cubicle ruminations

I am struck by the challenge of taking concrete things that have happened (or at least have supposedly happened) and searching for their root cause in processes that seem anything but concrete. To trace that path of human history based on events that we know to have occured, and then try to understand how human history has developed as it has is an enormous task. These events are influenced by what I currently understand to be very complicated human beings. Depending on the day, I am either very impressed by Daimond or think he's a fool for taking on such a task as to explain the history of people so complex as us. So, do I need to broaden my perspective or what? Sometimes I read and I think to myself, "I can't believe this guy has is writing like this; how can Diamond make the claims of human history that he does?" I think I am still feeling out a balance of holding what I read in perspective and trying to feel out the lines of theory and fact, and in the midst of that understand some of the basic ideas and concepts of the book so far.

Perhaps this boils down to this question: "Is Diamond making claims that essentially lead up reasons for the circumstances that I live in today, and if so, what is my response?" It think this requires an understanding of personal bias as I read the book.

So anyways, I don't know if this really progresses past my previous thoughts. But, nevertheless, that's what I am thinking through today.

Just joined and work through chap. 2

My apologiez fellow bloggers that is has taken so long for me to figure out how to join this blog. Don't laugh, but it has taken more than on attempt on my part.
Currently I'm working through chap. 2 of Diamond's work and I'm hoping to make up ground this week after finishing another book. I've been excited thus far with the 'cause/effect,' as Clifton puts it, and the spread of humanity across geographic regions. Diamond's analysis of the island communities and their interactions early in the text leaves me with a sense of hope for our common beginning and a sense of dread for how easily it's forgotten. Hopefully with subsequent blogs with be more full of profundity (50 cent word of the day). Until then...

Introduction

Yeah, I'm way slower than everyone else (read: Matt Lyke). But I was just reading my way through the introduction and stumbled across a paragraph that struck me, mostly because, in comparison to my enthusiam about Israel's Praise or The Omnivore's Dilemma, I wasn't too into reading this book, or at least wasn't sure that it was something I was interested in knowing about for the sake of being a better person or making the world a better place.

I know you've all read it, but I'm going to post it anyways.

"It seems logical to suppose that history's pattern reflects innate differences among people themselves. Of course, we're taught that it's not polite to say so in public. We read of technical studies claiming to demonstrate inborn differences, and we also read rebuttals claiming that those studies suffer from technical flaws. We see in our daily lives that some of the conquered peoples continue to form an underclass, centuries after the conquests or slave imports took place. We're told that this too is to be attributed not to any biological shortcomings but to social disadvantages and limited opportunities.

"Nevertheless, we have to wonder. We keeps seeing all those glaring, persistent differences in peoples' status. We're assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation for the world's inequalities as of A.D. 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanations for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book."

It also seems to me to be the strongest argument for reading it. Just in going through the introduction, I've been trying to place myself within hypothetical situations and remind myself of situations that I am or have been in (i.e. imagine myself visiting an Aboriginal Australian tribe and wondering how I would perceive them), and I've realized that my perceptions may very well be derived from the racist biological explanation, since it has been deviously lurking behind most of what I've been taught since birth about the world and my social status.

It's also interesting for me to think about some of the "non-racist" things I've been taught since I became a "liberal," and wondering how much things like white guilt may not be as detached from this racist biological explanation, either.

Anyways, who really knows what is at the source of my perceptions, but regardless, it will be very interesting to see how Diamond's argument plays out. I feel pretty confident that he's going to refute the racist biological explanation, but I'm unsure about how he will allow historical reality interact with apparent moral obligation, i.e. if he proves that European economic/militaristic/technological superiority was the product of enviromental conditions and not genetic superiority, does that mean that history played out as it should or that, had the roles been reversed, sub-Saharan Africans, American Indians, etc. would have done the same thing? I know he addressed that a bit in the intro, but I'm not sure he made any promises. My guess is that he won't really touch that subject at all, but we could get lucky.

Oh, also, I saw this on BBC when I opened Firefox, and thought it was superficially interesting and applicable to what I was thinking about at the time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6419473.stm

The"Objective Reality"

I'm up to Chapter 5 but I don't discuss anything specifically.

Diamond obviously puts primary importance on the physical worlds ability to shape society. And so far there is little reference to the importance of ideology or worldview in cultural change. Most of us have been some what schooled in the thought that what is most fundamental too how we act is how we see the world. And I've often thought this was compelling but I also have always believed in the presence of an outside reality which shapes me in ways I don't quite understand.

Discussion question: in what ways is Diamond's search for primary material causes relevant to understanding worldview especially what ways does it undermine it and what ways could it contribute to a more robust perspective? I'm basically trying to understand how my interpretation of hi interpretation of what he perceives as the objective facts that shape cultural history can be best understood and accounted for.

Some Form Proposals

I think just about everyone has a copy at this point so I think posts should start pretty soon. I've never tried doing a blog book discussion or a book discussion without certain goals so here are some proposals for clariy in posting.
1. Post's shold begin with the chapter(s) or page(s) that you are commenting on so everyone can tell i they've read that far.
2. There does not have to be any specific order to posting whatever you want to make a point or ask a question about make it.
3. Becase there is no clear order noone should feel slighted if noone responds to a comment from ch. 5 while everyone else is writing on ch. 2 (maybe everyone else is more mature than me but I thought I'd put that anyway)

let's get this party started

hey there

just a test to see how this works. i'm a rookie at this blog thing