Re-Assessing Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

I forgot about this book but I recently stumbled on a conversation about Chapter 19 of the book entitled, "How Africa Became Black".

Diamond's premise is that the Bantu-Migration from Nigeria/Cameroon over 2000 years ago is the reason why Africa is a Black continent. Diamond's theory, however, is ahistorical.

Why? Well, he cuts out a lot of other African peoples who ARE Black.

Nilo-Saharans (Dinka, Masaai, Fur) are Black.
Afro-Asiatics (Hausa, Amhara, Tigray) are Black.
Khoisan and Pygmies are Black.
Malagasy ethnic groups are often physiologically look more Black than Austronesian.

The book is a reminder that we need to keep sharp about those who wish to tell lies about the African continent and its rich history.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Good discussion I read a while ago in Reddit about the book:

 

[Bawon Samedi]

I forgot about this book but I recently stumbled on a conversation about Chapter 19 of the book entitled, "How Africa Became Black".

Diamond's premise is that the Bantu-Migration from Nigeria/Cameroon over 2000 years ago is the reason why Africa is a Black continent. Diamond's theory, however, is ahistorical.

Why? Well, he cuts out a lot of other African peoples who ARE Black.

Nilo-Saharans (Dinka, Masaai, Fur) are Black.
Afro-Asiatics (Hausa, Amhara, Tigray) are Black.
Khoisan and Pygmies are Black.
Malagasy ethnic groups are often physiologically look more Black than Austronesian.

The book is a reminder that we need to keep sharp about those who wish to tell lies about the African continent and its rich history.

Yeah that guy who wrote that book seems to be going by Eurocentric thinking of Africa. Believing that only "Bantus" are true blacks. Africa has been looked at as a black continent since the times of the Ancient Hebrews and Greeks who said the indigenous population as black. And the areas in included were Egypt, Sudan and even Libya. Places far away from Cameroon/Nigeria.

More importantly how old is this book?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

More importantly how old is this book?

I think it was released in 96/97

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Another disturbing thing is this Prezi image made by student (Eurocentric knowledge is made for dissemination)

The second last slide has the Sahara as 'White' 1400 CE

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Another disturbing thing is this Prezi image made by student (Eurocentric knowledge is made for dissemination)

The second last slide has the Sahara as 'White' 1400 CE

This shyt is very ameatur that it surprises me how it even got published!

Seriously does he even have peer-reviewed sources. Like I expected he divorces Khoisans and Pygmies(a known not only Eurocentric but RACIST thinking) from "black Africans", while including both Asian and White Africans who are both a very insignificant population in Africa. The white population in Africa which is a mere 5,625,000...

What does he mean when "Africa became black", is he trying to hint that whites and Asians been living in Africa or indigenous to Africa more so than blacks?

But more importantly the lunatic has Bantus synonymous with all black Africans while ignoring Afro-Asiatic speakers, Nilo-Saharan Speakers and hell most non-Bantu Niger-Congo speakers from West Africa!

Essentially reminds me of THIS!
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/lmao-old-school-eurocentrism.214542/

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Cacs are wild

 

[Red Shield]

This shyt is very ameatur that it surprises me how it even got published!

Seriously does he even have peer-reviewed sources. Like I expected he divorces Khoisans and Pygmies(a known not only Eurocentric but RACIST thinking) from "black Africans", while including both Asian and White Africans who are both a very insignificant population in Africa. The white population in Africa which is a mere 5,625,000...

What does he mean when "Africa became black", is he trying to hint that whites and Asians been living in Africa or indigenous to Africa more so than blacks?

But more importantly the lunatic has Bantus synonymous with all black Africans while ignoring Afro-Asiatic speakers, Nilo-Saharan Speakers and hell most non-Bantu Niger-Congo speakers from West Africa!

Essentially reminds me of THIS!
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/lmao-old-school-eurocentrism.214542/

like that last post says..


Basically they want to take credit for all civilization

It's why they come up with terms like "end of history"
or why they thought the Nok was some lost white Atlantis civilization

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I haven't read that book in a while but in the intro I think he makes it clear that when he uses the words blacks and whites it's mainly for conventional purposes. How is the book eurocentric when it combats the eurocentric notion that africans are naturally inferior to whites and that european accomplishments shouldn't be the yardstick by which you judge the worth of a civilization?

