Real History Vs. Guns, Germs, And Steel By Jared Diamond

War and conquest have been a part of human nature since humans first stepped foot on the Earth. As time passed and technology thrived, specific regions started to emerge as the obvious world powers and would eventually expand around the globe. Jared Diamond argues that Eurasians conquered the globe not because of their ingenuity or superior intelligence, but because of their geography and its influences, such as agriculture, cattle, technology, and disease resistance. One of the main aspects of civilization that comes with the geographies and their climates is agriculture and animals. According to Diamond and many other prominent historians, the foundation of a growing nation relies on an abundance of food. Productive agriculture and livestock …show more content…
Among some of these criticisms, Jason Antrosio and Jeff Guo both make cases against the Pulitzer prize winning theory. In his article “Real History versus Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond,” Antrosio states that Guns, Germs, and Steel is a distorted account of true human history. He claims that Diamond’s argument was repetitive and only discussed selective factors, like geography, that affected the shape of history. According to Antrosio, the popular theory never mentions Eurasians’ willingness to utilize guns, steel, and germs as weapons of mass destruction against civilizations and discusses the Eurasian formation of these weapons as pure chance or accidents. “Real History versus Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond” argues that Diamond fails to credit the alliances with native groups for enabling Eurasian conquest, and ultimately underplays the human ability to shape history. On the other hand, Guo agrees with Diamond on the fact that the advancement of civilization depended on agriculture. However, Guo states that evidence pins a nation’s power and political complexity to the type of crops, not the productivity of crops as Diamond suggested. For example, the potato and manioc are “superstar” crops when it comes to productivity, yet the nations that farmed them are far less advanced than the nations of Eurasia (Guo). Guo explains that an economist study demonstrates a major correlation between political complexity and whether the society relied on grain or root agriculture. The leading idea to why grains led to superior civilizations is because grains required hard work and could be stored for long periods, whereas the threat of rotting root crops forced them to be eaten immediately. This led to political complexity among nations of grain agriculture, such as a warrior class and property laws, to ensure the protection of