Barkley Rosser (once of pen-l, soon to return) forwards these comments on
Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs Steel_
Remarks on Diamond in light of Devine and DeLong reviews:
I think the claim that _Germs, Guns, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond
is the greatest work of genius in econ history, or whatever field, of the
1990s is somewhat overdone. Many of its ideas have been around for some
time. I would note in particular the book _Plagues and People_ by
William O'Neill, 1976, New York: Medallion Press, and the somewhat
earlier (sorry, don't have exact pub info, but I first encountered the
book in 1966) _Rats, Lice, and History_ by Hans Zinsser, the original
classic of this genre, although the latter lacks the grand historical
sweep of Diamond. But O'Neill definitely has such sweep and makes many
of the points Diamond makes, and others besides, especially about the
bubonic plague, originally contracted from wild rats (not domesticated
animals) although spread through cities that depended upon reasonably
developed ag to exist.
What is impressive, correct, possibly even original in Diamond?
Mostly the emphasis on the size of Eurasia and the ease of
communication throughout it. I think the emphasis on the transmission of
disease is way overdone, as I shall discuss below, but the focus on how
this led to the diffusion of technology along the silk route and the sea
routes, and the economies of scale, etc., kinds of arguments, leading to
the guns and steel part of the story, makes a lot of sense.
The focus on New Guinea is also original and rather interesting,
although this leads to some odd and questionable arguments in the book.
In contrast to earlier remarks I made to both Jim and Brad,
O'Neill partly agrees with the crop/domesticated big mammal and
disease argument that Diamond emphasizes. A key here is to think of the
"big three killers," smallpox, flu, and measles, especially in terms of
the impact of those diseases when Europeans conquered Austronesia and the
Americas, where the resulting epidemics were crucial, as many observers,
including [Jim] Blaut, have long noted.
Smallpox basically came from cows, flu from pigs, and measles from
dogs, although the domestication of dogs occurred prior to crop
production and was tied to hunting and herding, but did happen in Eurasia.
But, there is a big problem with Diamond's argument and it is
Africa. O'Neill and others make it clear that Africa, the likely
origin of humanity, has more diseases than anywhere else in the world and
many of these came from contact with hunting animals
in an non-crop environment. Also, virtually all of the Eurasian origin
diseases, such as the "big three" had diffused to Africa at a sufficiently
early time so that people there had as much immunity to them as the Eurasians.
A sign of this role of Africa is the origin of AIDS, despite the
ongoing controversies regarding this matter. The most widely
accepted theory is contact with chimpanzees in Africa in a hunting
context. I dismiss the "Jewish doctors' plot" and "CIA plot" theories of
the origins of AIDS. The most serious charge about European involvement
in its initial spread is the recent theory that it got widely spread in
Africa as a result of a polio immunization drive that was
mismanaged. That theory is deeply contested by some involved in that it,
but it is a serious theory. In any case, that theory nevertheless accepts
that the ultimate origin was from contact with chimpanzees in a hunting
context in Africa, with the spread being due to the botched polio
immunization drive in the late 50s that somehow involved tainted
chimpanzee blood, allegedly.
In any case, I am not nearly as impressed with Diamond's book as
some are, although it is quite interesting and provocative.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
