Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Guns, Germs, and Steel (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 3 >>
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Point?

It is obvious that this is a big book with a lot of bigger ideas (the whole of human history is pretty general), and it's easy to get caught up with whether Diamond was right or wrong. Shouldn't the article (and the Talk) be a bit more about what the book says rather than whether its (unprovable?) theories are accurate or fully developed?

Anthropologically invalid

Guns Germs and Steel is one of the flimsiest historical theories I have ever encountered and I can not understand how Jared Diamond has garnered the attention that he has. Leave it to a Geography professor to take on the job of an Anthropologist/Archeologist and get it all wrong. I believe what Jared Diamond attempts is benign justification for Western stereotypes and misconceptions about the rest of the world. He seems to believe that nobody outside of Eurasia has benefited from cultural diffusion, nor have they contributed anything of value to world history or civilization.

Ironically, Northern and Western Europeans have contributed among the least to what we could consider human civilization. For example, there is no sign of relevant civilizations ever existing in Scandinavia.

African nations have been trading with other parts of the world for millennia. Ancient Nubia had strong trade relationships with nations inside as well as outside of Africa for thousands of years and at one point even ruled over Egypt. Ethiopians were also among the first people to adopt Christianity in 4th century AD. How could this have come about if there was little contact with countries outside of Africa? Yemen is only a stone’s throw from Ethiopia; the countries are divided by the “Bab el Mandeb” (Red Sea/Gulf of Aden).

To convince one’s self that civilization and technological advancement have only come about within the parameters of that arbitrary border confining what Jared Diamond refers to as Eurasia is ridicules, especially in the face of Archeological and Anthropological evidence to the contrary. Any first year Cultural Anthropology student would know this.

In East Africa Swahili were building ships for centuries that were superior in quality to early European ships called “mtepe;” and were trading with China, Arabia and India by sea, becoming very wealthy as a result. Most of China’s ivory for some time came from direct trade with the Swahili. According to many authors including Schmidt and Avery (1978, 1979, 1986) and a review in American Anthropologist (Kusimba, 1997), Africans between 1500-2000 years ago were smelting iron at temperatures not reached in Europe until the industrial age. These Africans (in Tanzania) are believed to be among the first to produce carbon steel, using a special preheating method.

In West Africa the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai and Timbuktu attracted people from all over the world. In the early part of the fourteenth century to the time of the Moroccan invasion in the late sixteenth century, the city of Timbuktu became an important intellectual and spiritual center of the Islamic world, attracting people from as far away as Saudi Arabia to study there. Great mosques, universities, schools, and libraries were built under the Mali and Songhay Empires, some of which still stand today.

A large number of innovations that many Europeans today recognize as being uniquely their own, such as fire arms and the old trade ships once used for commerce (The kind used by Columbus for example) trace their history back to technologies and influences acquired through Islamic contacts in the Iberian Peninsula. In the year 711 AD, Islamic invaders conquered that part of Europe known today as Spain and Portugal and ruled over the region for close to 800 years (711 to 1492). Europe as a result saw a number of improvements in various areas of life and interest, ranging from the medical sciences to military; to paved roads, and street lamps. The Moor also introduced Europe to its first Universities and the numerical system currently in popular use today.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and then gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also partially responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana -- located in what is today Northern Senegal and Southern Mauritania -- in and around the same time as the Iberian siege.

The spread of Islam into Africa is not mentioned in Jared Diamond’s theory, nor is the fact that the Saharan Desert is only between 5000-2000 years old, making his claims of isolation seem all the more ridiculous in from a broad perspective. Further, it has also been shown that the current inhabitants of Europe do not resemble Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans in craniofacial form, but share close affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace et al, 2006). I am curious why Jared Diamond does not incorporate these bits of historical, geographic and Anthropologic information into his makeshift post hoc hypothesis.

At the time of Columbus’s arrival in the America’s the Aztec were using math, astronomy and agriculture that was superior to Europeans. If it were not for contact with South American Amerindians (initially by accident) much of Europe would have likely died of starvation; as the continent was experiencing sever famine at the time. It was South American agriculture and crops that saved Europe from near death. Ironically, in exchange for this vitally needed learning the Europeans inadvertently killed off between 80-95% of Amerindian populations; completely wiping out many Aboriginal Caribbean native groups with new-world diseases, and then slavery.

