What is Sup Forums's opinion on this book?

What is Sup Forums's opinion on this book?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/4ztOV2wrrkY
youtube.com/watch?v=UvaRcDvGPck
slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/09/04/can_zebras_be_domesticated_and_trained.html
unamusementpark.com/2012/02/black-alternate-history-month-the-extended-remix/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
austinchronicle.com/food/2009-04-10/764573/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse#Pleistocene_extinctions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

it's complete bullshit!!1

i haven't read it tho

It ignores genetic intelligence making the book irrelevant on that basis.

Libcuck nonsense.

It could have been a good book about the environments impact on civilization and culture but he jumps the gun and claims that everything else is irrelevant

If people ended up in a place with all the primo stuff they do well. If they don't they can't do shit but cry for socialism.

Ridiculous. The guy's main field of study was geography if I'm remembering correctly. That's hardly any qualification to be taken seriously on the subject. As a matter of fact he doesn't even understand geography well. Also he claims there are literally no species in Africa to be domesticated, even the ones that white people have domesticated.

Detroit.

That is all that is needed to be said.

Jewish Lies. Euros are superior because they're just better. Guns, Germs and, Steel might've helped but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

You don't think the primitives would've raped and pillaged if they had the technology?

Actually read it. He's a fool, spends a lot of the book calling racism stupid without substantiating that notion yet there's a bit quite early on where he fetishizes the savages of PNG, even having the temerity to assert that in many ways they're superior to westerners. They still regularly eat each-other and worship Prince Phillip.

A lot of autistic lists in some desperate bid to assert the deck was stacked against anyone outside of eurasia.

Even conceding Eurasian advantages (dubious) he doesn't attempt to answer the needham question (why europe beat china to modernity).

It's a silly treaty, a long uninteresting exhibition in how unwilling liberals are to engage maturely with the most interesting question in the humanities which is of-course:

>Why have Europeans [More specifically Germanics (More specifically Anglo-Saxons)] been such remarkable catalysts for progress in human history.

You're not going to get a good answer from a cucky hebe who should be bird-watching.

>Native Americans and abos killed their local megafauna after they arrived.
>Native Americans and abos did not advance because they had no suitable megafauna to domesticate

>American societies were too fragmented to advance
>China was too united to advance

>Domesticated animals have different behaviors than wild animals
>Animals that were not domesticated can not be domesticated because I said so.

>Environmental differences are so influential they are the cause of all inequality today
>Environmental differences had no effect at all on genetic differences between races

Environmental determism is legitimate as fuck but I can't stand Diamond or this book. It says the only reason Europeans were able to do what they did is because of the environmental factors when yes that helped but what also helped was the culture. Asia didn't become as expansive as Europe, the middle east and north Africa didn't either, why? North Africa and ME became shit holes because of constant war, Asia arguably is the one place that met or even exceeded Europe but never did. How does Diamond explain that? China's linear coast? No that doesn't work, Asia is huge, it arguably has more coast line then Europe so why did Europe turn out better?

Like I said to begin environmental determinism is a huge factor but not the only one, I argue the more diverse cultures of Europe and nationalism did it. The same way Saladin united Arabs to fight the crusaders, European nations would unite their individual nations to beat out the others, and one could argue that geography did play a part in motivating countries to out innovate each other while one could also argue that the culture of each nation or region in Europe helped them produce/innovate something entirely different based less on enviorment and more on social circumstances.

No matter what though obviously Europeans have innately done better even beating out Asia/Asians who are arguably more intelligent and have the same environmental factors as well (and again arguably better factors).

To end, I am tired and probably have repeated myself.

Tl:Dr

He's not wrong but he's not completely right either

>You can't ride zebras!

Wrong

>It was all malaria's fault!

What is the black plague?

>It's because Europe has lots of metal!

Maybe, but that doesn't explain why Africans never harnessed theirs...the continent is rich in resources.

>You can't domesticate African fauna!

This betrays Diamond's total misunderstanding of evolutionary pressures...modern cows are so docile partly because they were bred that way from less docile herds, which Africans failed to do.

The whole book is a joke

I also have to agree with this.

And this

Debunked.

tl;dr

All races are equal. Niggers sucks only because zebras are impossible to tame.

Jared Diamond BTFO by pic related

"OY VEY GOYIM, BIOLOGY AND GENETICS ARE NOT REAL" the book.

>[More specifically Germanics (More specifically Anglo-Saxons)]


no

Apparently frozen wastelands are easier to live in than tropical paradises.

