Right, but it’s just NOW with all our tech, that people seem have a chance to do it…they couldn’t do it 50 years ago, could they? Could they do it 500 years ago? 1000 years ago?
What I’ve noticed in the thread is that most of the complains with Diamond’s theory is based on what we can do now, or what we know now or a generation ago and not what people were able to do or knew 500 years ago.
I said the industrial revolution was a blip, and the question was misguided. Diamond puts forward a rather tenuous hypothesis about political unity and its relation to geography. He admits it’s tenuous, and I think it’s even worse than tenuous. I think he should just admit that the forces he’s talking about are only evident on average and over the long run. They’re not suitable for answering questions like “Why Europe and not China?” because Europe and China have always been in contact enough that neither could get more than a couple of centuries “ahead” before decisive new technology spread from one to the other. That’s part of the basic theory, after all.
50 years ago, yes. 100 years ago, yes. The technique isn’t much different from handling cattle, just everything has to be higher, tighter, and stronger. Thing is, why would you try to get the bison to come to you rather than vice versa in the first place, unless you were already a sedentary farmer? Note that all the major Eurasian domesticated mammals are domesticated after people are already living in permanent villages and growing wheat, etc. I think it highly likely that bison would have been domesticated eventually, after corn/bean-based agriculture spread to the plains. It just hadn’t got there yet. So we’re back to barriers to the spread of corn.
No it doesn’t. Why does this mistake get spread? Even Alton Brown is guilty…
I’m not an expert, but a quick google says that domesticating bison isn’t an easy thing to do, and that’s the reason “we” chose cattle. They were just easier to deal with.
I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but why didn’t the ranchers, just domesticate the existing bison, as opposed to bringing in cattle?
Because the choice was between already-domesticated cattle and not-yet-domesticated bison. Domesticating bison certainly isn’t easy, but it’s not clear that domesticating cattle was easy, either. Once it’s done, you don’t have to do it again though.
Last post, i promise. I agree, but animals have different temperments. We don’t know of course; but would it surprise you that when man first domesticated cattle, he did so because they were tempermentally suited to be domesticated?
He smacked 'em across the ass with a stick and they complied as opposed to smacking a bison and finding yourself trappled to death.
The issue with the Americans domesticating bison might be in part that they didn’t have an idea that it could be done. Without any examples of domesticated animals (aside, i think from the dog), how would you even come up with the idea of domestication? Possibly circumstances made it easier to domesticate cattle in the Old World, or perhaps the example of other domesticated ruminants helped (I think that they think the goat one of the oldest domesticated species).
Even if it is known that a species is domesticated, that doesn’t mean that it happens. There was an article a year or so ago in American Scientist about domesticated foxes. It’s apparently relatively easy to domesticate a fox, yet no societyy has done so. what’s more, even in our pet-crazed society, where people keep ferrets and de-scented skunks (not to mention snakes, tarantulas, and hissing cockroaches) foxes aren’t higly popular as pets.
Yes, this was part of my point. I think he would be better off just admitting that his theory does not explain the differences within the Eurasian landmass itself, or just coming up with a better theory.
His theory, I think, works far better for explaining general Eurasian dominance over Africa, Australia, and the Americas than it does for explaining European dominance in particular.
I don’t know that we know this. There aren’t any aurochs around to smack across the ass with a stick to find out, either. What I do know is that there are plenty of Bos taurus specimens you’d smack across the ass with a stick at your own peril. Adult males unaccustomed to close contact with humans would be bloody dangerous. Probably nearly as dangerous as bull bison, and this after breeding in captivity for some millenia. I’m really not sure I buy the idea that bison are not tempermentally suited to be domesticated. I’ve seen them come a-runnin’ towards the pickup from a half mile away because they expect it to be delivering them some oats. I’ve seen them stand around placidly chewing on some hay watching people work on fences very nearby. Of course, I’ve also seen them race around in frenzied circles in small enclosures in a panic to find a way out, something no cow would ever do. But then, we haven’t been selectively breeding bison for temperment for millenia, either.
In a not-particularly-polite word, HAH! Bos taurus domesticus is believed decended from the Aurochs, Bos taurus primigenius, and here is what one early writer had to say about them:
Well, for the last couple centuries, Plains Indians had horses too. I think it’s better to look at it from the point of view of the Plains Indian, though. Why would you want to domesticate bison? You just follow the herd. It’s not like they’re hard to find. It’s only once you settle down and start growing crops that you’d think that it’d sure be nice if those bison just camped out permanently nearby and then take steps to ensure that they do.
As for domesticating something like a fox, it’s worth noting that the utility of domesticating a fox is pretty questionable. Neat pet, maybe, but no value as food, and an inferior guard/companion compared to the wolf. Errr…dog. Diamond contends that every potentially valuable animal that could be domesticated, was, and takes the fact that zebras, gnus, and bison haven’t been domesticated as evidence that they can’t be.
