Blog Response #1 - Guns, Germs, & Steel Excerpts 1-3
COMMENT - Day 1:
Part A: Answering Yali's Question
Many possible answers to Yali's question have been posed over time.
Which theory do you find the most interesting? Why?
(Possible theories include genetics, climate, irrigation, and the fact that Europeans developed
guns, germs, and steel before others (but this doesn't answer the question WHY they did this)).
Part A: Answering Yali's Question
Many possible answers to Yali's question have been posed over time.
Which theory do you find the most interesting? Why?
(Possible theories include genetics, climate, irrigation, and the fact that Europeans developed
guns, germs, and steel before others (but this doesn't answer the question WHY they did this)).
In a detailed blog comment, support your findings.
You must have at least one piece of evidence from the text to support your opinion.
Try starting your post by saying:
The theory that I find the most interesting is... (that of genetics? climate? irrigation?
Europeans just happening to develop things first?)
I feel this because.... This is supported in Excerpt (1, 2, or 3) when Diamonds writes, " ." You must have at least one piece of evidence from the text to support your opinion.
Try starting your post by saying:
The theory that I find the most interesting is... (that of genetics? climate? irrigation?
Europeans just happening to develop things first?)
This proves _______ because________.
Part B: Identifying Emerging Topics
Review your list of Emerging Topics. Which one are you most interested in pursuing at this time?
1. Identify the topic and which excerpt it came from (this should include a quote).
2. Explain why this topic is "speaking to you."
Try starting your post by saying:
The topic I am most interested in is ___________. This idea is found in Excerpt (1, 2, or 3) when
Diamond writes.... " ."
I find this topic the most interesting so far because....
A theory that Diamond presented that I find interesting is that Europeans developed
ReplyDeleteguns, germs, and steel before others. I find it the most interesting because there are people who actually think that they are superior compared to others. “Although Yali’s question concerned only the contrasting lifestyles of New Guineans and of European whites, it can be extended to a larger set of contrasts within the modern world. People of Eurasian origin, especially those still living in Europe and eastern Asia, plus those transplanted to North America, dominate the modern world in wealth and power. Other people, including most Africans, have thrown off European colonial domination but remain far behind in wealth and power.” (Page 2, Excerpt 1)
One of the ideas I had for researching is why do people live in poorer places not have any education past highschool if they are so smart? “After a while, Yali turned the conversation and began to quiz me. He had never been outside New Guinea and had not been educated beyond high school, but his curiosity was insatiable” I bring this idea up because if so many people smarts and talents go to waste, where do they go? And can these countries even afford to make and run colleges? (Page 1, Excerpt 1)
I really liked your idea of people being smart even though some don't even finish high school. It is fascinating that there are so many ways that people can be smart. Some may be book smart while others may be street smart, and in other countries these places may have different definitions of each of these things. People around the world can't go to school because it's not available to them, yet they are smart in what people who do finish school may not be.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour research topic of people being smart without any further education than high school is very interesting. The whole section where Jared Diamond was talking about the New Guineans being very smart and surprising him was very fascinating to read. Jared Diamond said, “From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is.” It was very easy for the New Guinean people to learn things at such a young age and practice all throughout life to perfect it in adulthood, but it is not easy to learn something as an adult and be amazing at it like you are other things. The difference is that the New Guineans wanted to learn these new things and were up for the challenge. Even though they didn’t exactly know how to do it, no matter how much the Europeans made fun of them, they were going to get a hang of it at some point. The new Guineans were smart because they had perseverance and were not going to give up because people were laughing at them.
DeleteI find it interesting on how you you talked about someones intelligence because i can relate to this... For example I have friends that have gone to school their whole life and they can easily pick up a book or do a math equation yet not know how to hold a hammer... and I have friends that haven't had a chance to go to school yet they know how to build a house or they are street smart yet can't read a book.
DeleteI also find it interesting that a lot of them can be more intelligent based on experiences instead of schooling. If they can be politicians and Scientists without a degree than what is the point of higher educating systems. Based on the fact that the first geniuses had no schooling whatsoever where does that put everyone. People create things out of superstition which eventually become reality because they are real and not superstitious.
DeleteI feel as though the irrigation system is the most interesting theory pertaining to guns germs and steel. I believe this as it can be supported when Jared Diamond says in excerpt 3 “ Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization in some other areas of the world, including the Indus Valley of the Indian subcontinent, the Yellow and Yangtze Valleys of China, the Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica, and the coastal desert of Peru.” This proves that water control systems are associated with places that have such important bureaucracies. All the places listed and more had complex water control systems so it can be seen why the connection was made.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I want to research the most is Why is Africa so behind if its where humans originated. This idea can be found in excerpt 3 when Diamond writes “ If a long head start counts for anything, why didn’t guns and steel arise first in Africa, permitting Africans and their germs to conquer Europe? And what accounts for the failure of Aboriginal Australians to pass beyond the stage of hunter-gatherers with stone tools?” I find this to be the most interesting because where we started out at has become so far behind.
I agree that the irrigation system is an interesting theory, but what did they get from the irrigation systems that led to them forming bureaucracies and become more advanced than others who didn't have irrigation systems. What did the irrigation systems provide them with in order for them to progress faster than other civilizations?
DeleteIt's a fine agreement that irrigation is a main part of how civilizations thrive, as we look in the point of Ancient Egypt & the Romans. Ancient Egypt had it's Nile river that allowed for large scale agriculture during a harvest season, while allowing to create many works like the Pyramid because of not having the worry to search for food or water. While also in the case of the Romans created glories agriculture from water systems that give it's citizens an basis pumping system way ahead of any other civilization at the time. Furthermore because of these systems it need someone who had the knowledge to know these systems and keep them in control created the various ruler systems.
DeleteI agree that the water irrigation capability is the most interesting theory because of how cities were able to gain political power. Jared Diamond said “Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization”(excerpt 3). These water control systems made it easier to obtain food but it came with a price. Government’s imposed laws their people had to obey, but again, with these laws came a reliable source of food almost guaranteeing your survival.
DeleteEven though the irrigation system may have been cool, i think the most interesting was the disappearance of the worlds 6,000 languages and how 3 languages such as Russian, English and Chinese took over as the big ones.
ReplyDeletei feel the area i most looked into was in excerpt 1 when he stated "Still other peoples, such as the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, the Americas, and southernmost Africa, are no longer even masters of their own lands but have been decimated, subjugated, and in some cases even exterminated by European colonialists." (Excerpt 1 page 2) i found this interesting because this is talking about how they threw out the European colonialists and took over to bring trades or other possibility's into the mix.
Why do you find that the disappearance of 6,000 languages is the most interesting? Also you didn't have a quote for your part A.
