Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: critiche ad "armi acciaio e malattie" : Politically correct nonsense

vi riporto qualche parere sul libello pseudoscientifico di Diamond
A reader from Indianapolis , July 7, 1999  
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a political treatise, not science. 
Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, is based on a premise which is
undoubtedly correct, that geography has affected history. Unfortunately for
readers who expected a sholarly treatment of the subject, the book only serves
to detail the author's prejudices. Perhaps the book was written with college
freshmen in mind as the audience; it is doubtful anyone else would be impressed
with the author's very selective use of facts, his unproven assertions, or his
hysterical invective against Europeans, however politically correct that
literary style is at present. The author cannot even mention European explorers
without placing quotation marks around the word "explorers". In the absence of
any evidence of objectivity, it is difficult to take seriously any of his
assertions. Repetitious in the extreme, the book is by no means worth the time. 
questo parere mi e' piaciuto particolarmente :  
"in assenza di ogni prova di obbiettivita' e'  difficile prendere seriamente
ognuna di queste asserzioni" 
p...@parc.xerox.com
 from Palo Alto , July 14, 1999  
No original contributions, poorly written 
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" correctly suggests that environment is
a major factor in the development of human societies. But his dismissal of all
other factors involved and his inconsistent use of examples to suggest his
arguements without any balanced discussion trouble this reader. The most
valuable part of the book is "further readings." He cites the excellent work by
the Cavalli-Sforzas on paleobotany and a number of works on the effects of
disease on human society. Read the references; ignore this book. 
Adm...@aol.com
 from Bremerton, Washington , July 8, 1999  
Flawed premise 
I prefer great historical fiction like "The Triumph and the Glory" to history
tomes and this book is a classic reason why that is the case. Dry, pedantic at
times, unforgiveably dense, Guns, Germs, and Steel was a great disappointment.
One can learn far more from well-crafted classic novels than preachy,
agenda-directed works like this one from Diamond. 
A reader from Chicago , June 9, 1999  
huh? 
It is difficult to believe that the Pulitzer committee would give its prize to
such an haphazard collection of wild speculations and outlandish conclusions.
Diamond's own political agenda is his business. But passing this book off as
some sort of 'scientific' support of those misguided ideals goes beyond the
pale. I only hope that anyone else reading this tripe will see through it as
easily.
A reader from PITTSBURGH,PA. , November 21, 1998  
AMBIGUOUS AND UNRELIABLE 
IF GUNS AND GUNPOWDER WERE SO IMPORTANT FOR THE SUBJUGATION OF EUROPE, THEN HOW
DID THE ROMANS DO IT WITHOUT THESE TOOLS 1000 YEARS EARLIER 
   reader from Ann Arbor, Michigan , July 21, 1999  
Engaging in parts, but quite overrated 
Having read several of Diamond's previous books, I was pleasantly surprised by
this one -- though largely for avoiding the obvious faults of those other works.
Diamond's writings are remarkably repetitive, and he is conspicuously lacking in
the 'ear' that makes the work of, for example, James Gleick so extraordinary.
This book has been praised to the skies by two types of people: those knowing
little of science (so that they think this is it), and those who know that
Diamond has his science correct in broad outline and are glad to see even this
velveetized version of it achieve popularity.
As a substitute for closely-reasoned historical analysis or an impartial
rendering of a difficult interdisciplinary scientific enterprise, this falls far
short of what might be expected to garner a Pulitzer Prize (something denied the
infinitely superior 'Feynman' of Gleick, or Kanigel's book on Ramanujan). As
perfect fodder for condensation, one hopes Diamond could write a 16-page version
of his thesis, which could be compressed to this extent and lose little in the
way of completeness.  
  A reader from Seattle, Washington , July 21, 1999  
Pulitzer? 
Fertile Land=Agriculture and Domesticated Animals=Stored Food=Craftsmen and
Politicians=Weapons and Technology=Exploration and Conquest. How profound!
Wasn't that part of Anthropology 101 when I took it 30 years ago? I should have
known better than to slog thorough this tome once the author (scientist?)
speculated that the people of New Guinea were more intelligent than Eurasians
because they were naturally selected for intelligence while Eurasians were only
naturally selected for immunity to disease. That was right after he ridiculed
and condemned as a racist anyone who suggests there might be intellectual
differences between racial groups. Incredible. Poorly written, repetitive and
unoriginal. The Pulitzer committee (and Bill Gates) should be embarrassed. It's
the last time a Pulitzer will influence my selection of a book. 
A reader from U.S.A. , April 16, 1999  
Politically correct nonsense 
So Diamond tells us that some societies (i.e., European) advanced further than
others (i.e., Native American, Asian, African,etc.) because they, the Europeans,
became involved in farming sooner and thereby developed cohesive societies
sooner. What's more these European societies also defeated other peoples by
bringing diseases with them. I think Diamond, a physiologist. is out of his
depth. Why did Britain conquer India? Indians were certainly more resistant to
diseases in India. And during the Indian Mutiny they had rifles and cannon just
like the outnumbered British. The Spanish conquistadors defeated the Aztecs and
Incas from the very first contact, long before disease played any role.
Agriculture began in Mesopotamia long before it began in Europe. The Mongols
conquered China and half of Europe and they were a nomadic, non-agricultural
people. African tribal societies had farming and domesticated animals for
centuries before the Europeans arrived. I could go on. Diamond's book is full of
holes. Whether we should discuss colonial conquest on a moral plane is another
matter, but Europeans and by extension the United States achieved dominance
through other reasons than just having the right plants and grasses. 
mc...@aol.com
 from Jackson, Mississippi , July 24, 1998  
Location, Location, Location -- Not! 
Jared Diamond is a wordsmith -- that is the only reason I gave his latest
revisionist effort any stars at all. Not to be trite, but the gushy liberal
propaganda Diamond expounds on in Guns, Germs, and Steel is nothing more than
the latest in a long line of assaults on "Euroasian" culture perpetrated by
bleeding-heart academic types absurdly trying to apologize for some of
humanity's greatest successes -- in this case civilization. What a load.
According to Diamond, intelligence, the preponderant factor in most beings'
success or failure, does not count for much where humans are concerned. Instead,
our "progress" has hinged solely on where we built our campfires. Hard work had
nothing to do with it. Who knew? By the way, Diamond's romantic notion (and
secondary theme) that native New Guineans are "... on the average more
intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and
people around them than the average European! or American ..." is obvious
foolishness and a plain silly statement to make. Whatever happened to common
sense? Who hired Diamond at UCLA? This joker is teaching our children for
goodness sake!!! How on earth did this junk ever win the Pulitzer Prize? Diamond
is our generation's Margaret Mead. I mean that in a bad way, for those of you
who are still being indoctrinated with Mead's
discredited-but-politically-correct, feel-good claptrap. Besides the remarkably
similar flaws in their work, Diamond also characterizes anyone who diagrees with
him as "racist," much in the same vein Mead & Co. characterized her detractors.
For a far better read on the development of our world, check out Thomas Cahill's
now-classic How the Irish Saved Civilization, or his most recent work, The Gifts
of the Jews. Either one of these books contains more insights on a single page
than all of Diamond's writings put together. 
A reader from new york , July 6, 1999  
not so hot 
i found the book unenlightening, ploddingly written, and agenda-ridden. diamond
has some contributions to make, but his book is deterministic, p.c., and
self-congratulatory -- ie., very '60s. '60s folks looking for some "science" to
back up their prejudices should be happy with the book. readers looking for the
science and the thinking to take precedence may be disappointed.
as diamond presents his thesis about geography's impact on the development of
civilizations, it doesn't just condition human existence, it determines it, it
explains everything. a little modesty wouldn't have hurt. and isn't it worth at
least toying with ideas of this sort, for example: that the reason a group of
hunter-gatherers didn't become farmers was because they chose not to? diamond
doesn't once, that i recall, discuss the question of human preferences and
choices. evidently for him they count for nothing.
diamond's p.c. agenda seemed to me to distort his thought processes. for
example, he denounces anyone who makes the claim that one population group may
be more intelligent or gifted in some way than another -- fine. but then he goes
on to confide that he thinks the new guineans he knew were smarter than
europeans. ooops. he thinks he's scored a point. but didn't he, or his editor,
notice a little logic problem here? invasions and migrations of populations are
matters of fact for diamond -- until it's europeans doing the invading or
migrating, at which time they're described as murderous. all of which -- and
much more -- made me conclude that diamond is more intent on fitting his many,
many facts and occasional not-bad idea into a p.c. scheme than he is on trying
to make a little sense out of history and life.
and as a writer for the general audience, diamond is only passable -- not in a
class with e.o. wilson, or pinker, or paul davies. overall, a disappointment. 
miles....@westmerchant.co.uk
 from London, England , June 2, 1998  
Cogent but incomplete account of economic disparities 
Diamond's self-confessed mission is to dispel racially deterministic accounts of
economic disparity, as well as to aim off culturally deterministic explanations,
which he sees as stalking horses for racism. This gets him into diffculties, as
he is not always able to stick to his own line: thus, he argues that (eg)
Australian Aborigines pursued an optimal developmental course in light of the
limits they faced from the lack of domesticable plants and animals; but he also
suggests that China's loss of leadership to Europe in the modern era may be
explained by its greater centralisation. This is at best inconsistent.
