Jihad Watch Advisory Board Veep Hugh Fitzgerald reviews Jared Diamond's Collapse:
Jared Diamond's Collapse is a curious book, one that ignores the influence of ideology -- just as his previous book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, was careful not to attribute the success of Western European civilization to such formative influences as Hellenism and Judeo-Christianity, distinguishing elements that permitted the development of free and skeptical inquiry, and of modern science and modern economies. In Guns, Germs, and Steel he was determined to avoid any possibility that one might inquire into differences among different groups of humans. Instead, he wanted to focus on such matters as the 14 animals capable of domestication and the latitudinal breadth of the Euro-Asian landmass. Indeed, he explicitly announces that his intent was to show that no other kind of explanation was permissible, or even, it seemed, conceivable. And because Diamond goes birdwatching every year in New Guinea, and finds the New Guineans to be wonderful people, he draws much of his evidence, his anecdotal evidence, from New Guinea. The book nonetheless received exaggerated praise.This second book is also worthy in its intent (if one thinks a writer should necessarily set out with an intent). And here he seems to agree that what people believe, or do not believe, and how they react to situations, can matter. He sees that Western dogmatism of one kind, and one kind, only, may lead to "collapse."
The kind that Jared Diamond has in mind is the dogmatism of the free market, the belief that somehow governments should not intervene (though of course they intervene all the time, every time a new provision is added, or an old one amended, in the Tax Code) for example, to end in a crash program, utilizing every possible bit of pressure and power that the government possesses, to limit the use of fossil fuels in this country and all over the world. And he is correct.
But he says nothing about the belief-system in much of the Western world that may lead to another kind of collapse, not a physical one, but one that would end Western civilization. And that is the dogma that all peoples, collectively and individually, are of equal worth, and that no judgments can be made. And this peculiar belief, for which there is not the slightest evidence, comes out as something often called, in praise or blame, "multiculturalism" or "relativism." It is madness.
And that brings us to the third dogma, far more dangerous than the two that have been described above, yet which is related to the two described above And that dogma is Islam, which is an affront to tolerance, and peace, and which limits artistic expression, free inquiry, the rights of women and all non-Muslims.
Yet the free-market ideology that has so far prevented any systematic effort to cease the transfer of enormous wealth to OPEC oil states (some $10 trillion since 1973), 10 of the 11 OPEC members being Arab or Muslim-dominated states), and that also has so far largely prevented the kind of effort that may be needed to protect the physical environment that is being degraded before our eyes, in the name of Growth (for economic activity appears to be the only (hollow) Good by which most people can set store), prolongs and even increases the power of Islam and of Muslim states and peoples.
And the other dogma, that of multiculturalism, usually means that the Western, white, European and American peoples are supposed to be forever embarrassed, forever apologizing for, forever in the dock about, not only whatever evils were caused by European imperialism (while all the considerable good of colonialism is ignored), but are to ignore completely the vast achievements of their own civilizations, and to forget who they are, and what Europe, and America, have managed to create.
And those two dogmas -- the Free Market as the Sole Answer to fossil fuel use (and hence to Muslim wealth which funds, in turn, mosques, madrasas, an army of Western hirelings, etc.), and the belief that All Cultures and Peoples and People are Equal, both get in the way of sensibly dealing with the third, and most dangerous, dogma -- that of Islam.
Diamond of course stays well away from that.
Europe today is experiencing a slow death. It is lying in bed, waiting for the end, a slow death, and there is a box of chocolates to be consumed, and on the old phonograph player a dying swan who manages to sing (qui chante son trepas).
And meanwhile the forces of black reaction, bearing an ideology that has been a consistent failure, political, economic, intellectual, and social, and that has simply been a blueprint for conquest and subjugation, and that insured a kind of false success based on the accumulated capital (including intellectual capital) of those non-Muslims it conquered and subjugated, gather.
Roger Scruton says something along those lines in The West and the Rest, which was surprising for him as he always seems so much in favour of the free market.
Multiculturalism is the impulse to be nice and respectful elevated to idiotic dogma and has meant that a crass, inhuman and deeply bigoted and intolerant ideology is cosseted and promoted. It is a stupid concept because it paints the world as a world full of shiny happy nice lovely good hearted people, and assumes that all people are as nice and well intentioned as itself. It does not make allowances for the darkness inherent in human nature and some civilisation and religion's belief systems. Whilst we are being nice to Hindus and Chinese, Islam seeks to destroy us.