Proof of the historical superiority of western European nations. As a burger descended from strictly germanic/celtic ancestors (yup, I'm a mutt), it warms my heart to see how western civilization overwhelmed the natives in the Americas.

>Didn't even intend to disease them
>Would've preferred a healthy, enslavable populace
>accidentally wiped out massive portions of their race
>"Well, this clay is ours now anyways"

The colonization of the Americas is one of the most significant feats of western europe.

STOP MAKING THIS FUCKING THREAD EVERY WEEK

(((DIAMOND)))

If Sup Forums were to make a better book on the same subject, what would be the main points?

Try out Howahd Zihns A People's History of the United States if you really want a book that will fuckin knock you on ur ass!!!!

Actual history books.

pretty much this

>iq
>K/r selection
>environmental pressures especially related to planning ahead
>culture

>(why europe beat china to modernity).
he doesn't talk about Chinese isolation at all? I thought I remember covering that in high school

>Germanics
youtu.be/4ztOV2wrrkY

It's even worse, Diamond was originally a physiologist who branched out into ornithology and geography.

Even the cucks are turning on him. Soon Diamond will be considered redpilled.

youtube.com/watch?v=UvaRcDvGPck

yes

you and I both wrote this post in the English language with a computer (pioneered by the British) and transmitted it to the internet (American invention) using wi-fi (Australian invention)

>Diamond was born in Boston, Massachusetts. Both of his parents were from East European Jewish families who had emigrated to the United States.

Colour me surprised.

White guilt Kikery.

Is this some kind of fucking litmus test? I see this thread posted about five times a month for the past two years.

Well it's true that zebras can't be domesticated.

started reading it. 100 pages in I went to search more about. realised that most people in the field disregard the book and the author. dropped it

Wrong, potatonigger. Zebras can be domesticated with selective breeding. Hell, foxes can be domesticated. Look up the Soviet Fox breeding experiment, you can even buy one.

have yet to read it fully, but it seems to be largely about environmental determinism. would be a good read fore sure, but it isn't the be all end all explanation for the development and inequality of civilizations.

>Is this some kind of fucking litmus test?
exactly!
you nailed it.
Whether you subscribe to the (((Jared Diamond))) philosophy is a great litmus test for whether you're red-pilled

So we're still waiting for the final results.
Might take us a while.

slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/09/04/can_zebras_be_domesticated_and_trained.html

Guns, Germs and Steel pseudo-science: an entire book trying to prove that the differences in human development result from anything but intelligence. I was especially amused at his comments about the native populations being superior to Whites while dismissing IQ tests as non-science without listing any real proof.

The reason why Black Africans and American Indians never made much of an impact on the lands was because they were still Stone Age cultures, hunters-and-gatherers without the know-how to sustain more than a very sparse population.
The IQs of Black Africans and American Indians are both hereditary and low, whether they like it or not. I would recommend the works of James D. Watson, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen, and J. Philippe Rushton.

>clearly, the geography which people live in influences their development as a group
>clearly, the geography which people live in does not influence their biologic development as individuals

wew_lad.jpg

Elephants can be trained to work as beasts of burden and for transportation.
So could chimps, if negro Africans weren't so busy trying to rape them and cannibalize their chimp cousins.

Just another book in a long list of Jewish books which deride European accomplishments while resting on the false foundation of egalitarianism under the lie of altruism.
This has been happening for centuries within history and anthropology, this Jewish assault on the European. From Franz Boas to Sigmund Freud to Ashley Montagu.
If you were wise you would listen and realize that the nations are slowly being destroyed.

Asiatic elephants can that I know. But smaller, now extinct subspecies of the ican elephant could also be somewhat domesticated. Although not really because it was still very wild and was afraid of battle. So no.

Ok now I checked they were actually normal-sized African elephants. Makes them seem even more sucky.

Remember that sub-Saharan Africans had a 250,000 year head start on all the races that left Africa.
They should be a quarter of a million years ahead of us. They should be trans-human-galactic travelers.

Instead, they fuck monkeys.

> Africa in Shambles
> Blame Whitey
> Ignore India, Hong Kong, South America, etc

it makes sense. theres a documentary about it too. but they try to really push a certain narrative as fact which is just retarded, its all speculation

Africa is one of the richest places on earth for resources, and they didn't do shit until white people came along.
Sandniggers were able to build great empires in the middle of the fucking desert, don't sell me this geography bullshit.

written by a Jew
frames the world in a marxist scope by making everything about resources.

