为什么印第安人没有进入铁器时代?（一）
正文翻译
Why did none of the Native American peoples enter the Iron Age?
为什么印第安人没有进入铁器时代?
Why did none of the Native American peoples enter the Iron Age?
为什么印第安人没有进入铁器时代?
评论翻译
Alex Mann
Why didn’t Europeans get sick from Native Peoples? Native peoples got sick because they were exposed to diseases they had never had contact with, and so their bodies had no defenses. Well, why didn’t it work the other way around? Why didn’t Europeans get previously unknown diseases from Natives?
This question above and the original question have the same answer- farming.
Farming is everything. It is the foundation of all human civilization. Nothing (literally) is more important than farming. Farming gave birth to the world we live in.
It goes likes this
People grow food in a community. Now you need to protect the food and form rules in the community. Thus militaries and governments are born.
If you produce excess food then you can afford to feed people who are not producing food. This means you have artisans, administrators, teachers, and every other profession that isn’t farming.
These non-farmers create things. This leads to cities, technology, and international trade.
So farming is important agreed? So how do you start farming 10,000 years ago?
为什么欧洲人没有被原住民传染?土著居民生病是因为他们接触了从未接触过的疾病，所以他们的身体没有抵抗力。那么，为什么反过来不奏效呢?为什么欧洲人没有从土著人那里感染以前不为人知的疾病?
这里的问题和提问者的问题有着相同的答案——农业。
农业就是一切。它是所有人类文明的基础。没有什么比农业更重要了。农业孕育了我们生活的世界。就像这样：
1. 人们在社区里种植食物。现在你需要保护食物，并在社区中形成规则。军队和政府就这样诞生了。
2. 如果你生产多余的食物，那么你就可以养活那些不生产食物的人。这意味着你有工匠、管理人员、教师和所有其他职业，而无需从事农业。
3. 这些非农民创造了东西。这导致了城市、技术和国际贸易。
所以农业很重要，对吧?那么一万年前你是如何开始农耕的呢?
Why didn’t Europeans get sick from Native Peoples? Native peoples got sick because they were exposed to diseases they had never had contact with, and so their bodies had no defenses. Well, why didn’t it work the other way around? Why didn’t Europeans get previously unknown diseases from Natives?
This question above and the original question have the same answer- farming.
Farming is everything. It is the foundation of all human civilization. Nothing (literally) is more important than farming. Farming gave birth to the world we live in.
It goes likes this
People grow food in a community. Now you need to protect the food and form rules in the community. Thus militaries and governments are born.
If you produce excess food then you can afford to feed people who are not producing food. This means you have artisans, administrators, teachers, and every other profession that isn’t farming.
These non-farmers create things. This leads to cities, technology, and international trade.
So farming is important agreed? So how do you start farming 10,000 years ago?
为什么欧洲人没有被原住民传染?土著居民生病是因为他们接触了从未接触过的疾病，所以他们的身体没有抵抗力。那么，为什么反过来不奏效呢?为什么欧洲人没有从土著人那里感染以前不为人知的疾病?
这里的问题和提问者的问题有着相同的答案——农业。
农业就是一切。它是所有人类文明的基础。没有什么比农业更重要了。农业孕育了我们生活的世界。就像这样：
1. 人们在社区里种植食物。现在你需要保护食物，并在社区中形成规则。军队和政府就这样诞生了。
2. 如果你生产多余的食物，那么你就可以养活那些不生产食物的人。这意味着你有工匠、管理人员、教师和所有其他职业，而无需从事农业。
3. 这些非农民创造了东西。这导致了城市、技术和国际贸易。
所以农业很重要，对吧?那么一万年前你是如何开始农耕的呢?
You need the right animals. Not every animal can be domesticated. In fact of the millions of species on earth, only a dozen or so can be turned into livestock. In order for an animal to become a domesticated farm animal, it needs the following traits.
Eats anything except meat. If you feed farm animals meat it’s a waste of time (just eat that meat yourself). These animals need to eat anything and everything and it must be simple easy to produce food.
Breeds a lot. You need animals to make lots of copies very quickly. If it takes 15 years for a baby to grow up that’s too long. You need farm animals to pop out babies very frequently and you need these babies to grow up fast
Social structures. In order to be domesticated animals need to have social structures. Take horses that have an alpha stallion leading the herd. If you break that alpha stallion, you break the whole herd. Chickens and cows have complex social structures that allow humans to insert themselves at the top as “boss chicken”.
Not many animals check all these categories. Europeans and Asians got pretty lucky though because pigs, chickens, cattle, and sheep all happen to be from around the area. These humans in Asia and Europe were able to develop farming and thus technology, and thus enter the Iron Age.
Do you know how many potential farm animals there were in North and South America? None.
Well, actually you had Llamas, and guess what, the Native Americans with access to Llamas built incredibly advanced civilizations (Incans). Llamas are terrible farm animals too FYI.
