Best products from r/HistoryMemes

\>Did you really cite don quixote as a reason to why Spain should be recognized in my eyes as an important nation

Yes, I did. It's an important work of literature. How am I wrong? It's like saying "DUDE DID YOU REALLY JUST CITE DANTE AS A REASON WHY ITALY SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS AN IMPORTANT NATION"

\>The Spanish Inquisition is a largely mythologized event and isn’t any different to many other institutions within Europe that also targeted heretical groups

Well at least you know that they were nowhere near as eeeevil as most historically illiterate normies make them out to be.

\>Humboldt is German, not Spanish

True, but it was thanks to Spain that he could make those studies that he did.

\>Life is a dream also isn’t very special

Wrong.

>The play has been described as "the supreme example of Spanish Golden Age drama".[3]

\>considering that the Islamic caliphates’ freedom of expression and religion had been resulting in plays such as this for a long time as well

wrong again, read the Myth of the Andalusian Paradise

\>and I’m not even taking into account that the average human being wouldn’t care for or even know what life is a dream or what don quixote is.

Then what's the point of giving any work of literature any merit if your logic is "hurr durr most people back then were illiterate" or that they "didn't care about it"? What's even your basis for that anyway? That most people didn't care for those works of fiction? You do realize that high schools and colleges in Spanish-speaking countries highly value Don Quixote for a reason, right? You do realize that it's basically Spanish Shakespeare, right?

\>every society has its geniuses meaning that it’s really speculative when it comes down to it

Highly debateable. I doubt Subsaharan Africa or pre-Colonial Americas had any intellectuals, at least the significant kind. There's also the issue of just how important said intellectual really is. For instance, Arab intellectuals from the so-called Islamic Golden Age were really just copying the Greeks and taking concepts from other civilizations they conquered like the Persians, Indian, or Europeans, so we can scratch most of those out.

Bonus:

>Catholic Spain was the most powerful European nation by the 16th century

Any nation considered "the most powerful" within its cultural and geographic region is bound to be kind of a big deal

It depends what you mean by "Read Runic".

​

Runic Alphabets

Runes themselves are an Alphabet, not a language, each character represents a sound, ᛖ means "E", ᚠ mens "F". Some charicters mean multiple Latin letters, þ means "th" and ᛠ means "ea". I could write the word "East" as "ᛠᛥ"

This alphabet can be used to write most European languages, simply replace the Latin characters with their Runic counterparts. This is easy to learn, simply find a guide online (for example, Google Anglo saxon runes) and replace your normal letters with the Runes. This only took me a few hours to do proficiently. Reading is harder than writing.

There are many Runic alphabets, I use Anglo Saxon because it works well with writing English and Old Norse, but you can choose whichever ones you like, for example Celtic Runes may work better with some romance languages.

Runic Languages

Runic is Also used to write Archaic languages. For example the other Language I wrote in my original comment was Old Norse, I wrote it in the Latin alphabet because it is easier and better for the sounds of the language.

Archaic languages are usually difficult to learn, because there are not a lot of easy to use resources for them. There are some good books on Old Norse, but there is thankfully a lot online for free.

Personally, I use: https://notendur.hi.is/haukurth/norse/

This is a good book if you want to learn more, but it is fairly expensive so make sure you are dedicated!

There are also a few good YouTubers such as Jackson Crawford, who make it easy to understand.

Other Runic languages include Old English, Proto Norse and Saxon. These are all equally difficult to learn, and are usually written in the Latin Alphabet for simplicity.

However, as with any language, Old Norse requires a lot of patience to learn, you need to make notes and practice. Modern Icelandic would be an easier alternative to Old Norse, because it has a lot of resources and fluent speakers.

If you want to Practice Old Norse, you can always look for people on r/Norse, I am still pretty amateur at the language, but you can DM me if you like after you've learned the basics.

*Sees recommendation of Guns, Germs and Steel as a credible source in a history-centric conversation*

3312! We've got a 3312! This is not a drill! I repeat, this is not a drill!

Edit: Was just informed you english-speaking weirdos know it as 2319. I apologise for the international incident.

