The History Book Club discussion

******MAJOR SPOILER ALERT*****

If any member of the group would like to discuss the book as a whole and cannot for whatever reason stay within the framework of the non spoiler threads or even the supplemental threads; here is a thread to be able to do just that.

However, this is a major spoiler thread and should be avoided at all costs if you are reading the book for the first time.

This thread is not moderated. I will only comment on this thread at the conclusion of the book since I am also reading the book for the first time.

Most spoilers can also be placed on the glossary thread or other supplemental threads. Stick with the weekly non spoiler threads if you are reading this for the first time.


Jared Diamond

I'm left with these closing thoughts upon completion of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.

1. The book's title is suggestive of places the author didn't really go. A more descriptive title might be Latitude, Food, and Non-Food Specialists: A Hyperbole Free Explanation of Why the Modern Era Looks the Way It Does. Of course, that lacks the oomph of "Guns! Steel!" and would probably stay on bookshelves.

It isn't that Diamond doesn't include guns and steel into his monograph. It's just that, of all the variables he details, guns and steel define the narrowest band of history and then only make nominal modifications to the status quo (well, maybe not to the people displaced by change - but certainly in the long view).

A vanquishing wave of 16th century Spaniards ultimately changed the human condition of the Andes less than agriculture and the political state did before it. The differential between the Inca and the original hunter-gatherers is greater than between the Inca and the Spanish.

Since the interview at Cajamarca is Diamond's centerpiece and all other dynamic clashes (except perhaps the Maori v. Moriori collision) receive only glancing treatment, the reader must note how much more of the book is dedicated to the profound changes brought about by less dramatic developments. I concluded (and I think Diamond believes) ecological and geographic features are ultimately more important than the details of sudden societal interaction.

2. Professor Diamond has developed a deep affinity for New Guinea, through his various biological studies prior to writing Pulitizer Prize winning anthropology. It is safe to say he has "gone bamboo" over New Guinea, the way Gauguin swooned for Tahiti or Brando fell for Fiji. However, the things the average westerner knows about New Guinea may not fill an index card.

New Guinea serves as Guns, Germs, and Steel's hub. Diamond is able to launch most of his theses from New Guinea (i.e. how do languages diffuse in general using New Guinea as an example?, how do geological features insulate some conservative cultures using New Guinea as an example?, etc.). Certainly, I see its utility as an island - especially a big one with a convenient amount of ecological variety. But New Guinea quickly became either a motif or a character of sorts. There were times when I wondered if the elaborate thesis of the book wasn't an excuse for Diamond to write about New Guinea. Or if it wasn't all a trick to get people to read about New Guinea.

Neither of the above are true, of course. But I nevertheless found Diamond's obsession with a place as obscure to his audience as New Guinea occasionally annoying. Not because I don't like New Guinea. I mean, it's cool. I just don't... you know, really care about New Guinea as much as Diamond does. I would have engaged with the material more if he had used more familiar territory as his home base.

By "more familiar territory," I mean pretty much anywhere else. I think westerners have working knowledge about every continent except Australia and its surrounding quadrant (for whatever reason). While subsaharan Africa would be an "exotic" starting locale, western readers ultimately know something about it going in.

3. One of the issues Diamond barely acknowledges is nationalism. This falls outside Guns, Germs, and Steel's scope, but I experienced a puzzling, possible conflict of interest with the way I responded to certain chapters.

Being an American of Western European descent, one would expect me to respond more to descriptions of how Western Europe developed into the ultimate technological society. But I found that I was more interested in the way North American civilization progressed.

It could be that the story of North American civilization is still underserved in our education system. Many American adults still do not know as much about Native American civilization as they could. By contrast, most Americans (including non-whites) are taught some form of European history. Thus, being less familiar with the subject of North America (and feeling bored with the subject of Europe) could have produced the disparate interest. However, I am ultimately somewhat unfamiliar with the histories of Africa and China too. I was interested in these subjects because of that unfamiliarity, but not at the level I was engaged with the North American components.

I've concluded the reason for this disparate interest must be "liberal guilt," empathy for a group who (despite small numbers) still lives in proximity to me, or (most tantalizing) that geography superseded genetics and created a new cultural identity. In other words, because I live in North America - and not England or Switzerland - my identity has been tricked into believing my genetic link is to here, not there. If this is actually the case, it is very interesting.

I just noticed that you read this book before I was a member of The History Book Club. I've put this book on my TBR shelf. Although it seems impossible to read all of the books that draw my interest.

This was a very interesting book Kathy and I hope you enjoy it.

I agree with Bentley; I am sorry I didn't get to discuss this book with others!