DeleteI find all of these interesting due to the fact that it's kind of a dice roll if you're born around the world. if you're born in tropical places then all you have to worry about are poisons and clothes. If you're born in colder places it could set you back each year, and you have to worry about housing and and warmth as well as clothes. But if I had to pick one of them I feel that genetics would have to do a lot with survival the second page excerpt 2 speaks a bit about how it was thought that the Europeans had more genetically developed genes then the africans “With the later rise of genetics, the explanations were recast once again, in genetic terms. Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans, and especially more so than Aboriginal Australians.” (excerpt 2, page 2), i'm not going to say that a specific race was the best developed, but I am going to say that different places and environments require different genes to survive. Darwin's theory of evolution is mentioned in the same place “With the rise of Darwinian theory, explanations were recast in terms of natural selection and of evolutionary descent.” (excerpt 2, page 2).
ReplyDeleteI do honestly believe the Darwinian theory is still an active part of what makes people, people.
I agree with you, people just are born in different places and if you are born in a cold area, then you can adapt to the cold and if you were born in a warm area they you can adapt to the warm. The quote, “With the later rise of genetics, the explanations were recast once again, in genetic terms. Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans, and especially more so than Aboriginal Australians.” (excerpt 2, page 2) explains genetics to a good extent, because Europeans were more genetically advanced than the Africans.
DeleteI think that your point of view on genetics and survival is very interesting. Different genes could be set in place just for survival and being able to adapt smoothly with the climate and terrain. I also think based on where you live, you know how to respond to certain things whereas someone from a very different climate might not know how to respond. Such as driving carefully when the roads are snowy or icy. So both genetics and having the know-how play a role in survival and adapting.
DeleteI agree that it's a dice roll as to where you're born, and that people need to develop depending on their place of residence. Kind of like how we keep salt on hand during the winter to get ice off the driveway, but people in Florida don't. Similarly, people living in Florida have to watch out for alligators and such, but here we don't have to worry about it. The fact that different states are so distinct based on protocol and lifestyle is baffling.
DeleteYou brought up some very interesting topics and I agree to most of it. The idea of being born to a random place and some people just getting lucky to be born in a more advanced area is very interesting. Although, people not born in these areas do not know what they are missing so they believe that where they are is amazing too. I thought the idea on genes being one of the main factors was interesting, but I don't really believe that this would cause some people to be smarter and more advanced than others.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe theory that I find most interesting is climate, I feel this because in excerpt 3 when Diamonds writes “Another one, popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of their homeland’s cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing. Or the argument can be reversed to reach the same conclusion: the long winters at high latitudes leave people with much time in which to sit indoors and invent.” This proves that when people are in different climates they feel a different way, when it is gloomy and cold outside, nobody is going to sit there and try to do things outside and freeze, instead they are going to want to sit inside and cuddle up next to a fire and watch movies, or when somebody is in a warm climate they are going to want to go and enjoy the nice weather and they are not going to want to do much except just chill in the nice weather. That also could be switched around to where if it is super cold out people are going to be stuck inside and have to do something to not let themselves get bored so they will invent new things, but also in warmer climate since they can go outside they may like to invent things out there too, it really just all depends on the person.
The topic I am most interested in is different weapons in different parts of the world. This idea is found in Excerpt 1. I find this topic the most interesting because people are living in areas where their newest weapon is a bamboo stick, while Europeans are sitting here with big heavy guns. This topic really intrigued me because I just am unaware why there are some people with so much that are aware that people are suffering and are unable to create this heavy machinery and they still sit back and watch people struggle, I just don’t understand why nobody has brought weapons over to these struggling areas of the world and taught them how to use them, because once a few people learn then they can teach more people how to work the weapons.
In this time period, the Europeans wanted nothing to do with assisting another society. It was always about conquering their land and resources. So, giving the "enemy" weapons would've made the fight for the land even more difficult. Jared Diamond said "Yet another type of explanation lists the immediate factors that enabled Europeans to kill or conquer other peoples—especially European guns, infectious diseases, steel tools, and manufactured products"(Advanced Tech). This quote explains the goal of the Europeans was to conquer the land and remove anyone that opposed their leadership.
DeleteI totally agree! People that have so much more than others would much rather sit back and observe, instead of offering their help and time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe theory that I found most interesting is Genetics, I feel this because After Darwin’s theory of evolution in the 1800s, people tried to argue that Europeans were more evolutionally advanced than Native Americans or aborigines. A quote that describes this idea is, “Thus, an observer transported back in time to 11,000 B.C. could not have predicted on which continent human societies would develop most quickly, but could have made a strong case for any of the continents” (52). This proves that societies ties back to genetics because some societies of people were not able to survive on some lands with no resources but others could manage to create something to survive off of that.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is Wealth and Power. This idea is found in the beginning of the book where it says, “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo … but we black people had little cargo of our own?” (Excerpt 1, 1). I found this topic most interesting because the different societies had more power than others.
I agree with what you said about genetics but i also think that plays a role in culture and how people look at the world around them.
DeleteI disagree with you because Darwin's theory of evolution only proved certain races to be the natural selection of the human race, believing that Europeans were more intelligent than Africans. The Europeans had the resources, the inventions, and the education. An quote to support this is, "In the centuries after A.D. 1500, as European explorers became aware of the wide differences among the world’s peoples in technology and political organization, they assumed that those differences arose from differences in innate ability. With the rise of Darwinian theory, explanations were recast in terms of natural selection and of evolutionary descent…" (Excerpt 2, Page 1).
DeleteI agree with you the idea on how if places had the resources to survive. They could use them for clothing, shelter, etc. Though places that didn't have as many resources were not able to survive. This plays a big role around the world and is an example why smaller colonies are dying off. This could also be because people don't want to trade with smaller colonies and then they do not have as many resources.
DeleteThe theory that I found the most interesting is the one about climate. I feel this because the idea of the climate changing how productive people are is very interesting. I feel as though many people become less busy and more like homebodies when it is colder out, as being outside is nice. Although, it does make sense that the climate being cold would make people want to make warmer clothes or houses because they don’t want to be cold all the time. People that live in warmer climates do not need to worry about staying warm, as it is warm already, so there is no need for these civilizations to become advanced enough for more built up houses. This is supported in Excerpt 3 when Diamond writes “Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing” This proves that weather and climate may affect how productive people can be.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is the idea that more advanced civilizations have better medical care and lower risk of death but also have less social support within their communities. This idea is found in excerpt 2. I find this interesting because I am curious as to why civilizations that are more advanced are also less social. I wonder if this is due to that fact that these people have more things so they do not need to work with the people around them to find supplies, or get food.
I agree with you about how the climate changes the productivity of the person. It the winter people tend to worry about staying warm and want to stay inside and not going anywhere compared to in the summer, when people are outside, having fun outside and want to work all the time so they can get out of the house.
DeleteI agree that the most interesting theory is climate, but I never thought about how climate could impact one’s productivity level. Although when I think about it, it does seem logical. Warmer climate makes you want to get out more and colder climate makes you want to stay in more. But this presents another set of questions, if colder climates make someone want to stay in, are they being productive and inventive in the comfort of their homes or are they struggling to survive? Whereas if you’re in a warmer climate where you can go out more are you actually being inventive or are you dawdling?
DeleteI too thought at first that cold weather would make people more likely to stay indoors and warm up, being lazy. Then I realized that people had to invent a warm indoors to be lazy in, which is why I agree with Diamond’s theory that cold weather leads to more inventions. Another theory involving weather is the fact that there should be water around in order to be successful. This is supported in excerpt three, “Still a third type of answer to Yali invokes the supposed importance of lowland river valleys in dry climates, where highly productive agriculture depended on large-scale irrigation systems that in turn required centralized bureaucracies.”
DeleteThe theory I think is most interesting is climate because it’s weird to think that some people can be more creative than others just based on where they live and how they live their life. Some people argue that people who live in warmer climates are more creative because they are less lazy and less into technology. Others argue that people who live in colder climates are more creative because they half to work harder to live and find creative ways to stay warm. An example of this is in excerpt 3 when diamond says “Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.”
ReplyDeleteAnother topic I thought was interesting and could research is genetics and what Diamond said about survival of the fittest. This was talked about in excerpt 2 when he said “ With the later rise of genetics, the explanations were recast once again, in genetic terms. Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans, and especially more so than Aboriginal Australians.” I want to learn more about this topic because I don't fully agree with it and want to understand it more.
I disagree only because I didn't find anything interesting and nothing spoke to me.
DeleteI can say that I agree with you just because it is fascinating that throughout everything that has been proven (genetic make up between everyone is 99.9% the same) people still continue to degrade people of color by labeling them as "less than" when that is completely wrong.
DeleteI agree that climate is intresting. You would never think that the climate would have that big of an influence on us, but it does. People who live in certain climates tend to live a certain way and are more knowledgeable about things in that climate. I find it intresting and want to learn more. It's not something many people discuss and I think that people should.
DeleteI disagree, Climate may have an small impact on a culture but it doesn't have a bigger impact then Genetics. Genetics keep one culture together and make them better than other cultures.
DeleteThe theory that I find most interesting is irrigation because the civilizations near bodies of water developed faster than those who aren't near water. This could help development because they get access to water that will help them in multiple ways including growing crops. "Still a third type of answer to Yali invokes the supposed importance of lowland river valleys in dry climates, where highly productive agriculture depended on large-scale irrigation systems that in turn required centralized bureaucracies." (Ex. 3).
ReplyDeleteThe topic that I find most interesting would be Historical vs Modern inequalities, “Those historical inequalities have cast long shadows on the modern world, because the literate societies with metal tools have conquered or exterminated the other societies” (Ex. 1). This would be because the evolution/de-evolution that varies between certain things can be dramatically different. There are pros and cons to both of them which is very interesting and why I chose this as the topic.
I find your topic quite interesting about civilizations living closer to water thrive more than those who don't. Civilizations that live closer to water don't necessarily ave the upper hang but, it dose help to live near the water
DeleteI agree with you that a interesting topic is irrigation for the idea of how civilizations evolved. Water is one of the main reasons that people wanted to explore the world and because of this civilization grew and because of this growth many cultures grow and evolve.
DeleteThe theory that I find the most interesting is climate. I think it’s interesting that people thought climate had an impact on how people think. This theory is supported in excerpt 3, where the author writes “Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing. Or the argument can be reversed to reach the same conclusion.” This proves that the climate could have an impact on why people live the way that they do. People tend to be more alert when they live in cold climate places because they have to do more to survive the weather unlike people from hot weather places where they don’t worry much about where they live or what they wear.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is Africa's “Evolution.” This topic came from excerpt 3, “Africa is the continent where pro to humans evolved for the longest time, where anatomically modern humans may also have arisen, and where native diseases like malaria and yellow fever killed European explorers. If a long head start counts for anything, why didn’t guns and steel arise first in Africa, permitting Africans and their germs to conquer Europe?” (2). I think this is interesting and I completely agree with this. Why is it that Africa got a “head start,” but they are so behind on what we, the U.S have now?.
The theory I found most intresting is, the impact of climate. I find it intresting because it’s something I’ve never thought about, which is what drew me in. Apparently, climate stimulates the mind. As in, the climate has an influence over you. As excerpt 3 states, “Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing. Or the argument can be reversed to reach the same conclusion: the long winters at high latitudes leave people with much time in which to sit indoors and invent." (Page 1) This shows that during different climtes we tend to think differently. We are equiped differently. Not only do we dress differently, we think differently.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most intresed in researching is, the idea that Europeans were more evolutionally advanced than Native Americans or aborigines. I found this idea racist and dead wrong. I want to get to the root of this probelm and understand why people think this way. As excerpt 2 said, “Today, segments of Western society publicly repudiate racism. Yet many (perhaps most!) Westerners continue to accept racist explanations privately or subconsciously.”(page 2) I find it intresting because it's wrong and I want to understand why people think that way.
I agree because different seasons affect the ecosystem and the environment. In New Guinean, the climate is tropical, and in Europe their is more seasons such as winter. In winter, the Europeans can spend more time inside their shelter and think.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI find it very interesting that climate has an influence over us because it is ultimately true. For example, during the winter, most people often feel more tired and sluggish due to daylight being shortened and staying indoors to avoid the cold weather. In the summer, people are excited to go outside to enjoy the weather, be active, and motivated unlike how we feel during the winter months. The changing seasons definitely do cause us to think and act differently which could be proof that climate affects us more than we might think.
DeleteI agree with you when you said that europeans were more evolutionarily advanced than Native Americans or aborigines. That this idea is racist and just dead wrong. This idea is says to me is that why are these people better than them or why do they have more technology than we do.
DeleteI too find it interesting how climate impacts the mind and influences people’s actions. For example, here in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, we go outside in 40° weather in shorts and short sleeved shirts, but in Florida 40° weather to them would be freezing. They would probably be wearing winter coats and snow pants. Typically Wisconsinites would laugh at them for bundling up in such nice weather but it just goes to show that climate actually has a larger impact on us than we think, and that many people learn to adapt to their climate differently than others.
DeleteThe impact of climate was interesting to me as well because I knew about it previously: I had to research seasonal depression for a class once. It’s a very real thing! The sun's vitamin D has many health benefits. In contrast, gloomy weather could lead to a case of SAD (seasonal affective disorder) because of the lack of vitamin D. There’s even light boxes so people affected by this can sit in front of them to help them feel better!
