Geographical Determination

Jared Diamond is guilty of geographical determination. The entire book talks about how certain people were lucky enough to live in the places they lived on the map because that had an over advantage over the rest of the world.

He says that European settlers had an advantage in Africa because the Cape of Good Hope (where Europeans first landed) has the similar distance from the equator as Europe did. This gave the European invader an advantage. They were able to grow the same crops that they have been growing in Europe for centuries and raise the same animals they have been raising for centuries. Another example he uses a lot is the way New Guinea was different from Europe. It is on a different Latitude from the rest Europe and wasn't able to grow the same foods as the Europeans. The only native plants they had was bananas. Bananas need a certain type of climate that is completely different from that needed to grow wheat and barley. They also didn’t have the same animals need to help them plow their farms. Those animals couldn't survive on the island, due to the different line of latitude. Finally, he talks about the east-west alignment. Due to this factor, plants and animals from the Middle East could grow and be raised where it shared the same line of latitude. To this day, most plants and animals, that live on that east-west alignment are relatively the same. In conculsion, Diamond is guilty of geographical determination.

Flora in the Middle East and the Americas

Diamond would say that the three most important aspects of flora in the Fertile Crescent are that they were easy to plant, store, and provided a lot more calories then the plants of New Guinea. The plants of New Guinea took a lot of time and energy to grow, they could not be stored because it would rot within a couple of days and it didn't provide the same amount if calories or protein as the cereal plants of the Fertile Crescent. Those three aspects encouraged domestication. If the plant was easy to plant, that meant they could grown more food to feed more people. If it could be stored for a long period of time, then people would had longer lasting food supply. If it provided more energy, then people could be able to do more. These three aspects led to the advancement of the Middle East a lot quicker then in New Guinea or any other part of the world.

If these aspects were to be true in Mesoamerica, domestication would only exist in one area of the American continent (not all of it). The reason for this would be because of the north-south longitude. The northern part of the Americas could not grow the same foods as those in the southern parts of the Americas because they had a radically different climate. Overall, the doestication of plants and farming would happened in the Americas at different times and with different plants.

I Think He IS

I do believe that Diamond is a geographic determinist. Throughout the book he makes the case that, a person’s future is based on the location that person was born. If someone was born in Australia during the 1800’s, they would live with primitive tools and a basic lifestyle. Whereas, if that person was born in Europe during the same time, that person would be a part of a complex society with many advance tools.

Diamond also shows this is by convincing the reader that Europe won history. He shows that the majority of the world was conquered by some European country at some point in time. This determines the fate of the people in the location that was conquered because the Europeans could have completely whipped out the natives or just forced their beliefs on them. This could completely change the future of the natives.

Diamond is a geographic determinist. With these arguments he makes throughout his book, he is basically saying that it does matter where someone if from. The location of your birth will determine your future.

The Importance of Livestock

Had humans evolved and spread from Mesoamerica rather than Africa, things would be so much different. The livestock would be different as well as the domestication of the animals. On page 160, Diamond lists the major five species of big herbivorous domestic mammals and mentions that the top five are sheep, goats, cows, pigs, and horses. What I noticed was that it says that these animals were found either in West and Central Asia, Eurasia, and North Africa. These animals were and still are very important because they provide so much. For example cows produce milk, cheese, and meat and pigs can be eaten as well so as far as those animals, they are very important.

Horses were very helpful when it came to humans spreading. Humans domesticated these animals and they turned out to be very useful. It would've taken much longer for humans to spread around the world without the help of horses, mainly. The reason it would've been different had humans evolved in Mesoamerica is because horses weren't found in that area of the world. Everything would've been much slower. If humans started spreading from Mesoamerica and moved west to Eurasia and Africa, it would've been harder for them to domesticate these animals. It would've taken them much longer to begin working with crops if they didn't have domesticated animals because these animals have been proven to be very helpful with crops. For example cows provide the plants with very good fertilizer. Of course Mesoamerica had animals of their own such as llamas and alpacas but even then, it would take longer for them to spread. Humans who evolved in Africa, of course, had a difficult time at first with getting food since almost half of Africa is dessert, but once they stumbled upon the Fertile Crescent, they were good to go. With all this being said, one can only say that had Mesoamerica been the new Africa, the whole spreading around the world process would've been slower, animal domestication would've been more difficult, and it would've taken longer for societies to develop.

Guilty

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, "...it 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.

The New Africa

Africa is were we say everything started out. But what changes would have happened if instead of Africa it all started in Mesoamerica? How different would things be? I've thought about this for a while after having read the question. And I have come to the conclusion that not much would have changed.

The only thing different would have been the animals. There are different types of animals in Africa and Eurasia than there are in the Americas. But still I don't believe that could have made a difference because Diamond says that animals evolved alongside humans and so whatever animals were there were the ones that would have evolved with the human.

Eurasia would have still been dominating because they still would have had the animals like horses and cows and others that would have really impacted their community. The Americas wouldn't know much about civilizations while the Eurasians would have.

It stared in Africa and it still didn't become the dominating county so why would things if it all stared in the Americas. The fertile crescent would have still been on the other side of the world so it still would have been hard for them to produce crops even if they did have the animals to do so.

Livestock

The animals were a big part in why Eurasia was the champion of history. The livestock not only provide a way of transportation but also food and some even milk. Once the people had domesticated the animal they could use it to help the grow crops an with the help the could produce more food to feed more of the community. They even had food to feed all the animal that they domesticated.

Livestock are important because if they ate the animal that itself produced a lot of nutrition. If the people only ate fruits and vegetables then they wouldn't have been as strong as they were. Also they could use the skin of the animal as clothing or even to build a tent. It was important that they stay warm during cold temperatures in order to live.

The livestock were the muscles! Yes, before the animal they had to use the human but if you think about it, how much could a person really do? Of course the animal was stronger and could handle more labor than a person can. That is why with animals they were able to produce more and more crops to feed more and more of their community.

The written language was important for the people but it didn't get them more food and muscle power it just allowed them to communicate. Although communication was important, at the time, the livestock was far more useful and necessary for life.