Written by a jew

literally written by a jew.

Colonialism explains why Singapore and Hong Kong are third-world shit-holes. Oh wait...

How does socialism relate to this?

Africa is a shithole with very few regions. Some of these regions that didn't suffer from any civil war deveop quite nicely. I'd say there are maybe 2 normal sub-saharn African countries. Botswana is definitely one of them. Kongo and Angola should've been successful too but wars and shit I guess.
Liberia shouldn't be populated at all. That's all I know.
Mild climats always win in the end.

>Native Americans and abos killed their local megafauna after they arrived.

What species were killed off?

Will there ever be a day when you believe Negros are responsible for their own actions?
Or is it that the Negro race is inferior to the White race and therefore they cannot ever be responsible for themselves?

pic related = nigger fucking a cow while his homey tries to get the cow to suck his bbc

Literally the first sentence.

>Yes, zebras can be domesticated and trained

You're one dumb fucker. We're not talking about the practicality or morality behind taming or domesticating them, we're debating whether it is possible or not. It's possible and riding around on a zebra is better than nothing.

Hell, I could probably tame a fucking Kangaroo and make it ride me around if we selectively breed over 50 years.

I think the white race is the most developed culturaly and technologically and there's no way any other group of people would've reached the same level sooner.

>hurr durr Mild climats always win in the end.
BULLSHIT
the reason Whites and Asians are so vastly superior to the negroid is because we spent the last fifty thousand years fighting to survive in the harshest climates.
I'm sorry that over these tens of thousands of years, black Africans were never exposed to an environment with the selective pressures conducive to fostering intelligence, like Asians and Whites.

why take this bait?

Read the whole thing. It will take some time because zebras aren't as big or mild. They didn't evolve to serve humans but to survive in Africa.
Breeding programs for zebras exist and they can give us a quagga but not much else.

Please, the Romans from 2500 years ago were more advanced than Sub-Saharan Africans today.
The countries of Black Africa have enormously rich natural resources, but health-wise they're basket cases. Without the boost given to them by Europeans during the colonial era, their people still would be eating each other. Some of them still are in fact. And since Europeans gave up their colonies the Africans have been sliding back into the jungle. Whenever a disaster occurs they're dependent on Whites.

FUN FACT: Most inventions attributed to black people are myths.
unamusementpark.com/2012/02/black-alternate-history-month-the-extended-remix/
And really, a dozen or so scientists and inventors?
Excuse me while I continue to not give a fuck.

Trips of truth

Worth a read. Take it in this context

Doesn't genetics also evolve from adaptation to the environment?

Does anyone know the answer to this? I haven't read the book. What useful animals does the author think were killed off in the americas?

>subtly mentions asian iq rates

They had it too good.
Appropriate ambient temperature?
Check.
Lack of desolate winters?
Check.
Available fresh water?
Check.
Abundant vegetation?
Check.
Area rich in ore?
Check.

Their only real challenge was wildlife that could eat them alive, which they have surpassed.
I don't think they really progressed that point.
They sure do like to kill each other over dumb shit though.

Horses, zebras, and camels were all native to the Americas. They came across the bering straight going west into Eurasia.

Once the Natives crossed over eastward they hunted the remainder to extinction.

Australia also had several species of large marsupials that got killed of by early abos.

read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
and
scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/
Environmental factors that influence intelligence would be nutrition and peer pressure. And as long as you're not starving to where you're seriously malnourished, then intelligence will statistically revert to the norm. In whites, that's 100 IQ. In negroes, it's less. Much less. For African Americans, it's 85 IQ. There's no environment anywhere on earth where you could put the negro and magically increase his intelligence as measured by IQ. Many Transracial Adoption Studies have set out to prove they could do that by giving the negro a wealthy White adoptive family in White suburbia, but the data always shows that Black IQ is both low and hereditary, whether we like it or not. Mother Nature doesn't do equal.

>They came across the bering straight going west into Eurasia.
lolwut
Amerindians are descendants of Siberians who trickled into North America by walking eastward, across the Bering Strait, when sea levels were much lower and more land mass was exposed making such a journey on land possible.

>Horses, zebras, and camels

wait what? really? in north america? The first migrants must have had it made relatively speaking. I was told that there was literally nothing available to domesticate at all. If the truth is that they wasted the resources, Squanto deserved to lose.

The anthropology shit is alright but his conclusion doesn't match his hypothesis. In fact, he even points out that China should have become way more advanced than Europe during the Renaissance/Industrial age.