DeleteThe theory I found the most interesting is genetics because it could be one possible reason why they develop a fixed mindset, letting themselves not evolve into a more modernized way. One piece of text that Diamonds wrote is, “In the centuries after A.D. 1500, as European explorers became aware of the wide differences among the world’s peoples in technology and political organization, they assumed that those differences arose from differences in innate ability. With the rise of Darwinian theory, explanations were recast in terms of natural selection and of evolutionary descent… With later rise of genetics, the explanations were recast once again, in genetic terms. Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans, and especially more so than Aboriginal Australians” (Excerpt 2, Page 2). This proves that Europeans think the Africans are not as intelligent because the Africans were enslaved, given no education, and poor manners.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is races’ lifestyles from Excerpt 1. The New Guineans live their lives using tools that are from the age of sticks and stones. While Europeans and Americans are more modernized, using higher technology such as phones, computers, and etc. A piece of text shown in Excerpt 1 is, “Yes, there still is a huge difference between the lifestyle of the average New Guinean and that of the average European or American. Comparable differences separate the lifestyles of other peoples of the world as well. Those huge disparities must have potent causes that one might think would obvious” (Excerpt 1, Page 1) The New Guineans live their lives in the wilderness hunting for food, gathering resources, and making shelter. While the Europeans or Americans live in buildings, have irrigation systems, and etc. Therefore, the New Guineans always considered the Americans or Europeans to have the most cargo.
Although I didn’t mention genetics in my comment, I still find it intresting. I understand what you mean when you said that genetics can be a reason someone develops a fixed mindset and I would have to agree. If you grow up believing one thing you won't want to believe anything else and I find that a huge disadvantage because people with a fixed mindset seem to have trouble accomplishing goals, rather than someone that does not have a fixed mindset and I am curious as to how someone with a fixed mindset deals with that.
DeleteOK so I know I am going to receive a bad grade for this blog but I do not really care. It is just one blog and I want to be honest in my response. I do not really find any of the theories interesting at all. They just do not interest me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, I found it more enjoyable thinking about my own theory's and how different outcomes of our past could have affected our future
DeleteI would have to agree with this comment
DeleteMaybe just try to see it from a different point of view. I may not find some of the topics interesting. However, the importance of knowing about our history is necessary.
DeleteI find the theory of climate the most interesting because makes sense in the idea that people will do or make things to survive depending on their climate; such as in winter people needed a way to get around easier so they made snow shoes and thicker clothing to survive. Where in summer people make items such as water reservoir to give us fresh cold water and with the rain we made our covered the roofs of the house with longer and more water resistant material. Europe has winters and summers so they need to evolve to stay alive and survive. This is supported by excerpt 1 page 1 “living in the Stone Age.” That is, they still used stone tools similar to those superseded in Europe by metal tools thousands of years ago, and they dwelt in villages not organized under any centralized political authority. Whites had arrived, imposed centralized government, and brought material goods whose value New Guineans instantly recognized, ranging from steel axes, matches, and medicines to clothing, soft drinks, and umbrellas. In New Guinea all these goods were referred to collectively as “cargo.”
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is The past beats the present. This idea is from the excerpt 1 page two Diamond writes “Two Native American peoples, the Aztecs and the Incas, ruled over empires with stone tools. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa were divided among small states or chiefdoms with iron tools. Most other peoples—including all those of Australia and New Guinea, many Pacific islands, much of the Americas, and small parts of sub-Saharan Africa—lived as farming tribes or even still as hunter-gatherer bands using stone tools.” I found this most interesting because these people in the past were known for how advanced they were with their primitive supplies and yet even now the people of New Guinea are still doing way better than any american in the present day and they still live so primitively.
The theory I find most interesting is how Geographical location to water. I feel this because easy access to water allowed early civilizations to development faster than others. This is supported in excerpt 3 when Diamond said, "Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization in some other areas of the world, including the Indus Valley of the Indian subcontinent, the Yellow and Yangtze Valleys of China, the Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica, and the coastal desert of Peru." This proves that living closer to water helped civilizations development faster because those who lived near the water had governments while other places didn't yet.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is how Africa fell so far behind when they were the first people on the Earth. This idea is found in excerpt 3 when Diamond writes, “Africa is the continent where protohumans evolved for the longest time, where anatomically modern humans may also have arisen, and where native diseases like malaria and yellow fever killed European explorers. If a long head start counts for anything, why didn’t guns and steel arise first in Africa, permitting Africans and their germs to conquer Europe? And what accounts for the failure of Aboriginal Australians to pass beyond the stage of hunter-gatherers with stone tools?”. I find this topic most interesting so far because if human life started in Africa then African's should be the most advanced people, but they aren't, so I want to know how or why they fell so far behind the rest of the world.
I also find the idea of how Africa fell so far behind interesting. I feel as though that Africa while being the place where humans evolved, has had many factors and reasons why its not so advanced. Africa was not the first to make better weapons, not the first to make guns, and how Europeans and East Asians didn't share advances with others.
DeleteThe theory that I find most interesting is genetics due to the fact that some genetics are set in place for survival and others make certain people viewed as more “intelligent” or “superior”. Genetics can set a gap between people and that is where things such as racism and discrimination can come in. In reality, genetics don’t make someone better than the other but things such as poor education and poor living conditions can play a role in how some people are viewed. A quote from Excerpt 2 on the second page explains how Europeans are thought to be more advanced and intelligent, “With the later rise of genetics, the explanations were recast once again, in genetic terms. Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans, and especially more so than Aboriginal Australians.” Though, it's not technically true that Europeans are more genetically intelligent, it more depends on who has a better education. Europeans may have a better education system than Africans and Aboriginal Australians.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is the differences in lifestyles between different civilizations. This idea can be found in Excerpt 1 where Diamond states, “...there still is a huge difference between the lifestyle of the average New Guinean and that of the average European or American. Comparable differences separate the lifestyles of other peoples of the world as well.” I find this topic interesting because I wonder about how major the differences are and how different other peoples’ lives are.
Along with you I also picked genetics! To go along with how some of this ties in with racism I agree 100%. Racism and the assumption that they're more primitive. I found evidence to support that in the article "Geographical Location to Water" by them saying "They certainly look different from whites" Which just proves how racism is tied in.
DeleteI have my own theory on why certain civilizations expanded at the pace that they did. By comparing European settlers to the Native Americans. Native Americans had very different beliefs from European settlers, They believed that the earth and their land was sacred, so from the beginning they weren't going to go digging up the precious earth to find metals or riches because it was not needed in their culture there was no wealth between tribes, their wealth was just the land they wanted to preserve. And there also was no government which I also think plays a role, there were leaders among the tribes to keep people in order. The European settlers on the other hand, their main reason was to “increase their wealth and broaden their influence over world affairs, and would be aided with New World grains such as corn and tobacco provided a valuable cash crop.”(google) This is all just my opinion but from day one of colonized America is just as greedy and self centered as today America.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is guns germs and steel found in excerpt 3, and more importantly how that affected native Americans, I want to look at if the native Americans had the supply could they have advanced enough to hold their own when Europeans came over. “Yet another type of explanation lists the immediate factors that enabled Europeans to kill or conquer other peoples—especially European guns, infectious diseases, steel tools, and manufactured products. Such an explanation is on the right track, as those factors demonstrably were directly responsible for European conquests.”(excerpt 3)
I agree. The Native Americans always thought that everything had a spirit from the animals to the trees and to the ground. They believed everything should be treated equally.
