Saturday, August 27, 2011


Starting off the book, Diamond stress his importance for Yali's question of "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of out own?" (14) He could have easily stated that the reason was because they weren't resources properly and therefore they didn't domesticate animals nor plant crops. But then he would have written an enormous book. I believe he is guilty. Throughout the book all he talks about is how geography was the reason that the Africans weren't the ones that dominated the world because they sure did have an advantage over everyone else because all other people originated in Africa.

Climate was the biggest problem for why Africa wasn't able to produce crops as easily as the Eurasians. It all has to do with the geography of Africa if I would have been located on a more fertile place in the world then it would have been Africa that dominated the world but it wasn't that way. Half of Africa is a dry desert and nothing can grow there and he few places that can grow things can't handle the production of wheat or barely. Like Diamond says, "...Nor could food productions spring up spontaneously in deserts remote from sources of water for irrigation..."(93). Saying this he means that some places it was impossible for there to be a crop production because of the land. And the land is like that because of it's geographical location.

On page 180 Diamond asks this question, "What is it about the Americas an Africa that made the spread of food production more difficult there than in Eurasia?" Diamond tells us that because Eurasia had a Fertile Crescent! That is the main reason for why they produced so much crop that spread rapidly. And this is an example of Diamond stressing that is was the geography of Eurasia that made is the most dominate influence of the world. The food and animals that we have today are only here because the geography was go good in Eurasia and that allowed for them to explore more parts of the world to spread this "knowledge" of things.

To end the book, Diamond states that, " was due to accidents of geography and biogeography--- in particular, to the continents' different areas, axes, and suits of wild plant and animal species." (401) There he pretty much tells us directly that it was geography that shaped the world. So in my eyes he is guilty as charged.


  1. I have to say I completly agree with you. He is obviously a geographic determinist. He does strongly believe that geography influences the future. However, I have a question that has been probing me for quite some time: Why does he seem to have a problem with that label? He goes into a little bit of detail and says that others can't argue that what he is saying isn't true.
    I don't seem to see the problem with being a geographic determinist. Do you think others label him that way because they want to believe that it is actually the people that are dumber? Or is it that they agree with him, therefore they label him as a geographic determinist? I really don't see why it's bad. It seems to me that, that science proves his statements.

  2. Pretty much there, crystal clear. Your blog may also include types of weaponry that was made through specialization. That was due to the amount of food in area. With enough food for people to eat, they can work on other tasks such as the European steel. This food came from the domestication of plants and animals which Diamond has explained that it happened through geography.

  3. Guilty as charged, I agree with you. Your blog targets all the main points. Diamond is a geographic determinist, the tittle seems to bother him, but his work speaks other wise. By him stating that geography shaped the world, he proves our point. What do you think about this question. . .Did Europeans win history?