I'm sorry, and absolutely nothing personal. The book is a great introduction to aspects of anthropology and history not often talked about. Not all of his points are bad (some quite good, actually), and many historians and anthropologists will cite Diamond's book as the inspiration that brought them to their fields; but I think it's quite telling many of those same historians and anthropologists often retell it like that silly stuff they did as teenagers.

From r/history AutoModerator (yes, they need an automoderator for this thing):

Hi!

It looks like you are talking about the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

The book over the past years has become rather popular, which is hardly surprising since it is a good and entertaining read. It has reached the point that for some people it has sort of reached the status of gospel. On /r/history we noticed a trend where every time a question was asked that has even the slightest relation to the book a dozen or so people would jump in and recommending the book. Which in the context of history is a bit problematic and the reason this reply has been written.

Why it is problematic can be broken down into two reasons:

1. In academic history there isn't such thing as one definitive authority or work on things, there are often others who research the same subjects and people that dive into work of others to build on it or to see if it indeed holds up. This being critical of your sources and not relying on one source is actually a very important history skill often lacking when dozens of people just spam the same work over and over again as a definite guide and answer to "everything".
   
2. There are a good amount modern historians and anthropologists that are quite critical of Guns, Germs, and Steel and there are some very real issues with Diamond's work. These issues are often overlooked or not noticed by the people reading his book. Which is understandable given the fact that for many it will be their first exposure to the subject. Considering the popularity of the book it is also the reason that we felt it was needed to create this response.
   
   In an ideal world, every time the book was posted in /r/history, it would be accompanied by critical notes and other works covering the same subject. Lacking that a dozen other people would quickly respond and do the same. But simply put, that isn't always going to happen and as a result, we have created this response so people can be made aware of these things. Does this mean that the /r/history mods hate the book or Diamond himself? No, if that was the case we would simply instruct the bot to remove every mention of it, this is just an attempt to bring some balance to a conversation that in popular history had become a bit unbalanced.
   It should also be noted that being critical of someone's work isn't that same as outright dismissing it. Historians are always critical of any work they examine, that is part of they core skill set and key in doing good research.
   
   Below you'll find a list of other works covering much of the same subject, further below you'll find an explanation of why many historians and anthropologists are critical of Diamonds work.
   
   

   Other works covering the same and similar subjects.
   

   
   

• Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest
  
  
• 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
  
  
• Last Days of the Inca
  
  
• Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast, 1492-1715
  
  
• The Great Divergence
  
  
• Why the West Rules for Now
  
  
• Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900
  
  
  

  Criticism on Guns, Germs, and Steel
  

  
  Many historians and anthropologists believe Diamond plays fast and loose with history by generalizing highly complex topics to provide an ecological/geographical determinist view of human history. There is a reason historians avoid grand theories of human history: those "just so stories" don't adequately explain human history. It's true however that it is an entertaining introductory text that forces people to look at world history from a different vantage point. That being said, Diamond writes a rather oversimplified narrative that seemingly ignores the human element of history.
  
  
  Cherry-picked data while ignoring the complexity of issues
  
  In his chapter "Lethal Gift of Livestock" on the origin of human crowd infections he picks 5 pathogens that best support his idea of domestic origins. However, when diving into the genetic and historic data, only two pathogens (maybe influenza and most likely measles) could possibly have jumped to humans through domestication. The majority were already a part of the human disease load before the origin of agriculture, domestication, and sedentary population centers.
  This is an example of Diamond ignoring the evidence that didn't support his theory to explain conquest via disease spread to immunologically naive Native Americas.
  
  A similar case of cherry-picking history is seen when discussing the conquest of the Inca.
  
  > Pizarro's military advantages lay in the Spaniards' steel swords and other weapons, steel armor, guns, and horses... Such imbalances of equipment were decisive in innumerable other confrontations of Europeans with Native Americans and other peoples. The sole Native Americans able to resist European conquest for many centuries were those tribes that reduced the military disparity by acquiring and mastering both guns and horses.
  
