![]() ![]() ![]() Perhaps the Geographer, should just stay as well. This scathing review has, I'm sure, been mirrored by previous readers, and I am in no doubt that I am not alone in my opinion. I'm no doctorate, but even I can see he has not explored all of the possible research in answering his question. But he asks a big question, which would naturally necessitate a big answer. I understand it is a short book and he couldn't possibly have managed to include everything on the subject in one book. it proved the fact that he has tried to balance too many fields, without a deeper knowledge of the intricacies of the disciplines he was using. ![]() This was the final point which sealed it for me. McNeill identifies two contrasting approaches to history: the traditional emphasis on autonomous cultural developments that he favors, versus my book’s emphasis. turning a humanities subject into an objective empirical discipline. After warmly praising my book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies as artful, informative, and delightful NYR, May 15, the distinguished historian William H. But as I mentioned, they were simply boring, and unnecessary as factors strengthening his thesis.īut it was his final word on trying to turn history into a science. He looks to fill his work with needless, tiresome and incoherent sermons on agriculture, which to his credit, were vaguely interesting, particularly the parts on crop staples and plant domestication. Yeah bro its called ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM. Of course a geographer would conclude that geography influences human societies the most. He sets out to answer the question of why some societies were more advanced than others, despite some continents, starting out earlier than others. I read this as my professor mentioned it in a lecture. ![]() I'm late to the party, but what on earth was this? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |