Summary Of Guns Germs And Steel
Ryan Maierle/Global 2H/Guns, Germs and Steel
What is “Yali's question”?
“Yali’s question” is “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?” (Diamond 14). By “cargo,” Yali is referring to wealth and technology, which leads to power and dominance. Essentially, Yali wants to know why was there is such a disparity between the lifestyle of the average New Guinean versus the average European or American? In other words, why did white people become so rich and powerful, while black people lagged behind?
What does Guns Germs and Steel attempt to answer?
Guns, Germs and Steel attempts to answer a broader version of “Yali’s question”—that is, “Why did wealth and …show more content…
power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way? For instance, why weren’t Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who decimated, subjugated, or exterminated Europeans and Asians?” (Diamond 15). Diamond is trying to answer the larger question of why Europeans and their descendants have come to rule the world in terms of wealth and power.
What are the commonly supported answers to “Yali’s question,” and how does Jared Diamond address and refute each of them?
Commonly Supported Answers to Yali’s Question
How Jared Diamond Addresses and Refutes the Answers
Racist biological/Genetic superiority/ Higher IQ’s (intelligence) in white Americans of European origin versus black Americans of African origins.
There is no sound evidence “for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology” (Diamond 19). In fact, Diamond declares that “modern ‘Stone Age’ peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. (Diamond 19). He further states that, when given the opportunity, formerly “primitive” people “routinely master industrial technologies” (Diamond 19).
Diamond discredits this answer by pointing to the fact that people “differ greatly in their social environment and educational opportunities” and that any IQ test could not accurately account for those differences and would therefore be invalid.
He further states that IQ tests do not test for pure innate ability, but rather cultural learning and that “because of those undoubted effects of childhood environment and learned knowledge” (Diamond 20) genetic intellectual superiority could not be proven.
Climate: Stimulatory effects of cold climate is conducive to technological advances because people have to invent in order to survive. Tropical climate inhibits human creativity and energy. People can survive there with simpler housing and no clothing.
Diamond refutes this answer by pointing to the idea that the peoples of northern Europe benefitted from the advances—such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy— “developed in warmer parts of Eurasia” (Diamond 22). As evidence, Diamond points to the facts that writing in Native American societies arose in Mexico, New World pottery derives from tropical South America, and that Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatan and Guatemala was “generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects” (Diamond 22).
Geographical needs: Lowland river valleys in dry climates required complex, large-scale irrigation systems that then led to the creation of centralized …show more content…
governments.
Diamond argues that “detailed archaeological studies have shown that complex irrigation systems did not accompany the rise of centralized bureaucracies but followed after a considerable lag” (Diamond 23). By this, Diamond reasons that centralized governments, though they did permit the creation of complex irrigation systems, arose for some other reason.
Europeans possessed the means—guns, infectious diseases, steel tools, and manufactured goods—to kill or conquer other peoples.
While Diamond admits that these factors did enable European conquests, he argues that this hypothesis is incomplete because it only offers “a proximate (first stage) explanation identifying immediate causes” (Diamond 23). In other words, this hypothesis does not account for how or why Europeans, not Africans or Native Americans, were able to secure these means in the first place.
Why does Diamond hypothesize that New Guineans might be, on the average, “smarter” than Westerners?
Diamond gives two main reasons for his hypothesis that New Guineans might be, on the average, “smarter” than Westerners. The first reason he offers is based on genetics. He states: that the “natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent” (Diamond 20). The second reason he offers has to do with the differences between how modern European and American children spend their free time versus how New Guinea children spend their time. Diamond argues that modern European and American children “spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies” –with the average American household watching up to seven hours of TV a day (Diamond 21). In contrast, New Guinea children “have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment” (Diamond 21) and spend their time actively engaged in play and socializing with other people. Since child development studies emphasize the importance of active play and stimulation in “promoting mental development” (Diamond 21) and the detrimental impact of passive activities, such as watching TV, Diamond concludes that New Guineans display superior mental abilities.
Why is it important to differentiate between proximate and ultimate causes?
It is important to differentiate between proximate and ultimate causes because a proximate cause will only yield a partial answer to any given inquiry. Since a proximate cause is one which leads directly and immediately to a given result, establishing it does not paint a true and clear picture as to how or why something occurred. Ultimate causes are the deeper causes, which lead to proximate causes and can help establish the root of why or how a specific event occurred.
Do you find some of Diamond’s methodologies more compelling than others? Which, and why?
Yes, I find some of Diamond’s methodologies more compelling than others, specifically his use of observation, comparison, and natural experiments.
On page 25 of his prologue, Diamond states: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people’s environment, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.” Clearly, Diamond argues that geography, not biology, plays a key role in determining a society’s wealth and power. Diamond’s most compelling methodology, therefore, is his use of the natural experiment of Polynesia. As Diamond notes: “When ancestral Polynesians spread into the Pacific around 3,200 years ago, they encountered islands differing greatly in their environments. Within a few millennia that single ancestral Polynesian society had spawned on those diverse islands a range of diverse daughter societies, from hunter-gatherer tribes to proto-empires” (Diamond 28). What this natural experiment shows is that various environments offer benefits or disadvantages that directly impact how a society progresses. Differences in geography on the diverse islands of Polynesia led some tribes to be hunter-gatherers, while others were able to domesticate plants and animals and therefore secure food production. Those societies that were able to secure food production could in turn have the time and luxury to develop systems of writing, organization, and even government. These societies were the ones that grew in wealth and
power. I believe that this line of reasoning makes perfect sense and that the methodology of using a natural experiment is most compelling because there are no variables being manipulated. It is simply a common sense argument made on the basis of observation and factual evidence.
