Why Jared Diamond is Not a Racist

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all.

I recently discovered this video that Sargon of Akkad made last year. Usually, I try not to talk about Sargon due to his overly dark sense of humor, but I think that this video was really clever and needed a response.



I think that Sargon and Crash Course were both being too harsh. Let me explain.

I totally get what Crash Course is trying to say. Environmental determinism is bad because it doesn't take imperialism into account. I can see that. Perhaps there are some people who use environmental determinism to explain things that are better explained by colonial history. I've never met someone like that, but whatever. Maybe they exist.

That being said, I think that environmental determinism has its place. Imperialism cannot explain everything, given that it is a fairly modern phenomenon. Europe was more advanced than Africa before colonialism began. Environmental determinism is the only theory that can adequately explain this ... without resorting to racialism. In other words, I don't think that Jared Diamond is a racist.

Of course, I think that Sargon was also being too harsh. He end the video with some anti-Marxist crap. He's clearly implying that Marxism and environmental determinism are incompatible. They aren't. I already explained why.

Bottom Line: We still need environmental determinism in order to explain the pre-colonial history of Africa. It simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Discuss

He thinks the white Europeans with all their war-mongering gadgets, plans of conquest, and enslavement were superior to Africans?

Yeah, that's the definition of racist.

That's like saying the Morlocks were superior to the Eloi.

Jared Diamond never said that.

He just said that European geography made imperialism possible.

Jared Diamonds book concluded that it was geography and not genes that caused folks of one continent to dominate folks on another continent.

Therefore his book disproves racist explanations. And in effect is anti racist.

But folks who really are racist get so offended by his conclusions thatthey just meltdown and spout all kinds epithets at him, including the epihet of "racist" at his anti racist conclusions.

Go figure.

The basis of his argument is that Europeans are superior (because of their geography).

He says, "The Europeans were more sophisticated".

He compares Europeans to other nations, and argues that Europeans got lucky to not turn out like those inferior people.

So, clearly he thinks the Europeans are superior.

I saw the TV version of the book "Germs, guns, and steel". In it he said nothing of the sort. He said (in essence) Europeans were luckier. Not "better".

His argument is that Europeans were superior, and the reason is because they got lucky.

I think the opposite is true.

The Europeans were not lucky.

Rather, the colonization, warring, conquering of others, enslavement of others all indicate inferior people.

Like the Morlocks, who pursued science, and knowledge, ended up coming to the conclusion that the Eloi were food.

You are off on your own private tangent that has little to do with what Diamond, and the rest of us, are talking about.

But to the extant that what you're saying is relevant it does not head on oppose what Diamond said. In fact its kinda similar to what Diamond is saying. But you seem to be so confused about the topic that you think you're disagreeing with him when you're actually kinda agreeing with him. Lol!

Diamond never said that Europeans were superior. He said that Europeans were more civilized.

Civilization is not necessarily good or bad.

No. That is not fair summation of what Jared said. For one thing: word "civilized" is a loaded term, and DOES imply "better". So its not accurate to state it that way.

And he did not make that kind of a value judgment.

What he said was "Europe was more advanced than other cultures in certain key ways that enabled it to dominate other regions" and "the reason that Europe was more advanced in those key ways was due to dumb luck".

That's a fairer summation (if oversimplified) of what his thesis in the book in question was.

Anyway...

a few years ago on WP someone latched onto one sentence in one of Diamond's books and declared Diamond to be "a racist". But this WPer was upset because he thought that Diamond was being racist in the exact opposite direction from what were talking about.. racist against White people! Lol!

So the author gets it from both directions.