DeleteI think your idea about how Native Americans didn't want to harm the land is a very interesting idea. I am curious about how cultures like the Incas and Aztecs separated from this belief and built major structures and made fancy tools. I think it would be cool to look into why their beliefs changed.
DeleteI had a similar theory like this, we should have a co lab and discuss more about this
DeleteYour theory on how the Native American culture played an impact on the civilization and development of the country is genius. I 100% agree with your theory. I also wonder if this theory can be compared to a different country such as Africa or any of the other countries the Euopeans conquered.
DeleteI agree with this, I never thought about it like that. They had two completely different cultures and beliefs one was to protect their "sacred" land and the other wasn't so friendly with the land they didn't mind so much digging around until they could get something useful to survive.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the most interesting theory was irrigation because Diamond says in excerpt three “lowland river valleys in dry climates, where highly productive agriculture depended on large-scale irrigation systems that in turn required centralized bureaucracies.” This means that even to run irrigation systems in other countries they still needed officials to make the decisions on where the irrigation systems would be best at. This proves that even though they lived in another country they still may have had governments to control what needs to be controlled in their environment.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I found most interesting is domination of other nations because when Diamond says “If we succeed in explaining how some people came to dominate other people, may this not seem to justify the domination? Doesn’t it seem to say that the outcome was inevitable, and that it would therefore be futile to try to change the outcome today?” (Excerpt 2) This stood out to me because he’s talking about how people are trying to find out why Europe dominated all these places and if they do figure it out will it justify anything.
I agree with you because some of the chemicals need to be confirmed by the government so it could be put on the pants so it does not harm us humans.
Delete
DeleteI agree that domination is a very interesting topic to research. It also ties back to my topic with the advanced weapons. If the smaller countries had the same weapons that the bigger countries that were trying to conquer them, they could have put up a fight and kept their land. Diamond wrote it excerpt one, “Civil unrest or guerrilla warfare pits still-numerous indigenous populations against governments dominated by descendants of invading conquerors. Many other indigenous populations—such as native Hawaiians, Aboriginal Australians, native Siberians, and Indians in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile—became so reduced in numbers by genocide and disease that they are now greatly outnumbered by the descendants of invaders.” They see the places they want to conquer as less then and they don’t deserve the resources they have. The bigger and stronger countries thought it was okay to conquer and keep everything that the indigenous people work for.
I believe this to be true as well, if big civilizations started life away from a water way we'd probably still be in a small village in a jungle.
DeleteThe theory that I find most interesting is irrigation. I feel this because irrigation is the application of controlled amounts of water to the plants/ crops. This is supported in Excerpt 3 when Diamonds writes, “Still a third type of answer to Yali invokes the supposed importance of lowland river valleys in dry climates, where highly productive agriculture depended on large-scale irrigation systems that in turn required centralized bureaucracies. This explanation was suggested by the undoubted fact that the earliest known empires and writing systems arose in the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys of the Fertile Crescent and in the Nile Valley of Egypt. Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization in some other areas of the world, including the Indus Valley of the Indian subcontinent, the Yellow and Yangtze Valleys of China, the Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica, and the coastal desert of Peru.” This proves that other than we Americans don’t use a water control system because they use there time wisely and we Americans don’t.
ReplyDeleteThe topic that I find most interesting is about Archaeological discoveries. This idea is found in Excerpt 1 when Diamond writes, “ Once again, we can easily push this question back one step further, by drawing on written histories and archaeological discoveries. Until the end of the last Ice Age, around 11,000 B.C., all peoples on all continents were still hunter-gatherers. Different rates of development on different continents, from 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1500, were what led to the technological and political inequalities of A.D. 1500. While Aboriginal Australians and many Native Americans remained hunter-gatherers, most of Eurasia and much of the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa gradually developed agriculture, herding, metallurgy, and complex political organization.” I find this topic most interesting so far because I wonder how people around that time period searched and knew on which places to find the person that they were looking for.
I find the climate theory interesting. I feel this way because in excerpt 3 when Diamond writes “Another one, popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of their homeland’s cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing. Or the argument can be reversed to reach the same conclusion: the long winters at high latitudes leave people with much time in which to sit indoors and invent.`` That shows that in different climates, different weather you will have adjust and that people do different things. i agree that in the hot climates people energy levels would be higher and they would do way more. In cold climates most people would probably be indoors more and trying to stay warm. I feel this way because during the winter I can get lazy and my body shuts down more and would rather spend most my time in doors then outside in the cold but in the summer id spend most my time outside enjoying the sun, warm breeze and water. Although I do agree that you have to strive harder in colder months to survive rather if its food, clothing, water, proper footwear and even homes and transportation. It will be harder to push through heavy snow storms to get what you need to survive and make it through the cold when all you could do is plan ahead. Gather all you need before the snow hits, so I agree that planning ahead of time would be easier and less stressful for you and any one else.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Yali’s question there has been many answers to this from the impact of climate to the proximity to water but although these theories do not pose as an conclusion to Yali’s question. I feel it interesting to see if it was the technological gap between the indigenous people & their colonizers. As it poses the largest question of the excerpt “why bronze tools appeared early in parts of Eurasia, late and only locally in the New World, and never in Aboriginal Australia.” Guns, Germs, and Steel By Jared Diamond. This topic is “speaking to me because of the massive question on why was Europe the mainstay of technological growth while many parts of Asia, Africa, and Australia were not? Including it has been scientifically discovered that much of Human history evolved from Africa, yet Africa had a large scale technological gap between the Europeans.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore I do have an theory of an causation on why this technological gap was formed. I believe it was due to the competition for control between nations in Europe. As if we look in the case of World War One and World War Two, we can spot many technological changes to society and it’s military. Due to this timeline of colonialism it was in time of war between the Europeans nations and its counterparts of Asian nations, who fought for the control of their rivals lands, riches, and it’s people. Furthermore I feel the drive for technology is based on its competition. Which may have been why the indigenous people were technologically behind because of this low competition between rivals.
I agree with you on the idea of changes in technology be sparked during war. In most cases the "winning team" come out of war stronger and smarter than when they went in, meaning evolution of technology is happening in times of crisis.
