A response to The Myth of Western Superiority:

Rob replies

Martha,

Thanks for the extensive list of Native American resources. I'm sure it will come in handy.

On the other hand....

>> The facts: The llama, alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco, all South American camel family members <<

I think Diamond meant the llama family of animals. We all know there are several species in the llama family, just as there are several species in the cattle, sheep, and goat families. In fact, I know he meant it, since he refers to llamas, alpacas, vicunas, and guanacos at various times. You're blaming him for my shorthand phrase.

To give just one example, on page 160 he lists "llama and alpaca" and claims "these appear to be well-differentiated breeds of the same species, rather than different species." I'm not sure if he's right about the llama and alpaca, but he is a biologist. Moreover, I wrote this column for general newspaper consumption, so I couldn't begin to go into every nuance of every argument. In a relative sense—one New World family of species vs. many Old World families of species—Diamond's argument is rock-solid.

>> The dog allowed itself to carry and haul burdens, be a friend, and be eaten. <<

A mouse can haul a burden if you hook it up carefully, but we normally mean a certain size of animal by "beast of burden." Diamond defines what he means by "big" domesticated animals, and I also used the word "big." You can quibble with his definition, but you haven't read his book if you think his arguments aren't well-defined.

Besides, the Old World had dogs too, so that isn't a distinction. I was arguing why the Old World conquered the New World, which required noting the differences, not the similarities. If both sides had dogs and there were no other differences, the Old World wouldn't have conquered the New World—right?

>> The Eurasians' animals offered several benefits. They provided protein, wool, and hides. <<

The word "animals" in this paragraph refers to the previous paragraph, which was about domesticated animals. But let me make the connection clear: "The Eurasians' domesticated animals offered several benefits. They provided protein, wool, and hide on a regular, convenient, low-maintenance basis." Does anyone want to argue that hunting a whale or a polar bear is as easy as slaughtering a docile cow? I'd guess the former takes 10, 20, maybe 50 or 100 times more effort than the latter.

>> The following large mammals gave hides, fur, and sometimes meat: <<

Not a single animal on this list was domesticated. I think you may have missed the point. Eurasian cultures also used a long list of undomesticated animals for food, fur, and hides. In addition, they had many more domesticated animals, and the domesticated animals made the difference.

>> beasts of burden in this hemisphere: <<

Look up the definition of "beast" in the dictionary. "Any four-footed animal; esp. one of the larger animals" (emphasis mine). In other words, we don't normally consider dogs, cats, or mice "beasts of burden," even if they can perform some labor.

If it helps any, even my 1944, pre-DNA-discovery dictionary defines "alpaca" as "a kind of llama." So we're not talking about four species of camelids, we're talking about four subspecies of llama. Again, you can quibble with this definition, but don't pretend Diamond made it up out of thin air.

>> Plants domesticated in this hemisphere: <<

Since I enumerated only the large-seeded grasses, your list doesn't address my (or Diamond's) point. High-yield, grass-based crops such as rice, wheat, and corn are the type of plant that sustains most long-term civilizations. The Old World had more of them.

No civilization ever existed primarily on tomatoes or turnips. You can't grow enough of them to feed a large population. You can grow enough rice, wheat, or corn to feed a large population—which is the point.

>> The farmers in this hemisphere -- with or without the propulsion of domestication (of cattle, swine, or horses) <<

Thanks for the rundown, but I'm well aware of the many Native farming cultures in the Western Hemisphere. I've published a comic book spotlighting one of them. The point is that without domesticated animals or high-yield crops, the farming cultures mostly remained small. (The Pueblos are a good example.) These cultures didn't generate a positive feedback loop of the type Diamond described.

>> In addition, the people of this hemisphere as I recall had vast trade empires, moving goods from the Pacific Northwest to Mexico and Maine <<

Yep...small, portable goods such as shells, feathers, or copper trinkets. Contrast this with the bulk shipments of raw materials conveyed between Mediterranean sites constantly. You'll see one trade vastly outweighed the other.

>> and as for complex societies with caste, writing, empire, trade, etc. -- check into the Incan, Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, Toltec, Mixtec empires, and then those up into Guatemala and Honduras, and have a look at the Hopewell culture, the mound builders as they were called, and try checking out the Chacoans, Mesa Verdeans, the trade routes whose roads are still visible today, the trading seafaring societies of the Pacific Northwest . . . <<

I'm very well aware of them, thanks. As you may recall, my site has a gallery of Maya photos, and I argued the pro-Aztec position in my Road to El Dorado debate. My comic presents an Inca-friendly argument in issue #3.

I've also pointed out that the New World trade didn't compare in volume to the Old World trade. If you have specific facts to contradict this claim, please present them. Breadth of trade isn't what we're talking about; depth is.

You mentioned writing, but the Amerindian cultures didn't share the same system of writing, which is again Diamond's point. At one point everyone in Europe began using the Phoenician-derived Greek alphabet. Nothing comparable happened in the Americas.

>> Diamond's just wrong on the facts. Repeatedly. <<

Maybe, but you haven't proved it in this message.

>> I will debate Diamond any day. <<

And I'll defend what I wrote any day. I pored over Diamond's book before attempting to summarize it.

Of course, I've criticized Diamond in other postings—for instance, Guns, Germs, and Steel. Check it out and you'll see my position is hardly one-sided.

>> The principles of man's relationship to society that developed and flourished in this hemisphere have certainly proven to be better -- that's BETTER -- than those of Europe or Asia with the exception of Tibet. <<

Feel free to read through my website before deciding what I believe or don't believe. You'll see I've championed Native cultures in a couple hundred postings. I agree completely that Western civilizations have many flaws and indigenous civilizations have many advantages.

>> Trade was equivalent, medicine was equivalent, and religion, to use a misnomer, was and is better, more legitimate, here than over there. <<

No, yes, and possibly—to the degree one can measure these things.

>> How dare he? <<

How dare he what...try to explain why Native people found themselves wiped out by disease or hunted almost to extinction? I think his explanation is better than the widely-held belief that Western civilization is inherently, morally superior. If you have a third explanation for why Native people found themselves wiped out by disease or hunted almost to extinction, I'd love to hear it.

>> Actually, I am a biologist. <<

I stand corrected. If you'd like to cite a source saying the four Andean camelids are separate species, I'd be overjoyed. And since I'm a professional writer, librarian (MA), and businessman (MBA), you could take my word for the writing, dissemination of information, and trade claims. I don't expect you to, but you could. <g>

>> I dispute Diamond's structure -- that a drives b and without a to drive b you naturally won't get c, a great and true civilization. <<

I await your alternative explanation of why the Old World conquered the New World.

>> this is the closed feedback loop that does not allow any alternative events to occur. <<

I'm not sure what events lead to civilizations that last millennia except domesticated plants and animals, iron-based metallurgy, extensive trade, common writing systems, immunity to disease, and so forth and so on. Since most or all long-lasting civilizations have followed this pattern, the evidence suggests the pattern is necessary.

>> It's specious. And it does imply that the inhabitants of this hemisphere were inferior. <<

No, you've inferred the New World's inhabitants were inferior, according to Diamond, because they didn't have the same resources as the Old World's inhabitants. Diamond said no such thing. You're arguing against a straw-man position that doesn't exist, either in my essay or Diamond's book.

>> I presume you're Jewish. I am Jewish. <<

Yes, I know. No, I'm not Jewish, as I already said. I'm a WASP.

>> Jewish people got wiped out by the Third Reich. Does it follow from that that Jewish people were somehow inferior? <<

No, nor did Diamond or I say Native people were inferior. It does follow that the Jewish people lacked something, or the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. If nothing else, they lacked raw numbers.

>> Or that Jewish people lacked agriculture, domestic animals, trade, or cojones? <<

Rather than asking rhetorical questions, you tell me why the Holocaust happened. Then I'll tell you what the Jews lacked that the Nazis had.

>> That there must be an explanation as to why the Jews let ourselves get wiped out by the Nazis that doesn't paint the Jews as inferior beings? <<

Yes, exactly. Do you think a woman is inferior because a man raped her? The analogy is apt. No, the woman isn't inferior, but she lacked something. The correct word for her is disadvantaged—not inferior.

It might be physical strength or a secure house, but she lacked some advantage over her assailant. Things like rapes and genocide happen for a reason. The question is why.

Only a moron claims a crime victim is to blame for being victimized. A woman isn't to blame for being raped, and Jews and Indians aren't to blame for being decimated. Again, the analogy is apt.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .