Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

While rereading Jared Diamond's antiracist world history, I came across several passages that reminded me of my issues with Liberal political dogma.

Here are two examples:

"It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guinneans are smarter than Westerners may be correct...besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners...That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which children in industrialized societies now grow up." (Guns, Germs, and Steel, 20-21)

"Columbus's three puny ships crossed the narrow Atlantic...Vasco de Gama's own three puny ships rounded the Cape of Good Hope..." (Ibid., 412)

This history, which is generally a good history, is flawed by liberal ideology. First of all, I don't see how he can take on racism with such a chip on his shoulder to prove to his New Guinean friends that they are "genetically superior" to the Westerners who colonized them.

Secondly, he attacks Western arrogance (and the Italians do indeed still seem to believe that Columbus walked on water) by deliberately minimizing Western accomplishment. See it in context? Yes. Intentionally minimize it, even to the point of calling European Civilization "backward" (Ibid.)? Now you're talking a political agenda.

These tendencies are nonscientific. It's just a kind of rant in the form of civilized discourse, and, unfortunately, that flaw affects too much of what openly liberal scholars like him produce. LaFeber's Inevitable Revolutions, for example, is an excellent history of U.S.-Central American relations, flawed only by the fact that LaFeber is, between the lines, taking on the Reagan Administration and Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards" thesis...

[death from above]

good post.

here's my 2 cents..

guns germs and steel is a great book, one of the very best, but it has issues. the whole book seems to be entirely deterministic, leaving little room for individual or cultural brilliance. for example, Diamond tries to counter the argument that people in colder climates are more technologically innovative by saying that warmer climate peeps would have more time for invention.. but it seems to me that "necessity is the mother of invention" and people tend to use free time for leisure rather than innovation. to me, the primary impetus for european political dominance was Greco-Roman culture, but Diamond says nothing about this at all. but i loved what he said about plant domestication etc..

how's that for esoteric?

thesis, antithesis, synthesis. (thanks Mr. Hegel)

[Hank Scorpio]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I read G,G & S several years ago and don't recall a liberal bias. I was paying too much attention to the force of his argument to notice any political bias. So when Gopher said this great book has a political bias, I said to myself, "WTF?" (Possibly I need a clearer understanding of what the OP means by 'liberal bias'.)

I couldn't tell from the quoted passage if Gopher's criticism is warranted. I knew I'd have to look it up and re-read those pages, but I have already packed most of my books for my up-coming trip back to Korea...and G, G & S was packed. So I had to go unpack two of my boxes--thank you very much, Gopher. Grrr.

(For those without a handy dandy copy at hand:)
Diamond gives two arguments for New Guineans being smarter than Westerners.

The first argument is genetic. The population of New Guinea was never dense enough to allow epidemic diseases to play a role in natural selection. War, accident and murder did. He says these tend to favor the more intelligent individuals. Europeans however were subject to epidemics that killed off people based on factors like blood type, not intelligence. This is plausible, but unproven.

His second argument is that Western kids watch too much TV and therefore miss the intellectual stimulation of play and talk which are so important in developing intelligence. I associate this criticism ("Turn off the damn TV and get outside and play so I can vaccuum the living room!") with the more conservative child-raising crowd rather than the liberals. Regardless of that, TV is a pretty new-fangled thing. It's only been in homes for 50 years, not long enough to have an impact on natural selection--except as a possible explanation for ruining eye sight to the point that kids can't find both shoes when it's time to go to school.)

"In the early 15th century [China] sent treasure fleets, each consisting of hundreds of ships up to 400 feet long and with total crews of up to 28,000, across the Indian Ocean as far as the east coast of Africa, decades before Columbus's three puny ships crossed teh narrow Atlantic Ocean to the America's east coast. Why didn't Chinese ships proceed around Africa's southern cape westward and colonize Europe, before Vasco da Gama's own three puny ships rounded the Cape of Good Hope eastward and launched Europe's colonization of East Asia?"

I think reading the whole quote puts the matter into its context and allows anyone who wants to respond to the OP on a fair footing.

I see nothing prejudicial in using the word 'puny' to describe Columbus's ships when comparing them to the Chinese ships of the day. They were objectively puny. There were larger ships in Europe, but nothing to compare to the size of the Chinese ships. IMO, the interesting question is not the relative size of ships but the Chinese decision to turn inward just at the crucial point. Those who defend the idea that history is merely the working out of economic and other abstract, impersonal forces have a big challenge with that question. On the surface at least, it appears a deliberate decision was made by one or a small number of individuals, dramatically and profoundly changing the course of history.

So I'm not convinced Diamond has a liberal bias. Re-reading G, G & S was on my list of to-do things, but I'm going to have to move it up in priority. I'm not altogether happy about that. Neither is Francis Parkman.
Diamond uses the phrase 'my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners'; I can see where he may just be being deliberately provocative--the line is in the Prologue after all.