THE REASON EUROPEANS CONQURED THE NEW WORLD IS BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE BLOCKING EUROPEAN PASSAGE TO THE SILK ROAD, AND SO THEY HAD TO FIND ANOTHER ROUT TO INDIA/CHINA. ATTEMPTING THIS BY SEA EUROPEANS EVENTUALLY DISOVERED THE AMERICAS; INADVERTLYING, THROUGH SHERE INCOMPETENCE (COLUMBUS WOULD ACTUCALLY NAME THE NATIVES AMERICANS "INDIANS"). THIS ENCOUNTER WOULD END UP WIPING OUT 80-95% OF THE NATIVE POPULATION WITH EUROPEAN BORN DISEASES. MAKING LATER CONQUEST ESPECIALLY EASY!

Africans had access to guns, too – but like the Arabs, who introduced the weapon to Europeans, initially found them inconvenient for traditional warfare. In effect, Africans also had guns germs and steal, which refutes a large part of Jared Diamond’s ridiculous theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 02:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Geography

The Geography section of the article is rather weak. It doesn't make much sense to discuss it this way, considering that the whole book is about consequences of geography. Having rewritten the Outline and Agriculture sections to emphasize the book's premise that geography is a pervasive factor, perhaps we could just remove this section from the article? DPoon 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Diamond also explains how geography shaped human migration, not simply by making travel difficult (particularly by latitude)..."

A vital point he makes is that Europe is mountainous. This kept kingdoms small due to difficulties of ruling peoples spread through such difficult terrain. This meant that bright sparks who didn't obtain royal sympathy or who annoyed the king could leave and find refuge with the neighbouring kingdom. The most famous example would be Columbus who hawked his idea around before he struck a venture capitalist to sponsor him. Diamond contrasts this with China where a big flat country allowed vast empires to be dominated and original minds (who are likely to be troublemakers) had no options. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheeps and Peccary

Cheking the Wikiartikels of Sheep and Peccary Diamonds claim about lack of "useable" animals seems to be simply wrong. Any solutions anybody?

(please sign your name above by typing ~~~. In response to your question, I think his point about all the qualities of a domesticable animal needing to be present--in other words being necessary but not sufficient--is an interesting but mostly-untestable one. Because some of the qualities necessary are difficult to define, we will never know if a peccary or bison is domesticable unless we try. But, as he discusses regarding wild plants, local peoples can be expected to attempt to domesticate virtually all the animals in their area. It seems likely to me, that at some point, native americans had gotten their hands on a wild, young peccary, and like some of my more-insane clients (I'm a veterinarian), had tried to raise them, nursing them with human breast-milk, and the relationship probably didn't work out for one of the numerous reasons Diamond speaks about. Just look at all the crazies who "rescue" every orphaned animal they see. You think that started in modern times? I mean why was the wolf the only member of the canidae domesticated? There are plenty of foxes around, and people were looking for a smaller wolf. Why not just domesticate a fox? Why are none of the cervidae (deer, moose, etc ...) domesticated? Why only bovidae and the closely-related ovidae? I think the answer is because Diamond is correct, and it is the rare species which is domesticable. It's not an inherent characteristic of the species, but rather characteristics as they relate to typical, local, human characteristics. I mean for all we know, rhinos might be domesticable by VERY large, iron-clad people, with a lot of patience and no furniture.--Davidbessler 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Both deer and Fox have been domesticated. There are mllions of domestic deer throughout the Circumpolar north who are being actively bred and refined for specific tasks and characteristic. Domestic varieties of fox have been developed for furs. Also you are simply missing the point that people don't domesticate meat animals - like peccarys - when they remain plentiful enough in the wild and are more easily hunted rather than raised.DHBoggs 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More Criticism

The issue of whether or not this book is 'Eurocentric' should be irrelevant. This book is leftist non-sense, and there are dozens of countries that destroy his theory. Consider that China has had domesticated animals for thousands of years while Germany was mostly a group of warring tribes until Roman occupation. How did Germany then become one of the world's richest nations only a short time later? What about the Aztecs? Did they not have maize and armies? Are there no European countries that have inhospitable conditions? Shouldn't Iceland then be one of the poorest countries in the world? What about the Egyptians or the Persians (Iran)? Anyone with even a basic sense of history should be able to see that this book is nothing but pc drivel. The fact that it won a Pulitzer only shows how political correctness can corrupt any institution.

The author talks at length about South East Asia, and China specifically, who had many advantages and were a world power during the period he focuses on and are today. He refers, in general, not to European dominance but Eurasian.

The Aztecs did indeed have maize and armies - in fact that's exactly why the question of how the massively outnumbered Cortez conquered them is interesting. Maybe it had something to do with Cortez's access to, oh, I don't know, germs, guns, and some third material that currently escapes me [/sarcasm].

The book is certainly not a complete theory of history, and can fairly be criticized as a populist metatheory that of course fails to address many incredibly complicated events in history. Increased consideration of Environmental factors has, however, become increasingly common in the study of history. --Camipco 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant. Please read our NPOV policy. You seem not to accept it. But for us editors, it is inviolable. user:Slrubenstein

I happen to agree with you on the point about having a NPOV is inviolable. But that isn't really the point I think your trying to make here, this is a talk page and discussion should be on improving the article. I think a policy you should refresh yourself on is Wikipedia:Civility.Colin 8 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cortez conquered the aztecs using a huge indian army of rebelling natives. It had nothing to do with guns (pitiful matchlock muskets) germs (not extensive until several years after the conquest) or soft medieval steel. It was a result of superior spanish military tactics, leadership and a native alliance expertly exploited by the highly organized Spanish government. Magellan thought highly of the conquering power of European guns and steel too until he was slaughtered by "primitive" natives in the Philippines. Further the notion that Europeans were somehow favored with the only large animals suitible for domestcation is antiquated and demonstrably false and I have difficulty understanding how a man of Diamonds training in biology could still seriously entertain such an essentialy Biblical idea (God favored the white man). The ancestors of cattle (wild Aurochs), sheep and horses were certainly every bit as "wild" and unspecialized as non domesticated species anywhere. The tame meat, wool and milk producing versions we are familiar with are the results of hundreds of generations and thousands of years of selective breeding. The same could certainly have been done to zebras in Africa or bison in North America. In fact even in thier "unbred" natural state tame zebras can be ridden and harnessed (http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/negative-zebra.html) and I have a neighbor who raises bison instead of cows and breeds them with other kinds of cattle. There is no reason, for example, that the varieties of reindeer or bison or llamas or camels or water buffallo or what-have-you couldn't have been selectively bred to become, for example, milk machines like modern Holstiens. Cultural choices, not biological determinism, led to colonialism. I will say this for Diamond however; at least he raises the publics awareness of issues.DHBoggs

If you can cite some authors who believe what you do, then you are free to add those beliefs to the criticism section. -- bcasterline • talk 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the spread of colonialism, the main article already sites some relevant works. Regarding the rise of domestication, there is a very large liturature, most of it in the form of journal articles; for the characteristics and suitibility of animals to domestication as well as some discussion of the alteration of characteristics through breeding try Simon J.M. Davis, The archaeology of Animals, 1987. There are more recent works but you will have to ferret them out yourself. For domestication processes in general, Lewis Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference and Tim Ingold, Hunters Pastoralists and Ranchers, are some works I find useful, among others you can refernce from the bibliographies.DHBoggs 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I'm confused by the distinction between methodological criticism and criticism of scholarship, can someone explain this to me? I feel like the criticisms could be much better organized. Maybe I'll have a go at it. I agree with Ortolan88's point that the talk pages in some ways are superior to the article. --Camipco 17:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I had a go at it. I think the structure of the section makes more sense now. I moved a lot around, and changed the headers, but made very few changes to the text. This was a lot of work, I'd appreciate it if people discuss before reverting :-)

Obviously, there's still more to be done. I'd like to see some of the interesting points from this talk thread brought into the page, for example. It is what it is. --Camipco 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Great start, Epopt, going from incoherence to coherence! Now I'd like to know who the critics are who complain of "environmental determinism with racist implications". These are grave accusations from slrubenstein and it hardly seems fair to attack a book most noted for knocking the underpinnings from western smugness about inventiveness, etc. without providing both some concrete examples of the author's thesis and some concrete examples of these complaints. Some general linking into the history of technology also seems called for. I write, not as one who knows anything about the subject, but as one who would like to learn more than is here now. Ortolan88