DeleteThe theory that I find the most interesting is that Europeans developed guns, germs, and steel before others. Why is it that the Europeans deserved certain luxuries over other places? They didn’t, but that's just how things ended up. In excerpt one, A group of white imposed centralized government decided to bring over material goods to the New Guineans; “ Two centuries ago, all New Guineans were still “living in the Stone Age.” That is, they still used stone tools similar to those superseded in Europe by metal tools thousands of years ago, and they dwelt in villages not organized under any centralized political authority. Whites had arrived, imposed centralized government, and brought material goods whose value New Guineans instantly recognized, ranging from steel axes, matches, and medicines to clothing, soft drinks, and umbrellas. In New Guinea all these goods were referred to collectively as “cargo.” If that group would have never brought over the new material goods the New Guineans would be living in the stone age with their stone tools.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is why were Europeans, rather than Africans of Native Americans, the ones to end up with guns, the nastiest germs, and steel? This idea is found in excerpt three when Diamond is writing about wealth and resources being unequally distributed potentially due to the type of weapons. The topic that I chose is interesting to me because it's a really big question leading by the white privilege. It's just like the question, why is being white the dominant race? Why do they deserve more because of the color of their skin? Diamond concluded except three by saying; “ Some people developed guns, germs,steel, and other factors conferring political and economic power before others did; and some peoples never developed these power factors at all.On the other hand, the ultimate explanations- for example, why bronze tools appeared early in parts of Eurasia, late and only locally in the New World, and never in Aboriginal Australia- remain unclear” The idea that some places got the luxuries of these tools and some didn’t is interesting to me.
Most places all started with the same things, but they now don't have the "luxuries" the other countries have. Why? why were they left with almost nothing but other places were able to expand?
DeleteThe theory that I found most interesting is climate and the effects it has on evolution. I find it the most interesting, because it was a thought I had before reading the excerpts. In excerpt 3, Diamond has a very good way of explainging it, "popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of thier homeland's cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy." This has some proof as why the Europians developed first, because they had to be more innovative in the climate they were put in.
ReplyDeleteThe topic the accessability to water. This idea is found in excerpt three when diamond writes, "... the supposed importance of lowland river valleys in dry climates, where highly productive agriculture depended on large-scale irrigation systems that in turn required centralized bureaucracies. This explanation was suggested by the undoubted fact that the earliest known empires and writing systems arose in the Tigris and Euphtates Valleys of the Fertile Crescent and in the Nile valley of Egypt." I find this topic the most interesting so far, because Europians were not the first group of people to have a major access to water. In the excerpt it explains that many areas in eurasia were the first to have civilizations with major access to water. Why did they not develope the technologies as well?
I believe the irrigation system is the most interesting theory in guns germs and steel. This can be supported when Jared Diamond says in excerpt 3 “ Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization in some other areas of the world, including the Indus Valley of the Indian subcontinent, the Yellow and Yangtze Valleys of China, the Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica, and the coastal desert of Peru.” This proves that water control systems are associated with places that have such important bureaucracies. Because they can figure out a system to share the water and use it to their advantages. All the places stated are civilizations that grew because they were located near a river or a body of water
ReplyDeleteIf Africa is said to be the place where humans originated from, why are they so far behind in industrialization and creating high functioning civilizations. Why is it taking them so long to reach the technology era, and why aren’t other countries helping them out? If one can evolve their metal capability to use a specific material and turn it into a pickaxe to gain other materials, why aren’t we helping those who don’t have it? If we work together can’t we evolve even further and find even greater technology?
I fully agree with the questioning of why Africa hasn't developed modern technologies yet, and why hasn't any countries helped them further their technologies. I feel as tho more research should be done on this topic. Other factors must be at play if, "Africa is the continent where protohumans evolved for the longest time."
Deletei do agree with the statements by Collin and Austin but my question is what went wrong with the people over there like how bad was it that they are so behind us.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that I find the most interesting is that of lifestyle. I feel this way because America’s children are getting less and less socially and physically active and rely heavily on screens to entertain them. We have tricked ourselves into thinking technology and all these advances are the source of happiness, forgetting what the beauty of life is all truly about. This is supported in excerpt two, when Diamond writes, “there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern European and American children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies. In the average American household, the TV set is on for seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking or playing with other children or adults.” This proves that less developed countries like New Guinea have more active children as opposed to America’s more distracted, lazy children.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is the correlation between civilization and happiness. This idea is found in excerpt two when Diamond writes, “words such as “civilization,” and phrases such as “rise of civilization,” convey the false impression that civilization is good, tribal hunter-gatherers are miserable, and history for the past 13,000 years has involved progress toward greater human happiness? In fact, I do not assume that industrialized states are “better” than hunter-gatherer tribes, or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based statehood represents “progress,” or that it has led to an increase in human happiness.” I find this topic the most interesting so far because it makes sense that despite our advances, hunter-gatherer tribes may be happier because of their simpler lifestyle and they have no bills to pay!
The irrigation system theory that I find the most interesting in gun germs and steel. This can be supported when Jared Diamond says in excerpt 3 “ Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization. ” I believe the reason for this link is to show how the irrigation system came about and how They did renouncing war, and they reduced potential conflicts from overpopulation by castrating some male infants. The result was a small, unwarlike population with simple technology and weapons, and without strong leadership or organization. This also shows how independence came to a brutal end. I disagree with how they used humans as lab rats instead of the rats and was allowed to. Although it leads to the outcome clearly illustrates how environments can affect economy, technology, political organization, and fighting skills within a short time i just feel it wasn’t the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that I found most interesting was how climate impacted the advancement of people depending on where they lived. I found this the most interesting theory because it shows how climate could have made people more intelligent or better inventors. For example, in Excerpt 3, Diamond states, “ Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing” (Ex 3). This quote provides some insight and evidence as to how varying climates impacted advancement amongst different people because it shows how they had to adapt to their climate in order to live.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in researching is the idea of how Europeans were able to gain access to so many different materials. I found this idea thought provoking because Excerpt 3 states, “Africa is the continent where protohumans evolved for the longest time, where anatomically modern humans may also have arisen, and where native diseases like malaria and yellow fever killed European explorers.” (Ex. 3). This quote intrigues me because if Africans were indigenous to the world, why weren’t they the ones to invent guns or be more technologically advanced than us? Why were Europeans the ones to create guns and have more resources if they weren’t the first people? I want to research this because it genuinely makes me wonder why the world unraveled and developed to the way it is now.
I highly also find the climate theory interesting and as for topic, I have the same interest. It's just really good questioning idea that both climate and access might go in hand and why European had to be first, but maybe it was because of where we were living and how the climate contributed to that.
DeleteThe most interesting theory to me is the climate theory. Diamond said, “Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothes, whereas one can survive in the tropics with a simpler house and no clothing.” While this theory generally makes sense, it fails to explain why the majority of early “European” inventions can from Asian countries. For example, inventions such as the gun, canon, rocket, missile, and crossbow all originated from China, but were copied by the Europeans, who generally get the credit for said inventions.
ReplyDeleteI am most interested in the reason why Africa fell so far behind everyone else. Diamond said, “Africa is the continent where protohumans evolved for the longest time, where anatomically modern humans may have also arisen, and where native diseases like malaria and yellow fever killed European explorers.” My question is if Africa had a great head start, how did they fall so far behind? I’d think they’d be more advanced than anyone else.
