Jared Diamond the author of the best seller “Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” explores and distinguishes the ultimate factors that explain the broad patterns that led to the emergence and dominance of Europe. Throughout the book, Diamond argues that the dominance of Europe since the Stone ages was caused by environmental and geographical factors. As stated by Diamond: “ Environment molds history” – he reiterates his ideas by making use of themes like agriculture, the development of language through writing and the development of societies as a result of fragmentation, to convey and prove his argument. Although Diamonds standpoint on human differences, which led to some societies to prosper and others to fail, is often criticized.
…show more content…
Diamond being a biologist interprets things differently than a natural historian such as William McNeill would. One of the main criticisms of Diamonds theory is that he is perceived as being Euro-centric, meaning he places too much emphasis on the dominance of European geographic factors. Instead of focusing on perhaps a more key factor such as political factors within states. Furthermore, Diamond seems to disregard the facts that people often help shape their environment, he bases his argument on the assumption that all societies seek wealth and power. His obsession with focusing on geographical factors leads him to overlook these very factors. In addition, he is criticized for adapting his theory on other historian’s previous work without necessarily crediting them. This leads to making his thesis unoriginal; it is believed several of Diamonds theories originated from McNeill earlier works. In conclusion, Diamond provides insightful suggestions to unveiling the greater question of ‘Why Europe’ from his biological perspective and with the use of his research on Papua New Guinea, and although he may be criticized for his arguments, it should be considered that most of these arguments were attempts to denounce Diamond for laying too much emphasis on
Diamond being a biologist interprets things differently than a natural historian such as William McNeill would. One of the main criticisms of Diamonds theory is that he is perceived as being Euro-centric, meaning he places too much emphasis on the dominance of European geographic factors. Instead of focusing on perhaps a more key factor such as political factors within states. Furthermore, Diamond seems to disregard the facts that people often help shape their environment, he bases his argument on the assumption that all societies seek wealth and power. His obsession with focusing on geographical factors leads him to overlook these very factors. In addition, he is criticized for adapting his theory on other historian’s previous work without necessarily crediting them. This leads to making his thesis unoriginal; it is believed several of Diamonds theories originated from McNeill earlier works. In conclusion, Diamond provides insightful suggestions to unveiling the greater question of ‘Why Europe’ from his biological perspective and with the use of his research on Papua New Guinea, and although he may be criticized for his arguments, it should be considered that most of these arguments were attempts to denounce Diamond for laying too much emphasis on