I find it hard to describe the level of stupidity of those who still promote Stalinist Multiculturalism in the face of an ideology which holds in absolute contempt everything that is of value in our culture, in fact, an ideology that spits on the very values that multiculturalism claims to seek to enforce, tolerance, respect, equality, human rights for all.
I do believe it is a wonderful thing for Jews, Chinese Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Africans and Jamaicans to enrich a society and add to its diverse experience and enliven it. But this is natural and does not need commenting on. It happens in its own way, on street level. It doesnt need state ideology. Islam would destroy in a split second the harmony we have in our tolerant societies. Islam despises us. And to all those Multiculturalists I say this: the first people Islam will seek to destroy are the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in the West, it is they who will be harassed, threatened and despised. No doubt when it comes to that these same stupid, moronic white 'multiculturalists' will lie back and flagellate themselves and ignore the sixteen foot tall monster in their living room, hoping that, if they dont say anything, it will go away quietly and stop threatening them.
Zico - spot on, as usual. As I keep saying on Harry's Place, Islam is against all the values that the left claim to stand for. It gets a pass, however, because its practioners are mainly non-white and, above all, because most secular leftists know absolutely nothing about it and see it as just another religion.
It's amazing the way lefties stick up for Islam without having read the Koran. They've all read the Communist Manifesto, another work of fiction that ruined millions of lives. But the Koran, insofar as it makes sense at all, is a major political manifesto.
It is important, when arguing with leftists, to emphasise the political nature of Islam. There's very little spirituality in it anyway. Even their heaven is a celestial brothel with renewable virgins. Nothing there for women.
(I quite like the idea of renewable comedy, so you could watch Monty Python and Fawlty Towers as if for the first time, but that doesn't feature in any holy book.)
Hugh: Jared Diamond's work is a defense of the materialistic view of history, that economics and physical environment determine the course of civilization, with values and beliefs as no more than surface phenomena. That's how the book should be taken. Such books get puff reviews because the older materialist left is waking up to realize that its grip on the culture is slipping.
The effects of the naive and dangerous ideology of multiculturalism may now be impossible to reverse as they are being inculcated into our young in the public schools and later at the university level. Education is the most effective tool of the jihad.
Interested
When leftists come out with their asinine defence of Islam by saying, oh, we can learn so much from Islam, we are a consumerist capitalist society, we can learn from Islam, we must be humble and learn, things like charity and respect for family, I say, why should we only learn from Islam? (Madeleine Bunting of The Guardian is one such person who comes out with such trite foolishness)
Buddhism has some nice things to say, Sikhism is a fascinating religion that places charity at its centre, Hinduism has beautiful and delightful colourful iconography, Judaism has a 2500 year old system of ethics, why the hell should we single out Islam for its 'moral teachings' any more than any of the other religions practised in Britain? Why this grovelling need to genuflect before the 'wisdom' of Islam?
The left is well and truly screwed. I used to be openly left wing. I dont think my values have changed that much. Its just that the bulk of what used to be the left has collapsed and corroded into absolute abject idiocy.
In the old days in the name of multculturalism we would have Indian festivals when you could watch bhangra dancing and eat nice food and buy incense for your wife from a nice stall, and we could go to the Notting Hill carnival, and celebrate Chinese New Year in Liverpool and Leicester Square with the dragon dances. Now, we have ‘Islam Awareness Week’, one event of which I attended, and experienced a lecture given by 'Sister' Yvonne Ridley about the intrinsic corrupt nature of our society, and saw at full flow a hideous and vulgar example of crass dawah and proletysation that is being carried out in the name of this ideology. The irony of which is lost on the fools who promote these things in council chambers and the BBC. Only Islam has the need for such nonsense, all in the name of 'racial harmony' and 'multiculturalism', promoting a bigoted and intolerant ideology of exclusivism and supremacism, promoting a religion as a corrective to our society’s ills. This is what I mean about how the simpleton and good natured impulse is exploited and laughed at by those who hold our values, and the values that the multiculturalists claim to protecting, in basic contempt.
Jews, Hindus and Sikhs are being marginalized and Christians are starting to ask the questions like, if Islam can be promoted without criticism or questioning, why the sneering at us? This is something the left has to face up to, but it doesn’t have the guts, intelligence or heart to make these calls, so imbecilic it has become.
