h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've finally finished 'God's War' an history of The Crusades by Christpher Tynerman.

Interesting book, lots of food for thought, but I did find it a very difficult read. It was written in a very academic style - but I was trying to read it for 'fun'.

I wonder why the Christian Colonisation of the Holy Land failed where other colonisation has succeeded?

Hmmm... now, I don't know much about the crusades, but weren't the muslims at the time considered to be on an ever higher level of civilisation than the would be conquerers as opposed to the 'primitive savages' in the countries that were 'successfully' colonised?

Pretty much in agreement with T&R. It was an impoverished, fractured civilisation coming up against a settled, economically and culturally successful one. The Franks weren't marching into a vacuum.

As they arrived...in many cases they assimilated. There's the delightful story of one king who went to a Muslim barber and was given a Brazilian. He liked it so much that he took his wide along for one. This caused the local Muslims to riot. The very thought of a woman using a man's barbers! Muslim women got their Brazilians from female hairdressers.

For a good book about the times when European colonisation *did* work, and why, RunDon'tWalk to Jared Diamond's *excellent* and highly, highly readable 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.

(last post plus one. wide -> wife. *Not* a Freudian slip. )

I think the big surprise is that they did manage to hang on in their for quite as long as they did.

Colonisation isn't something you can just turn up and do - it's something that you need the right circumstances for.

Currently reading 'James Cook's Journal' which is a lot more readable than this.

'Guns, Germs and Steel' is a good book, but not particularly ....um....well, let's just say that Diamond's got an agenda, shall we? His list of animals and plants that can be domesticated is Eurasian-centric, and there are things he doesn't seem to accept. For a better, less ideological treatment, see the equally well-written 'Ecological Imperialism', by Alfred Crosby.

(full disclosure, I used GGS to teach pre-modern world history, so I've been through the book some seven times now. I may be a bit pickier than most folks)

How Interesting, I'll put both on my 'to read' list when I get around to it..

I have a very very long to read shelf at the moment. Ben keeps telling me new books I should buy.

The Ecology argument is an interesting one though..

That's an odd view, Montana. He also deals extensively with agriculture in The Americas, Africa and Papua New Guinea. He points out, for example, that the Conquistadors deliberately eradicated Quinoa. He talks about how the agricultural ecosystem of some Native American civilisations became unsustainable while others (eg the Mississippans) were almost certainly wiped our by European germs shortly before the Europeans arrived in person.

What do you think his agenda is? To my mind it's to demonstrate that Western, White advantage is not down to good genes or superior intelligence but a lucky accident of geography.

It's not about the destruction of things, but the fact that he argues that quinoa, etc., are not as 'important' as wheat and maize. And he doesn't discuss the breeding of guinea pigs at all, and they were a major food source for the Andean peoples. His discussion of non-fertile crescent foodstuffs is dismissive.

That said, I think Diamond's agenda is to argue that while white conquest was a forgone conclusion based on geography. Which I don't buy, given that China was poised, with better technology, to become the colonizers. Why that didn't happen is the subject of Ken Pomeranz's 'The Great Divergence'. I think Diamond doesn't take China into account enough, nor does he really discuss the fact that the germs of which he speaks were the function of lousy European hygiene.

I also think that his emphasis on writing as a medium of conquest is a bit overstated. And his argument about the Mississippians is far too tenuous for me to buy into. The archaeological proof he points to has been questioned for some time, and it's likely that their culture died out much earlier than he posits.

Don't get me wrong...I use his book in my world history class. As far as using a 'textbook' goes, this is it. It's quite useful, and generates lots of discussion. I've also met him a couple of times (he's local, sort of), and we've discussed the book to some extent. One of the things that we've talked about is whether or not his argument is designed to provoke a certain amount of thought...and he admitted that indeed, there's a certain provocativeness to his work. Which I appreciate.

Well...I don't quite get any of that from him. On 'foregone conclusions' etc...I don't think he's arguing that: merely describing and explaining what happened.

You'll no better than I that historiography is a tricky bugger. Diamond's hypothesis is, of course, completely unfalsifiable: we only ever have one history and can't compare what actually happened to alternative outcomes. But as an explanation - Diamond's makes as much sense as any, surely?

That said - I shall add your alternative recommendation to my wish list and hopefully it will find its way on to my waiting-to-be-read shelf/pile/avalanche some day.

Oh, sure, his hypothesis is possible, certainly. I just don't know that I buy it. But so few people write about pre-Enlightenment history (other than specific topics) or 'big' history that it's hard to pin down. And of course he's coming from a position of a sociologist, which also changes things.

I really need to learn some more Sociology. Especially since I've just submitted a conference paper abstract in the area.

'Submit the abstract first: think about the paper later'.

And there's a strong possibility that I'm teaching Economics to PhD students in November. Scary. And .

Econ? Ugh. Too much math for this girl. Of course, I'm teaching greek and roman history to a bunch of high schoolers, so I understand that weirdness factor!

Not necessarily. Yes - I can do some of the Maths myself, and yes it's important. But I'm more into the PPE kind of Economy. And I keep stressing to people...Economics is *not* the same as Finance.

Yeah, but it still involves numbers. I have issues with numbers. Just...me. I can read books on economics, I just don't find them scintillating. Give me a good boring history of agriculture any day!

But surely Economics is fundamental to that?

Just out of interest MR - do you tend to use mainly primary sources or mainly secondary ones when teaching history? I'm trying to read more primary soucres in my history reading. But I'm not sure if it's a pretention..

Also interested to see a surge of interest in the Templars since Dan Brown's books are published.

In answer to your question, when they're available, I try to incorporate primary sources, and even when they aren't 'readable' (such as cuneiform) I show images. But I do try very hard to get them to think about primary sources.

As to the whole Dan Brown thing, suffice it to say that I find his writing simplistic and his plots full of gaping holes, and think that his win in the plagiarism suit is a shame. Also, that he's a flaming idiot. But that's just me. Believe me, I get why people like him, but I find him dreadful, both as a writer and in the interviews I've seen.

Primary sources:

Someone is passing me a copy of Emmiline Pankhur';s police report later this week. How cool is that? Can anyone recommend a free upload site where I can get a scan hosted.