I am away from my office and ill-equipped to provide more detail in the article, besides the reference to Blaut's book that I just put in the article. Most of the anthropologists, geographers, and historians with whom I have spoken -- people who consider the same issues Diamond addresses in the book -- raise more fundamental objections (meaning, questions of scholarship rather than politics): what is of value in Diamond's book (one example being points about the evolution of disease among agriculturalists, and the devastating effect of Old World pathogens in the New World) are not original to Diamond but rather long, and well, established; and what is new to Diamond (an argument about the advantages of east-west continents over north-south continents, for example) is based on poor analysis of facts -- but does echo a strand of thought among European thinkers dating at least as far back as Rousseau, viz that European society is in fact superior to other societies, and for "natural" or inevitable reasons. Diamond makes all sorts of claims about the superiority of Europe and the inferiority of other parts of the world (China, Africa) that are simply wrong.
There are two issues here: one is, is Europe really superior? Certainly, if you look at the last three hundred years, Europe (and the United States) have enjoyed economic and military supremacy. Of course, if you look at the world a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago, or three thousand year ago, the answer to this question would be different. And frankly, we do not know what the answer would be a thousand years from now, or two thousand years, or three thousand years. Diamond tries in his book to construct a natural "experiment" and makes a grave error: he looks at the present as if the "experiment" is over. But in human society, the "experiment" is never over and we cannot make conclusive or absolute claims from the present state of the world.
Two thousand years ago - Europe dominated with the Roman Empire. What are you talking about when you say it would be different? JettaMann
Second, assuming that for the moment Europe and Euro-American societies are supreme, the second issue is why? Here, Diamond is clearly and unapologeticly a geographic determinist, and his argument is therefore vulnerable o all the arguments made against geographic determinism. I am no expert in this matter and would defer to professional geographers. But my sense is that Diamond emphasizes too much the autonomy and relative isolation of different parts of the world. it is well established that most of the technologies europeans relied upon in their economic and military ascent came from other parts of the world. Al too often european and Euro-American authors give too little credit to non-Europeans who developed the technologies or even taught Europeans how to use them. One example, based on a book by a geogrophe whose name I forget, will suffice: for a long time rice was one of the US's main exports; the cultivation of rice was crucial to US economic development. But not only was the rice brought to the US from Africa, Europeans relied on African slaves to cultivate it -- not only because slaves provided labor, but because slaves from Africa had knowledge of how to cultivate rice that Europeans lacked. This example suggests a different reason for European (and US) success: that Europeans stole and exploited the knowledge and labor and resources of others. This explanation is partial, but it does introduce a dimension lacking in Diamond's book: power. And, in fact, historians far more sophisticated and knowledgable than Diamond have explored this issue, like Emmanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gundar Frank and Eric Wolf ... there are many others.
The assertion here may be correct, but it is missing Diamond's point to argue that it undermines his thesis. It merely pushes the question one stage back to ask why Europeans had greater power to abduct Africans and appropriate their superior knowledge than vice versa. Diamond seeks to get to the bottom of the pile of turtles by rooting his study at the point in time when all living humans were hunter gatherers. Once you take a later starting point, the number of cultural factors grows steadily and the potential for their interaction grows combinatorially. Alan Peakall 14:54 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think Diamond is missing the point. At the time of Columbus, not all people in the Americas were hunter-gatherers; moreover, many people who are hunter-gatherers today may not have been hunter-gatherers in the past. To put the question as, "Why did Europeans have the power to abduct Africans, and not vice-versa" is offensive if the answer sugggests any inevitability. Prior to the 1500s Europeans did not abduct African slaves in any significant number; indeed, Europeans were captured as slaves regularly (the word slave comes from Slav). If Diamond wrote his book in the 1400s, he would have ended up concluding that North African or Asian culture was superior, and I am sure he would have found good reasons to make that claim. Who knows what the world will be like in the future? Maybe a few hundred years from now Europeans "civilization" will be in disarray and Africans will be raiding Europe and the US for slaves. If he were to write his book in 2500s, for all I know he might conclude that Ausralians or Amazonian Indians or some other group are superior, and find good reasons to explain how that happened. There is a fundamental problem with determinism, especially when you privilege one particular slice of human history as if that were the end point. Like it or not, the book reveals some fundamental Western biases. Slrubenstein
This would be a fair criticism, IF Diamond were talking about European dominance. He is not. As a cursory reading of the book will show, he is talking about Eurasian dominance; and moreover, he is talking about it as the superiority of the continent, not of the peoples living on it. This criticism is toothless, because there has not been a single moment in history since the dawn of civilization when cultures outside of Eurasia-and-Northern-Africa were more technologically advanced than those within that huge region. Diamond is explaining the reasons that this is the case. He is not arguing that ANY people are superior to any other. He is arguing that Eurasians had certain outcomes which others did not, because of different starting positions. I'm not sure why this idea is so offensive to some. And I am quite troubled by the assertion that "'Why did Europeans have the power to abduct Africans' is offensive if the answer suggests any inevitability" -- what if the answer really is "any group of people living where the Europeans lived would have had advantages the Africans did not"? Are we then to reject the entire question, because it offends our delicate sensibilities? (That's an answer that gives no pride of place to Europeans, incidentally; only pride TO place, in the sense that it favors Eurasia over Africa.)
Diamond's book may for some be an attack on European smugness because he is not claiming that Europeans are innately smarter than non-Europeans. Well, I regret bing so sarcastic, but "bravo." It is a shame that some people still need to be convinced that Europeans do not have a monopoly on intelligence. Be that as it may, I am happy to give Diamond credit if he has convinced some people of this. Nevertheless, Diamond still asserts that europe is superior, and his explanation of why Europe is superior suggest that this superiority was inevitable. Even if he is basicly saying that some people just had good luck to live in Europe rather than in Asia or Africa or South America, he is still claiming that science justifies European domination and power. But it does not. slrubenstein
You're missing the point. Diamond does not argue for European superiority. He argues for Eurasian superiority. He fully acknowledges that many European technologies came from Asia and Northern Africa (which, you'll note, was geographically connected to Asia before the development of the Suez Canal) and in fact he says that that's a substantial [i]part[/i] of the Eurasian Advantage -- a much greater interconnected area that permitted those kinds of cultural transfer. Your criticisms are based on facts that Diamond incorporates in his analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.171.214 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
As far as I can tell, Diamond has almost no pro-European bias whatsoever. I'd say he says scientific (materialistic, rationalistic) analysis "explains" European dominance, but not that it "justifies" it.
Many people disagree with you. there is obviously room for debate. What is important is that the article present both views. Slrubenstein
Okay, now I strongly agree with you. :-)

--- Thanks. I hope you'll write more about this (carefully) in an article. Ortolan88

Another case, I wonder how many there are, where the talk page is superior to the article. Ortolan88 14:39 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

Free-market critics

The Theory of History section seems more like a plug for free markets than a legitimate criticism. First of all, the information is incorrect: Japan and South Korea, despite being capitalistic, are incredibly interventionist. South Korea's Chaebol system involves government co-ordination and the forming of large multi-sector conglomerates which co-ordinate all manner of economic activity. Taiwan existed under a dictatorship until 1987 and received heavy U.S. support. As well, comparing the growth of nations during the 20th century with growth during the previous ten centuries is very problematic. In a way, it makes Diamond's point. The areas to which technology has flowed easily and readily have developed. Those that have not received the technology have not.Troyc001 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism from a free-market perspective. A criticism from a technocratic-statist perspective would read almost identically, saying that Diamond has ignored the effect of enlightened state planning and social forces that are not results of the environment. Both criticisms have limited applicability as Diamond focuses not on Europe vs. Asia but Eurasia vs. the rest of the world. --JWB 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Can some source of the criticism be provided? If some semi-respectable source is making this criticism, then fine. Otherwise, would this not qualify as original scholarship?Troyc001 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't add it and am not standing up for its retention, though I doubt it's original research - this viewpoint is so common I'm sure it is in many sources, maybe even in some of those already cited in the article. I would prefer the article to focus on the book's Eurasia thesis.--JWB 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a question about the section detailing criticism of Diamond's "law of history." The article currently states

"Many historians dispute Diamond’s “law of history” regarding the dominance of agricultural societies over their non-agricultural neighbors. [citation needed] There are numerous cases of nomadic societies conquering agricultural ones: the Hittites conquest of the ancient Middle East, the successive movements of Germanic people (such as Franks, Goths and Huns) across Europe, the Aryan migration into India, the Seljuk Turks conquest of much of the Muslim world that began in the 11th century, and the vast Mongolian conquests of the 13th and 14th centuries."

