was located within the same latitudes--crops could adapt easily as they moved east and west because the basic climate did not change. It's no wonder that Egypt, Greece, and Rome developed robust civilizations beecause high volume crops domesticated in the middle east could grow easily in these regions.

The Americas, in contrast, have a north south geographical axis. Maze (corn) was originally domesticated in central america. But because of the geographical axis of the two continents, to go from North to South, a crop would have to pass through several different climate zones to travel the axis. It would take many years and a concerted effort to grow a sub tropical crop in each succeeding climate zone.

Through competition and trade, the Eurasian civilizations were able to collectively pool their technologies and advance. Growth was much slower in the Americas because sustainable, high volume agriculture spread much slowere here.

[FishSeller]

I see exactly what you're saying. Isn't the Unite States longer than it is wider, though? I guess mountains come into play, however, there is a several thousand mile stretch between the Appalachians and the Rockies... I guess it's not as uniform as other regions though. Soil changes pretty drastically here.

[mindtonic]

Sure, the U.S. is wider than taller, but there were originally no high volume sustainable crops indigenouse here. The main staple of the advanced new world societies was maze, which was found initially in central america and southern mexico. Even the climate of the south west is significantly different from that of centtral america. It took centuries or longer for maze and corn to become suited to even our most southern climates. By the time europeans arrived, the native americans of the U.S. were, for all intents and purposes just getting started in agriculture.

[anonapersona]

I read it after my daughter had to read it for AP History. Great book, took it on vacation and had a few adults walk up to converse about it.

I was impressed with the method used to test the theories, comparing several theories to actual results in island population of, what?, Indonesia?, I've forgotten what islands were discussed.

I can't imagine a movie doing the subject well, it is just too vast. And the repetition the author uses to build upon his point is great, really drives home the concept, seeing it from a few different angles.

Re: Africa, the problem there and in the Americas was the lack of large domesticable amimals, the beasts of burden, required to vault to high civilization. The ox and horse were just so great, the water buffalo was nothing in comparison, and you can't teach a zebra nothin'! And then there was the communication factor, when vast plains existed with only miles to separate most peoples, the trade and conflict sharpened skills. Traveling over mountains or agricultural zones north or south, where familiar crops would not grow, meant that peoples were inclined to stay in place. But with no new blood, there was little growth. Nor was there the innoculation toward foreign germs that travelers (who survived) developed. So, when travelers did arrive, it was a classic case of Darwinism, the strong more adapted survived. Isolated people were like the hot-house rose, beautiful and unique, but easily vanquished but diseases.

What hapened to the American horse? You'd expect one to have developed, but it went out with the arrival of the Clovis Hunters. The isolated pre-horse was too easily overpowered by traveling hunters using skills and tools not seen before, the native animals didn't know to be wary, like the european animals had grown to be, as the local hunters developed the skills and tools locally on local animals who learned to adapt to survive. Then, fast forward, with no horse, crossing mountains is too hard to do, you can't carry enough food and it won't grow.

Really a great book. Ought to be required reading for Everyone!

[ash]

The tenants of the book are in step with basic anthropology- I have not read it but I think we actually have a copy here somewhere. The husband and I were both anthropology majors.

[StreetCypher]

Awesome book,
my friends who were forced to read it for a class couldn't believe i read it in my spare time.