Normally, when I disagree with an author's perspective but still want to be informed, I borrow the books from the library.
But noooo, Hugh, you dropped the ball and I just spent my husband's hard earned money on both Diamond's books. You need to be speedier on these reviews, my friend. Haven't read them yet though.
Now I'm going to have to trek to the post office to send them back. And wait for the library to get its own copies. Sigh.
It was a colossal mistake to extend Western style mineral rights to the nomadic Bedouins. Think about it.
Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea.
Thanks Hugh,
I'm glad that a scholar like you has finally taken Mr. Diamond to task for his interesting but extremely one dimensional approach to the rise and fall of human societies.
The synopsis of his last book gave me a bad feeling when he accused the Vikings in Greenland of "collective suicide" because they chose to decorate their churches when they "should have been" emulating the Eskimos.
In an age when it is fashionable to bash or deny the values that made the West so great, Diamond is clearly no better than freelance monotheist Karen Armstrong, who attributes the horror of World War I to a so-called "death wish" that characterizes the modern age.
It is ironic how self-haters who promote the anti-values that are killing Western civilization often conflate the struggle to preserve Western values with "suicidal tendencies."
Karen Armstrong's "death wish" does not characterize the modern age. This death wish characterizes the postmodern age, and Karen Armstrong and Jared Armstrong are among its leading agents.
"And those two dogmas -- the Free Market as the Sole Answer to fossil fuel use (and hence to Muslim wealth which funds, in turn, mosques, madrasas, an army of Western hirelings, etc.), and the belief that All Cultures and Peoples and People are Equal"
Jihadwatch, FrontpageMag, et al. are doing an excellent job of fighting the second dogma. Unfortunately, the first one is much harder to tackle:
How do we provide incentives for Americans to decrease their dependence on ME oil without hurting the economy and hurting our trade deficit with China? After all, Saudi oil is still the cheapest around, and the fastest-growing consumer of ME oil, China, could care less what the Wahhabis are doing with the money.
About a month ago, I proposed some measures, but I will admit they were a bit lame. Libertarians pose this question as an excuse to do nothing. I think it is a valid question, but I am not a libertarian: If we do not rise up to this challenge, we are doomed.
"I used to be openly left wing. I dont think my values have changed that much. Its just that the bulk of what used to be the left has collapsed and corroded into absolute abject idiocy."
That's very similar to what I was saying to Kali yesterday about how feminisim changed and I didn't.
You have some pluck to actually sit through a whole lecture by Yvonne Ridley, that's true devotion to your research. I take my hat off to you.
Another important article by Hugh Fitzergald on Islam, culture, history, and our understanding of Islam in contemporary culture and politics.
These articles deserve a much wider audience. Hugh must have enough material for a small book, a collection of articles perhaps.
Others have said this before, but I wish we could see a publication.
And Hugh is, of course, correct: the principle that no culture, no society, no belief system, shall be criticized in American universities, with the exceptions of American culture, Western traditions, Christian fundamentalists, Nazis, and maybe Stalinism and the Huns under Attila (which folks do not know much about anyway) has tremendous power. Islam is off limits. If you say a word, get ready for threatening e-mails, looks in the hall, alienation, and attacks on your credibility and character: Islamophobe, racist, ignorant, or worse. There even exists a large 'well respected' mafia-like organization, MESA, ready to enforce tacit rules like, 'whereon you do not have expertise do not speak' and 'we are the experts, we all agree, we define expert opinion, therefore, do not speak whereon you disagree with us'; members of this organization and other watch dogs, like MSAs throughout the country, and looking out, ready certify an academic as an ignorant, Islamophobic, racist, if he or she strays. And, depending on what you say, you may be in for a few surprises, who knows: what should professors expect from if they say, for instance, that the Qur'an is a masterpiece of brainwashing that encourages a cult mentality, and that Mohammad was, at best, a conniving, violent madman, whose lust for women was only exceeded by his lust for power and control? For those of us who know something about Islamic culture and the Qur'an, ahadith, and sira, what do you think? What do such statements mean for the person who says them?
We live in an age of censorship on Islam, and that censorship, ironically goes right through all our institutions, right up to the top of our executive branch. And, on campus, that censorship has rendered the principle of academic freedom of speech, that hallowed concept that justifies guaranteed employment for life, tenure, a sorry joke.
