Red pill me on this book

Red pill me on this book.

Just read it Bruce.

Basic premise is reasonable but there is no way that thousands of years of living in an agricultural society with laws and the need to plan influenced IQ or time preference, goyim.

>Excuses excuses: The book

what is its premise?

What said. There's also some downright bizarre stuff about China's coast not being good for hiding in, so politically dissenting pirates can't operate.

Fails basic historical research principles.
Defends an outdated and debunked theory.
Blatant leftist agenda-pushing.

Piece of kike trash.

I watched the documentary. One thing that always confused me was the notion that the reason for their lack of agriculture progress was the lack of strong farm animals that where tameable. Doesn't Africa have elephants? Aren't the Indians taming elephants and use them for manual labour?

This. It's the kosher way of trying to explain why blacks and browns sucking at life without using IQ or any genetic traits.

He basically says if blacks had better pack animals, they'd have civilizations like Rome n sheeit. Hence the guy above me posting domesticated zebra pics.

leftists are never going to grasp research principles seeing as they train themselves to begin from an ideal and work backwards rather than process the results of an investigation.

Elephants are extremely difficult to tame. I could imagine ones being even harder to tame because they are bigger and more aggressive than their Asian cousins.

And that is just one part of his hypothesis.

...

started it ages ago and couldn't get more than a couple chapters in without giving up in disgust. i recall it being quite transparently white guilt propaganda and diamond constantly apologizing for the sins of the big bad white man.

anyone have recommendations for something covering the same subject more objectively?

North Africans and Asians tamed Elephants just fine.

They also have zebra.

This.

The premise is that European success and dominance on the global level was an accident of history and the result of material advantages. Underlying this is the standard leftist assumption that culture and breeding play no role in social development.

Among the author's more ludicrous claims is that sub-saharan africans and the indigenous Americans failed to domesticate animals in a major way because the animals of those continents were unsuitable for domestication. This, the theory goes, stymied the development of those societies because they could not exploit animals for muscle power.

see

> Everybody is equal, the reasons for one's succes can only be explained by their environment
> Man, these niggs living on an island are superior to everybody in every way

Two chapters in and he already killed his hypothesis

blacks couldnt domesticate zebras
blacks are just like us
therefore zebras cant be domesticated

flawless liberal logic

Awful.

Well he also says that many Africans had to deal with diseases like malaria which was always by water sources so they never became as sedentary.

I don't buy it but that's one of his talking points as well.

What I don't understand is why this book and documentary is getting pushed so hard in universities across the USA.

Taming an elephant for war and training an elephant and taming an elephant for agriculture and as a beast of burden is different to taming one for war.

Read this instead

Elephants have been used as beasts of burden in SEA for centuries. Same as water buffalo. Africa has native bovines as well, mate.

To wrap it up:

Yalu: WHY YUO WHITE MAN HAVE SO MUCH CARGO AND WE NEW GUINEANS HAVE SO LITTLE?

Jared: cuz yuo don't like in the latitude of the Fertile Crescent

...

>Red pill me on this book.

Australia is a shithole of a continent where everything evolved to kill you.

No one could ever possibly make it a functional home. Why, even the natives haven't done shit with it in 40,000 years!

>dump a few thousand drunken Irish criminals off and wait a hundred years.

Holy Fuck! What kind of sorcery made Australia a first world country while Haiti is still a shithole??!?

So are negroids. Only a few owned their own as slaves here comparatively to whites.

>So are negroids. Only a few owned their own as slaves here comparatively to (((whites))).

Thank Jew for Correcting The Record.

Everyone had diseases, hell Europe had the black plague, amongst a hundred others.

And it is being pushed so hard for two reasons. The first is Diamond is a kike, the (((media))) promotes their own. Two, it tries to explain why whites are so successful without using IQ or genes. But does so in a very flawed way, that only retards would believe.

Honestly, i do think that white societies current dominance is basically fortune, not determinism.
Did Diamond try to say societies were equal? Nope, he just tried to find a reason one society trumps another.
However i dont think any lay reader can dispute his claims, only other experts.

Everyone with a degree in history can refute most of his claims. And let's not talk about social studies students that all hate him

Kill the ones that you can't tame, breed the ones that you can. Repeat until domesticated.

They should've used the ostrich though, it's the perfect animal for Africa:
>eats grass
>can outrun most predators
>can kick the ones to death that it can't outrun
>can kick humans to death
>can carry 1 reasonably weighted human possibly carrying a pointy stick
>lays huge eggs
>has huge lean muscles providing a healthy diet
>feathers usable for arrow fletching

>Did Diamond try to say societies were equal? Nope, he just tried to find a reason one society trumps another.

And, surprisingly, his conclusion was "Honkeys be raciss, an sheeit!"

No one can argue this point, because (((Jared Diamond))) is an evil, racist White man himself.

thinking a cartographer wouldn't understand that there are mountains in Europe.
oh my

Sub Saharan Africa had plenty of viable beasts of burden, to name a few:

>Ostrich
>Zebra
>Elephant
>African Buffalo
>Wildebeest

Also Camels which could have been easily imported from North Africa.

"tame" = beat with rebar, etc until they comply

>"tame" = beat with rebar, etc until they comply

Yeah. I've been to Australia too.

Aren't you a few hours overdo for your next Pride Parade?

