Reddit reviews Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire

Generally, by actual historians and anthropologists, it's not that controversial. It's been strongly agreed upon to be bunk. It's a popular science book and doesn't properly represent the subject its talking about. Which isn't helped by the fact that Diamond has no actual experience in said fields either.

Of course, his later book, The Collapse, was viewed even worse and prompted several people in the field to actually write an entire book of essays in response debunking it.

See here: https://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Collapse-Resilience-Ecological-Vulnerability/dp/0521733669

Archaeologist here. We have a history of being a bit environmentally/geographically deterministic when it comes to looking at cultures. This has changed in the past couple decades to emphasize more the individual agency and multiple historical tragectories that contribute to the nature of a culture. Diamond isn't an archaeologist really, but he is still very much in that deterministic frame of mind.

Diamond has a history of simplifying things a bit to fit his narrative. The same thing happened in Collapse. The point you make about the strength of many African societies before colonization is just one among other possible exceptions to his sweeping rules.

I'm still glad that Diamond wrote these books though because they come up in conversations like these, and people who may not know much about the history or anthropology of these subjects can begin to grapple with these questions.

Another nice thing about it is that the publication and popularity of his books have spurred a bunch of anthropologists to publish critiques of his work. This one is a nice example: http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Collapse-Resilience-Ecological-Vulnerability/dp/0521733669 which picks apart both "guns germs and steel" as well as "collapse.

Sur la question de ses deux livres, je t'invite à lire Questionning Collapse, une collection d'essais de spécialistes des sujets qu'il traite, et qui expliquent en quoi ses interprétations sont douteuses.

La review suivante me semble assez parlante :

> Here are some basic observations about what this book is and is not:
>
> It is an edited volume of essays by various authors.
>
> It is not only about Collapse, but also about Guns, Germs, and Steel.
>
> It is less about Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel, than it is about (1) the issues and case studies addressed by Diamond in those books, and (2) the ways in which Diamond addresses those issues and case studies.
>
> Surprisingly, it is not dry or difficult to read, in fact if anything it is even more readable and engaging than Diamond's books (which have been praised for these very reasons).
>
> Here is why so many reviewers, myself included, have found themselves exasperated and even angered by this book:
>
> The essays collected in Questioning Collapse generally do not offer careful readings of Diamond's arguments. Some of the authors even take, at times, a rather unscholarly and strident tone. Some of the authors seem unfamiliar with the scholarly, or at least logical, principle, that good reading must be (among other things) both fair and charitable. This is especially perplexing because all the authors in this book seem to have the same overall goals and concerns as Diamond, as the book's introductory chapter points out.
>
> Here is why this book gets five stars:
>
> Its shortcomings aside, Questioning Collapse does offer detailed accounts and analyses of many of the historical events that Diamond has written on.
>
> The authors of each essay, unlike Diamond, have specialized and done primary research on the societies that each writes about.
>
> Most of Diamond's sources in Collapse (I imagine this is also the case for Guns, Germs, and Steel) are not primary but secondary sources. Not that there is anything wrong with secondary sources. However, of necessity they leave out most of the information to be found in the relevant primary sources. They also add a further layer of interpretation to the primary sources, which is problematic if one is not familiar with the primary sources as well. But perhaps the biggest problem with Diamond's over-reliance on secondary sources is that they lag, again of necessity, far behind the current state of knowledge in a given field. The reader of Questioning Collapse will find specific examples where these gaps and lags in knowledge, allegedly, massively impair Diamond's historical reconstructions.
>
> The historical reconstructions in Questioning Collapse are far more cautious than those of written by Diamond. That is, they are far more honest about what is not known, what is highly conjectural, etc. They are also far more explicit about why they think that one hypothesis seems more likely than another.
>
> The essays in Questioning Collapse are generally far more cautious about projecting modern, and modern western, concerns and values onto times and places where those concerns and values may have been significantly different (in ways that are relevant to the questions at hand). They are also careful not to project the technical and political capabilities of the modern world onto the non-modern world. This is also one of the criticisms of Diamond's work: that it sometimes inappropriately makes these projections, and that these errors impair his analyses. Very specific examples are given, along with counter-narratives that (it is claimed) do not make the same errors.
>
> Another shortcoming of Diamond's work is that it fails to adequately take into account factors such as "ideology" (i.e. belief-and-value systems), political-economic factors that are external to a society and yet control its course, and historical factors where past events unique to a given society continue to determine its present course and dynamics. Again, detailed examples from the authors' area of expertise and field research are provided.
>
> The examples and narratives in Questioning Collapse all concern the events that Diamond writes about. They thus provide a different version and a different analysis of what happened. For one who has read both Diamond's work and Questioning Collapse, the tension between these perspectives, reconstructions, and analyses, should provide them with an opportunity for far more critical [critical in a good way] and informed reflections on the problems collapse, decline, etc.
>
> In the end, this book neither refutes nor really even rebuts Diamond's work, but complements and continues it, albeit by way of critique. As a supplement, it most certainly changes that to which it is added. It probably could have been done better, and hopefully someone else will take up the challenge of doing so. Even so, Questioning Collapse is an important (and, quite honestly, a highly entertaining) read.
>
> In connection with this book and with Jared Diamond's work, I also recommend the following: The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living, and Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems.

> This is Diamonds 2nd book. Collapse

This is a much better book

It plays heavily into the fear aspect of society and culture. Bigbuddhabelly hits a big point since it looks at the worst case scenario that one idea must fit all. If you read or watch the documentary then I advise you also read [Questioning Collapse] (http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Collapse-Resilience-Ecological-Vulnerability/dp/0521733669) just as open and intently.

Il y a ce bouquin qui fait une critique complète de Collapse : https://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Collapse-Resilience-Ecological-Vulnerability/dp/0521733669 aussi. Mais à priori c'est moitié constructif, moitié rageux, un peu comme la critique qui était paru dans le monde diplomatique. Y a personne de constructif qui pour invalide son boulot, les critiques principales tournent autour n'inexactitudes ou de raccourcis pas du fond.