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
