Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ubzrvnT t1_jbc5mn5 wrote

when i get high, i always think what humans would've used if horses just didn't exist?

18

SassyShorts t1_jbc8i6g wrote

Look at American history. They didn't have horse-like or oxen-like animals to domesticate. The best they had was Llamas as far as I know.

44

rathat t1_jbcwxrk wrote

When they first saw them, the Aztecs are on record calling horses giant deer and the Incans thought they were a type of llama

18

StekenDeluxe t1_jbdpxzo wrote

The Mesopotamians first referred to horses as "fast-donkeys" or "mountain-donkeys."

6

mymeatpuppets t1_jbcvf1m wrote

You haven't considered moose.

7

HermanCainsGhost t1_jbd4kc7 wrote

Moose were never used or domesticated that way. It's not impossible they could have been, but being such northerly animals, human populations tended to be smaller near moose populations

12

sunberrygeri t1_jbd7e4m wrote

Many mammals are incredibly hard to tame, let alone domesticate (intentionally and successfully breeding for useful traits over a very long period of time). Sub-saharan Africa had a similar problem.

12

War_Hymn t1_jbfqice wrote

Doesn't adult height in a demographics usually has to do with nutritional factors?

1

HermanCainsGhost t1_jbfrnqu wrote

By “populations were smaller”, I meant there were less people, not that they were of shorter stature, sorry for the confusion

4

Runonlaulaja t1_jbeotbq wrote

Reindeer...

Those have been used for a long time in the far North

2

Mickey2Shoe t1_jbe2cfg wrote

There were definitely horses in America. They died out around 10k years ago but were reintroduced by the Spanish in the 1400s.

6

DaddyCatALSO t1_jbd0v2j wrote

thsoe thta didn;t die form climate change got barbecued, including native horses, North American llamas, camelopines, temperate zone musk ox relatives, ground sloths, glyptodonts, Mexican giant tortoises pronghorn relatives (moonhorn, fanhorn spikehorn fourhorn) etc

2

Mekisteus t1_jbdji5q wrote

Sled dogs as well, though of limited geographical use.

2

ubzrvnT t1_jbdu525 wrote

Americans had llamas?! What? Was George Washington leading a fight with some llamas?

−10

ocasas t1_jbeuoqs wrote

There where lots of civilizations prior to the europeans arriving to America.

4

ubzrvnT t1_jbf41o7 wrote

Yeah I understand that. The dude said "American history." When someone says "American history" in any context, do you immediately include and think of all North American history? No.

−2

ocasas t1_jbfdwec wrote

Yeah, I do. That's how I was taught: Historia de América Do you think America just spontaneously happened when discovered?

This is what happens when the people from USA co-opt the name of the whole continent just for their country. What comes to your mind when I say European history?

1

ubzrvnT t1_jbfhkxc wrote

All of Europe comes to mind because Europe is a specific continent. I was taught there are seven continents. Are you only taught there are six? When you say "America, or American history" you're including South America in all that context?

0

ocasas t1_jbfx83d wrote

Yeah, that's how it is taught in most romance language speaking countries: Six continents one of those being America.

And yes, when we say "American history", we include North, Central and South America there. Hence why when you say 'americans had llamas?' I don't think of the US founding fathers, but of the Incas.

Don't you think it is weird to have your country co-opt the name of it's continent? America inside North America? Imagine calling someone from Louisiana 'south american', you have to get by using 'southern'.

The only other country I can't think of of this happening is South Africa, but they always use 'South' so there is no mistaking it for anything else.

2

ubzrvnT t1_jbgbzsf wrote

Pretty simple. You and I were taught two different continental systems. What do you call someone from the United States?

1

ubzrvnT t1_jbggjmp wrote

Also, I wouldn't call someone from Louisiana "South American" because I was taught South America was a different continent. I would be more inclined to think you might call a Canadian or a Brazilian an "American" since all Americas are one giant continent in romance language education.

1

ocasas t1_jbgprnd wrote

Canadians, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, etc. are all Americans, since they all are from 'America'.

The bit about Louisiana, what I'm trying to say is since the USA co-opted the name 'America' for the country, you can't call the south of your country 'south America' or the north 'north America'. It's confusing!! So you just go by 'The South' because 'America's South' or 'American South' is confusing as well!

1

ocasas t1_jbgns5k wrote

  • In spanish: Estadounidense. [Royal Spanish Academy on the subject] (https://www.rae.es/dpd/Estados%20Unidos) <- see number 4: "It souldn't be forgotten that America is the name of the whole continent and every inhabitant is american." The Royal Spanish Academy has final say on everything concerning the spanish language.

  • In english, it's a bit tricky: 'American' is the accepted demonym, but Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Learner's and dictionary.com list 'American' as an inhabitant of the continent, but also an inhabitant of the USA. So 'american', as a demonym for someone from the USA, is not very useful. Hence our problem with 'American history': USA history? or the continent history? Although Merriam-Webster does list United Statesian as a native from the USA.

More on the subject

1

moeriscus t1_jbd6f9i wrote

Jared Diamond talks about this at some length in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Even though I'm not a big fan of the book and its extreme thesis of environmental determinism, he makes a valid point about the Americas' handicap in not having horses, oxen, or other large domesticates for agriculture etc. It's a hell of a lot easier to plow a field and grow crops when you can strap a plow to a docile beast of burden. We don't often think about the basic problem of food in the pre-industrial emergence of complex societies, cities, and specialized craftsmen who can focus on cultural/scientific/artistic developments instead of needing to spend all their time trying not to starve.

10

AutoModerator t1_jbd6fcc wrote

Hi!

It looks like you are talking about the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

The book over the past years has become rather popular, which is hardly surprising since it is a good and entertaining read. It has reached the point that for some people it has sort of reached the status of gospel. On /r/history we noticed a trend where every time a question was asked that has even the slightest relation to the book a dozen or so people would jump in and recommend the book. Which in the context of history is a bit problematic and the reason this reply was written.

Why it is problematic can be broken down into two reasons:

  1. In academic history there isn't such thing as one definitive authority or work on things. There are often others who research the same subjects and people that dive into work of others to build on it or to see if it indeed holds up. This being critical of your sources and not relying on one source is actually a very important skill in studying history often lacking when dozens of people just spam the same work over and over again as a definite guide and answer to "everything".
  2. There are a good amount of modern historians and anthropologists who are quite critical of Guns, Germs, and Steel and there are some very real issues with Diamond's work. These issues are often overlooked or not noticed by the people reading his book. Which is understandable, given the fact that for many it will be their first exposure to the subject. Considering the popularity of the book it is also the reason that we felt it was needed to create this response.

In an ideal world, every time the book was posted in /r/history, it would be accompanied by critical notes and other works covering the same subject. Lacking that a dozen other people would quickly respond and do the same. But simply put, that isn't always going to happen and as a result, we have created this response so people can be made aware of these things. Does this mean that the /r/history mods hate the book or Diamond himself? No, if that was the case, we would simply instruct the bot to remove every mention of it. This is just an attempt to bring some balance to a conversation that in popular history had become a bit unbalanced. It should also be noted that being critical of someone's work isn't the same as outright dismissing it. Historians are always critical of any work they examine, that is part of their core skill set and key in doing good research.

Below you'll find a list of other works covering much of the same subject. Further below you'll find an explanation of why many historians and anthropologists are critical of Diamonds work.

Other works covering the same and similar subjects.

Criticism of Guns, Germs, and Steel

Many historians and anthropologists believe Diamond plays fast and loose with history by generalizing highly complex topics to provide an ecological/geographical determinist view of human history. There is a reason historians avoid grand theories of human history: those "just so stories" don't adequately explain human history. It's true however that it is an entertaining introductory text that forces people to look at world history from a different vantage point. That being said, Diamond writes a rather oversimplified narrative that seemingly ignores the human element of history.

Cherry-picked data while ignoring the complexity of issues

In his chapter "Lethal Gift of Livestock" on the origin of human crowd infections he picks 5 pathogens that best support his idea of domestic origins. However, when diving into the genetic and historic data, only two pathogens (maybe influenza and most likely measles) could possibly have jumped to humans through domestication. The majority were already a part of the human disease load before the origin of agriculture, domestication, and sedentary population centers. This is an example of Diamond ignoring the evidence that didn't support his theory to explain conquest via disease spread to immunologically naive Native Americas.

A similar case of cherry-picking history is seen when discussing the conquest of the Inca.

> Pizarro's military advantages lay in the Spaniards' steel swords and other weapons, steel armor, guns, and horses... Such imbalances of equipment were decisive in innumerable other confrontations of Europeans with Native Americans and other peoples. The sole Native Americans able to resist European conquest for many centuries were those tribes that reduced the military disparity by acquiring and mastering both guns and horses.

This is a very broad generalization that effectively makes it false. Conquest was not a simple matter of conquering a people, raising a Spanish flag, and calling "game over." Conquest was a constant process of negotiation, accommodation, and rebellion played out through the ebbs and flows of power over the course of centuries. Some Yucatan Maya city-states maintained independence for two hundred years after contact, were "conquered", and then immediately rebelled again. The Pueblos along the Rio Grande revolted in 1680, dislodged the Spanish for a decade, and instigated unrest that threatened the survival of the entire northern edge of the empire for decades to come. Technological "advantage", in this case guns and steel, did not automatically equate to battlefield success in the face of resistance, rough terrain and vastly superior numbers. The story was far more nuanced, and conquest was never a cut and dry issue, which in the book is not really touched upon. In the book it seems to be case of the Inka being conquered when Pizarro says they were conquered.

Uncritical examining of the historical record surrounding conquest

Being critical of the sources you come across and being aware of their context, biases and agendas is a core skill of any historian.

Pizarro, Cortez and other conquistadores were biased authors who wrote for the sole purpose of supporting/justifying their claim on the territory, riches and peoples they subdued. To do so they elaborated their own sufferings, bravery, and outstanding deeds, while minimizing the work of native allies, pure dumb luck, and good timing. If you only read their accounts you walk away thinking a handful of adventurers conquered an empire thanks to guns and steel and a smattering of germs. No historian in the last half century would be so naive to argue this generalized view of conquest, but European technological supremacy is one keystone to Diamond's thesis so he presents conquest at the hands of a handful of adventurers.

The construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world in general, as categorically one step behind.

To believe the narrative you need to view Native Americans as somehow naive, unable to understand Spanish motivations and desires, unable react to new weapons/military tactics, unwilling to accommodate to a changing political landscape, incapable of mounting resistance once conquered, too stupid to invent the key technological advances used against them, and doomed to die because they failed to build cities, domesticate animals and thereby acquire infectious organisms. This while they often did fare much better as suggested in the book (and the sources it tends to cite). They often did mount successful resistance, were quick to adapt to new military technologies, build sprawling citiest and much more. When viewed through this lens, we hope you can see why so many historians and anthropologists are livid that a popular writer is perpetuating a false interpretation of history while minimizing the agency of entire continents full of people.

Further reading

If you are interested in reading more about what others think of Diamon's book you can give these resources a go:

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

14

ingodwetryst t1_jbco0ow wrote

camels? donkeys?

7

Adrian_Bock t1_jbcr3r5 wrote

Camels I can tolerate, but donkeys are horse-adjacent. If we're gonna eliminate horses, it's only right that we say goodbye to donkeys too.

7

Purplekeyboard t1_jbd8rq4 wrote

Zebras or camels or buffalo or elephants or elk.

Selectively breed them for thousands of years and we'd get something much better suited for riding.

2