Wow, what a read. We all keep saying that these should be published, but like Spencer's books, who will buy? Only us, the diehards. I think we should wait until better time.
But you're all right about Islam getting the free pass. This year I tried, subtlely to criticize/critique Islam, and I got low grades. That said, I'm glad I went through to see the menace that is the university system. I can't believe they all love Islam. I was talking with one prof about this (hating Christianity) because she teaches at 2 Christian colleges in the city too. She said that it's bad that Christianity gets all the slamming and everything else is at a higher level. She was saying all religions should be placed on the same level. I agree because this is supposed to be a neutral ground, not a theological training (although it feels like this is what I got).
Rublev, if you are the former Rubisco, could you please send me a little note?
Granny
You have some pluck to actually sit through a whole lecture by Yvonne Ridley, that's true devotion to your research. I take my hat off to you
I sat there feeling guilty, incredulous, amused and horrified simultaneously; guilty in the same way you feel guilty when you are overcome with a kind of morbid fascination when you slow down to look as you drive past the scene of a motor accident.
I had to stop myself from gigging several times through the lecture. It was 75% Muslim, which was literally 'preaching to the converted', and as I sat there thinking that this was taking place during Islam Awareness Week, under the rubric of promoting tolerance, harmony, plurality, and I was listening to a mad Harpy speaking about the need for infidels to 'accept' Islam because it is the one true faith. Next time I will ask, where is the harmony and tolerance in Islam when you are obsessed with domination, conquering, converting all to your faith and have such contempt for everyone else? I will always listen to a Jew, Hindu or Sikh when they talk of multicultural tolerance; they actually understand it and believe in it. Sadly, large numbers of Muslims have nothing but contempt for it, and laugh at the weakness of those who let them do dawah in the name of promoting harmony. It is a sly and sinister way of looking at the world, but derived from the religion, no doubt about that at all.
Yes, I used to use the moniker "Rubisco," but I had to ditch it when I could my registration was inexplicably blocked (probably by accident). I would have answered you sooner, but for some reason I can no longer comment from my own computer. Perhaps JW should used the same resgistration system used at Little Green Footballs, where both the comment and registration boxes are found when you scroll below the last comment.
I considerer Jared Diamond to be a genius. One can come up with faults in his books and PC meanderings but I still like them. Hugh and others are too harsh on him. Diamond is far from 100% correct, but has brought freshly important factors into how we analyze the fate of human communities. His treatment of the Norse settlements in Greenland was excellent.
Here a book for ya'll. "Warriors of the Steppe" Much of it reflects on Islam. Why are nomads raiders and warriors? Because they need to supplement their sparse diets and can do it via trade of depredation.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885119437/102-9820260-2374530?v=glance
The left is well and truly screwed. I used to be openly left wing......
Great post. Thanks Zico. I'm an illiterate barbarian compared to some of the JihadWatchers.
"but has brought freshly important factors into how we analyze the fate of human communities."
Granted, I never read the book (only its synopsis). I was just disturbed by what looked like an unfair criticism of Vikings doing their best to maintain some semblance of civilization in a harsh land. Granted, they should have learned from the Eskimos to eat fish and hunt seals, but perhaps to their credit they did not learn from the Eskimos the idea of euthanising their old people. On level, Diamond's book may offer useful nuggets regarding the carrying capacity of a given environment (and the inability of laissez-faire capitalism to take this into account), but whereas Diamond sees the beautiful churches in Greenland as a liability, I see them as putting these Vikings above the level of savages.
The nearly pervasive inability to criticize Islam in the modern West is a fascinating and frustrating phenomenon. The complex history of this cultural phenomenon (probably having roots that go back two or three centuries) should be researched and written.
In 1983, the French philosopher wrote: "In France it is no longer acceptable to criticize Islam or the Arab countries."
Ellul has some interesting thoughts about this in the following preface he wrote to one of Bat Ye'or's books:
http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Preface.html
Woops -- I meant to identify the "French philosopher" in my last post as Jacques Ellul.
metaxy,
I asked a similar question in an essay I wrote last year:
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/A_RUBLEV_P1.htm#LiberalismandIslam
Unfortunately, I had not researched the actual transition (from critic to apologist of Islam). My article only showed the contrast between liberals of the 18th century that hated Islam versus the self-styled liberals of today.
I think that the earliest Westerners to write positively about Muhammad were Washington Irving and Thomas Carlyle sometime in middle of the 19th century. Before this, I do not think any high-profile writer in the West wrote positive things about Islam per se, but I think that the mindset that made this possible was probably set in motion by Rosseau with his "noble savage" clap trap back in the 18th century.
The trend that is most responsible for making the criticism of Islam taboo is much more recent. It is the anti-philosophy of "postmodernism" which spawned political correctness and postmodernism. It was developed in large part in the 1970's by a perverted French guy who was also into paedophilia and S&M, Michel Foucault (who by the way, also died of AIDS).
corretion:
...which spawned political correctness and multiculturalism.
Mr. Rublev,
Thanks for linking your article, which I read with interest and appreciation -- this particular sub-topic of the larger issue of the "Clash of Civilizations" has not seemed to be noticed by many people. I will soon be reading Paul Berman's book "Terror and Liberalism", which, according to an interview he gave, alludes to this as well (though he does not go into the historical roots of the problem, he at least notices its current manifestations in the modern West).
A couple of implications you made in your essay I might dispute --
1) that Rousseau's "Noble Savage" helped to cause the rise of multi-culturalism: I would certainly agree his ideas influenced the increasing rise of the modern West looking beyond itself for wisdom and coming to spurn its own fonts of wisdom, but I also think Rousseau's ideas didn't spring from nowhere but must have in turn had Western roots.
2) that multiculturalism in its full "glory" only began in the 1970s -- I think it began in the aftermath of World War II, since the great protracted event beginning in the late 1940s of the dismantling of the vast apparatus of Western Colonialism was in great part caused by a profound sense that the West was not doing good through Colonialism -- indeed was doing more harm than good.
It is all so extraordinarily complex, and thoughts keep popping into my head like fireworks; I would only additionally mention three other points:
1) that beginning in the 18th century in earnest, and only increasing with the 19th and 20th centuries, the West (as I intimated above) looked outward, to the "Orient" for wisdom that it felt had been neglected or obfuscated by its own ossifying religious traditions;
2) this sense that the Western spiritual tradition was ossified, authoritarian, and evil helped to spur Western culture to explode in subcultural experimentation with all sorts of heterodox streams, such as dubious spiritualisms; seances; palmistry; astrology; voodoo; ethnic polytheisms; Christian sectarianist splinters that increasingly bore little resemblance to the Christianity they were radiating off of and more to witchcraft, alchemy, magic, Gnosticism, and sometimes Satanism, not to mention Utopianisms and communitarianisms of myriad types; a fascination with anthropology and Egyptology that went beyond mere scientific curiousity; profound plunges into Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism (notably by German scholars and philosophers); more and more audacious expressions of agnosticism and atheism, coupled with Bohemianist artistic subcultures and sexual liberation theories and practices; etc.
In a nutshell, I think this whole problem of Western multiculturalism manifests the pathology of "healthy self-criticism taken to morbid excess".
Particularly since 911, this complex and protracted arc of a cultural problem is being honed and focused like a beam of sunlight producing fire, on the single, overarching, deadly problem of Islam. It is ironic indeed (and sad) that "most sensible statements about Islam to appear in our culture have come from our own religious dogmatics" (as you quoted Sam Harris to note). Christopher Hitchens has seconded this observation, with scathing bitterness and perspicuity.
Mr. Rublev,
Thanks for linking your article, which I read with interest and appreciation -- this particular sub-topic of the larger issue of the "Clash of Civilizations" has not seemed to be noticed by many people. I will soon be reading Paul Berman's book "Terror and Liberalism", which, according to an interview he gave, alludes to this as well (though he does not go into the historical roots of the problem, he at least notices its current manifestations in the modern West).
A couple of implications you made in your essay I might dispute --
1) that Rousseau's "Noble Savage" helped to cause the rise of multi-culturalism: I would certainly agree his ideas influenced the increasing rise of the modern West looking beyond itself for wisdom and coming to spurn its own fonts of wisdom, but I also think Rousseau's ideas didn't spring from nowhere but must have in turn had Western roots.
2) that multiculturalism in its full "glory" only began in the 1970s -- I think it began in the aftermath of World War II, since the great protracted event beginning in the late 1940s of the dismantling of the vast apparatus of Western Colonialism was in great part caused by a profound sense that the West was not doing good through Colonialism -- indeed was doing more harm than good.
