Re: Good review of "guns, germs, steel"

["Chris Kromm" <ckromm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nice hit-and-run job. Don't suppose you'd actually take the time to defend
your comment?
CK

----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Duchesne <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:31 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:18004] Good review of "guns, germs, steel"


> "Good review"? I, for one, will not trust your friend again on anything!
>
> > My friend (whose opinion I trust on just about everything) had this to
say
> > about the book:
> >
> >
> > Yes, I've actually read the whole book.  It's okay in some ways, but his
> > geographical determinism tends to undercut his avowed anti-racist
> > stance--notions of chance (contingency) get lost, so Diamond winds up
> > arguing, in effect, that imperialism is historically inevitable, and
that
> > the inhabitants of Europe (whether they had been "white" or not) would
> > have dominated the world anyway.  Also, it's so grand in its ambition
> > that historically specific moments come off looking merely like
> > manifestations of general, immutable laws.  So much for agency,
> > responsibility, and finally politics, or the notion that anything could
> > have been (could be) different.
> >
> > Yes, he likes the New Guineans.  And the Australian aborigines, etc. But
> > then, so do lots of white folks.  And liking the oppressed isn't the
same
> > thing as understanding/resisting oppression. To me, Diamond's book is
> > another example of the ease with which scientific explanations of human
> > society can make existing relations of power seem natural and
> > irresistible--in his case, as if they're written into the very rocks and
> > soil and coastlines of the continents.
> >
> > To be sure, he seems to have good intentions.  But his main point is to
> > show that imperialism isn't a result of racial superiority.  Excuse me,
> > but don't we already know that--at least those of us who care?
> >
> >
>