It seems to me that there is a confusion in this section between non-agricultural and nomadic. I will post back soon with sources, but I am fairly sure that a few of the people mentioned above possessed some form of agriculture, mainly the Hittite and Germanic peoples, and possibly the Mongolians if you count livestock. Also, I was quite sure that the Germanic peoples were on the whole sedentary not nomadic. I might be confusing different time periods.--tbonepower07 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "law of history" is stated a bit too broadly(more of a usual tendency than a law) but using the Hittites, Germanic tribes etc. as counter examples is simply mis-informed. Every single one of those groups whether nomadic or sedentary were relying predominantly on agriculture. I have removed those statements from the article. DHBoggs 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Diamond's thesis in this book is on the utility of raising both plants and animals, so there's no contradiction in pastoralists successfully competing with agriculturalists. Also, you've left Inuit vs. Norse as the only example of this criticism, but this is a case Diamond covers in detail in his later Collapse (book). Finally, who exactly is making this criticism? It's still unattributed, and it's hard to evaluate the criticism without being able to find out any more about it. --JWB 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Europe or Eurasia?

It seems to me the page discusses Europe too much. The book is primarily about Eurasia vs. other connected regions, not about Europe as a separate unit. --JWB 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I agree, and this shows up perhaps unfairly in the criticisms section. I didn't feel, for example, that he underestimated the importance of South East Asian technology. --Camipco 17:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Proposed edit for intro:

"...which began broadcasting a documentary based on the book, produced by the National Geographic Society," which uses the term "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about 870 times in one hour. :(

-St|eve 01:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Anna Karenina principle

The Anna Karenina principle is currently an orphaned stub describing one argument from Diamond's book. Can it and should it be merged into this article? MC MasterChef 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be merged or not, but after my edit it is at least no longer orphaned. DPoon 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Ok to keep it separate, because it is a well-defined piece of text. It just has to be properly linked whenever it is mentioned.

african contribution

can anyone point out exactly what were the african contribution to european ascendency? The more familiar non-European inventions of paper, gunpowder, compass, and the movable type were Chinese in origin, not African, and they were not forcefully appropriated, but learned through mutual exchange. Cowell 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The contribution is usually said to mainly be that colonialism provided profits that helped Europe develop, and that it exercised key technologies like seafaring and industrial machinery, allowing Europe to gain the lead. The example of export of a African technical skill that I have seen documented in most detail is rice cultivation coming from the Niger Delta to South Carolina; I'm sure other people have other examples.--JWB 23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The areas from where most Africans were taken in the Atlantic slave trade were densely-populated chiefdoms, kingdoms and empires, all of which rested upon agricultural and iron-working systems that could maintain dense populations. Since most were farmers, ironworkers or other craftsmen, then they had a "pre-adaptation" to the requirements of plantation slave labor, without whose existence the Industrial Revolution would not have taken place (the stable, chattel labor force freed up capital that could be used in technological innovations and investments). Thank the African bodies themselves for the Industrial Revolution.Kemet 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I was given to understand that the industrial revolution was primarily a British phenomenon, while African slavery was primarily an American one; and that industrialization in America happened more readily in places where slavery was less common (i.e. the Northern states vs. the South and the Caribbean islands). No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.171.214 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

FAC?

This is quite good, I think with minor adjustments it would survive FAC. Anybody interested in addressing eventual FAC objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What is FAC? Which objections are you anticipating?--JWB 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
FAC = Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. As for the objections - I guess we will see after nominations. My question was about whether there are any editors that will read the comments and try to address them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd look at objections. (not guaranteeing I would fix all objections) What page would they be on? --JWB 08:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Let's start with Peer Review first. There are usually not that many comments, but if they are, they are useful. Check the templates at the talk above for links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
We have comments - see Wikipedia:Peer_Review#Guns.2C_Germs.2C_and_Steel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Adding more publishing info about the book is a good idea, though I'm not the person for that.--JWB 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.