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

I haven't read that book in a while but in the intro I think he makes it clear that when he uses the words blacks and whites it's mainly for conventional purposes. How is the book eurocentric when it combats the eurocentric notion that africans are naturally inferior to whites and that european accomplishments shouldn't be the yardstick by which you judge the worth of a civilization?

The book is eurocentric because it utilizes an ahistorical, narrow definition of "Black". Moreover, it places North African Afro-Asiatics as "White", as an attempt to argue that Africa is not a Black continent. All that stuff about geographic determinism is window-dressing to this issue.

 

[OD-MELA]

Guns, Germs, and Steel was a very good read.

I was kinda excited when I saw this thread. Thought there was a slim chance of intelligent discussion taking place in the Root... Then I saw the people posting in the thread

 

[GetInTheTruck]

The book is eurocentric because it utilizes an ahistorical, narrow definition of "Black". Moreover, it places North African Afro-Asiatics as "White", as an attempt to argue that Africa is not a Black continent. All that stuff about geographic determinism is window-dressing to this issue.

You brought up chapter 19 in your OP, but I'm looking at it right now and this is right there towards the beginning, page 378:

"The five major groups to which Africa was already home by A.D. 1000 are those loosely referred to by laypeople as blacks, whites, African pygmies, Khoisan, and Asians..........Many readers may already be protesting: don't stereotype people by classifying them into arbitrary "races"! Yes, I acknowledge that each of these so-called major groups is very diverse. To lump people as different as Zulus, Somalis, and Ibos under the single heading of "blacks" ignores the differences between them. We ignore equally big differences when we lump Africa's Egyptians and Berbers with each other and with Europes Swedes under the single heading "whites." In addition, the divisions between blacks, whites, and the other major groups are arbitrary, because each such group shades into others: all human groups on earth have mated with humans of every other group that they encountered. Nevertheless, as we'll see, recognizing these major groups is sill so useful for understanding history that I'll use the group names as shorthand, without repeating the above caveats in every sentence."

This is far removed from Eurocentrism. In fact, it's the opposite.

Not only that but in the prologue itself, page 31, he writes this:

"I harbor no illusions that these chapters have succeeded in explaining the histories of all the continents for the past 13,000 years. Obviously, that would be impossible to accomplish in a single book even if we did understand all the answers, which we don't."

So these personal accusations you're laying against him fall kinda flat. In the academic world, black and white mean nothing when characterizing "races." Even on the coli it seems not everyone can come to consensus of what "black" really means. The book is as fair and measured as can possibly be considering the subject matter.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

You brought up chapter 19 in your OP, but I'm looking at it right now and this is right there towards the beginning, page 378:

"The five major groups to which Africa was already home by A.D. 1000 are those loosely referred to by laypeople as blacks, whites, African pygmies, Khoisan, and Asians..........Many readers may already be protesting: don't stereotype people by classifying them into arbitrary "races"! Yes, I acknowledge that each of these so-called major groups is very diverse. To lump people as different as Zulus, Somalis, and Ibos under the single heading of "blacks" ignores the differences between them. We ignore equally big differences when we lump Africa's Egyptians and Berbers with each other and with Europes Swedes under the single heading "whites." In addition, the divisions between blacks, whites, and the other major groups are arbitrary, because each such group shades into others: all human groups on earth have mated with humans of every other group that they encountered. Nevertheless, as we'll see, recognizing these major groups is sill so useful for understanding history that I'll use the group names as shorthand, without repeating the above caveats in every sentence."

This is far removed from Eurocentrism. In fact, it's the opposite.

Not only that but in the prologue itself, page 31, he writes this:

"I harbor no illusions that these chapters have succeeded in explaining the histories of all the continents for the past 13,000 years. Obviously, that would be impossible to accomplish in a single book even if we did understand all the answers, which we don't."

So these personal accusations you're laying against him fall kinda flat. In the academic world, black and white mean nothing when characterizing "races." Even on the coli it seems not everyone can come to consensus of what "black" really means. The book is as fair and measured as can possibly be considering the subject matter.

Do you think Tuaregs are white? Do you believe all Malagasy are Asian?

Moving on from your critical error...

You fail to see the danger of Diamond's work which is reformulating Eurocentric myths about Africa's people's. Diamond tries to side step the issue by saying race is a poor way to characterize peoples but does so anyway and so poorly that we are left with old European notions of race in Africa.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

@GetInTheTruck

Please. Do your best to defend Diamond's work on Africa.

 

[BushidoBrown]

Cacs are wild

this just about sums it up.
/thread