I'm now going to put my copy back in the box. That box is headed for the post office tomorrow. If anyone quotes anything again, please include enough so I know what Diamond said.

PS, OP: By 'liberal bias', do you mean 'cultural relativism'?

[Gopher]

[khyber]

I haven't read the book but I think it's fair to say that "political agenda" may be a bit of an exaggeration.

rE: puny:
Seems like that is just a question of style and not necessarily conveying some deep seeded self loathing of western ideals.

One important thing to consider (though i'm guessing Go fer youve done it already) is that simply "colonizing" a culture does not make someone/some group superior.

Of course, judging "genetic superiority" is an incredibly pointless endevour in the first place really. WTF can we use as watermarks upon which we can judge every culture in the entire world. This, of course, goes both ways; we can't have Westerners going around saying they are genetically superior to everyone else in the same way that we can't have koreans running around saying that.

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I wanted to find some info on the size of Columbus's ships. This is what I came up with on the first hit.

"There has been much speculation about just how large such a ship would be; the best current thinking, by Carla Rahn Philips, puts the length of Santa Maria at 18 meters, keel length at 12 meters, beam 6 meters, and a depth of 3 meters from keel to deck.

The Santa Maria had three masts (fore, main, and mizzen), each of which carried one large sail. The foresail and mainsail were square; the sail on the mizzen, or rear, mast was a triangular sail known as a lateen. In addition, the ship carried a small square sail on the bowsprit, and small topsail on the mainmast above the mainsail.

The Pinta was captained by Mart�n Alonso Pinz�n, a leading mariner from the town of Moguer in Andalucia. Pinta was a caravel, a smaller, lighter, and faster ship than the tubby Santa Maria. We don't know much about Pinta, but it probably was about 70 tons. Philips puts the length of Pinta at 17 meters, keel length 13 meters, beam 5 meters, and depth 2 meters. She probably had three masts, and most likely carried sails like those of Santa Maria, except for the topsail, and perhaps the spritsail.

Smallest of the fleet was the Ni�a, captained by Vicente A�es Pinz�n, brother of Mart�n. The Ni�a was another caravel of probably 50 or 60 tons, and started from Spain with lateen sails on all masts; but she was refitted in the Canary Islands with square sails on the fore and main masts. Unlike most ships of the period, Ni�a may have carried four masts, including a small counter-mizzen at the stern with another lateen sail. This would have made Ni�a the best of the three ships at sailing upwind. Philips puts her length at 15 meters, keel length 12 meters, beam 5 meters, and depth 2 meters.

[joe_doufu]

Somebody bring that book to the book swap next Sunday! I wanna read it!

[Gopher]

[Bulsajo]

No, the ships WERE puny and I haven't read the book in question but when you set off to cross the uncharted world, I'd say mentioning the puny-ness of your ships only enhances the greatness of your accomplishment.

So describing the size of Colombus' ships has value in examining "Liberal Ideology and Dogma"?

Am I the only who thinks you are really reaching here? And why is it the 'the conservatives' of this board who are always trotting out the 'Liberal ideology and dogma' around here? What is the big Liberal-conspiracy that everyone seems to think is going on around here- to turn every man in the world gay? To hand over the keys to the whitehouse to bin Laden?

[bucheon bum]

my feelings exactly. You seem to be seeking out bias wherever you can find it.

The dude is a scientist, not a historian. His choice of words for a summary of a certain historical event isn't exactly the most important aspect of the book.

I'm sure he would say, "yeah, i'm a liberal, and my politics might pop up briefly, so what?"

It doesnt' detract from his thesis IMO. He still makes a strong argument and it is insightful is it not?

[Gopher]

Perhaps you should read Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism.

He made the same argument -- that is, that you cannot look at world history without taking into account the sweeping importance of biogeographic considerations -- nearly a decade before Diamond restated the argument in the context of the "Bell-Curve" theory (raging in the mid-1990s).

Diamond takes on European and Western exceptionalism in order to counter the findings of the Bell-Curve theory. He tries too hard to knock down "white man's burden" attitudes. Yes, it's political.

Crosby is just an historian with no other interests than to explore the bigger picture.

There's a huge difference between the two. Once you've read Crosby, for comparison, let me know if you still think I'm reaching...

[Bulsajo]

I see.
You were just out to do a little liberal-baiting with this thread.
Should have guessed from the title.

[bucheon bum]

so out of hundreds of pages, you found two quotes. One ACCURATELY describing the boats that sailed across the ocean and another that might in fact be true. I seem to recall he had good reasons behind his statement that he was under the impression that people from New Guinea were smarter than us in the West. There was nothing racist about it either. He merely pointed out it was due to nature and not humans themselves. Switch the people of New guinea with, say some English folks, and the argument would still be the same: the people in New Guinea would be smarter than in England. THe difference would merely be the skin tone of the inhabitants of both areas. Doesn't sound racist to me.