The "They" in that sentence refers to the horses, zebras, and camels from the Americas migrating east into Eurasia, not the Amerindians.

yep
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

In short, a 500 page long (standard) jewish attempt at explaining away the historical and intellectual superiority of European and Asian peoples.

gotcha

FUN READING: History of Pigs in America
austinchronicle.com/food/2009-04-10/764573/
>basically, Spaniards brought a dozen pigs to the New World which ballooned into a massive population of many hundreds. The injuns got a taste of delicious pork meat, which later led to the biggest and worst massacres. Read on

*migrating west into Eurasia

got turned around a bit in my head

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse#Pleistocene_extinctions

holy shit.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

hahaha holy shit Diamond completely blown the fuck out.

Basically it's the libcucks anti-racist Bible that has the flaw of all Marxist lines of thought-it assumes the conclusion and then scrambles to form evidence to support it instead of gathering evidence to create the conclusion.

He tries to blame the African's lack of civilization on "lack of animals to domesticate" instead of actually acknowledging that they're fucking niggers with 65 IQs.

I would agree that environment does affect the formation of a civilization and culture, but the fucking kike Diamond makes some huge assumptions and then doesn't compare credibly.

Europeans had animals to deal with, and they turned wolves into dogs and oxen into cattle. It took a few years to do it. Niggers had arguably more species to work with and never domesticated shit.

The book is absolute garbage.

>and early adventurers from Europe left small populations of pigs in the wild so they'd have food upon their return, only for the pigs to go feral and evolve into wild hogs, which roam the countryside till this very day.

>Europe, being principally Christian, embraced the pig
This is the true reason Europe advanced beyond sandniggers.

The hilarious thing about it is that libs are now claiming that environmental determinism is racist because it doesn't explicitly blame white people for every bad thing ever.

>Also he claims there are literally no species in Africa to be domesticated, even the ones that white people have domesticated.
We have the zebra pic in the thread, adding the pig tamers.

>Their only real challenge was wildlife that could eat them alive, which they have surpassed.
Europe has bears and was said to have lions in greece.

could dindus reproduce selectively so the avg iq gets higher? or is that impossible?

Zinn was the worst kind of journalist, even compared to Rather and Cronkite. He started out with his own conclusions and tried to 'fill in' with facts, declaring 'his' facts true and un-rebutable. We shredded his book by chapters in one of my courses, the Grad school version of the class had to produce the facts on both sides and not just how he was wrong, but chapter and verse slaughters of his narratives. It was fun to watch (oral presentations) and raised my bar for serious history study and analysis.

Zinn was either a fool or a conman, possibly both.

It's 2016 and people still talk about this fucking jew book on Sup Forums?

Reported.

Garabage
>cum here to post dis

Of course, it's their religion. They will always attack others for heresy. Their version of original sin is "white people=bad" and it's their faith so they don't have to ever examine it.

Cuckism is a religion.

>Europe has bears and was said to have lions in greece.

This man speaks truth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe

And some crazy aggressive boars too

Trash.
It's a meh tier book, consider that Zebras can be domesticated and that Europeans were thriving and progressing in hunter gatherer societies in Scandinavia.

Also,
>no inlets for rebels to hide = less revolutions
lol this is some crazy shit.

>could dindus reproduce selectively so the avg iq gets higher? or is that impossible?

Take a wild guess, my dude.

...

Not all, the Incas kept and domesticated the llama.

Negroids never created civilization for the same reason chimpanzees never did.

i think there would be a minimum required average intelligence for that to be organized and work properly,
so no.

Early examples of horses (not really megafauna as they were 30 lbs tops), and a breed of small bison both vanished with the 'injun' migrations. The never really domesticated the wolf into the dog, other than a meat animal. Western Europe through the steppes had dogs as integral members of their lifestyle. NA have no stories of dog loyalty that riddles western European and Japanese lore.

It isn't just that they killed off species, they had no idea that they could be tamed.

What's funny is that only holds in the Old World, in the Americas the ones in easy climates had vast empires and metallurgy, maths, engineering while the ones in harsh climate were living similarly to Africans.

>not really megafauna as they were 30 lbs tops
The Hagerman horse(named after Hagerman, Idaho where the first fossils were discovered) weighed between 385 to 847lbs, about the size of a modern Arabian horse.

It's a great book, anybody saying that it isn't basically doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

News flash, you don't have to agree with everything you read. But it's important to challenge your ideas.