/lit/ - Literature

>>7220043
>Guns, Germs, and Steel type stuff

well memed

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen.

just bang ur head into a wall

https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/monist/

The History of Tumblr, by Molly Smith Carson Jennifer

>>7220043
>howard zinn
>guns, germs, and steel
You'd be better off just reading Wikipedia

>>7220336
>>7220057
Is this one of those cases where 4chsn hates popular things?

>>7220372
This is either a genuine /pol/idiot or a troll. So rightwing he thinks wikipedia too leftist/jewish.

>>7220372
That entire book has been proven wrong over time. Just google it. While you're at it look up criticism of A People's History too, because it's awful and wrong.

>>7220438
so columbus wasn't a genocidal slave trader?

Mommsen's History of Rome

>>7220438
>Conservapedia has proven it wrong

When do you people leave for church?

>>7220381
>So rightwing he thinks wikipedia too leftist/jewish.
But it blatantly is going that way.

>>7220476

...,....

>>7220491
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

>>7220514

So, wikipedia is heavily biased toward male writers

Seems problematic

Are you trying to demonstrate something about your idea of Jews and leftists?

Im at a loss as to what you're trying to communicate

>>7220043

>>7220540
>Seems problematic
In a phrase, that is what I'm trying to demonstrate about my idea of wikipedia's ridiculous politics.

>>7220608
>They wont allow me to edit The Protocols of Zion
>JEWZ

>>7220608

>website has a troubling lopsided ratio of men to women writers
>therefore Wikipedia is turning into a hive for lefts and Jewry

I don't follow

>>7220043
>Howard Zinn
Why not just read historical fiction? Anyone who's taken a basic college US history course can pick apart Zinn with ease. To quote Oscar Handlin:

"Hence the deranged quality of this fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history. It may be unfair to expose to critical scrutiny a work patched together from secondary sources, many used uncritically (Jennings, Williams), others ravaged for material torn out of context (Young, Pike). Any careful reader will perceive that Zinn is a stranger to evidence bearing upon the people about whom he purports to write. But only critics who know the sources will recognize the complex array of devices that pervert his pages. ... On the other hand, the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis. ... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely Anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book. ... He lavishes indiscriminate condemnation upon all the works of man — that is, upon civilization, a word he usually encloses in quotation marks."

>>7220648

Last few sentences are garbage and go to show this guy falling into similar traps as those he's descrying

>>7220648
"incidents are made to fit the legend" this describes the standard,white-washed teaching of anglo-american history ie: european christians brought civilization to the savages.

>>7220695
That hasn't been standard for a long time. If you think pointing out that missionary groups formed the government of a lot of colonies is an attempt to make the colonists look like saints then you may be a little paranoid.

>>7220372
GG&S was blown out of the water by pic related, and there has been a backlash against it in the last 5 years within academia.

Howard Zinn... that book is the poster child for popular history. If you want marxist or socialist spins fine, but go to the appropriate academic that has a focus on a specific area of study, not a book that pretends to have all the answers. The nonficthread up right now here >>7210346 has tons of good real history.

>>7220547
Pretty great book tbh

>>7220837

>good real history
>>marxist or socialist spins
>appropriate academic

I'm not into Zinn but I'm ignoring your advice from a mile away

>>7220837
Also, the method of your trolling may suggest your ideology, so you may be interested to know that their argument is that civilizations prosper based on inclusive vs exclusive social structure.

Assuming you are not trolling however, it is poisonous to try and find works of history or non-fiction that conform to your pre-established thoughts on the subject.

>>7220844
>Doing research on what you read to determine if it is peer reviewed by a specialist in the field is a negative thing.
>Implying Zinn isnt a pinko
>Thinking Zinn isnt pop history.

Enjoy your hugbox. It will help you develop as a person

>>7220372
It's a case of /pol/io plebs infecting the board, yes.

>>7220372
don't listen to these retards, guns germs and steel is fine, the only problem is that maybe he overemphasizes the importance of environmental determinism and applies it to literally everything but it obviously is significant and these dumb cunts can't deal with it

>>7220043
Look up Gerald Horne. He mostly writes about American history, though.

>>7220855
His treatment of Andean culture is ridiculous.

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/

>>7220851

I didn't say either of those things about Zinn but you're revealing your bias pretty candidly

I don't like Zinn

>peer review

oh, you're one of those. goodbye

>>7220873
>Thinking peer review is a negative thing
>Distrusting academia because they are...academics

Oh you are one of those. Goodbye

>>7220855
I think what bugs people is that Zinn's environmental determinism, if viewed by a scientifically literate person, doesn't negate hardline racist views that subsaharans are born less capable than whites (to simplify things). In fact, Zinn provides loads of ammo for the racist view because one of the general rules of evolution is that populations don't adapt to exploit resources that don't exist, ie Africans wouldn't adapt to exploit the things western civ is built around like certain kinds of scarcity and long distance trade technologies.

Maybe Zinn's secretly a big racist, maybe he just fails to understand biology well enough to see that his book is racist, or maybe it's just the people who trot it out as an anti-racist text who are dumb.

