I don't get it

I don't get it

What type of person do I have to be to enjoy this book?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanga_cattle.
westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Zimbabwe_relations
theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/12/20/ian-morris-on-why-the-west-rules-for-now/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

a faggot

I don't agree with his over all argument but it still a damn good book. I love ancient history and shit.

someone that is so scared of racial differences they wrote a whole book to avoid them

You just have to hate white people, and be willing to suspend all logic.

A Jew

Some people suck at life because they have shit resources and never bothered to move away from their shitty homeland.

My liberal teacher told us how many liberals hate it that type of theory was liked by Hitler.

A brainlet

>enjoy

>t. MAGIC EUROP SOIL!
>AFRICA WUZ NOT FERTILE
Worst book of all time, Jared Diamond is huckster and doesn't even believe his own crap.

also go on youtube and just watch the documentary if you hate reading the book

How much (((triggering))) content is there in this? I downloaded it but I’m scared of all the holohoax/KANGZ bullshit I’ll have to deal with.

Honestly Niall Ferguson wrote a better mainstream explanation for the world, called Civilization: The West and the Rest. It's anti racialist, like OP's book, but alot more realistic. Deep down though we all know that niggers are just straight up inferior beings.

You will laugh at his arguments. He says stuff like Africa's soil or elevation made certain crops impossible to grow, or that Africa's animals were not able to be domesticated, which apparently explains why Africans never had civilization. This is obviously a load of horse shit.

>Jared Diamond

A person with preconceived notions about white people being racist always keepin the black man down and/or a complete non-understanding of European civilizational history, or you could just be a liberal arts nigger faggot who was told to read it by his 300lb lesbo professor Schultzstein and you'll like it because she told you you're supposed to like it or else.

>pic related

But whitey never had a problem doing any of those things when they visited Africa

And here I was, hoping it would be a good addition to my redpill library. Thank goodness I stopped by.

Some ideas presented there are actually pretty logical, but the brainlets here will damage control as much as possible just to protect their shitty ideologies.

an ignorant delusional leftist who hates his own culture

A very smart person OP, a very smart and woke person.

This book tells you that white people had it easy and were lucky with their geography.

Its also funny how these same people will say the brown people didn't have the same resources.
but then why did the white man invade to take all their plentiful resources?

People on here say this all the time, but to date the zebra still hasn't been domesticated. You can train one or two of them, but actual domestication has yet to be achieved.

Also if the conditions for growing crops are possible but in Africa extremely difficult, the genisis of the idea to practice agriculture would take much longer to come up organically compared to places like Asia or Europe where you could practically do it by accident

Whitey brought his special euro crops there dumbass

>zebra has never been domesticated
we have horses you daft cunt

What? Zebras aren't horses. It's a completely different species. Thats like saying a deer is an elk.

racist

Well that's not surprising considering it took thousands of years to domesticate dogs and horses. Problem is nigs were too retarded to get the process going back then.

Self loathing good goy

Or twitter niggress who cant really read it but knows it be woke n shit

>has the wealthiest continent on the rock
>blames Whitey's success on Geographical luck
>has had some 40 K years to develop what Whites developed in less than 1 K years but didn't because muh oppression
>gets rid of/murders Colonialists and invites in soulless Chinese Imperialism
>calls Whites perpetual Colonists so to get back at them for daring to give them life improvement technology, fills Whitey's lands with gibs, leeches, do-nothings, dad-less welfare parasites
yeah; you're totally gonna be taken seriously

This, it is really that simple

He's saying there is no reason to domesticate zebras because we already have horses. That is why aside from a few half-assed attempts by 19th century hipsters, no one has tried to do so. There is no reason given a serious attempt the zebra could not be domesticated.

this. I gave up halfway through reading it.
It's like he began the entire book with the belief that all races are exactly the same both physically and mentally and then searched for "evidence" to prove it.

I wish I was a 19th century hipster

Dude, you're so dumb. You know cattle were domesticated thousands of years ago right? They were a different species then, called Aurochs. They got bred to be domesticated by caucasians and asians. It's called taking control of your environment. The Africans could have done the same thing in Africa with any number of animal species. You mold the environment to suit your needs. This is what white people did. Africans were too fucking stupid to do anything except run around and throw spears at animals and each other.

Africa had Aurochs as well, and domesticated their own breed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanga_cattle.

They had every resource Europe had, and then some, and they still were easily overtaken by Europeans

Despite the flawed thesis it's actually an interesting read. 6/10.

