So i finally got around to read this book. How the fuck did it become so popular?
While there sure was a lot of interesting trivia in there about biology and anthropology, the overall thesis just drips with white guilt.
When did political bias become more important than the truth?
When the jews started to control our media and every other important institution that has influence over man ever since WW2.
This thread has nothing to do with either history or the humanities.
>When did political bias become more important than the truth?
That is the only question you need to be asking, and this goes back to at least before world war 2, as far as "white guilt" culture goes. Charles Lindbergh, the beloved aviator was made into a social pariah for naming the Jew.
But people have always been more concerned with pushing agendas than discovering the truth, and then once every century a guy comes along and shines a light on the game they're playing, and usually pays for it with his life.
>nothing to do with history
>book entitled Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years
>nothing to do with history
I don't believe in da jooz meme but Jared Diamond admitted he just wrote the book for an agenda.
I found the book to be a good summary of logical conclusions. I did not find that the book either defended european colonization or condemned it. It simply explained why it happened when it happened. It also drew examples from other culture clashes, that not involved europeans, such as the maori and moriori genocide.
There's no white guilt in this book, because white guilt implies a certain amount of historical revisionism. This book doesn't have that.
What assertions in the book do you disagree with, specifically?
If it's a large number, can you give an example of one thing the book got wrong, and how you believe it did?
Book didn't make me feel guilty. It's funny how hypocritical you faggots are. You scoff at SJW's for rejecting complicated arguments with their tumblr safe space buzzwords, but you do the same shit. You get fucking triggered anytime it's implied that white people aren't some superior master race that dindu nuffin. You are just as bad as SJW's.
Your post doesn't even mention one thing in the book that you found to be in error. Maybe you should actually form arguments instead of just dismissing them because you are offended like the people you claim to hate would.
this desu
the ironic thing about rightwing /pol/ tards is that they're so sensetive to dissenting opinions that anything will trigger them to call out "jew" or "cuck".
Well, environmental determinism has not been accepted for a long, long time, and in here it's about the only argument.
On a smaller scale, it's alright, for example on how disease and bacteria came from farm animals and such, and a lot of it is a good read.
Certainly the environment matters but Diamond emphasizes it to an absurd degree. Is environment the ONLY factor of how successful a society is? Of course not, no one in their right mind would argue that.
You're ignoring much of the book, including the ones that deal with the geopolitical angles. For instance, he argues that the Europeans being divided rivals was a boon for them when it came to innovation, since monarchs would vye to outdo the other. This element did not exist in China, an otherwise compereable civilization. There's no enviromental determinism there.
Furthermore, a lot of this so called "enviromental determinism" is tough to argue with. You say it hasn't been accepted for a "long, long time"... By whom? Care to elaborate? Do you disagree with the books conclusion as to why diseases were spread one-way from Eurasia into Americas? Why? It makes a fairly good point.
I think the book argues that it's the largest single factor, not that it's the only factor.
If you took away cows and horses from Europeans, it's totally fair to say that their development would have been retarded, I think. Horses were pretty much state of the art transportation technology in Europe for what, thousands of years?
This. The horseshoe theory comes full circle.
...
I liked "why the west rules" better. It was more in depth
Are you memeing or have you not reached 9th grade yet.
>watermark of some meme page
cringed
The fedora has become the ultimate strawman. It made sense back in 2014 because a lot of cringy atheists wore them but today it's just slapped on anyone you disagree with. All sides of the spectrum are at fault in this.
Not a nazi but I doubt a Jew has white guilt. It was most likely written out of spite towards white racists or something
GGS is a shitty book. I'm not even a stormfag.
The book didn't trigger me, but I read it around 2000/2001 when I was 16 and Veeky Forums didn't exist... At the time, I thought it was pretty novel and groundbreaking. The main points are quite fair enough, but it's clear that some details are already showing their age... Take it with a pinch of salt. I generally wouldn't recommend it unless a reader is going to also read other similar books
Same with 'autism'. Occasionally one does encounter a seemingly genuinely obsessed autism behaviour spectrum, but the word is really much much much too overused, to the point of meaninglessness.
>If you took away cows
That would just tip the balance in favor of Africans. Africa natively has cattle and archeological evidence increasingly shows they were domesticated independently from Indians and Europeans(Anatolians).
...
>How the fuck did it become so popular?
It tells people what they want to hear. Firstly, that "history" is really not as complicated as it looks, there's a simple scientific principle underlying it all, and secondly, that European colonialism was just the consequences of natural laws operating, so we shouldn't feel pride in it but OTOH we shouldn't be so ashamed of it, either.
>How the fuck did it become so popular?
Black apologists
There's no white guilt in the book you retard.
Kindly fuck off
>I found the book to be a good summary of logical conclusions.
Except many if not all of the alleged explanations for the differences between eurasia and the rest of the world given in the book are either nonsensical or based on information that is flatly incorrect.
>can you give an example of one thing the book got wrong
Off the top of my head the bit about africa and north america having no or little access to reliable food crops.
I think he's talking about Diamonds sucking off the papuan new guineas and calling them "genetically (whatever that means) and intellectually superior"
>For instance, he argues that the Europeans being divided rivals was a boon for them when it came to innovation, since monarchs would vye to outdo the other. This element did not exist in China, an otherwise compereable civilization
Three kingdoms?
Northern and Southern Dynasties?
Sixteen kingdoms?
Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms?
Not to mention even when China was nominally united there was still infighting and rivalries between the nobles
Fuck off just make fun of stormfags. There has never been a right winger with an IQ above 100. Dont enable them.
>This element did not exist in China, an otherwise compereable civilization. There's no enviromental determinism there.
No, just the endemic and constant revolt that the Chinese emperors were always dealing with, which did actually happen despite Diamond's claims that it would be easy for rebels to be sniffed out and crushed.
>There has never been a right winger with an IQ above 100
Nietzsche?
Hobbes?
Natzee high staff?
Tricky Dick?
Thomas Sowell
Holy bait