  This is a very broad generalization that effectively makes it false. Conquest was not a simple matter of conquering a people, raising a Spanish flag, and calling "game over." Conquest was a constant process of negotiation, accommodation, and rebellion played out through the ebbs and flows of power over the course of centuries. Some Yucatan Maya city-states maintained independence for two hundred years after contact, were "conquered", and then immediately rebelled again.
  The Pueblos along the Rio Grande revolted in 1680, dislodged the Spanish for a decade, and instigated unrest that threatened the survival of the entire northern edge of the empire for decades to come.
  Technological "advantage", in this case guns and steel, did not automatically equate to battlefield success in the face of resistance, rough terrain and vastly superior numbers. The story was far more nuanced, and conquest was never a cut and dry issue, which in the book is not really touched upon. In the book it seems to be case of the Inka being conquered when Pizarro says they were conquered.
  
  Uncritical examining of the historical record surrounding conquest
  
  Being critical of the sources you come across and being aware of their context, biases and agendas is a core skill of any historian.
  
  Pizarro, Cortez and other conquistadores were biased authors who wrote for the sole purpose of supporting/justifying their claim on the territory, riches and peoples they subdued. To do so they elaborated their own sufferings, bravery, and outstanding deeds, while minimizing the work of native allies, pure dumb luck, and good timing. If you only read their accounts you walk away thinking a handful of adventurers conquered an empire thanks to guns and steel and a smattering of germs. No historian in the last half century would be so naive to argue this generalized view of conquest, but European technological supremacy is one keystone to Diamond's thesis so he presents conquest at the hands of a handful of adventurers.
  
  The construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world in general, as categorically inferior.
  
  To believe the narrative you need to view Native Americans as fundamentally naive, unable to understand Spanish motivations and desires, unable react to new weapons/military tactics, unwilling to accommodate to a changing political landscape, incapable of mounting resistance once conquered, too stupid to invent the key technological advances used against them, and doomed to die because they failed to build cities, domesticate animals and thereby acquire infectious organisms. When viewed through this lens, we hope you can see why so many historians and anthropologists are livid that a popular writer is perpetuating a false interpretation of history while minimizing the agency of entire continents full of people.
  
  
  

  Further reading.
  

  
  If you are interested in reading more about what others think of Diamon's book you can give these resources a go:
  
  

• /r/askHistorians section in their FAQ about GG&S
  
• Jim Blaut on Jared Diamond
  
  I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!

HOKAY SO!

First of all, you should look at the cultures struggling at the hands of Deaf Residential Schools because it is better to understand the cultures first rather than looking first at the horrors and terribleness

Sign Language Peoples can be sub-categorised into three: Deaf, signing Indigenous and non-Deaf/non-Indigenous signing

Deaf cultures are those that maintain, love and wish to pass down the trait of deafness and the cultural elements of Deafhood. There is a bit of similarity between Indigenous cultures and Deaf cultures in that Indigenous cultures are tied together by indigeneity despite many disparate and unique cultures within. Same for Deaf cultures: tied by deafness/Deafhood but ultimately home to hundreds upon hundreds of cultures.

There are four Deaf cultures (to my knowledge) in Canada: ASL Deaf, LSQ Deaf, Atlantic Deaf and DeafBlind

Atlantic Deaf speak a mix of ASL, MSL (Maritime Sign Language) and LSQ with unique dialects therein. ASL and LSQ Deaf speak American and Québec Sign Languages, respectively. ASL and LSQ have grammars more similar by crazy random happenstance to Japanese than to English or French. There is no "to be," no plural and about seven or eight words for we/us to give you an idea. DeafBlind will speak a mix of Tactile ASL, Tactile LSQ or ProTactile. The shift to ProTactile seems to be the shift towards more unique culture rather than a subculture of ASL Deaf or LSQ Deaf

There are many signing Indigenous cultures across Canada. There are the Nations who speak Hand Talk or languages descended from Hand Talk (note: the name of the language comes from an approximate of "HANDS" and "TO TALK TO" in the language). The countries where this is present: Niitsítpiis-stahkoii (Blackfeet Country), Ĩyãħé Nakón mąkóce (Stoney Nakoda Country), nêhiyaw-askiy (Plains Cree), Anishinaabewaki (Ojibwe), perhaps both ińiniwiaskiy and ililiwaskiy (Central Crees) and bits of Dakota Country on this side of the 49th. Perhaps historically, Eeyou-Istchee, Omàmiwininiwak, Haudenosauneega and even Nitassinan and Naskapi-aschiiy all might have spoken Hand Talk or related sign languages.