Diseases like COVID come from animals. A common virus infects all your cows but it’s a cow virus, not a human virus so humans are safe. That virus will mutate though and in very rare instances, spread to humans.
In order to get a pandemic, you need tons of humans around tons of animals in close proximity for centuries. These things just didn’t exist in North America.
So the moral of the story is to hug a farmer- but don’t actually.
你需要合适的动物。并不是所有的动物都能被驯养。事实上，地球上数以百万计的物种中，只有十几种能被转化为牲畜。为了使一种动物成为家养的农场动物，它需要以下特征。
1. 除了肉什么都吃。如果你给农场动物喂肉，那就是浪费时间(你自己吃吧)。这些动物需要吃任何东西，并且这些东西都必须是简单、容易生产的食物。
2. 大量繁育。你需要动物快速地大量复制。如果一个幼崽需要15年才能长大，那就太长了。你需要农场动物经常生幼崽，你需要这些幼崽快速成长。
3.社会结构。为了被驯化，动物需要有社会结构。就拿那些有一匹领头种马的马来说。如果你驯服了领头种马，你就驯服了整个牧群。鸡和牛有着复杂的社会结构，这使得人类能够以“首领”的身份登上社会的顶端。
没有多少动物符合以上条件。欧洲人和亚洲人非常幸运，因为猪、鸡、牛和羊碰巧都来自这个地区。亚洲和欧洲的这些人能够发展农业和技术，从而进入铁器时代。
你知道在北美和南美有多少潜在的家畜吗?一个也没有。
好吧，实际上有美洲羊驼，你猜怎么着，有美洲羊驼的印第安人建立了令人难以置信的先进文明(印加人)。羊驼也是绝佳的农场动物。
像新冠这样的疾病来自动物。一种常见的病毒会感染所有的奶牛，但这是一种奶牛病毒，而不是人类病毒，所以人类是安全的。这种病毒会变异，在极少数情况下会传播给人类。
为了造成疫情，你需要成吨的人在成吨的动物周围近距离接触数个世纪。这些东西在北美是不存在的。
所以这个故事的寓意是：拥抱一个农民——但不是字面意义上。
Eats anything except meat. If you feed farm animals meat it’s a waste of time (just eat that meat yourself). These animals need to eat anything and everything and it must be simple easy to produce food.
Breeds a lot. You need animals to make lots of copies very quickly. If it takes 15 years for a baby to grow up that’s too long. You need farm animals to pop out babies very frequently and you need these babies to grow up fast
Social structures. In order to be domesticated animals need to have social structures. Take horses that have an alpha stallion leading the herd. If you break that alpha stallion, you break the whole herd. Chickens and cows have complex social structures that allow humans to insert themselves at the top as “boss chicken”.
Not many animals check all these categories. Europeans and Asians got pretty lucky though because pigs, chickens, cattle, and sheep all happen to be from around the area. These humans in Asia and Europe were able to develop farming and thus technology, and thus enter the Iron Age.
Do you know how many potential farm animals there were in North and South America? None.
Well, actually you had Llamas, and guess what, the Native Americans with access to Llamas built incredibly advanced civilizations (Incans). Llamas are terrible farm animals too FYI.
Diseases like COVID come from animals. A common virus infects all your cows but it’s a cow virus, not a human virus so humans are safe. That virus will mutate though and in very rare instances, spread to humans.
In order to get a pandemic, you need tons of humans around tons of animals in close proximity for centuries. These things just didn’t exist in North America.
So the moral of the story is to hug a farmer- but don’t actually.
你需要合适的动物。并不是所有的动物都能被驯养。事实上，地球上数以百万计的物种中，只有十几种能被转化为牲畜。为了使一种动物成为家养的农场动物，它需要以下特征。
1. 除了肉什么都吃。如果你给农场动物喂肉，那就是浪费时间(你自己吃吧)。这些动物需要吃任何东西，并且这些东西都必须是简单、容易生产的食物。
2. 大量繁育。你需要动物快速地大量复制。如果一个幼崽需要15年才能长大，那就太长了。你需要农场动物经常生幼崽，你需要这些幼崽快速成长。
3.社会结构。为了被驯化，动物需要有社会结构。就拿那些有一匹领头种马的马来说。如果你驯服了领头种马，你就驯服了整个牧群。鸡和牛有着复杂的社会结构，这使得人类能够以“首领”的身份登上社会的顶端。
没有多少动物符合以上条件。欧洲人和亚洲人非常幸运，因为猪、鸡、牛和羊碰巧都来自这个地区。亚洲和欧洲的这些人能够发展农业和技术，从而进入铁器时代。
你知道在北美和南美有多少潜在的家畜吗?一个也没有。
好吧，实际上有美洲羊驼，你猜怎么着，有美洲羊驼的印第安人建立了令人难以置信的先进文明(印加人)。羊驼也是绝佳的农场动物。
像新冠这样的疾病来自动物。一种常见的病毒会感染所有的奶牛，但这是一种奶牛病毒，而不是人类病毒，所以人类是安全的。这种病毒会变异，在极少数情况下会传播给人类。
为了造成疫情，你需要成吨的人在成吨的动物周围近距离接触数个世纪。这些东西在北美是不存在的。
所以这个故事的寓意是：拥抱一个农民——但不是字面意义上。
Alex Mann
FYI: This theory above is not mine- it’s a vast oversimplification of the book “Guns Germs and Steel” which goes into a ton of detail and is very revolutionary.