Just noticed this statement.
In a word, no. Use dogs to keep bison in line? Not a chance. Bison kill dogs. Kill’em dead. Coyotes they rip to shreds. Well, not very often, because most of a canine persuasion are smart enough to bugger off, but woe betide the dog that gets into the midst of a herd. Dogs on bison ranches learn very quickly that those big shaggy things aren’t at all friendly.
You’re still thinking of instant domestication of wild adults. Bison are no worse than aurochsen (thoroughly pretentious pluralization that goes back to when aurochs-current singular and plural-walked the Earth) and folks managed to domesticate them. Herding dogs like border collies do it by acting predatory and if you grab an infant bison it will grow up afraid of the dogs and unaware it’s much much bigger than them.
No, I’m not thinking about domestication of wild adults. I’m thinking of quasi-domesticated bison that have lived in captivity all their lives. They still kill dogs. One might eventually breed bison with a temperment that would allow them to be controlled by dogs, but one couldn’t use dogs to help control bison during the domestication procedure. I’m not saying they would be undomesticable by stone age farmers - in fact I think I’ve quite clearly said I think they would be. I just don’t think you’re going to get very far using dogs to do it.
As to whether bison have a nastier temperment than aurochs, we really have nothing that approaches evidence on that score, so I don’t see how you can assert with any confidence that they’re “no worse”.
We have quite a few eyewitness records of the nastiness of aurochs–above I quoted what Julius Caesar had to say about them–yet we managed to domesticate them. Give those bison a few generations in which the nastier ones get turned into veal, the owners get some faster and smarter dogs, and the bison develop a taste for donuts and we’ll be well on the way towards creating a domestic bison.
Oh, I fully believe that aurochs were nasty. But since Caesar said they were nearly as big as elephants, you’ll forgive me for taking his comments with a grain of salt. I’m sure the locals told him that, but then, the locals tell all kinds of stories. Hell, I’ve heard all kinds of stories of the nastiness of various modern examples of Bos taurus. No need to convince me that they can be nasty. However, nobody has ever had experience with both Bos taurus and Bison bison in their wild forms, and so any conjecture about their relative temperments is just conjecture. It may well be that bison are by nature nastier, just as zebras are by nature nastier than horses. And yet, you can read all kinds of stories about how vicious and mean wild horses are.
Anyways, I believe I’ve already agreed that after some generations of selectively breeding against nastiness, one might have bison that can be controlled by dogs. That won’t make dogs any more useful until that point is reached.
I think MrDibble answered this. My comment wat that it would be all but impossible to find someone in tropical America with solely or primarily European blood. There’s no doubt that most people have some European ancestry, but very few would have no African, Indian, Japanese etc. ancestors anywhere in the last 400 years. Compare that to the US where even today probably better than 40% of people have exclusively European ancestry.
Cape Town is indisputably tropical. It falls in the band north of the Tropic of Capricorn and South of the Tropic of Cancer. Elevation, maritime influence, prevailing winds and Mediterranean climate may make it a very agreeable place to live and it may even be climatically subtropical but it is still squarely within the Tropics geographically.
Good points. And my understanding is that non-Europeans always made up the bulk of Johannesburg’s population anyway.
So we really only have one European city in the whole of tropical Africa and that’s climatically subtropical. Not really what you could call Europeans kicking ass.
The first thing is that we weren’t discussing the Middle East, we were discussing the fertile crescent which is primarily Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Only the extreme south-eastern corner Turkey is included. So while the Ottomans certainly controlled those areas they were not in themselves great powers at the time of the Ottoman empires. In fact they were conquered by the Ottomans who were themselves straddling Asia and Europe.
And by no stretch have Europeans only taken off in the last 500-1000 years. The Greeks defeated the Persians, who were the Fertile Crescent superpower, 1500 years ago. They followed that by Alexander conquering the “known world”, including the Fertile Crescent, a few hundred years later and the Greeks remained the world superpower thereafter. They were in turn conquered by more Europeans from Italy and so on. While have of course swung back and forwards Europe has contained the world powers or at least been in the top two for almost two centuries, not a mere 500 years.
As for the idea that the climate of Europe made a difference in a short time, that’s entirely a matter of opinion. Agriculture only appeared 9000 years ago. It only appeared in Europe 6000 years ago. For 6000 years the fertile crescent produced the dominant civilisations. For 2000 years it was the European Mediterranean. So I’m not quite sure what you mean by Europe achieving dominance in a short time short time. It might not be long in the history of the human species but it took fully 2/3 of the entire existence of agriculture for Europe to achieve dominance, and half of the entire time that agriculture existed in Europe.