It is all so extraordinarily complex, and thoughts keep popping into my head like fireworks; I would only additionally mention three other points:
1) that beginning in the 18th century in earnest, and only increasing with the 19th and 20th centuries, the West (as I intimated above) looked outward, to the "Orient" for wisdom that it felt had been neglected or obfuscated by its own ossifying religious traditions;
2) this sense that the Western spiritual tradition was ossified, authoritarian, and evil helped to spur Western culture to explode in subcultural experimentation with all sorts of heterodox streams, such as dubious spiritualisms; seances; palmistry; astrology; voodoo; ethnic polytheisms; Christian sectarianist splinters that increasingly bore little resemblance to the Christianity they were radiating off of and more to witchcraft, alchemy, magic, Gnosticism, and sometimes Satanism, not to mention Utopianisms and communitarianisms of myriad types; a fascination with anthropology and Egyptology that went beyond mere scientific curiousity; profound plunges into Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism (notably by German scholars and philosophers); more and more audacious expressions of agnosticism and atheism, coupled with Bohemianist artistic subcultures and sexual liberation theories and practices; etc.
In a nutshell, I think this whole problem of Western multiculturalism manifests the pathology of "healthy self-criticism taken to morbid excess".
Particularly since 911, this complex and protracted arc of a cultural problem is being honed and focused like a beam of sunlight producing fire, on the single, overarching, deadly problem of Islam. It is ironic indeed (and sad) that "most sensible statements about Islam to appear in our culture have come from our own religious dogmatics" (as you quoted Sam Harris to note). Christopher Hitchens has seconded this observation, with scathing bitterness and perspicuity.
P.S.: Was Foucault the idiot who hailed the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as a new kind of "spiritual" revolution?
testing
Hugh, in an earlier thread, I said what I thought of Diamond's view of the Greenland Norse. Frankly, his view is an example of the intellectual hubris of materialist philosophy, especially when it latches onto some idee fixee (sorry, Francophones, I haven't figured out how to do the accents). Since Diamond was not present in 14th/early 15th century Greenland, he is simply talking out of the top of his theoretical hat.
For one thing, the Norskers have always been among the biggest eaters of fish and sea mammals of all the peoples on the earth (I'm related to a few--but they're nowhere near the good cooks the Chinese portion of the family produces). If they didn't find fish and walrus bones in the later Greenland Norse middens, it's probably because there were none to be had--maybe some kind of oceanic die-off, and an analogue of the Irish potato blight of the 19th century. If we're going to scorn the last, starving Greenland Norse for decorating their churches, we might as well also disparage the Inuit (who starved to death from time to time, too) for carving bits of walrus ivory or soapstone when the hunting was bad (it was, after all, something to do). I understand that the later skeletons from Greenland Norse cemeteries indicate stunting and poor nutrition. This might well suggest a famine of sea and land game as well as domesticated food sources.
During the years of the bubonic plague, sailors would have been in the best position to contract the disease in places to the south and spread them to a civilization's farthest outpost--and also to be decimated as a class. In pre-Columbian times, some Inuit communities doubtlessly died off in lean years, only to be replenished by new migrants from elsewhere. Had there been a dearth of seamen following the bubonic plague, this may have precluded the replenishing of the Greenland colonies--among other things.
But, in the absence of any written testaments from the last Greenland Norse, we have no right to stand in judgment of what they did with themselves in their last, doubtlessly difficult years.
If Diamond indeed says the Norse should have emulated the Inuit killing of the old, then he himself is part of the death wish of Western civilization, and should be taken with a grain of salt for precisely that reason.
While we're at it, altruistic, egalitarian, and materialist-scientific approaches to the problems of rural want in societies where pre-modern agricultural techniques remained very much alive have produced man-made famines. In China during the late 1950's, early 1960's, and Cultural Revolution things got so bad that families traded small children to eat--and they even talk about it. One reason for this was, that in order to ensure that nobody took unfair advantage, the decision on when to harvest collectively-owned crops (Chinese agriculture had been collectivized in order to avoid landlordism) was left to planners in Beijing--effectively damning earlier-ripening prodice in southern China to rot in the fields and the people who would have made the decision if the land still belonged to either the tiller or his much-wealthier third cousin once-removed (which was what the typical pre-Mao rural landlord usually was) to starve.
I'm sure the Left has, since then, learned a lesson or two about how the real world works. I readily concede that they're good at that sort of thing. Yet, should Diamond be a harbinger of their cultural and political resurgence, I'm sure we'll have a few more crack-brained social experiments in the works.