I HIGHLY recommend it
供参考:上述理论不是我的——它是对《枪炮、细菌和钢铁》一书的过度简化，书中有大量的细节，非常具有革命性。
我强烈推荐它。
FYI: This theory above is not mine- it’s a vast oversimplification of the book “Guns Germs and Steel” which goes into a ton of detail and is very revolutionary.
I HIGHLY recommend it
供参考:上述理论不是我的——它是对《枪炮、细菌和钢铁》一书的过度简化，书中有大量的细节，非常具有革命性。
我强烈推荐它。
Thomas Sayre
It’s an interesting notion. But, consider that the “earlier immigrants” to the Americas did have massive farming, massive cities, massive civilizations that spread from South America up through North America with trade routes, manufacturing, enormous monuments and massive cities long before London was anything but a few huts along a river… the American cities had huge excess labor pools and leisure time. But still did not developed advanced metallurgy.
Why didn’t they get into the Iron Age? Or even into the bronze age? That was the question.
Even during the Bronze Age, Europeans traveled as far as North America to engage in massive mining operations to procure copper and tin. Enormous pits still exist around the Great Lakes area where Europeans and Africans dug up the precious ore to haul back across the Atlantic. There was apparently no lack of opportunity for the American tribes to engage in metalworking or even procurement and use of iron, IF they could figure out how to make a hot enough fire. They did use some copper tools but did not advance beyond that until Europeans later began making permanent settlements and brought more advanced metallurgy with them.
这是一个有趣的概念。但是，考虑到美洲的“早期移民”确实有大量的农业，大量的城市，大量的文明，并通过北美散播到了南美。在伦敦还只是河边的几间小屋之前，这些城市就已经有了贸易路线、制造业、巨大的纪念碑和巨大的城市。美国城市有大量的过剩劳动力和闲暇时间。但先进的冶金技术仍然没有发展起来。
为什么他们没有进入铁器时代?或者甚至进入青铜时代?这就是问题所在。
即使在青铜时代，欧洲人也远至北美从事大规模的采矿作业，以获取铜和锡。五大湖地区周围仍有巨大的矿坑，欧洲人和非洲人在这里挖掘珍贵的矿石，然后将它们运回大西洋。显然，美国部落并不缺乏从事金属加工甚至采购和使用铁的机会，如果他们能弄清楚如何制造足够温度的火。他们确实使用了一些铜制工具，但直到后来欧洲人开始建立永久定居点，并带来了更先进的冶金技术，他们才得以进一步发展。
链接：《青铜时代的游客来到美洲》、《6000年前，矿工们在五大湖留下了污染痕迹》
It’s an interesting notion. But, consider that the “earlier immigrants” to the Americas did have massive farming, massive cities, massive civilizations that spread from South America up through North America with trade routes, manufacturing, enormous monuments and massive cities long before London was anything but a few huts along a river… the American cities had huge excess labor pools and leisure time. But still did not developed advanced metallurgy.
Why didn’t they get into the Iron Age? Or even into the bronze age? That was the question.
Even during the Bronze Age, Europeans traveled as far as North America to engage in massive mining operations to procure copper and tin. Enormous pits still exist around the Great Lakes area where Europeans and Africans dug up the precious ore to haul back across the Atlantic. There was apparently no lack of opportunity for the American tribes to engage in metalworking or even procurement and use of iron, IF they could figure out how to make a hot enough fire. They did use some copper tools but did not advance beyond that until Europeans later began making permanent settlements and brought more advanced metallurgy with them.
这是一个有趣的概念。但是，考虑到美洲的“早期移民”确实有大量的农业，大量的城市，大量的文明，并通过北美散播到了南美。在伦敦还只是河边的几间小屋之前，这些城市就已经有了贸易路线、制造业、巨大的纪念碑和巨大的城市。美国城市有大量的过剩劳动力和闲暇时间。但先进的冶金技术仍然没有发展起来。
为什么他们没有进入铁器时代?或者甚至进入青铜时代?这就是问题所在。
即使在青铜时代，欧洲人也远至北美从事大规模的采矿作业，以获取铜和锡。五大湖地区周围仍有巨大的矿坑，欧洲人和非洲人在这里挖掘珍贵的矿石，然后将它们运回大西洋。显然，美国部落并不缺乏从事金属加工甚至采购和使用铁的机会，如果他们能弄清楚如何制造足够温度的火。他们确实使用了一些铜制工具，但直到后来欧洲人开始建立永久定居点，并带来了更先进的冶金技术，他们才得以进一步发展。
链接：《青铜时代的游客来到美洲》、《6000年前，矿工们在五大湖留下了污染痕迹》
The massive copper and tin mining operations in North America ended abruptly, at the time of the bronze age collapse in Europe/Africa.