Then there are the non-Hand Talk languages found in Secwepemcúl̓ecw (Secwepemcékst is the language name), Ktunaxa ɁamakɁis (ʾa·qanⱡiⱡⱡitnam = language) and possibly other Plateau sign languages. There is Atgangmuurniq of Inuit Nunangat. And there is OSL or Oneida Sign Language from Onʌyote'a•ka within Haudenosauneega

Finally, there are the non-Indigenous, non-Deaf signing cultures. There are none in Canada currently, nor any in the States to my knowledge. However, historically, three substrate languages for ASL were in this category. One great, easy book is "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language" about the MVSL-English bilingual/bimodal community on Martha's Vineyard. After the expulsion of Wôpanâak, the euro-descendant community had a high rate of deafness and thus everyone on this island was bimodal/bilingual. The same happened in Sandy River Valley and Henniker

The manual Indigenous languages are critically important here, not least of which because of the high, high rate of connection between pictography and Hand Talk (here is a shitty source to start)

The way people to this day talk about Hand Talk and other smaller or Indigenous sign languages is awful. Even linguists will denigrate sign languages right and left. There is this whole spiel about "village" versus "urban" and "home sign" and other bullshit terms trying to call many languages "not full languages" and the like. It is just audism and discrimination playing out, so beware. There are like two maybe three researchers in the world looking at manual Indigenous languages, despite the fact there are ~50+ alone in North and South America

How they talk about Hand Talk ("primitive communication system" "savage gestures" "uncivilised" "pre-civilised language" etc.) mirrors the way they talk about pictography ("primitive pictures with meanings" "stylised artwork and nothing more" etc.) historically and kinda to this day. Big ol' yikes

NEXT COMMENT: Westward Invasions and Residential Schools

Sorry it's a little late but it's time for the weekly contest!

Firstly Last weeks winner: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/dljuhf/raided_from_the_americas_i_might_add/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share by /u/MetallicaDash message us for your flair and tag us on the discord for your special role.

This week we will be talking about the national game, baseball! The October classic is coming to an end and there is actually an absurd amount of history surrounding the game this week, or what's left of it, will be about the history of baseball. From the Babe calling his shot, to the players union winning their supreme Court case, to Jackie Robinson and his civil rights milestone, to the women's league during WW2, to the invention of Astro turf the possibilities are limitless. Baseball history is full of eccentric characters, traditions, curses, inventions, great moments in the history of the US along with some of its lowest.

Here are some sources for you:

Ken Burns Baseball: https://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Film-Burns-Tenth-Inning/dp/B004L9NDS2

One Minute History: https://youtu.be/N7y4sB-5JG8

Jackie Robinson Biography: https://youtu.be/CX3tv9uKj1I

Lou Gehrig: https://youtu.be/Oci79mLcKOg

Black Sox's scandal: https://youtu.be/4LWGRsU9300

This is kind of a filler contest since we have all been busy so I chose to pick something slightly left of center to what we usually pick. Hopefully this, though it probably won't, will help diversify content away from just military history and spread things out a little.

Mod applications will be closed at midnight CST the day this is posted, we thank you for putting an application in and we will try to have the winners picked in a week or so.

Thanks for reading and don't forget to tag your posts!

Swing away,
∆

Here you go, friend. It’s actually called turning points in middle eastern history, so I doubt it’s comprehensive of all life, but it was interesting. I also link the audible version rather than the great courses native version because you can get great courses with credits.

There are plenty of memoirs from the German perspective that have been translated into English. However when compared to the number of sources that were written originally by English speakers, the number of German memoirs is puny. After years of reading the accounts of allied soldiers, airmen, and sailors, I became interested in reading the opposite point of view and have collected and read about 30 different accounts of German Soldiers, but I have yet to find any from the perspective of a child serving in the Hitler Youth or that of a pensioner pressed into service with the Volkstrumm.

Though I do not know of any, I highly suspect that they are out there, but more than likely the works are still in their native tongue, and have yet to be translated to English, etc.

Edit: Here's my Top 5 memoirs, for those looking to get into in a first person German perspective.

​

1. Blood Red Snow by Guenter Koschorrek
   
   1. (Memoirs of a German Machine Gunner with the 24th Panzer Division in Stalingrad & on the Eastern Front. What I believe is the best, most well organized, and most thrilling account that I have ever read set in the Second World War.)
      
