/lit/ - Literature

>>17307834
The whole thing is incredibly selective in its application of its proofs, to the point that most of the book is a post-facto deterministic rationalization for why things are the way they are that, rather than finding important factors that may have contributed to the development or lack thereof of certain civilizations--which is how a researcher who isn't a hack would go about this--Diamond instead spends the entire fucking book selectively applying his own proofs.

I'll just give you one example, which is the incredibly asinine statement that much of Africa was lacking in natural agricultural crops that could be easily domesticated. This is so incredibly, absurdly wrong that I had to go back and read it again just to be sure I did not somehow misread it the first time. Yams just don't exist now? You can't grow beans in Africa? The entire point of domesticating crops is that they start out one way, and through centuries of selective planting become more fit for human consumption.

Similarly, lack of large navigable waterways. What the fuck is the Zambizi? What about North America, the Mississippi river network is literally the largest, AND most fertile and navigable river system on planet Earth, why does geographical determinism only become this pivotal factor when it conveniently fits into one narrative that conveniently explains a bunch of politically uncomfortable issues?

And the most frustrating part of all of this shit is that it was clearly Diamond trying to be progressive by attributing the flourishing of civilizations not to tribal or genetic interpretations of human behavior but to environmental pressures, and it STILL DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE EVERYONE STILL CALLS THE BOOK RACIST

FUCK