Early Viking explorers in North America collected iron from rock formations and smelted it to make tools and nails to repair their ships. And still, the tribal groups already present had not advanced beyond copper.
What is it that drove the Mediterranean and European push into the iron age that was missing in the Americas? Clearly, it was not a lack of farming.
北美大规模的铜和锡矿开采活动在欧洲/非洲的青铜时代崩溃时突然终止。
早期在北美的维京探险家从岩石中收集铁，并将其熔炼成工具和钉子来修理他们的船只。尽管如此，那些已经存在的部落并没有超越铜矿的发展。
是什么驱使地中海和欧洲人进入了美洲所没有的铁器时代?显然，这不是农业缺乏的问题。
Early Viking explorers in North America collected iron from rock formations and smelted it to make tools and nails to repair their ships. And still, the tribal groups already present had not advanced beyond copper.
What is it that drove the Mediterranean and European push into the iron age that was missing in the Americas? Clearly, it was not a lack of farming.
北美大规模的铜和锡矿开采活动在欧洲/非洲的青铜时代崩溃时突然终止。
早期在北美的维京探险家从岩石中收集铁，并将其熔炼成工具和钉子来修理他们的船只。尽管如此，那些已经存在的部落并没有超越铜矿的发展。
是什么驱使地中海和欧洲人进入了美洲所没有的铁器时代?显然，这不是农业缺乏的问题。
Manny
Guns, Germs, and Steel was quite the fascinating documentary! We got to watch it in world history class back in my first year of high school, and it seemed to make a lot of sense.
《枪炮、细菌和钢铁》是一部相当精彩的著作!在我高一的时候，我们在世界历史课上看了这部电影，它看起来很有道理。
Guns, Germs, and Steel was quite the fascinating documentary! We got to watch it in world history class back in my first year of high school, and it seemed to make a lot of sense.
《枪炮、细菌和钢铁》是一部相当精彩的著作!在我高一的时候，我们在世界历史课上看了这部电影，它看起来很有道理。
Thomas Raphael Hyle
it does /seem/ to make a lot of sense, and it does make some sense, but IRL it was probably vastly more the germs than the guns or steel. More importantly it leaves out that the European conquering expansion of the rest of the planet began within a year or two of the pope legalizing Christians to loan money at interest, enabling the existence of modern venture capital, by which ‘exploration’ was funded.
这看起来很有道理，而且确实有一些道理，但在现实中，病菌可能比枪支或钢铁更重要。
更重要的是，它忽略了一个事实，即在教皇将基督徒贷款合法化的一两年内，欧洲人开始了对地球其他地方的征服扩张，这使得现代风险资本得以存在，“探索”就是通过这种方式获得资金的。
it does /seem/ to make a lot of sense, and it does make some sense, but IRL it was probably vastly more the germs than the guns or steel. More importantly it leaves out that the European conquering expansion of the rest of the planet began within a year or two of the pope legalizing Christians to loan money at interest, enabling the existence of modern venture capital, by which ‘exploration’ was funded.
这看起来很有道理，而且确实有一些道理，但在现实中，病菌可能比枪支或钢铁更重要。
更重要的是，它忽略了一个事实，即在教皇将基督徒贷款合法化的一两年内，欧洲人开始了对地球其他地方的征服扩张，这使得现代风险资本得以存在，“探索”就是通过这种方式获得资金的。
Thomas Raphael Hyle
side note; according to Syndey Possuelo when an uncontacted Amazonian native group is contacted by modern humans 70% die in the first year; not because of guns or steel though those do sometimes come into play when ranchers, loggers, or drug-dealers rob and enslave such groups; the 70% is just from germs.
边注：根据Syndey Possuelo的说法，当一个与世隔绝的亚马逊土著群体与现代人类接触时，70%的人在第一年死亡。
不是因为枪支或钢铁，尽管当农场主、伐木工或毒贩抢劫和奴役这些组织时，枪支或钢铁确实会发挥作用，但70%来自病菌。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
side note; according to Syndey Possuelo when an uncontacted Amazonian native group is contacted by modern humans 70% die in the first year; not because of guns or steel though those do sometimes come into play when ranchers, loggers, or drug-dealers rob and enslave such groups; the 70% is just from germs.