That’s not a rapid rise to prominence IMO. It’s certainly not something so unusual that it requires explanation. It took along time for agriculture and centralised government to adapt to the more dispersed settlement patterns that Europe allowed for. The Earliest European civilisations relied very much on city states after the pattern of Fertile Crescent floodplain farmers. Only after they managed to form major alliances and began to abandon the city state concept did they rise to prominence. And yes, I know the Greek Persian wars were very much city state vs. city state but it was the alliance and tributes levied form city states from highly productive countryside that allowed the Greek victories.
No doubt about that. But I can’t quite see how that contradicts Diamond’s thesis since, despite resisting domination, they have never been a major power with an ability to dominate. If we ask why Afghanistan never dominated Russia the question can be answered perfectly by Diamond’s proposals. He never really attempted to address why Russia couldn’t dominate Afghanistan.
Are there two different versions of this book, or what? Because that seems to be the exact opposite of what Diamond explicitly states in the version I own.
“Thus an observer transported back in time to 1100, 00 BC 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. In hindsight of course we know that Eurasia was the one, but it turns out that the reasons behind the more rapid development of Eurasian societies were not at all the straightforward ones…”
From “Guns, Germs And Steel”
But that’s an inaccurate paraphrase. The actual quote is “An obvious possible answer is that they were killed off or else eliminated indirectly by the first arriving humans.” Note that he doesn’t ascribe it to hunting at all, merely killing off, possibly indirectly. Hunting almost certainly played a role but it isn’t the primary cause in any but the most isolated and specific overkill scenarios. It’s far more complex than that.
The problems with invoking disease have already been addressed. The problem with climate change is that these animals had endured dozens of previous equally sever change with nary a loss. Then people arrive and… That’s made even more compelling because animals also disappear from Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand and countless other landmasses; all coincidental with human arrival, all at completely different times with completely different climatic changes occurring. So while animals in America were apparently dying because it was getting warmer and wetter, in Australia it was getting warmer and dryer and in New Zealand the climate was getting warmer and wetter. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all these extinctions occurred as a result of climate change that just happened to coincide with the arrival of humans, while previous even more severe climate changes had no effect.
Oh yeah.
The modern definition of the Middle East, to my knowledge, contains the fertile crescent and at least the great bulk of what was the Ottoman empire. I suppose it depends on how you as an individual define it though.
All true to a degree, but no real dominance other than Alexander. And that crumbled pretty quickly; I’m not sure I’d agree that the Greeks “remained the world superpower.” In fact, I really do disagree with what you have said; I don’t think Europe has been a “superpower” for 2,000 years (what I think you meant to say). In fact, I think it has been decidedly weaker than large chunks of Asia and the Middle East for the bulk of that time. Maybe I just need to think about it harder, but I don’t agree with your assessment.
I think this all depends on whether you think it has been the Mediterranean for the past 2,000 years, or the past 500. I think that your statement in itself contains a Eurocentric viewpoint. The Romans, for example, conquered North Africa and parts of the Middle East, and had great difficulty holding both. I’m not sure it’s fair to state they had global dominance. I’m sure it looks that way based on traditional histories, but they tended to emphasize the most dominant European power as being “naturally” the world power.
Yes, and that’s one of his weakest points. In fact his whole explanation of differences in domestication is one of his weakest points.
The idea that “every potentially valuable animal that could be domesticated, was, therefore because zebras, gnus, and bison haven’t been domesticated that means they can’t be” is a classic true Scotsman. Diamond says that all truly domesticable animals have been. People point out that bison and zebras haven’t been domesticated and Diamond responds that they are truly domesticable. But he rarely actually supports these assertions. As others have said, bison can be domesticated, and they are certainly potentially valuable. Sure they are probably hard to control in the mating season, but as other s have said the ancestor of cattle and camels wouldn’t; have been any better. He says that males zebras are prone to biting, but presents no evidence that the ancestor of the domestic horse was any less so. He totally overlooks that reindeer are a valuable domesticate in Europe and used for both food and transport and yet never domesticated in America. He mentions that moose, eland and bison have all been domesticated in less than a century, but then says that aren’t domesticable because they aren’t commercially competitive against culturally valued species that have been selectively bred for millennia.
In short his entire chapter on this subject seems like a whitewash to me. It is very short on evidence to the point where it could be considered unsupported opinion. His argument in the chapter is a blatant example of special case pleading. He was much as admits this by saying that each undomesticable animal is undomesticable for unique reasons. He tries to mitigate that logical inconsistency by claiming that all domesticable animals chare common traits, but when you look at those traits you can’t actually find two domesticated animals that share traits that aren’t equally found in several undomesticated species. It all just special case pleading and ad hoc reasoning IMO. There’s no logical basic for his claims and scant evidential basis.