What is “Yali's question”?
“Yali’s question” is “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?” (Diamond 14). By “cargo,” Yali is referring to wealth and technology, which leads to power and dominance. Essentially, Yali wants to know why was there is such a disparity between the lifestyle of the average New Guinean versus the average European or American? In other words, why did white people become so rich and powerful, while black people lagged behind?
What does Guns Germs and Steel attempt to answer?
Guns, Germs and Steel attempts to answer a broader version of “Yali’s question”—that is, “Why did wealth and …show more content…
power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way? For instance, why weren’t Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who decimated, subjugated, or exterminated Europeans and Asians?” (Diamond 15). Diamond is trying to answer the larger question of why Europeans and their descendants have come to rule the world in terms of wealth and power.
What are the commonly supported answers to “Yali’s question,” and how does Jared Diamond address and refute each of them?
Commonly Supported Answers to Yali’s Question
How Jared Diamond Addresses and Refutes the Answers
Racist biological/Genetic superiority/ Higher IQ’s (intelligence) in white Americans of European origin versus black Americans of African origins.
There is no sound evidence “for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology” (Diamond 19). In fact, Diamond declares that “modern ‘Stone Age’ peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. (Diamond 19). He further states that, when given the opportunity, formerly “primitive” people “routinely master industrial technologies” (Diamond 19).
Diamond discredits this answer by pointing to the fact that people “differ greatly in their social environment and educational opportunities” and that any IQ test could not accurately account for those differences and would therefore be invalid.
He further states that IQ tests do not test for pure innate ability, but rather cultural learning and that “because of those undoubted effects of childhood environment and learned knowledge” (Diamond 20) genetic intellectual superiority could not be proven.
Climate: Stimulatory effects of cold climate is conducive to technological advances because people have to invent in order to survive. Tropical climate inhibits human creativity and energy. People can survive there with simpler housing and no clothing.
Diamond refutes this answer by pointing to the idea that the peoples of northern Europe benefitted from the advances—such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy— “developed in warmer parts of Eurasia” (Diamond 22). As evidence, Diamond points to the facts that writing in Native American societies arose in Mexico, New World pottery derives from tropical South America, and that Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatan and Guatemala was “generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects” (Diamond 22).
Geographical needs: Lowland river valleys in dry climates required complex, large-scale irrigation systems that then led to the creation of centralized …show more content…
governments.
Diamond argues that “detailed archaeological studies have shown that complex irrigation systems did not accompany the rise of centralized bureaucracies but followed after a considerable lag” (Diamond 23). By this, Diamond reasons that centralized governments, though they did permit the creation of complex irrigation systems, arose for some other reason.
Europeans possessed the means—guns, infectious diseases, steel tools, and manufactured goods—to kill or conquer other peoples.
While Diamond admits that these factors did enable European conquests, he argues that this hypothesis is incomplete because it only offers “a proximate (first stage) explanation identifying immediate causes” (Diamond 23). In other words, this hypothesis does not account for how or why Europeans, not Africans or Native Americans, were able to secure these means in the first place.
Why does Diamond hypothesize that New Guineans might be, on the average, “smarter” than Westerners?
Diamond gives two main reasons for his hypothesis that New Guineans might be, on the average, “smarter” than Westerners. The first reason he offers is based on genetics. He states: that the “natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent” (Diamond 20). The second reason he offers has to do with the differences between how modern European and American children spend their free time versus how New Guinea children spend their time. Diamond argues that modern European and American children “spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies” –with the average American household watching up to seven hours of TV a day (Diamond 21). In contrast, New Guinea children “have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment” (Diamond 21) and spend their time actively engaged in play and socializing with other people. Since child development studies emphasize the importance of active play and stimulation in “promoting mental development” (Diamond 21) and the detrimental impact of passive activities, such as watching TV, Diamond concludes that New Guineans display superior mental abilities.
Why is it important to differentiate between proximate and ultimate causes?
It is important to differentiate between proximate and ultimate causes because a proximate cause will only yield a partial answer to any given inquiry. Since a proximate cause is one which leads directly and immediately to a given result, establishing it does not paint a true and clear picture as to how or why something occurred. Ultimate causes are the deeper causes, which lead to proximate causes and can help establish the root of why or how a specific event occurred.
Do you find some of Diamond’s methodologies more compelling than others? Which, and why?
Yes, I find some of Diamond’s methodologies more compelling than others, specifically his use of observation, comparison, and natural experiments.
On page 25 of his prologue, Diamond states: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people’s environment, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.” Clearly, Diamond argues that geography, not biology, plays a key role in determining a society’s wealth and power. Diamond’s most compelling methodology, therefore, is his use of the natural experiment of Polynesia. As Diamond notes: “When ancestral Polynesians spread into the Pacific around 3,200 years ago, they encountered islands differing greatly in their environments. Within a few millennia that single ancestral Polynesian society had spawned on those diverse islands a range of diverse daughter societies, from hunter-gatherer tribes to proto-empires” (Diamond 28). What this natural experiment shows is that various environments offer benefits or disadvantages that directly impact how a society progresses. Differences in geography on the diverse islands of Polynesia led some tribes to be hunter-gatherers, while others were able to domesticate plants and animals and therefore secure food production. Those societies that were able to secure food production could in turn have the time and luxury to develop systems of writing, organization, and even government. These societies were the ones that grew in wealth and
power. I believe that this line of reasoning makes perfect sense and that the methodology of using a natural experiment is most compelling because there are no variables being manipulated. It is simply a common sense argument made on the basis of observation and factual evidence.