2. Sniper on the Eastern Front: Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger by Albrecht Wacker
   
   1. (Memoirs of a German Sniper serving in Army Group South. The account is just astonishing, but I'm afraid its also incredibly graphic; It is not for the faint of heart.)
      
3. At Leningrad's Gates by William Lubbeck
   
   1. (Memoirs of a German Forward Observer in the 58th Infantry Division of Army Group North. What is extraordinary about this account is that Mr. Lubbeck recalls and tells the story of his entire life, including his experiences during the rise of the Nazi Party in the 1930s.)
      
4. Duel under the Stars by Wilhelm Johnen
   
   1. Memoirs of a Luftwaffe Pilot, serving in a night fighter wing tasked with defending German Cities from the British Night-time bombing raids.)
      
5. Tigers in the Mud by Otto Carius
   
   1. (Memoirs of Germany's second most decorated Tiger Ace, Otto Carius. However his account felt too short and incomplete to me. Still would recommend based on his unique posting as a Tank Loader, then Tank Commander of Germany's feared Tiger Tank.)

For those confused or wanting to learn more, Twin Tollans by J.K. Kowalski et al might be a book you'd really appreciate on this subject.

Basically, early historians took the Aztecs' mythologized history of Tula at face value and interpreted Tula-like features around Mesoamerica as evidence of Toltec influence, but the reality of it was that there was a much larger cultural phenomenon going on and not only was Tula just following the crowd, but they're far from the first to do so.

Tula still had some level of popularity within Central Mexico, which is why later cultures around the Valley of Mexico like the Acolhua and Tepanecs liked to trace their ancestry to them, and later the Aztecs did the same by marrying into these polities and claiming that same legitimacy through ancestry.

Essentially the Toltecs (if we should even call them that) were that kid in school that repeated a joke louder and everyone credited him for it since. In other words,

Toltecsn't.

There is a movie about two Jewish prisoners escaping by stealing a German uniform but I forgot the name. (i don't think it's based on true events)

I can recommend a book called I escaped from auschwitz , it's the book where i got the story from.

If you guys are interested in an amazing story that surpasses any ww2 movie, i can highly recommend to read that book.

​

Great tips :) ..In addition, you can save water by changing the faucet aerators, even more, if you change with the EcoToucH2O save up to 84% of your water usage with the Auto shutoff technology see this video how does it work :

​

https://youtu.be/EKeZnkBfGAg

​

Also in amazon : https://www.amzn.com/B07MXPM2K9

​

more info for faucet aerators visit ZeroWaterWaste.com

In case anybody is interested:

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Andrew-Jackson-Bradley-Birzer/dp/1621577287

The author argues that Andrew Jackson had more respect for Indians than most Americans at the time, and was devastated by the implementation of the Indian Removal Act.

From wikipedia:

>According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter annihilation". Brands writes that, given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction". Jackson portrayed his paternalism and federal support as a generous act of mercy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

https://www.amazon.es/Reconquest-Crusade-Medieval-Spain-Middle/dp/0812218892

https://www.amazon.es/History-Medieval-Spain-Joseph-OCallaghan/dp/0801408806/ref=pd_sim_14_2/261-0187197-0967101?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0801408806&pd_rd_r=e467b5b2-058f-452a-833b-36149a16a8ca&pd_rd_w=mFzRs&pd_rd_wg=w7FVt&pf_rd_p=6337f499-a6c2-4ef6-8539-cbf295487a0e&pf_rd_r=85QNVYWTB6G9A1KCC8XM&psc=1&refRID=85QNVYWTB6G9A1KCC8XM

https://www.amazon.es/Kingdoms-Faith-History-Islamic-Spain/dp/0465055877/ref=pd_sim_14_3/261-0187197-0967101?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0465055877&pd_rd_r=4d3adf2a-c2ec-48ae-a4dc-0d12989daecf&pd_rd_w=yCkF5&pd_rd_wg=bIHTK&pf_rd_p=6337f499-a6c2-4ef6-8539-cbf295487a0e&pf_rd_r=CW8NJK32VHN1RHM32CR5&psc=1&refRID=CW8NJK32VHN1RHM32CR5