边注：根据Syndey Possuelo的说法，当一个与世隔绝的亚马逊土著群体与现代人类接触时，70%的人在第一年死亡。
不是因为枪支或钢铁，尽管当农场主、伐木工或毒贩抢劫和奴役这些组织时，枪支或钢铁确实会发挥作用，但70%来自病菌。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Chris Walsh
All these criticisms of Guns, Germs and Steel miss the point. These are all proximate causes, not ultimate causes. Diamond was trying to understand and explain the ultimate causes. He wouldn’t deny that modern finance was a factor in European exploration and conquest. He would point out that it was a recent factor and ask why finance was developed in Europe and not elsewhere. He doesn’t suggest that guns and steel were more of a factor than germs. He asks why Europeans germs had such a profound impact on the Americas, but American germs didn’t wipe out the Europeans. He also answers these questions. These criticisms of the explanation are unfounded.
所有这些对《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》的批评都没有抓住重点。
这些都是近因，而不是最终原因。戴蒙德（本书作者）试图理解并解释最终原因。他不否认现代金融是欧洲探索和征服的一个因素。他会指出，这是最近的一个因素，并问道，为什么金融是在欧洲发展起来的，而不是在其他地方。
他并不认为枪支和钢铁是比细菌更重要的因素。他问的是为什么欧洲人的病菌对美洲产生了如此深远的影响，而美洲人的病菌并没有消灭欧洲人。他也回答了这些问题。
这些对解释的批评是没有根据的。
All these criticisms of Guns, Germs and Steel miss the point. These are all proximate causes, not ultimate causes. Diamond was trying to understand and explain the ultimate causes. He wouldn’t deny that modern finance was a factor in European exploration and conquest. He would point out that it was a recent factor and ask why finance was developed in Europe and not elsewhere. He doesn’t suggest that guns and steel were more of a factor than germs. He asks why Europeans germs had such a profound impact on the Americas, but American germs didn’t wipe out the Europeans. He also answers these questions. These criticisms of the explanation are unfounded.
所有这些对《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》的批评都没有抓住重点。
这些都是近因，而不是最终原因。戴蒙德（本书作者）试图理解并解释最终原因。他不否认现代金融是欧洲探索和征服的一个因素。他会指出，这是最近的一个因素，并问道，为什么金融是在欧洲发展起来的，而不是在其他地方。
他并不认为枪支和钢铁是比细菌更重要的因素。他问的是为什么欧洲人的病菌对美洲产生了如此深远的影响，而美洲人的病菌并没有消灭欧洲人。他也回答了这些问题。
这些对解释的批评是没有根据的。
Richard Lobb
Glad to see that you recommend the book. I was greatly impressed by it, but I’ve seen some criticism, too.
很高兴看到楼主推荐这本书。我对它印象深刻，但我也看到了一些批评。
Glad to see that you recommend the book. I was greatly impressed by it, but I’ve seen some criticism, too.
很高兴看到楼主推荐这本书。我对它印象深刻，但我也看到了一些批评。
Bethany Grace
I have no idea how others criticize the book, but here are my issues with the author's points:
Africa, Australia, and the Americas all have herding animals and large fowl just as Asia and Europe. Eurasians domesticated animals by breeding the wild out of them, while others did not.
Nothing stopped people from growing their own food. If you're looking for honest answers, you'll have to address why certain groups never grew their own food.
All people of every nation made war against each other whether they harbored food and resources or not. Every nation had the opportunity to advance military strategy. Some did and some didn't.
Europe had numerous plagues, many of which were imported from foreign countries, that wiped out swathes of the population. I'm sorry, but out of all the excuses, this one is the dumbest.
我不知道别人是如何批评这本书的，但我对作者的观点有以下几点看法:
1. 非洲、澳大利亚、美洲、亚洲和欧洲一样都有放牧动物和大型家禽。欧亚混血儿通过培育野生动物来驯化动物，而其他人则没这样做。
2. 没有什么能阻止人们自己种植食物。如果你想要找到诚实的答案，你就必须解决为什么某些群体从不自己种植食物的问题。
3. 每个国家的所有人都互相发动战争，不管他们是否拥有食物和资源。每个国家都有机会推进军事战略。但有些人做了，有些人没有。
4. 欧洲有很多瘟疫，其中很多是从外国传入的，导致大量人口死亡。抱歉，但所有的借口中，这一个是最蠢的。
I have no idea how others criticize the book, but here are my issues with the author's points:
Africa, Australia, and the Americas all have herding animals and large fowl just as Asia and Europe. Eurasians domesticated animals by breeding the wild out of them, while others did not.
Nothing stopped people from growing their own food. If you're looking for honest answers, you'll have to address why certain groups never grew their own food.
All people of every nation made war against each other whether they harbored food and resources or not. Every nation had the opportunity to advance military strategy. Some did and some didn't.
Europe had numerous plagues, many of which were imported from foreign countries, that wiped out swathes of the population. I'm sorry, but out of all the excuses, this one is the dumbest.
