Why is this book so controversial?

Not an anthropologist, but as a Veeky Forums major the book bugs the fuck out of me. He uses a lot of counterfactual history in the book to support his premises. I can't argue for or against whether or not racial differences equate to the superiority Europeans had over the world for some time, but I can say that what he says about China and his assumption that Africa has no large domesticable animals are explicitly false. For example, when talking about China part of his premise is based on the assumption that Qing China had neither the dissidence, the in-fighting nor the governmental desire to change. All three of these are patently false. Qing China was essentially one rebellion after another and was near constantly at war with either its neighbors or itself. The idea that the government had no desire to change is also false from as early as 1794 or so when Europeans began to shift toward a more predatory stance in regards to China. As for Africa, to claim that there was no large domesticable animals at best. I'm not even talking about Zebras or Elands. Africa has fucking cows. Not just any cows, the largest cattle breed in existence is from West Africa. Even if they didn't have cows, they have people. People can and were be used as work animals all over the world. The Maya and Aztecs were famous for enslaving and using people as pack animals due to the lack of large domesticable animals in the Americas.

>these factors contributed to x winning the war
>thus x only won the war because of these factors

I can't say, but I remember that there was a really long copypasta breaking down and criticizing the books points.

To be fair, as easily as Horses can be spooked, Zebras are way worse. I mean sure, throw a plastic bag at a horse and it's likely to just break all of its legs in a panic but Zebras go fucking buckwild.

>WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS ONLY GREAT BECAUSE ZEBRAS CAN'T BE DOMESTICATED; CHECKMATE, YUROS.

I remember that, it just shows someone with a tamed zebra and just a bunch of mental gymnastics with no citations.

Zebra and buffalo can be tamed, domesticated, trained to follow you around, eat out of your hand and not buckaroo when they see a plastic bag, but that is not the point.

Cattle (and horses) were more economical having been bred for that purpose for over a millenia in eurasia, economical enough to provide a surplus in the disease ridden tropics. This is what Jared meant, but instead of nailing down this reasoning he went on about "domestication" because he is a blabbling liberal.

Countering rhetoric with common sense is perfectly acceptable.

>history major

Holy fuck. You people actually exist?

it's commie jew shit

Stormfaggots hate it because it suggests that the white man is not Gods gift to the Earth and descended down from heaven.

>a really long copypasta breaking down and criticizing the books points
Already sounds like a load of bullshit, does anyone got it?

Instead of fully rejecting Diamond's ideas I would like someone to better them. I think the man has some points, it is just that it isn't good enough.

>the largest cattle breed in existence is from West Africa
West Africa did have prosperous nations though, no? Mali, Ghana etc.
Also enslaving people to use them as pack animals doesn't seem like the first thing you'd do and would involve many more factors, moral or otherwise so it doesn't really equate to normal pack animals.

Question: what do ppl interested in history major in then?

The opposite applies as well. People take errors out of context, and say it discredits the central premise

Why are you surprised?

>West Africa did have prosperous nations though, no? Mali, Ghana etc
Not in the same way as Europe or even East Africa. The East Africans were far more prosperous than West Africa was at the time of colonization, particularly in what is modern Tanganyika. In fact, while West Africa was relatively irrelevant outside of West Africa, East Africa was absolutely crucial for trade in the Indian Ocean area. They provided ships, lumber, and food to Arabia and almost single-handedly fueled commerce with Indian states like Gujarat. However, Diamond doesn't make the distinction iirc, so your point that they were semi-successful is rather moot.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the Eurasians had a headstart of a millenia with already partly domesticated cattle walking around? Because as far as I remember he starts the clock on every civilization as far back as Mesopotamia so...

It seems to me that he's gone full in on the structural way of viewing things and totally ignored the idea of individuals shaping their surroundings.
Been some time since I read his points, but iirc he also totally ignores the impact of culture and how it shapes people's behaviour. He does have some good and interesting points though, he just leans a bit too heavy on them it seems to me.