Metaxy: "Was Foucault the idiot who hailed the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as a new kind of "spiritual" revolution?"
Yes. Here's a good commentary on Foucault's fascination with the Mullahs' revolution (which indicates that it was a more informed endorsement than is generally assumed):
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue37/Afary37.htm
And today, his followers from Berkeley and Columbia to several spots in Europe, many of whom call themselves academic feminists, hail the "Islamic revival" in Egypt and elsewhere, and arrange demonstrations in solidarity with the "Palestinian freedom fighters".
We have discussed the demise of the Viking foundation on Greenland before but I will throw in my two pennorth again.
The excavations of the derelict farms on Greenland produced slaughtered cattle bones and butchered dogs, indicating that the inhabitants were down to eating their very last livestock but NO HUMAN REMAINS!
To blame their demise on a supposed injunction on the eating of fish, and a preoccupation with church maintenance is to miss a vital point. There is no injunction against fish eating in any Scandinavian society. As Christians, and Christians so in touch with orthodox practice that they contributed to the Crusades and supplied the Popes with hunting falcons, eating fish would have been mandatory on Fridays and fast days (lent etc.)
There have been studies tracing the distribution of Norwegian DNA (a certain male Y chromosome) around the British Isles. See Julian Richards work Blood of the Vikings. I believe that a similar examination of the Greenlandic Innuit people (if that were acceptable to them) would be very illuminating.
What did Diamond do to you, Hugh? He DIDN'T criticize Islam in his book? (BTW "Collapse" isn't his second book; it is at a minimum his fourth.) This the second time that you have snidely intimated that his sole credentials for writing a book are the fact that he "goes birdwatching" in New Guinea every year. Perhaps you would be kind enough to include a list of your credentials and your ciruculum vitae for us to determine whether we should take your opinions seriously.
I have told you before, in "The Third Chimpanzee" Diamond notes the Muslim (et al.) genocides of the twentieth century, including the seldom-mentioned two caused by Pakistan (India 1949 and Bangladesh 1971).
With all due respect, I just don't see what you hope to gain by trying to drag down Jared Diamond. He doesn't give any politicaly opinions in his books, that I know of at least. I have read his first THREE books, and you can't cite anything specific from "Collapse"; your harshest damnation is that concering Islam, "He stays well away from that."
Well la-dee-dah. Bill Bennet didn't discuss Islam in his pathetic "Book of Virtues" and other "writers" like Sean Hannity and Dr. Laura haven't either. Why don't you review some of their books?
********************************************
As for the cheerleaders here trying desparately to find fault with the Greenlanders-didn't-eat-fish theory (look that word up, folks) the question remains: where are the fish bones? Just because Vikings ate fish everywhere else doesn't MEAN that they ate fish in Greenland. People are fickle...tastes change, habits change, superstitions change.
I already told you that at one time the eating of lobster was considered so disgusting and unclean that they actually made laws AGAINST FORCING slaves to eat it more than three times a week! They would actually haul up the lobster traps and throw the catch out into a field to let them die and fertilize the ground! I know, that seems absurd to us... now.
Likewise the "gentry" of the Old South dying of starvation rather than eating "unclean animal food" like collard greens, mustard greens, etc. which fed their slaves and former slaves very well.
It seems absurd to us, now because we have--despite the best intentions of some--become a pretty-much rational society. If we were starving and living by the sea, we would eat oysters, fish, turtles, otters, seals, seaweed, whatever--in order to live.
Maybe there was a dearth of fish at the time the Greenland colonies died out. But there should have been fish found in the trash middens of the times when they were prosperous, shouldn't there? Instead of bashing Diamond, can anyone offer an alternative answer that doesn't include cultural prohibition?
kj
fanorollins@yahoo.com
Hugh:
Re: "Yet the free-market ideology that has so far prevented any systematic effort to cease the transfer of enormous wealth to OPEC oil states (some $10 trillion since 1973), 10 of the 11 OPEC members being Arab or Muslim-dominated states), and that also has so far largely prevented the kind of effort that may be needed to protect the physical environment that is being degraded before our eyes, in the name of Growth (for economic activity appears to be the only (hollow) Good by which most people can set store), prolongs and even increases the power of Islam and of Muslim states and peoples."