我不知道别人是如何批评这本书的，但我对作者的观点有以下几点看法:
1. 非洲、澳大利亚、美洲、亚洲和欧洲一样都有放牧动物和大型家禽。欧亚混血儿通过培育野生动物来驯化动物，而其他人则没这样做。
2. 没有什么能阻止人们自己种植食物。如果你想要找到诚实的答案，你就必须解决为什么某些群体从不自己种植食物的问题。
3. 每个国家的所有人都互相发动战争，不管他们是否拥有食物和资源。每个国家都有机会推进军事战略。但有些人做了，有些人没有。
4. 欧洲有很多瘟疫，其中很多是从外国传入的，导致大量人口死亡。抱歉，但所有的借口中，这一个是最蠢的。
Chris Walsh
These read like the criticisms of someone who hasn’t actually read the book.
这些话听起来像是没有真正读过这本书的人的批评。
These read like the criticisms of someone who hasn’t actually read the book.
这些话听起来像是没有真正读过这本书的人的批评。
Miles Elam
I've seen criticism of a Calculus textbook and folks calling a round Earth a hoax. Doesn't take away the truth of them though.
GG&S is very well-researched and cited. You can nitpick about details, but the overall thesis is pretty hard to argue against in good faith.
我见过对微积分教科书的批评，也见过有人说“地球是圆的”是一场骗局。但这并不能掩盖它们的真实。
这本书得到了很好的研究和引用。你可以对细节吹毛求疵，但要真心实意地反驳整个论点是相当困难的。
I've seen criticism of a Calculus textbook and folks calling a round Earth a hoax. Doesn't take away the truth of them though.
GG&S is very well-researched and cited. You can nitpick about details, but the overall thesis is pretty hard to argue against in good faith.
我见过对微积分教科书的批评，也见过有人说“地球是圆的”是一场骗局。但这并不能掩盖它们的真实。
这本书得到了很好的研究和引用。你可以对细节吹毛求疵，但要真心实意地反驳整个论点是相当困难的。
Abraham Levin
Alex, I need more follow up. I've seen heavy criticism of that book online, and you're a historian that I trust. Can you explain it?
亚历克斯，我需要更多的跟进。我在网上看到了对那本书的大量批评，而你是我信任的历史学家。你能解释一下吗?
Alex, I need more follow up. I've seen heavy criticism of that book online, and you're a historian that I trust. Can you explain it?
亚历克斯，我需要更多的跟进。我在网上看到了对那本书的大量批评，而你是我信任的历史学家。你能解释一下吗?
Alex Mann
Sure!
So Guns Germs and Steel offended a lot of “political” historians if that makes sense. Basically, there are a few issues a small group of historians has with the book. The most popular are
The book discounts human agency. Basically, the book states it was an environment that created society and civilization and not human action. In other words, Europe was always going to end up more advanced and conquest was more or less determined by this success.
The big issue they have is that they believe it detracts from European responsibility for colonialism and slavery. They want the narrative to be “Europeans were evil and chose to be evil” where as the book states “Europe got lucky with a favorable environment that led to quicker technological advancement and the stronger civilization usually bullies the weaker one”. Does that make sense? I am oversimplifying quite a bit here
没问题！
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》得罪了很多“政治”历史学家。一小部分历史学家对这本书提出了一些问题。最受欢迎的有：
1. 这本书贬低了人的能动性。基本上，这本书说，是一个环境创造了社会和文明，而不是人类行为。换句话说，欧洲最终总是会更先进，征服或多或少是由这种成功决定的。
他们提出的重大问题是，他们认为这削弱了欧洲对殖民主义和奴隶制的责任。他们希望故事是“欧洲人是邪恶的，并且选择了邪恶”，正如书中所说的那样，“欧洲幸运地拥有一个有利的环境，导致了更快的技术进步，更强大的文明通常欺凌弱小的文明”。 明白了吗?我描述得很简化了。
Sure!
So Guns Germs and Steel offended a lot of “political” historians if that makes sense. Basically, there are a few issues a small group of historians has with the book. The most popular are
The book discounts human agency. Basically, the book states it was an environment that created society and civilization and not human action. In other words, Europe was always going to end up more advanced and conquest was more or less determined by this success.
The big issue they have is that they believe it detracts from European responsibility for colonialism and slavery. They want the narrative to be “Europeans were evil and chose to be evil” where as the book states “Europe got lucky with a favorable environment that led to quicker technological advancement and the stronger civilization usually bullies the weaker one”. Does that make sense? I am oversimplifying quite a bit here
没问题！
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》得罪了很多“政治”历史学家。一小部分历史学家对这本书提出了一些问题。最受欢迎的有：
1. 这本书贬低了人的能动性。基本上，这本书说，是一个环境创造了社会和文明，而不是人类行为。换句话说，欧洲最终总是会更先进，征服或多或少是由这种成功决定的。
他们提出的重大问题是，他们认为这削弱了欧洲对殖民主义和奴隶制的责任。他们希望故事是“欧洲人是邪恶的，并且选择了邪恶”，正如书中所说的那样，“欧洲幸运地拥有一个有利的环境，导致了更快的技术进步，更强大的文明通常欺凌弱小的文明”。 明白了吗?我描述得很简化了。
The book uses the term “Eurasia” often. To many, this is seen as an attempt to credit Europeans with advancements that took place in Asia but I disagree considering it goes both ways.
