Good History books

[T-hawk]

I must give a contrary opinion on Jared Diamond, I found Guns, Germs, and Steel to be superficial and poorly researched, and when it did at times give a good insight, it weren't a new insight whatever he claims - basically he invented a simplified historical materialism 150 years later, and then claimed it as his own.

I'll second that caveat. Diamond totally had a premade agenda and wrote the story to that, rather than properly building the story on the research. When the research didn't back up what he wanted to say, he glossed over the gaps and hoped nobody would notice. The book still has value in exploring the topic and bringing it to popular consciousness, but it's not at all authoritative or scholarly.

[Ichabod]

I read "Guns, germs and Steel" and considered it to be very good. I'm interested in reading counterpoints to the book, if someone knows something to recommend (hopefully nothing too technical, because I'm a layman with these subjects - I know this might prove impossible). I find the subject as a whole to be extremely interesting.

[Sareln]

Dreadnought by Robert K. Maisse was just suggested to me.

[kjn]

I read "Guns, germs and Steel" and considered it to be very good. I'm interested in reading counterpoints to the book, if someone knows something to recommend (hopefully nothing too technical, because I'm a layman with these subjects - I know this might prove impossible). I find the subject as a whole to be extremely interesting.

Here are a few discussions that I've found:

By Timothy Burke (sadly unsigned)
By Jason Antrosio

FWIW, I'm pretty much a layman on history, though I consider myself a well-read layman with a decent grasp of how history as a science has developed.

[SevenSpirits]

Here are a few discussions that I've found:

By Timothy Burke (sadly unsigned)
By Jason Antrosio

Read both of those and to be honest, I don't understand the criticism very well. Maybe it's been too long since I read the book (and I was only in high school at the time) but I didn't interpret it as dismissing all other factors, just as claiming that factors X/Y/Z were important and giving examples of where he thought they had applied. Is this just a thing where scientists are annoyed by a pop-science writing style? Are some of the factors cited (e.g. availability of beasts of burden and east-west trade routes) actually wrong?

[kjn]

Read both of those and to be honest, I don't understand the criticism very well. Maybe it's been too long since I read the book (and I was only in high school at the time) but I didn't interpret it as dismissing all other factors, just as claiming that factors X/Y/Z were important and giving examples of where he thought they had applied. Is this just a thing where scientists are annoyed by a pop-science writing style? Are some of the factors cited (e.g. availability of beasts of burden and east-west trade routes) actually wrong?

Well, I think it's more a case where Guns, Gems, and Steel and its ideas on grains, livestock, and germs has become a theory for explaining all of human history for many. So it's not so much as Diamond is wrong about germs, or grains, or livestock, as that he has a tendency to dismiss most other societal factors - and his readers definitely has that tendency in spades.

If GGS hadn't been a bestseller, shaping the view of history for lots and lots of people, then it'd have given some new insights into early human culture (eg its discussion about the grains available for cultivation in different areas), but otherwise wouldn't have been much discussed within history or anthropology. But now its theories has become popular, and thus need to be discussed and its shortcoming and flaws shown - because it is providing a distorted view of history for many.

If other posters here hadn't went into the "it's great!" about the book earlier, I would never have said anything about the book.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that GGS shows a clear case of confirmation bias. Diamond picks the facts and anecdotes that supports his theses, but ignores those that refutes them or doesn't fit with them. I have no idea if this is conscious or subconscious, but it's there. The reviews of his other books other mentions this.

[Ichabod]

I'm reading the second article, but I'm a bit disappointed with it. Things like this paragraph:

"Halfway through teaching Guns, Germs, and Steel, I blurted out that it was academic porn–the costumes change, the props change, but in the end it’s the same repeated theme. I don’t think I am entirely crazy, even about the porn. After all, Diamond published two books in 1997–the other was Why Is Sex Fun? It’s as if Diamond was going for a bestseller and put two books in the stores. It seems surprising Guns, Germs and Steel became the bestseller, while Why is Sex Fun? barely left the shelves. Who knew?"

shouldn't be used in any writing that intends to be scientific. Besides, using articles with names like this ("On Haiti, Jared Diamond Hasn’t Done His Homework") as reference is just low.

And, ok, it seems the author didn't like Diamond's work because it is "environmental deterministic". So, instead of saying why "environmental determinism" is wrong, he just assumed this as a known fact (I sure would like an explanation, not even being sure about what it means, or yet, what this particular author think it means), and said Diamond tried to hide this concept into his book (assuming accepting this concept is a bad thing to do and that Diamond knows this, so he probably has an agenda behind wanting to popularize the idea).

---

Don't take this as a hit at you, kjn. And don't think I'm defendind GGS above all critics because I liked the book. But it amazes me how someone can write something trying to be scientific and do things like these...

[kjn]

I'm reading the second article, but I'm a bit disappointed with it. Things like this paragraph:

Heh. It's certainly more than a bit polemical - but then it's not written in a peer reviewed form. The article by Burke is a lot more academic (though lacking footnotes and references, so not properly academic) and precise.

And if you think academics aren't capable of high-level snark, you need to think again.

And, ok, it seems the author didn't like Diamond's work because it is "environmental deterministic". So, instead of saying why "environmental determinism" is wrong, he just assumed this as a known fact (I sure would like an explanation, not even being sure about what it means, or yet, what this particular author think it means), and said Diamond tried to hide this concept into his book (assuming accepting this concept is a bad thing to do and that Diamond knows this, so he probably has an agenda behind wanting to popularize the idea).

Environmental determinism is easily understandable from its words: it's determinism (ie things are decided beforehand without agency from the actors) based on environmental factors. In this case, Diamond manages to promote a theory of history where European dominance of the world came about from an accident of geography, and that no other factors played a part.

Which boils down to some form of manifest destiny on an even large scale. I'm not sure if Diamon set out to create such a theory, but his ideas certainly lends itself to that line of thinking.

[DaveV]

www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195210433/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1366758891&sr=8-5&pi=SL75

Darrell

I have that book already; in fact this discussion made me think I should pull it off the shelves and re-read it.

[SevenSpirits]

I'm reading the second article, but I'm a bit disappointed with it. Things like this paragraph:

I thought the same thing. For me, the article's "arguments" did more to discredit the criticism of GGS than to discredit GGS. Which I realize is unfair, since there are usually wackos in any group.