>yfw this picture destroys Jared (((Diamond)))

>Also if the conditions for growing crops are possible but in Africa extremely difficult, the genisis of the idea to practice agriculture would take much longer to come up organically compared to places like Europe where you could practically do it by accident
At least they had crops worth growing. Europe had no native cereal grains, which are the most important type of crop for developing agriculture and therefore; civilization. At best Europe only had wild mustard grass, a few root vegetables, and a few species of nuts and berries. Every other continent had cereal grains except for Antarctica. Africa had multiple varieties of grains, and practically all crops grown in Europe prior to the importation of new world crops were from Mesopotamia. Europe had no advantage over Africa Agricultural or otherwise

Europe did kind of have one critical advantage though. Snow and cold forced us to evolve intelligence and foresight to survive, whereas Africans could thrive without a high IQ.

Hey,hey, hey, wait a minute. How can you explain greeks, romans and other Mediterranean civilizations then?

He didn't say anything in particular about African soil being infertile. He said that there's a relative paucity of mass-producible food crops and domestic animals in contiguous climate zones.

A desperate nigger apologist

Aurochs were recorded by ancient writers as being potentially nasty if disturbed, but I doubt they were as unmanageable as zebras and African buffalo. Zebras injure many zookeepers each year, panic and can't be easily corralled like the first horses could be, and have a very powerful bite that they use generously. African buffalo are even worse: they chase lions up trees.

No, you don't understand zebras kind of look like horses so that means they're the same and black people are dumb

Most of Europe lies in the temperate or subtropical latitudes, just like the regions where most grains were domesticated in Western Asia. Africa is more vertically aligned, so there are fewer large belts of contiguous climates for crops to travel across.

The Bell Curve is the counter argument to Guns Germs and Kikes.

>can't be easily corralled like the first horses could be
And you know this how? Wild Equus ferus caballus has been extinct for thousands of years.
Also, see:
Africa had Aurochs as well.

>there are fewer large belts of contiguous climates for crops to travel across.
So? Africa had their own native crops that did not require being transported. Europe had no cereals at all and were almost wholly dependent on imports for all of their agriculture. Also, are you going to sit there and say that the climate difference between Mesopotamia and Scandinavia is less than the difference between Mesopotamia and Zimbabwe?

The book you were looking for is called "The Bell Curve"

Explain the shithold known as Mongolia. Or Kazakhstan, etc.

>1 post by this ID

Arguable. The real mark of civilization is agriculture. It's vital for establishing a population that will require exponential innovation to address the facilitation of a peoples' expanse.
Once you have a large population you have to govern and enact laws, edicts, a system of trade, social class and labor.
Harsh environments facilitate advancement of course, you can't live in a climate with few windows to prepare for deadly conditions otherwise.
So maybe it can be justified that only the hardiest of adapters could survive this environment but the whole world isn't this environment. You may be masters of this domain but what innovations have you missed out on stowing for winter that you could have otherwise developed?
That's why the most advanced cultures also had ample room for society to facilitate the exchange of ideas.

The Africa-was-hard-to-live-in theory also doesn't address the snow theory. If Nordic peoples ferociously advanced to adapt to their harsh climate, why didn't sub Saharans advance through their adaptation? There is thousands of years of technological stagnation for a people who existed in their lands much longer than the Nordics did; if the environment was so harsh: why didn't they adapt in this time? If you refused to adapt in a Nordic climate, you'd never produce a large population. But the sub Saharans had a massive population even for their land occupation without, hardly, any agriculture. How is that possible? It's because Africa was not hard to live in, on the contrary: it was so easy they didn't have to change a damn thing to survive.

>sub Saharan Africa separated completely by the Sahara

The fucking Nile river, how did it work?

>Also if the conditions for growing crops are possible but in Africa extremely difficult, the genisis of the idea to practice agriculture would take much longer to come up organically compared to places like Asia or Europe where you could practically do it by accident
>Europe is an easier place to grow crops than Africa
>The fucking British isles are an easier place to grow crops than Africa

This is completely and utterly false. Wherever Whites went in Africa, organized agriculture followed. Africa is far more suited for farming than Europe.

The transition of Zimbabwe from the breadbasket of Africa to mass starvation is proof that Africans inherently lack the mental capacity for farming.

Black people are just as smart and clever as Japanese, right? All races are equal am i right?

The Nile flows from south to north.
Niggers are still subhuman though.

Someone who thinks you can't domesticate and ride a zebra.

Not a faggot
not a leaf
>choose both.

>If Nordic peoples ferociously advanced to adapt to their harsh climate

The vikings were notorious for settling places that weren't their harsh climate. Normandy for a start, but evidently as far away as North America. Which is badass, but it's hardly sticking it out to adapt in the snowbound hellscape that is the Scandinavian peninsula

A fatalist, self-hating white cuck.