The book categorizes various sub-Saharan Africans as “blacks” when they should be categorized differnatly.
The book doesn’t mention slavery, colonialism, or imperialism enough (basically the historians who exist purely to make the “West” look evil were not satisfied). I disagree here too as I don’t think we need to talk endlessly about Imperialism in every book.
The book makes mistakes when talking about colonial economics (which is actually a valid criticism)
The book views the line between hunting/gathering and agriculture to vividly. Some suggest that the line here is foggier but that’s up for debate.
There are valid criticisms and debates to be had. The biggest issue seems to come in the way “not harsh enough on Europeans”.
Overall I think the book's central premise and its biggest points stand up very well though.
2. 这本书经常使用“欧亚大陆”这个词。对许多人来说，这被看作是试图将亚洲取得的进步归功于欧洲人，但我不同意，因为这是双向的。
3. 这本书将撒哈拉以南的非洲人归类为“黑人”，而他们不应该被如此归类。
4. 这本书没有充分提及奴隶制、殖民主义或帝国主义(基本上那些纯粹为了让“西方”看起来邪恶而存在的历史学家并不满意)。我也不同意这一点，因为我不认为我们需要在每本书中没完没了地谈论帝国主义。
5. 这本书在谈到殖民经济学时犯了错误(这是一个正确的批评)；
6. 这本书生动地阐述了狩猎/采集和农业之间的界线。有些人认为这里的界限比较模糊，但这有待商榷。
有正当的批评和辩论。最大的问题似乎是“对欧洲人不够严厉”。 总的来说，我认为这本书的中心前提和最大的观点是站得住的。
The book categorizes various sub-Saharan Africans as “blacks” when they should be categorized differnatly.
The book doesn’t mention slavery, colonialism, or imperialism enough (basically the historians who exist purely to make the “West” look evil were not satisfied). I disagree here too as I don’t think we need to talk endlessly about Imperialism in every book.
The book makes mistakes when talking about colonial economics (which is actually a valid criticism)
The book views the line between hunting/gathering and agriculture to vividly. Some suggest that the line here is foggier but that’s up for debate.
There are valid criticisms and debates to be had. The biggest issue seems to come in the way “not harsh enough on Europeans”.
Overall I think the book's central premise and its biggest points stand up very well though.
2. 这本书经常使用“欧亚大陆”这个词。对许多人来说，这被看作是试图将亚洲取得的进步归功于欧洲人，但我不同意，因为这是双向的。
3. 这本书将撒哈拉以南的非洲人归类为“黑人”，而他们不应该被如此归类。
4. 这本书没有充分提及奴隶制、殖民主义或帝国主义(基本上那些纯粹为了让“西方”看起来邪恶而存在的历史学家并不满意)。我也不同意这一点，因为我不认为我们需要在每本书中没完没了地谈论帝国主义。
5. 这本书在谈到殖民经济学时犯了错误(这是一个正确的批评)；
6. 这本书生动地阐述了狩猎/采集和农业之间的界线。有些人认为这里的界限比较模糊，但这有待商榷。
有正当的批评和辩论。最大的问题似乎是“对欧洲人不够严厉”。 总的来说，我认为这本书的中心前提和最大的观点是站得住的。
Chris Walsh
People who level this and many of the other criticisms you cite must entirely miss the point of the book. Responsibility for imperialism is beside the point; the point is how imperialism was even possible and more to the point why it was so efficiently possible. If the victims of imperialism had had their own guns, imperialism would have looked like the Hundred Years War rather than rapid conquest, domination, displacement and assimilation.
I think the agency critique is more to the point. It’s been a couple decades since I studied history or historiography, so I’m sure things have changed, but my impression was that a lot of British and American historians still leaned toward the Great Man version of history in which major historical events are driven purely by individual vision and moxie. Men (and maybe Thatcher) overcome nature, and geography and economic forces;
关于第四点，批评这一点的人和你引用的许多其他批评的人一定完全没有抓住这本书的要点。对帝国主义负责不是这里的重点，这里的重点是帝国主义是如何成为可能的？更重要的是为什么它是如此有效？如果帝国主义的受害者有他们自己的枪，帝国主义就会像百年战争，而不是快速的征服、统治、流离失所和同化。
我认为对“人的能动性”的批评更切中要害。我学习历史或史学已经有几十年了，所以我相信事情已经变了，但我的印象是，许多英国和美国的历史学家仍然倾向于“伟人”版本的历史，在这种版本中，重大的历史事件完全是由个人的远见和勇气推动的。男人(也许还有撒切尔夫人)战胜了自然、地理和经济力量，而不是反过来。
People who level this and many of the other criticisms you cite must entirely miss the point of the book. Responsibility for imperialism is beside the point; the point is how imperialism was even possible and more to the point why it was so efficiently possible. If the victims of imperialism had had their own guns, imperialism would have looked like the Hundred Years War rather than rapid conquest, domination, displacement and assimilation.
