Sep 19, 2008 08:17 PM
5578 Views
Diamond tries to explain the differences between world societies by geography.He tries to reject thoeries which are not based on geography and he tries to discard all evidences which show another reason than geography.
Firstly, Diamond's "geographic" theory is neither "original" nor "revolutionary" as so many have claimed. By arguing that all the world's civilisations were dependent on their geography, Diamond is following a line of reasoning that dates back to Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre's "Annales" school of history. Environmental historians such as Donald Worster have also reiterated the ideas of the "Annales" school in recent times. Diamond certainly recycles these theories admirably enough, but if you are familiar with the work of the above historians, you will find little to appreciate here.
Although Diamond's thesis seems coherent enough, much of it is theoretical, and suffers from a lack of concrete evidence to back up his arguments. Instead of material facts, we get highly theoretical "chains of causation" with words such as "surely" and "must have" to provide the connections. One might be able to see how metal implements might develop from fertile lands, but can Newton's theory of Gravitation or Shakespeare's plays be linked directly to the development of metal tools? It is a little difficult to believe.
Diamond also refuses to take the impact of religion seriously. And yet, the Christian faith, which demanded the "spreading of the gospel" encouraged Europeans to look far afield, while the doctrine of the "civilising mission" was a primary motive for Britain and France in their colonial expansion.