Diamond is dishonest at best and an idiot at worst.

westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/

that is what I hate about those people. pointing out Sup Forums's idiocy about "lulz niggers are dumb" is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Agriculture developed independentely in africa so "lol niggers couldn't think to farm" is bullshit, and civilizations developed in ethiopia and west africa (both locations of high fertility and evidenced by their current high population density)

but the fact that no particular crop or writing system was domesticated in europe is also pretty meaningless because since euope was so close to the levant their was no reason to. Why reinvent the wheel?

Not to mention though that the people in the near east are Caucasians, just slightly darker. I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for islamic retardation and the spread of sandnigger genes from the arabian peninsula then the middle east would be doing much much better today.

After the arab conquests that region slowly got more and more retarded, but in the beginning the legacy of the old genetic stock of the early civilizations could keep the momentum up, its just over time the sandniggers out breed them

...

whites murdered all the animals they couldnt domesticate

>Papua New Guineans made me feel stupid in the jungle so they're objectively the smartest people on Earth
holy shit, I was expecting shoddy arguments but this tops it all

The funniest part is seeing him triggering you so much that you reject that geography had any influence on how civilizations were built.

a christcuck/jew/libfag

It is the go-to text for Bugmen who want a political correct explanation of global economic inequality. This book puts the blame on Africa's niggardly standard of living and technological development on structural factors related to geography.

Personally, if you're interested in the topic, a better book would be David Landes' Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

...

also because bell curve. Average IQ is important in some respects, but all you need is a couple high iq people to make inventions.

Literacy was also a very restricted thing in ancient times so having large numbers of high iq people wasn't necessary, but now that literacy is more important for the average person IQ is more meaningful. You don't need a high iq to be a subsistence farmer.

What I think is more important about whites vs blacks is that whites needed the time preference to store food for the winter.

In my opinion while IQ can measure your success in modern society, average time preference of the population has more to do with how well the society as a whole will do.

You know horses were indigenous to the North American landmass but the Indians ate them all.
They were reintroduced by Europeans.

99% of all marsupials were made extinct by the Aboriginal by fire-stick farming and the land may have been made barren by their practices.

There is some evidence that the great plains of the US met the same fate.

Meanwhile German stills has wild boar and deer all over the country after 40,000 years.

Wait, I thought leftists hated this book and think it's racist?

(((((((((((((((((((((Jared Diamond)))))))))))))))))))))

Watch the YouTube video of the Russian bloke who turns captured wild foxes into completely tame dog-like creatures within 10 generations through nothing but selective breeding.

they hate everything and think everything is racist

The response to point 1 doesn't make any sense, Europe did receive cultural and technological imports from Mesopotamia through Greece and Italy. The Mediterranean was an excellent means of transporting ideas east to west.

As a work of pure fiction, then it's ok to enjoy it.

well- if you had half a brain, i might be able to explain to you what sort of person it would take to enjoy it
i guess you're shit out of luck, user

He's not commenting on Europe and the near East. Jared Diamond says Eurasia, including India and China. Keep that in mind and look at Africa. The Zulu conquered from West Africa to South Africa in a few hundred years, completely to the point of the near extinction of the Capoid race.Where was the cross fertilization of cultures there ?

Secondly he is talking about active transmission. The last breath of Babylon was around the time of Alexander. How much was being transmitted back and forth ? Who knows.
What was Alexander transmitting with China.

Diamond says that information flowed freely throughout the the Eurasian "continent" his words.

According to John Green, only racists enjoy this book.

fpbp
/thread

>"TACO TIME" finger tattoos

End my life.

>Guns, Germs and Steel
That book was literally written by a professional bird watcher.
How come Sup Forums is about ornitologists and biologists (Dawkins) lecturing about politics and religion which they don't understand the first thing of?

In the paleolithic 90% of the Europeans lived in the Mediterranean because half of Europe was covered with ice, and Even the Mediterranean was cold as fuck.

You need to harbor a significant amount of unconscious anti-white bias. That sounds like I'm being insincere, but just read this passage. It's about why white Australians built a prosperous society and Aborigines didn't, and why any any explanations of this fact that take biological differences into account are reprehensible.

>The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking. In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern "Stone Age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples.

Unless you have been thoroughly inculcated with disdain for white people, it is impossible not to notice the glaring contradiction here. Statements that white people are more intelligent than non-white people are "loathsome" statements. Casual assertions that non-white people are more intelligent than white people are perfectly acceptable. Also take special note of how Diamond implies that even if "racist explanations" were based in fact, they could still be discounted simply because they are "loathsome". They are discounted "not just" because "they are loathsome", but *also* because they are wrong. Their inaccuracy is secondary, even superfluous. To Diamond, these ideas are simply unacceptable regardless of their truth content.