The most interesting theory to Yali's question is the geographic location of water. This statement strikes me the most because of Jared Diamond's “Water control systems also appear to have been associated with centralized political organization”(excerpt 3) statement. I believe the reason for the link between politics and water lies in the ability to sustain a large population of people. A large population comes with an immense amount of hunger, and with complex irrigation systems they were able to redirect water from rivers in order to ensure their farming success. Many powerful and successful empires similar to the Egyptians, were able to become successful because of their relative proximity to an abundant water source. This special amenity allowed certain places to focus less on survival and more so on advancement. The result of having a renewable source of water leads to bigger better armies which in turn give political powers.
ReplyDeleteThe emerging topic I am most interested in is why the Europeans had such an interest in industrializing not only their original land, but also newly found land. Jared Diamond said “I do not assume that industrialized states are “better” than hunter-gatherer tribes...”(Excerpt 2). This topic presented itself after this quote because I believe there may be correlation with the industrialization of a country and its ability to advance exponentially faster. On the flip side, a society focused on a spaced out tribal political structure may only go as far as survival rather than advancement.
I agree with everything you said and I love how well you said it! Did you know that the location of water affects the writing system? I found that to be super interesting and weird how they connect as two very different things. From the article "Geographical location to water" It stated "This explanation was suggested by the undoubted fact that the earliest known empires and writing systems arose in the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys of Fertile Crescent and in the Nile Valley of Egypt".
DeleteI agree with this post. It makes sense to believe that water can have a bigger purpose for civilizations. It can be the reason why some people start living in a place and why others move. The geographic location can have a big impact on living conditions even in today's world as when Florida has a drought and they have to use only a little water a day.
DeleteThe theory that i found most interesting was how the Europeans were able to get access to different materials and objects. Also I feel that American children are not getting socially and physical to entertain them. Africa they are so far behind because of the lacking of technology and the industrialization. In excerpt 3, the Europeans was basically the first group of people to have access to water, while other places had less water.
ReplyDeleteYes I would agree Jakobi. I think that Americans are not getting enough things to entertain them. It is something that we want to think kids are having fun, but everyone just sits on ther phones instead of talking.
DeleteI find climate the climate theory interesting because in excerpt 3 Diamond says, " Perhaps cold climates require one must build a warm home and warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing." This supports the idea of how climate made us more advance in technology because without any background knowledge it makes sense but we know that Native Americans used deer skin as clothing and the Inuit used animal fur and skin to keep warm and for housing.
ReplyDeleteA topic i am interested in is evolution and how Europeans really became more advanced over time making other countries seem behind when really, they had the materials first and if that really makes us better than them. In excerpt 2, Diamond says, " Today, segments of western society publicly repudiate racism. Yet many (perhaps most) westerners continue to accept racist explanations privately or subconsciously." This spoke to me because it really happens in today's society and I genuinely want to know why Africans weren't the first and why we had to be.
The theory that I had found the most interesting is about genetics. The fact that genetics are seen as different groups of people who have a certain "specialty." Such as maybe this group is very intelligent or that group has good survival skills. But the truth is that it's not about genetics that define your ability. It's about your education and knowledge. Not because you're European or African. Going back to the jigsaw, A good quote I found to support my reasoning that they believed in you being a certain genetic, you must be good at .. and whatever that may be. From the yellow section, it was stated that "Europeans became considered genetically more intelligent than Africans". This shows how they believed you were one thing such as "Intelligent" just because you are a European.
ReplyDeleteThe topic i'm interested in perusing the most is how agriculture effects the location on where you live. From the article "Impact of climate" it stated that "Seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally contrast tropical climate. Perhaps cold climate requires one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm house and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing". This speaks to me because it's showing how if you arnt good at surviving you just shouldn't live here rather then if you are then it's the place for you, It also sticks out to me because it shows how some people have to fight for survival and others have it so easy.
ReplyDeleteThroughout reading Guns, Germs and Steel, the theory that I found most interesting is genetics because it is crazy that some people believe that their is a genetic difference between people of color and Caucasians when in reality their is not. It is appalling to think that in today's day and age with all of our technologies and advances that their are still people who would argue that people of color are less in anyway compared to those who are White Americans. As supported in excerpt 2, “In particular, numerous of White Americans Psychologist have been trying for decades to demonstrate that Black Americans of African origins are inherently less intelligent than White Americans”. I identify this as a false belief in biological and genetic difference as a reason for inequality.
This topic speaks to me because in today’s society you continue to see acts of racism coming from primarily White Americans. However, it is always crazy to think that the people in my family can continue to be labeled as less intelligent than the White Americans, not based on their genetic make up but based on the lack of resources for them that are easily given to people with a Caucasian background. I also just do not understand why they labeled people of color less than themselves? & Why is it that White Americans try and find a genetic difference between people of color?
Throughout reading Guns, Germs and Steel, the theory that I found most interesting is genetics because it is crazy that some people believe that their is a genetic difference between people of color and Caucasians when in reality their is not. It is appalling to think that in today's day and age with all of our technologies and advances that their are still people who would argue that people of color are less in anyway compared to those who are White Americans. As supported in excerpt 2, “In particular, numerous of White Americans Psychologist have been trying for decades to demonstrate that Black Americans of African origins are inherently less intelligent than White Americans”. I identify this as a false belief in biological and genetic difference as a reason for inequality.
ReplyDeleteThis topic speaks to me because in today’s society you continue to see acts of racism coming from primarily White Americans. However, it is always crazy to think that the people in my family can continue to be labeled as less intelligent than the White Americans, not based on their genetic make up but based on the lack of resources for them that are easily given to people with a Caucasian background. I also just do not understand why they labeled people of color less than themselves? & Why is it that White Americans try and find a genetic difference between people of color?
The theory I find the most interesting is Diamond's theory on guns, germs and steel.
ReplyDeleteI feel this because. Diamond has a point in the text. He is right that the smaller colonies are dying off. When Diamond says in excerpt 1, "the history of interactions among disparate peoples is what shaped the modern world through conquest, epidemics, and genocide." This proves that it is harder for these smaller colonies to grow now days, because back then everyone was eager grow. The soon to be United States, Europe, China, Mexico, and every other country on this planet were all helping each other out to grow. For example, if the U.S. wanted something, they could trade with other countries that were also trying to goal. Which now makes it harder for the smaller colonies because the U.S. or Europe might not want to trade with a smaller colony because they can get bigger amounts from someone else, and it would be cheaper.
The topic that speaks out to me is why do people feel more free and calm in smaller colonies than in bigger colonies. This came from except 1 when they talked about lifestyles in New Guinea. For example in the U.S. people are locked inside because it is too hot or too cold. But in Mexico, even if it's raining, people would rather be outside doing activities than locked up inside.