I'm not sure I would call the "free market" an ideology. Secondly, the free market is totally amoral in its operation. There is no good or bad - only profits to be made or losses incurred (this isn't a pejorative statement, only my observation). Given this basis, it is a tremendously efficient way of allocating resources but it is up to civilized governments to provide a moral basis. After reading several of Bernard Lewis books on relatively modern Islam, I was always struck by the eagerness of European countries to sell arms to the Turks. It seemed that no sooner had the Turks left the gates of Vienna, Europeans were lined up to sell them the latest in European weapons technology.
Regarding degradation of the environment, the free market is not very efficient in handling society's effluent. As long as there is a commons in which to dump garbage, people will do so rather than incur the cost of proper disposal. Socialist economies are just as bad (probably worse) than free market economies in this regard. The environmental degradation of former Soviet block countries is proof of this.
kj~ don't know if you will get back to this thread...
'Maybe there was a dearth of fish at the time the Greenland colonies died out.'
That could very well be. The reason for the colonies dying out was a change in climate, probably due at least in part to a shift in the Gulf Stream, as well as global temps. The fish quite likely moved elsewhere.
Andrei Rublev
It's KORAN ARMSTRONG, not Karen Armstrong.
"can anyone offer an alternative answer that doesn't include cultural prohibition?"
kj, will this do?
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/15/article1/article1.html
" But seafood played an increasing role, such that the pattern was completely turned around towards the end of the period—from the 1300's the Greenland Norse had 50-80% of their diet from the marine food chain. In simplified terms: they started out as farmers but ended up as hunters/fishers."
"the question remains: where are the fish bones?"
Answer "For example, the absence of fishbone in the middens does not prove that the Norse did not eat fish. Not only will fishbone rapidly decay in a midden, more likely they never got there in the first place—fishbone is a food source highly appreciated by, e.g., birds, dogs and pigs. In fact, the isotopes have revealed that dogs are often more marine than their masters."
I can also add
http://sagitta.ci.uc.pt/mhonarchive/archport/msg00191.html
and the link I posted the last time this came up http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=776
The main advocate of the no fish theory is Dr. Thomas McGovern from City University of New York. The links to the research refuting his theory that I have posted here are from Canadian and Scandinavian Universities. Other suggestions are that the settlers joined the Thule people or went back to Iceland where their knowledge of the American continent eventualy filtered back to Columbus.
Answer "For example, the absence of fishbone in the middens does not prove that the Norse did not eat fish. Not only will fishbone rapidly decay in a midden, more likely they never got there in the first place—fishbone is a food source highly appreciated by, e.g., birds, dogs and pigs. In fact, the isotopes have revealed that dogs are often more marine than their masters." ~ Granny
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... well, it depends on soil types, also. Some are more destructive to bone than others.
No it wasn't me said that. It was 6 scientists from the Universities of Aarhus, Copenhagen and Iceland and the National Museum of Denmark.
As they describe themselves,they are a physics approach to the problem of the Greenland Norse made possible through a joint interdisciplinary effort.
Granny Weatherwax
Did you watch the documentary of the MPACK boys campaigning in Blackburn tonight? A pair of shameless anti semitic bigots given a prime time one hour documentary on Channel 4 without any serious amount of questioning about their obsession for Jews and their Jew hatred. Anyway, it was an eye opener for those who dont realise the poisonous politics that is unfolding in our country today, and an indication of the rancid seep of Jew hatred into the mainstream of our societies. Muslims are given a free hand when it comes to spreading their hatred as long as they scream opression and Palestine.
One more thing this documentary showed is that the Liberal Democrats are out and out collaborators with communalism and Islamist politicians. They are to be held in contempt.
Zico - I missed that as I was out and my video didn't work (my fault). But it's worrying.
Hope you'll continue to help me out with the counter-dawa at Harry's Place. It's an uphill struggle with so many moonbats around.
Interested
There is a brilliant profile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in todays Guardian, amazed that they published it at all. Keep an eye out on the TV schedules for a repeat of the documentary, Channel 4 has a habit of repeating these things in the early hours of the morning. It is a disgrace that a mainstream TV channel allows such propaganda rooted in pure anti-semitism to be broadcast under its auspices.
Interested and Zico
I also missed it. But it is repeated at 4.30 am on Saturday morning (listed as very late Friday night in the Radio times) Which gives me 3 days to find the instructions to my video.