(continued in next post)

But by "these ideas", I do not mean ideas about race differences. No, those are fine. See here:

>It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food.

>Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent.

So there is Jared Diamond's argument for the racial superiority of New Guineans compared to Europeans. Is this a "loathsome" explanation?

Now this is a strange passage, he's arguing that there is a eugenic effect derived from living in New Guinean societies, but it's impossible there could've been eugenic effects present in European societies that would explain their greater intelligence? Also, where is his proof that New Guinean tribesmen are more intelligent than Europeans? Is he basing it on anything quantifiable like IQ or are we just expected to take him at face value? Funny that as you say he's completely fine with racial differences just so long as whites are the inferior, typical Jew.

Yeah, this seems pretty blatant. It wasn't that bad when Jared put his book out, but now this kind of thought process is very common and also very actively used to try to suppress whites and men.

you do know the imperalist capitalist wouldn't allow zimbabwe to flourish under black rule right? they literally put sanctions on them and sabotaged them every step of the way... you do know that right? you do know that white supremacy rules africa today.. right

you know that right?

probalby not because you are an white supreamist capitalist peice of shit

go read a book retard
or at least wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Zimbabwe_relations

Maybe give that page a read over yourself

>Also, where is his proof that New Guinean tribesmen are more intelligent than Europeans?

Oh no, you can't prove that. IQ tests are all culturally biased and the results they produce are influenced as much by individual experience as by individual natural ability. Just take his word for it.

>My perspective on this controversy comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonably suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. Of course, New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not.

Don't ask the obvious question whether New Guineans have been trained since childhood to "form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings". They're just better at it than Europeans and Americans, and that makes them innately smarter. Jared Diamond says so, and his book won the Pulitzer Prize.

Also don't ask why his focus is placed on Westerners, instead of other historically successful civilized peoples such as East or South Asians. It's just important that you learn how stupid white people are and how they don't deserve anything they've built.

literally anti-white jew revisionism the arguments of which the author fails to apply consistently.

'Diamond, is eager to show there is no genetic component that might explain how the Europeans became far more advanced technologically than the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Hemisphere, South-East Asia, and Australasia. Diamond states in Guns, Germs and Steel that the idea that there are genetic factors which cause Europeans to be more intelligent (on average) than Australian Aborigines is morally loathsome. The clear anti-White agenda of Diamond (who is Jewish) is revealed by the fact that two pages after making this statement he informs us that, as a result of natural selection, the aborigines of the New Guinea highlands are, in all probability, genetically superior to Europeans in mental ability.

The real problem, however, with the Guns, Germs and Steel thesis, is that the facts refute the theory, particularly when applied to a comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Mesoamerica. Hart notes how the geographic factors mentioned by Diamond strongly favored sub-Saharan Africa over Mesoamerica — meaning that civilization should have begun there earlier, and it should have progressed more there (prior to the European expansion of modern times) than it did in Mesoamerica. Sub-Saharan Africa had at least five useful wild cereal crops to Mesoamerica’s one, and sub-Saharan Africa possessed many potentially useful farm animals such the wild ancestor of domestic cattle, as well as sheep and goats had spread south of the Sahara by four thousand years ago, while Mesoamerica did not have a single large domesticable animal. Despite sub-Saharan Africa’s many advantages, by AD 1000, Mesoamerica was far more advanced than sub-Saharan Africa was, or ever had been.

theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/12/20/ian-morris-on-why-the-west-rules-for-now/

Lol those were some of his better arguments. White men haven't domesticated the animals that Africans couldn't.

He actually said quite the opposite. Whites had it the hardest. That's why we had the deadliest germs, developed the deadliest weapons, and conquered the deadliest animals.

All the other societies living in easy mode couldn't handle the challenges we handled when we showed up.

Read it and you will get super triggered by the part on page 20ish i think where he said that niggers in Papua New Guinea are AT LEAST as smart as wester Europeans. Which is a load of bullshit considering their average iq is 75ish. Also he is the "all cultures are equal" kind of a person.

>White men haven't domesticated the animals that Africans couldn't.
Why would we need to domesticate zebras when we already had horse?

He says they're a different kind of smart. Take an average white person who's lived his whole life in the city, and he'll die in paupau New Guinea. His white skin and higher IQ won't save him from nature, only experience will

kys commie scum

Exactly. Same reason we never domesticated bears, we already have meat sources.

I was more interested in crop domestication. We still can't domesticate the oak tree