Guns Germs Steel

846 Words4 Pages
Jared Diamond tells a story in his documentary about the conquest of the Americas. To answer his question on how the few Europeans were able to conquer an advanced civilization of tens of thousands of Incan’s and why it was not the other way around, he uses elements of narrative history, when he maps out the chronological conquest of the Americas and how the civilization was physically taken out. And also uses historical analysis to answer why Pizarro took down the Incan’s the way he did and to analyze why he was successful. To answer the second part of the question that he sought to answer, he has experts of the swords, masonry and vintage horsemanship that the Spaniards used as his historical analysis. When he uses materials such as the diaries of Pizzaro’s men and the other textual resources still available he is using history narratively. The critique of Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs and Steel lies in what Diamond fails to do. I do not think the author is saying that Jared Diamonds views are entirely wrong he just thinks that Diamond is lacking an additional perspective. Diamond actually contradicts his view on genetic differences affecting the course of history. It is a very delicate thing to prove and Diamond can’t do so without contradicting himself. He confuses the idea of one group being superior at everything and groups being good at specific things. And instead denounces this theory playing a part in the conquest of populations over others. He also does not consider the present and only focuses on 13,000 years ago. His perspective does not work for the world that we know live in and this critic is saying that it should work for “today and yesterday” and all time periods. I cannot say that I completely agree with just one of the writers. The critic offers very logical points but Jared Diamond only offers a few. I side more with the critic in the
Open Document