>>7220618
>troubling
Again, this is the assumption that I do not follow

>>7220648
>Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book.
Is this fuck-tart even trying?

>>7220865
>le zebra

Every fucking time.

>>7220893

So, you're saying its good that Wikipedia, as a non-profit organization that has pledged to provide free information to and from both men and women has an exorbitant male bias in its writers, but its bad that the article on said bias could be considered 'troubling' by someone

Sure thing, bud

>>7220891
>grasping for straws this badly
>can't keep Zinn and Diamond straight

>>7220916
Oh shit right that was another author. It's only grasping at straws if you're totally unfamiliar with what racists believe and/or never studied evolution in any depth. Hint: my view on evolution is largely shaped by a pair of outspoken Marxists from Harvard who my thesis advisor used to work under so if you're gonna go on calling me /pol/ and a a backwoods racist please refrain. The point isn't to vindicate hardline racism.

>>7220514
>1. A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface;

So the assertion is that women are too stupid to comprehend the interface, and that it should be made easier to accommodate them? Sorry, is this feminism?

>>7220935
Fair enough, but it's hardly fair to hold Diamond responsible for misinterpretations of his book when it's very clearly, outspokenly, not an ant-racist work. Of course, I've never once seen anyone use Diamond's book as a racist tract; the only people I ever see align GG&S with a racist ideology are the people accusing Diamond of "loading ammo for racists". Which racist group/person is using GG&S for their ends?

>>7220951
*"an anti-racist work", not "an ant[i]-racist work.

>>7220951
Jesus Christ, I'm retarded or had too much coffee.
>it's very clearly, outspokenly, [an anti-racist work.]
There.

>>7220948

To your last question: no.

>>7220951
Nobody uses it as a racist tract because most racists never bothered reading it and/or aren't educated enough to see its potential. Just for me personally, when k read it I couldn't stop wondering how nobody had turned the dagger on Diamond already.

>>7220991
Diamond's book is popular science and does what it intends to do: It gives the masses another explanation than downright racism. It succeeds admirably. Diamond knows that just because academics will see that if his thesis is correct it also means that racism is real, most people won't and so he has succeeded.

Call me /pol/io all you want, but the history of non-racial explanations of history from jews has a rich and varied history(despite the jews being the most racist people on the planet); this is simply the latest offshoot of that rich tradition...

>>7220991
>>7221095

Because there is no potential for it in justifying racism? The entire book deflates the idea of any human society, namely European society, being exceptional in anything.

>>7221134
>why doesn't everybody think the way you do?
>maybe it's because I'm so obviously right!
>It's 2015, people.
The point is that it actually goes right along with the way most racists think things went down, that is that Europeans were exposed to an environment that prompted them to develop higher intelligence and social roles better-suited to what would become western civilization. Diamond reinforces this narrative but then just leaves off the bit about the populations adapting to their environments. Not a huge leap between Diamond's narrative and conventional racism.

>Africans have plenty to eat and very high barriers to long-distance trade
>Africans don't develop long distance trade and advanced agriculture
Diamond says that's the end of it, and racists say that perhaps Africans didn't develop certain aspects of intelligence because there was not selective pressure for the kinds of intelligence you need to get rich operating a trading economy.

>Europeans are exposed to scarcity and harsh weather but have lower barriers to long-distance travel
>Europeans develop long-distance trade and all that comes with it.
Diamond says that's the end of it, while racists posit that when people are exposed to scarcity and get to travel long ways to foreign lands that there will be selective pressure for the kind of intelligence that facilitates those things and that they will become more intelligent than populations not under that pressure.

I'm not saying the racists are right, but it is not a big leap from Diamond's narrative to their own. Acting like that one step is some earthshattering intellectual difference just makes you seem silly.

I keep on hearing that this book is shit.

Is there any other (academic) book with a hard Left slant on the same subject that is good? Preferably one that's Marxist, but not vulgar Marxist (ascribing everything to da ebil bourgs) or de fact liberal.

ITT: edgy, special snowflake pseudo-right-wingers whining that progressives generally agree with one another. go back to /pol/

>>7221214
You show em!

>>7220991
>Nobody uses it as a racist tract
Believe it or not, modern academia believes GGS to be "racist".

In a decade, every history book which paints whites as anything else than bloodthirsty savages and PoC as anything else than noble kings n queens n sheeit will be deemed racist.

>>7221170
>why doesn't everybody think the way you do?
Should have stopped reading right there, since you clearly didn't read the post you're responded to, but I gave you another chance.

>The point is that it actually goes right along with the way most racists think things went down, that is that Europeans were exposed to an environment that prompted them to develop higher intelligence
But you didn't even read the book.

I'm lamenting the death of sage here but at least other anon gets to laugh at you.

>>7221238
6/10 collection fledgling collection. Needs more Frankfurt School. Rand belongs in trashbin.

>>7221170
Civilizations develop differently, and it's not racist to say this. For instance, Europe, the global center of barbarism for centuries, developed incredible cultures/technologies of war through endlessly slaughtering each other. They figured, "hey, since we're able to so easily subjugate and pillage more civilized groups of people, we must have a god-given right to rule the world," and so they went on to commit genocide and institute slavery on a global scale, further ensuring their imperial primacy.