The theory that I found most interesting is how Europeans just happened to develop first and dominate other areas. It is interesting how the differences in people also show the difference in abilities. I feel this is the most interesting because development plays a huge role in why some countries to this day are still behind others in technology, cargo, and other areas. Europeans developed faster causing them to dominate other areas. This is supported in excerpt one when Diamond states “Still other peoples, such as the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, the Americas, and southernmost Africa, are no longer even masters of their own lands but have been decimated, subjugated, and in some cases even exterminated by European colonialist”. This proves that other areas were dominated by the Europeans because it lists some of the areas affected like Australia, Americans and most of Africa.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting topic that I chose is the genetic and biological differences between people that cause different colony life styles and different ways of living. This topic is found in excerpt two when Diamond states, “Probably the commonest explanation involves implicitly or explicitly assuming biological differences among peoples”. I find this most interesting because the differences between people are interesting seeing that everyone is still human. It is cool to read differences to see what other people do compared to what is the usual.
The theory I would like to talk about is climate because I find the fact that people developed different ways on adapting to an environment and living there very interesting. In excerpt 3 it says “Popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of their homelands cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive” in this he briefly talks about the idea of climate and that perhaps climate is what made them much more advanced in things and sort of questions why it did, However he then answers this by saying “because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.” This shows that in different climates, people have to adapt in complete different types of ways to survive. I agree that in the hot climates people don't have to try as hard while In cold climates it's much harder since people are mainly trying to stay in the warm plus not only that but it's harder to plant crops. I know this because during the winter I and plenty of other people barely go outside everyone would rather spend most of their time indoors then outside in the cold and if you were to plant a flower or something it would surely probably die because it can not survive in the cold however, in the summer everyone mainly spends most of the time outside and it allows people to plant therefore this shows that people had to depend on different ways of survival.
ReplyDeleteWe as the European people created Guns, Germs, and steel, so based on that fact we have more "cargo" because we as a people created things that would start revolution to create even better and stronger products. So, to answer Yali's question we have more cargo because we created the original product to make more cargo for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI find that the most interesting part is that the New Guinean's were still "living in the stone age," about two centuries ago whereas the white men were in the industrial revolution going on to the most iconic part of all life creating the future that we live in today. "Two centuries ago, all New Guineans were still “living in the Stone Age.” That is, they still used stone tools similar to those superseded in Europe by metal tools thousands of years ago, and they dwelt in villages not organized under any centralized political authority." (Page 1, Excerpt 1)
The theory that I find the most interesting is genetics because I feel like sink has played a big part in why people think one has more than the other. Europeans just happen to develop things first but the white people have teen all the power for them not to have that. I feel this because we are other people of sink have a lot to give but many other people don't see that because they only hear one side and then they see us like that.This is supported in Excerpt (1)when Diamonds writes, " For example people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A “.
ReplyDeleteThis proves that just because people are different sink or different in many ways we are all the same and we should all have the same things no one should have more or less than anyone because people are people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find the climate theory interesting because the geographical location impacted the development of the people. I feel this way because some of the Europeans that invented more were in a place with a warmer climate. This is supported on excerpt 3 when Diamonds writes “The sole Native American societies to develop writing arose in Mexico south of the Tropic of Cancer; the oldest New World pottery comes from near the equator in tropical South America; and the New World society generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects was the Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatán and Guatemala in the first millennium A.D.” This proves that the civilizations to develop faster are the ones living in warmer climates because most of the civilizations mentioned on excerpt 3 were in a warmer climate and it says that the people living in colder climate would actually be in a disadvantage at advancing in technology.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is how the climate affected their technology if the climate was warmer or colder. This idea is found in excerpt 3 when Diamonds writes “the peoples of northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia. In the New World the cold regions at high latitude were even more of a human backwater.” I find this topic the most interesting so far because this shows that the civilizations to develop the fastest were the ones in the warmer climates and that in order for a civilization to develop faster in a colder climate they need the technologies of a warmer climate.
yes i do agree with what you say the climate can impact the way thy live and the way you say some are lucky
DeleteOne to the theory's that i found to be really interesting was the germs theory where the germs that the invading treat brought to the old country that killed many people and it also connects to animals because most animals cared the germs that were most hurtful to the popular, like in excerpt 6 "The Leathle Gift of livestock" where it says," Microbes have evolved diverse ways of spreading from one person to another, and from animals to people. The germ that spreads better leaves more babies and ends up favored by natural selection. Many of our
ReplyDelete"symptoms" of disease actually represent ways in which some damned clever microbe modifies our bodies or our behavior such that we become enlisted to spread microbes.
The one topic that i would probable pursue is the whole climate thing and how it affected it, like in excerpt 4 where he says," While those ancestral Maori who first colonized the Chatham's may have been farmers, Maori tropical crops could not grow in the Chatham's' cold climate, and the colonists had no alternative except to revert to being hunter-gatherers. well if the climate can affect people so terrible then why did not just move.
Yes I agree that animals would be carrying the germs from one country to another and it would affect the way that people carry themselves because of diesease. It is something to be very worried about.
DeleteThe theory that I find most interesting is the climate because in excerpt 3 Diamond says,” Perhaps cold climates require one must build a warm home and warm clothing. Where as one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.” This supports the idea of how climate made us more advance in technology because without any background knowledge it makes sense but we know that Native Americans used deer skin as clothing and the Inuit used animal fur and skin to keep warm and for housing.
ReplyDeleteThe topic that speaks out to me is why do people feel more free and calm in smaller colonies than in bigger colonies. This came from except 1 when they talked about lifestyles in New Guinea. For example in the U.S. people are locked inside because it is too hot or too cold. But in Mexico, even if it's raining, people would rather be outside doing activities than locked up inside.
The theory that I find most interesting is the theory of climate. I think this is most interesting because different things can get affected because of it. Water is needed to grow plants and more or less of it will hurt the climate or kill the plants. From Excerpt 3 Diamond writes, “Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.” This is another really important reason is because a climate cannot withstand a harsh winter or super hot summer if it is not ready for that. This topic speaks to me because it is bothersome to me because others don’t really care that animals are even becoming endangered.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adam on this topic. I think that It is important to keep climate under control because if we don't we will get global warming. If we don't care about it then we can destroy it faster and faster.
DeleteClimate is one of the theories that is super interesting to me. I know that it is something that continues to be a bigger issue in today's world compared to back along time ago too. Excerpt 3, Diamond says, “Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing." This is exactly what I am talking about when a cold climate if it were to become super warm. All of the animals and people there may not be able to survive and may have to either move or would die.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same topic that is speaking to me too. Living in Wisconsin it can be really cold one day and then really warm the next day. Like Diamond says, "Whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing." It can be simple to live in a warmer climate than a colder place because of the snow and rain that are bad. This is something we deal with everyday in living in Wisconsin.
The theory that I find the most interesting is genetics because I think it’s crazy how back then and still nowadays people think just because we aren’t the same color we are different in so many ways but in reality we weren’t and we aren’t any different. Back then people used to think just because of their different colors of skin they thought they were more intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I am most interested in is genetics. “In particular, numerous white American psychologists have been trying for decades to demonstrate that black Americans of African origins are innately less intelligent than white Americans of European origins.” this stands out to me because of the genetics or how humans looks tells how smart they can be