>Diamond
>Cartographer
He's a fucking biologist. Not just any type of biologist. He's a fucking ornithologist. He studies fucking birds for shits sake.

if you read my previous comment I made a distinction between the smaller and less aggressive Asian elephant and the African elephant.

>a degree in history
Well top kek

Diamond was trying to dispel the myth of inherent racial superiority and the racism of eugenics.
History has shown that a backward society's contact with a civilised one can allow it to adopt the new culture successfully. I think he goes too far back in a contrived fashion to find out why some societies never discovered civilisation ON THEIR OWN. But then again, whites didnt either, they got civilised by other cultures

Faggy neckbeard Jew apologist excuses nigger inferiority by twisting the "geography is evolutionary destiny" argument by making it about access to natural resources instead of about evolutionary pressures driven by climate.

If only they had had rivers good for floating boats on and access to proper animals for domestication like other people in the world they would have been civilization builders.

He's a Jew though, so that makes him an expert about everything and qualified to pose as one about anything remotely related to his field.

He seems to forget that domesticated animals started out as wild and dangerous and were bred to be what they are.

Africans have almost no domesticated dogs, and the one or two that are are clearly more "wild". This is not a fault of the dogs.

Might as well refute while I'm here.

Complete garbage

>Says Africa has no large domesticable animals
>completely omits the Eland and fucking cows
I don't mean buffalo either, I mean fucking cows. East Africans independently domesticated Sanga cattle about 7000 years ago.

>China failed to advance after the Ming due to the (paraphrasing here) "lack of dissidence needed for technological advancement"
This is wrong for two reasons: One, it presumes that technological advancement is spurred by dissidence which is a retarded assumption. Two, the Qing dynasty was one dissidence movement and civil war after another. Non. fucking. stop. dissidence. It doesn't play.

>Diamond was trying to dispel the myth of inherent racial superiority and the racism of eugenics
And he built that on ahistorical non-sense. There's a reason you won't find an academic book review on GGS that has anything good to say about it. One of the easiest ways to get published as a cultural anthropologist and get academic credence is to publish a new hit piece on the book.

I mean, he does have a PhD in Geography... which he got after the book was published iirc.

>Meaning a degree in history is so worthless that even they can discredit his book

It means recognizing and valuing the offspring that are naturally the least aggressive as well as having enough forethought to have a reason to be doing that in the first place.

Africans didn't select themselves for domestication in the way that Whites and Asians did, because the climate didn't give them as much reason to, and this is directly related to why they never did it with animals.

that flower is quite clearly orange

>(((Diamond))) was trying to dispel the myth of inherent racial superiority and the racism of eugenics.

And, he failed. Miserably.

Us evil, raciss goyim ignored his bullshit and looked at the world as it exists, not as he and you want us to look at it.

Tell me again how I'm an evil raciss, and if it wasn't for me, niggers would have colonies on Mars by now.

Fuck. You.

They do it with animals all the time though.

This board is for the discussion of news, world events, political issues, and other related topics.

Off-topic and Sup Forums-tier threads will be deleted (and possibly earn you a ban, if you persist). Unless they are quality, well thought out, well written posts, the following are examples of off-topic and/or Sup Forums-tier threads:

>Red pill me on X. (with no extra content or input of your own)
>Are X white?
>Is X degeneracy?
>How come X girls love Y guys so much?
>If X is true, then how come Y? Checkmate Z.

The variety of threads allowed here are very flexible and we believe in freedom of speech, but we expect a high level of discourse befitting of the board. Attempts to disrupt the board will not be tolerated, nor will calls to disrupt other boards and sites.

Spiritual, soulful people!

This theory is just a good old environmental determinism. Author also is rather biased and ignores number of facts that are unconvinient for him.

>Australia is a shithole of a continent where everything evolved to kill you.
>No one could ever possibly make it a functional home. Why, even the natives haven't done shit with it in 40,000 years!
>dump a few thousand drunken Irish criminals off and wait a hundred years.
>Holy Fuck! What kind of sorcery made Australia a first world country while Haiti is still a shithole??!?

This so much.

Everything in Australia wants to kill you, yet a bunch of convicts managed to survive. While the indigenous inhabitants huff petrol and rape their kids, while leeching off whitey.

Maybe the jews are right. Maybe all white people should cease to exist. Then the parasites will starve to death, and this madness can finally fucking end.

Just found this neat little tidbit as well

>In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker entitled "Vengeance Is Ours",[21] describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea.
>A year later two indigenous people mentioned in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them.[22][23][24]
>In 2013, The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer."[4]
>"was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer."
Really makes you think

>Elephants are extremely difficult to tame

You're right... Im sure they had much more important things to do with their time.

That's the point :^)

Jared Diamond makes up very erratic and downright bizarre claims to try and explain away historical facts. The problem is that those historical facts are often demonstrably false/exaggerated.

For example, he accepts at face value the witness accounts of Spanish conquistadors when they say they single-handedly defeat large forces of Meso-American natives. The truth is that these Conquistador's victories relied heavily on native allies and were not as lop-sided in numbers as Jared presents. To try and explain how it's possible that small bands of men can defeat large armies, Diamond makes absurd claims like how Conquistadors won because Spain had a "rich literary tradition" of dealing with foreign peoples, despite many of those Conquistadors being ILLITERATE. Funnily enough, he wrote this book with the intention of disproving racial supremacist views with environmental determinism, but his complete failure to conduct actual historical criticism actually lends MORE credence to the notion of European supremacy than otherwise.