https://www.amazon.es/Kingdoms-Faith-History-Islamic-Spain/dp/0465055877/ref=pd_sim_14_3/261-0187197-0967101?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0465055877&pd_rd_r=4d3adf2a-c2ec-48ae-a4dc-0d12989daecf&pd_rd_w=yCkF5&pd_rd_wg=bIHTK&pf_rd_p=6337f499-a6c2-4ef6-8539-cbf295487a0e&pf_rd_r=CW8NJK32VHN1RHM32CR5&psc=1&refRID=CW8NJK32VHN1RHM32CR5

https://www.amazon.es/Victors-Vanquished-Christians-Catalonia-1050-1300/dp/0521822343

https://www.amazon.es/Last-Crusade-West-Castile-Conquest/dp/0812245873

https://www.amazon.com/Learned-King-Alfonso-Castile-Middle/dp/0812232267

(Yes, I love O’ Callaghan, he’s the biggest guy in reconquista books)

https://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=16550

https://www.amazon.es/Gibraltar-Crusade-Castile-Battle-Strait/dp/0812223020

This are some of them, and the best imho.

> Besides, Christians in those places were actually pretty well tolerated by muslims, save for a religious tax on them.

This is not corroborated by primary sources.

I have to recommend this wonderful book by David McCullough. Lots of great insights into Washington's thinking. https://www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226720

Hey there! Or I should say Γειά Σου!

I'm a history major in the American College of Greece so we did a lot of Modern Hellenic History (besides our school education, which was based on orthodox [=national] history), and it helped a lot of the Greek-American students get in touch with events.

I'd recommend some books:

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Greece-War-Independence-Present/dp/1472567560

https://www.amazon.com/Greece-Modern-John-S-Koliopoulos/dp/1850654638

https://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Greece-Cambridge-Histories/dp/1107612039/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=clogg&qid=1574711432&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Greece-Everyone-Needs-Know%C2%AE/dp/0199948798

You can find more by doing a search on LibGen or visit a library.

If you ever choose to move to Greece again, there're a lot of intensive Greek-language classes for people like yourself. Do not hesitate to ask for more info!

Lol you're full of shit? Well then.

https://www.dictionary.com/

https://www.amazon.com/World-History-Dummies-Peter-Haugen/dp/0470446544

Read those, and when you finally acquire even a basic grasp of vocabulary and history, hopefully you'll be able to produce something that remotely resembles an intelligent thought.

Hi!

It looks like you are talking about the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

The book over the past years has become rather popular, which is hardly surprising since it is a good and entertaining read. It has reached the point that for some people it has sort of reached the status of gospel. On /r/history we noticed a trend where every time a question was asked that has even the slightest relation to the book a dozen or so people would jump in and recommend the book. Which in the context of history is a bit problematic and the reason this reply was written.

Why it is problematic can be broken down into two reasons:

1. In academic history there isn't such thing as one definitive authority or work on things. There are often others who research the same subjects and people that dive into work of others to build on it or to see if it indeed holds up. This being critical of your sources and not relying on one source is actually a very important skill in studying history often lacking when dozens of people just spam the same work over and over again as a definite guide and answer to "everything".
   
2. There are a good amount of modern historians and anthropologists who are quite critical of Guns, Germs, and Steel and there are some very real issues with Diamond's work. These issues are often overlooked or not noticed by the people reading his book. Which is understandable, given the fact that for many it will be their first exposure to the subject. Considering the popularity of the book it is also the reason that we felt it was needed to create this response.
   
   In an ideal world, every time the book was posted in /r/history, it would be accompanied by critical notes and other works covering the same subject. Lacking that a dozen other people would quickly respond and do the same. But simply put, that isn't always going to happen and as a result, we have created this response so people can be made aware of these things. Does this mean that the /r/history mods hate the book or Diamond himself? No, if that was the case, we would simply instruct the bot to remove every mention of it. This is just an attempt to bring some balance to a conversation that in popular history had become a bit unbalanced. It should also be noted that being critical of someone's work isn't the same as outright dismissing it. Historians are always critical of any work they examine, that is part of their core skill set and key in doing good research.
   
   Below you'll find a list of other works covering much of the same subject. Further below you'll find an explanation of why many historians and anthropologists are critical of Diamonds work.
   
   

   Other works covering the same and similar subjects.
   

   
   

• Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest
  
  
• 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
  
  
• Last Days of the Inca
  
  
• Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast, 1492-1715
  
  
• The Great Divergence
  
  
• Why the West Rules for Now
  
  
• Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900
  
  
  

  Criticism of Guns, Germs, and Steel
  

  
  Many historians and anthropologists believe Diamond plays fast and loose with history by generalizing highly complex topics to provide an ecological/geographical determinist view of human history. There is a reason historians avoid grand theories of human history: those "just so stories" don't adequately explain human history. It's true however that it is an entertaining introductory text that forces people to look at world history from a different vantage point. That being said, Diamond writes a rather oversimplified narrative that seemingly ignores the human element of history.
  
  
  Cherry-picked data while ignoring the complexity of issues
  
  In his chapter "Lethal Gift of Livestock" on the origin of human crowd infections he picks 5 pathogens that best support his idea of domestic origins. However, when diving into the genetic and historic data, only two pathogens (maybe influenza and most likely measles) could possibly have jumped to humans through domestication. The majority were already a part of the human disease load before the origin of agriculture, domestication, and sedentary population centers. This is an example of Diamond ignoring the evidence that didn't support his theory to explain conquest via disease spread to immunologically naive Native Americas.
  
  A similar case of cherry-picking history is seen when discussing the conquest of the Inca.
  
  > Pizarro's military advantages lay in the Spaniards' steel swords and other weapons, steel armor, guns, and horses... Such imbalances of equipment were decisive in innumerable other confrontations of Europeans with Native Americans and other peoples. The sole Native Americans able to resist European conquest for many centuries were those tribes that reduced the military disparity by acquiring and mastering both guns and horses.
  
  This is a very broad generalization that effectively makes it false. Conquest was not a simple matter of conquering a people, raising a Spanish flag, and calling "game over." Conquest was a constant process of negotiation, accommodation, and rebellion played out through the ebbs and flows of power over the course of centuries. Some Yucatan Maya city-states maintained independence for two hundred years after contact, were "conquered", and then immediately rebelled again. The Pueblos along the Rio Grande revolted in 1680, dislodged the Spanish for a decade, and instigated unrest that threatened the survival of the entire northern edge of the empire for decades to come. Technological "advantage", in this case guns and steel, did not automatically equate to battlefield success in the face of resistance, rough terrain and vastly superior numbers. The story was far more nuanced, and conquest was never a cut and dry issue, which in the book is not really touched upon. In the book it seems to be case of the Inka being conquered when Pizarro says they were conquered.
  
  Uncritical examining of the historical record surrounding conquest
  
  Being critical of the sources you come across and being aware of their context, biases and agendas is a core skill of any historian.
  
  Pizarro, Cortez and other conquistadores were biased authors who wrote for the sole purpose of supporting/justifying their claim on the territory, riches and peoples they subdued. To do so they elaborated their own sufferings, bravery, and outstanding deeds, while minimizing the work of native allies, pure dumb luck, and good timing. If you only read their accounts you walk away thinking a handful of adventurers conquered an empire thanks to guns and steel and a smattering of germs. No historian in the last half century would be so naive to argue this generalized view of conquest, but European technological supremacy is one keystone to Diamond's thesis so he presents conquest at the hands of a handful of adventurers.
  
  The construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world in general, as categorically one step behind.
  
  To believe the narrative you need to view Native Americans as somehow naive, unable to understand Spanish motivations and desires, unable react to new weapons/military tactics, unwilling to accommodate to a changing political landscape, incapable of mounting resistance once conquered, too stupid to invent the key technological advances used against them, and doomed to die because they failed to build cities, domesticate animals and thereby acquire infectious organisms. This while they did often did fare much better than the book (and the sources it tends to cite) suggest, they often did mount successful resistance, were quick to adapt to new military technologies, build sprawling citiest and much more. When viewed through this lens, we hope you can see why so many historians and anthropologists are livid that a popular writer is perpetuating a false interpretation of history while minimizing the agency of entire continents full of people.
  
  

  Further reading
  

  
  If you are interested in reading more about what others think of Diamon's book you can give these resources a go:
  
  

• /r/askHistorians section in their FAQ about GG&S
  
• Jim Blaut on Jared Diamond
  
  
  I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.