It also points up the central failing of the book, as for all that it presents a
compelling explanation of the advantages of Eurasia as a cradle of development,
it fails to answer "Yali's question", offering little to explain how one rather
than another part of Eurasia (ie, Northwestern Europe (and latterly its cultural
successor, North America) rather than the Mediterranean, Levant, Indian
subcontinent, or China) has prevailed in the last five hundred years and why the
character of its dominance has been so overwhelming. Presumably this is because
any attempted explanation would take Diamond further down the culturally
deterministic road he prefers not to travel. For a powerful answer to the
question shirked by Diamond, see "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations", David S
Landes, W W Norton, 1998, which takes the strongly "culturist" line which seems
to me inescapable. 
A reader from USA , July 13, 1999  
I guess some folks don't have the patience 
I think some of the reviewers here didn't read the book closely enough to
understand the context of some of Diamond's arguments. He never says that
biogeographical effects are the ONLY causes history. His main purpose is the
search for the ultimate, extremely general causes for the broadest of trends in
human history and prehistory. 
By the time the Mongols roared across Asia, or the Moguls invaded India, many
cultures around the world already changed so much that bioregional factors,
though seminal in the creation of these broadest trends, weren't nearly as
important as the political, religious and economic ones. He is not ignoring
religion and so on but, he states plainly several times that isn't his focus. He
is looking for ultimate causes--before humans had extremely advanced mental
concepts like religion.
He also wanted to point out the devastating influence of disease on history. It
was surely the European germs that did most of the conquering of Native
Americans. The guns and horses were almost incidental. Later on, once Europeans
had established themselves, then we can focus on economic and political systems.
But we can't ignore the effects of the diseases unleashed on the Americas. These
plagues gave the Europeans a very lucky boost that catapulted them beyond the
wealth and power of China, India or the Middle East--long before the Industrial
Revolution made this gap obvious.
Another thing that some people seem to be having trouble with is his assertions
about the native intelligence of tribal peoples around the world. (If you read
the book, you notice that he is not just saying this about the New Guineans.)
He takes pains to point out what he means by this. He not talking about some
mysterious genetic superiority of tribal peoples. It's all straight up culture.
Tribal culture forces people to be better generalists than they'd have to be in
literate civilizations. They can't rely on embedded support structures like
books for memory or experts for obscure fields. They have to be pretty good at a
lot things. Otherwise they die. They have to be better at memorizing things
because they can't count on computers or books to remember things for them.
Living in a dangerous, wild environment makes them cautious and aware of all
that is going on around them. That was all he meant. The circumstance of tribal
peoples force them, only in very broad ways and only on an individual basis, to
be smarter and more curious than civilized people. 
And in the end it does them no good. Because civilized societies are SMARTER
than tribal societies. That is why tribal society has been steadily disappearing
over the millenia. They just can't compete. 
Finally, of course the book is repetitive. In fact he sums up his argument in
the preface of the book. You needn't even read the rest if you don't want to.
The rest of the book consists of him reiterating his points from different
angles to point out the objections he has managed to answer and the many
questions that still remain. He is just following scholarly practice and
exposition--just to make things clear that he has thought about this. 
He knows that his theory can't explain everything. In the epilog he points out
that China, India and the Middle East are good counter examples to his idea.
They each had an expansionist rise to great power--a time when they were
unafraid to try new ideas and explore new ways of doing things. If the highly
complex forces of economics, politics, religion had arrayed themselves
differently. We might all be speaking Arabic now. Or Cantonese. Europe was just
lucky to be in the right place at the right time for things to come together as
they did. 

E, guarda caso. tra gli oltre 100 commenti postati su Amazon.com, hai preso
solo quelli che sono piaciuti a te.
Massimo



Ma no. L'ultimo smonta tutti i precedenti :-)
Leonardo