>>7221528
How did you miss the point that hard? I'm saying that both Diamond and most contemporary white supremacists agree that the civilizations developed differently, but that white supremacists add the the supposition that the way civilizations develop creates selective pressures on the inhabitants of those civilizations that contribute to their differences later on. All I'm saying is that GGS does not serve well as an anti-racist text because Diamond does not address this central tenet of racism. He basically just agrees with racists up to a point, ignores their central thesis and declares victory.

>>7221417
>I gave you another chance
Wow thanks fam :^)

>but you didn't even read the book
How insightful. Truly I am slain. If only I'd known that agreeing with you was the only way to show off my e-peen and prove I'd read a book.

Hiward Zinn sort of collects the accounts of the 'losers' of Americans history which is fine but be aware that you have a one sided book

>>7221568
>How did you miss the point that hard? I'm saying that both Diamond and most contemporary white supremacists agree that the civilizations developed differently, but that white supremacists add the the supposition that the way civilizations develop creates selective pressures on the inhabitants of those civilizations that contribute to their differences later on. All I'm saying is that GGS does not serve well as an anti-racist text because Diamond does not address this central tenet of racism. He basically just agrees with racists up to a point, ignores their central thesis and declares victory.

There doesn't seem anything wrong with that supposition though

Try Ian Morris's Why The West Rules... For Now

>>7221641
So you're a bit of a white supremacist. Are you at peace with that?

>>7221568
>All I'm saying is that GGS does not serve well as an anti-racist text because Diamond does not address this central tenet of racism.
He spends the majority of the prologue addressing how the notions of racism are mistaken and that the book can't be misconstrued as a defense of it.

>>7221632
But to be fair it's the only side that matters.

>>7221658
Oh well if he says I can't read it that way then I guess that settles it.

He didn't do a good job of addressing, "notions of racism."

>>7221665
He did, you're just being obtuse for the sake of being contrarian.

>>7220043
If you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", please don't take his assertion that zebras aren't domesticable seriously. The book rellies on quite a few falsehoods. He does for example overestimate extremely the extent to which European conquerers used gun powder. The bajonette and halberds were far more important than gun powder in the wars against every nation conquered under the colonial period.

>>7220951
We mostly make fun him for the argument: "geography is the first racist".

I've read Zinn's history. Very eye-opening. A great book.

>>7221662

>>7221680
Every other "side" is endlessly expounded on in every other social/political institution, such that it's just "common sense" (as, say, Gramsci might define the term) to accept notions about Western supremacy or "great man" retellings of history and so on. People's histories matter because they address an often disregarded or altogether ignored interpretation/theory of history.

>>7221675
>anyone who disagrees with me is just being edgy
I shouldn't be disappointed by this anymore, but I am.

>>7220695
As far as those words are understood in their time, they were true. The european idea of civilization generally excluded native societies. As well, being that they were people outside of the european conception of civilization, they were accurately described as "savages" given that they were "uncivilized". It's just that the understanding of those words has changed as history has moved on and so they are NOW inaccurate. But to say by fiat that the view is and always has been an inaccurate statement is not considering all parts of the whole.

>>7220844
There are a sizable amount of Marxist historians. No, Marxist doesn't implicitly mean whatever ideological ghost you've conceived in your head. It refers to the focus of historical study and how the story gets told.

>>7220915
>So, you're saying its good that Wikipedia, as a non-profit organization that has pledged to provide free information to and from both men and women has an exorbitant male bias in its writers, but its bad that the article on said bias could be considered 'troubling' by someone

No, you are the one at odds with that assertion. I simply do not accept that it is a "problem" that needs "fixing". Because I am more concerned with egalitarianism than they are.

>>7220043
This is the next book you want OP, It reminds me so much of Zinn.

>pic related

read it next.

>2015
>people still think historical materialism is valid
Lol go read some Spengler for starters

>>7220891
>In fact, Zinn provides loads of ammo for the racist view

So what? Literally everything is construed as racist today, even if it is factually correct.

The fact that Jamaican Africans are overwhelmingly represented in Olympic Sprinting does not come as a surprise to a geneticist because of hard scientific evidence that they have a gene that predisposes them to more explosive muscle power, but for a leftist this might be construed as racist simply because it discriminates between people.

Or maybe even worse, since it is a positive trait to have those genes, that kind of biology is okay for a leftist, but to dare argue any biology that has negative outcomes, is axiomatically Nazism.

>>7224207
>iamrightbecauseisayso.jpeg

OP here. Can I get some actual book rec's please? fascist cheerleaders, go to /pol/

>>7224764

fuck you guns germs and steel has garbage, flawed, biased ideas.

>>7224777
ok, let's build on that. what book doesn't?

>>7220648
Such a poorly expressed critique only raises my opinion of Zinn. Handlin sounds as though Zinn has personally offended him. Most people reading Zinn are aware he didn't set out to write a fair, objective account of American history. It's supposed to be the facts that are often overlooked, the ugly side of history that's ignored.