I think the agency critique is more to the point. It’s been a couple decades since I studied history or historiography, so I’m sure things have changed, but my impression was that a lot of British and American historians still leaned toward the Great Man version of history in which major historical events are driven purely by individual vision and moxie. Men (and maybe Thatcher) overcome nature, and geography and economic forces;
关于第四点，批评这一点的人和你引用的许多其他批评的人一定完全没有抓住这本书的要点。对帝国主义负责不是这里的重点，这里的重点是帝国主义是如何成为可能的？更重要的是为什么它是如此有效？如果帝国主义的受害者有他们自己的枪，帝国主义就会像百年战争，而不是快速的征服、统治、流离失所和同化。
我认为对“人的能动性”的批评更切中要害。我学习历史或史学已经有几十年了，所以我相信事情已经变了，但我的印象是，许多英国和美国的历史学家仍然倾向于“伟人”版本的历史，在这种版本中，重大的历史事件完全是由个人的远见和勇气推动的。男人(也许还有撒切尔夫人)战胜了自然、地理和经济力量，而不是反过来。
I think it’s a very shallow view of history, but one that holds wide public appeal. It’s heroic and easy to understand and remember. No critical thinking required: the Civil War was just a series of battles between a couple generals. WWII was won by Churchill’s command of the English language and a bunch of American generals. So easy!
And it’s hard to talk intelligently about geography and economics and social forces that shape events over generations. So histories that try to take account of those things must be rejected as the histories of losers making excuses for not being heroes of individualism. Or worse - Marxism!
I’m sure G,G&S isn’t flawless, but it is deep and thoughtful and fascinating, and a much more persuasive explanation of history than any version of manifest destiny.
我认为这是一种非常浅薄的历史观，但对公众具有广泛的吸引力。它是英勇的，容易理解和记忆。不需要批判性思维: 内战只是几位将军之间的一系列战斗。二战是丘吉尔对英语的熟练掌握和一群美国将军赢得的。就是这么容易!
我们很难明智地谈论影响几代人的地理、经济和社会力量。因此，那些试图考虑到这些事情的历史必须被拒绝，因为他们是失败者，是为自己没有成为个人主义英雄而找借口的历史!
我确信这本书并非完美无缺，但它深刻、有思想、引人入胜，对历史的解释比任何版本的天命论都更有说服力。
And it’s hard to talk intelligently about geography and economics and social forces that shape events over generations. So histories that try to take account of those things must be rejected as the histories of losers making excuses for not being heroes of individualism. Or worse - Marxism!
I’m sure G,G&S isn’t flawless, but it is deep and thoughtful and fascinating, and a much more persuasive explanation of history than any version of manifest destiny.
我认为这是一种非常浅薄的历史观，但对公众具有广泛的吸引力。它是英勇的，容易理解和记忆。不需要批判性思维: 内战只是几位将军之间的一系列战斗。二战是丘吉尔对英语的熟练掌握和一群美国将军赢得的。就是这么容易!
我们很难明智地谈论影响几代人的地理、经济和社会力量。因此，那些试图考虑到这些事情的历史必须被拒绝，因为他们是失败者，是为自己没有成为个人主义英雄而找借口的历史!
我确信这本书并非完美无缺，但它深刻、有思想、引人入胜，对历史的解释比任何版本的天命论都更有说服力。
Theron Smith
Guns Germs and Steel was also a political book. It was clear the author knew where he wanted to go before he got there, which usually leads to ignoring evidence that doesn’t support the predetermined thesis. That in turn makes it easy to write a coherent-sounding book. That said I think I generally agree with the author’s points.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》本身就是一本政治书。很明显，作者在到达目的地之前就知道他想要去哪里，这通常会导致忽略那些不支持预定论点的证据。
这反过来又使写一本听起来条理清晰的书变得容易。尽管如此，我认为我大体上同意作者的观点。
Guns Germs and Steel was also a political book. It was clear the author knew where he wanted to go before he got there, which usually leads to ignoring evidence that doesn’t support the predetermined thesis. That in turn makes it easy to write a coherent-sounding book. That said I think I generally agree with the author’s points.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》本身就是一本政治书。很明显，作者在到达目的地之前就知道他想要去哪里，这通常会导致忽略那些不支持预定论点的证据。
这反过来又使写一本听起来条理清晰的书变得容易。尽管如此，我认为我大体上同意作者的观点。
Vance Gillenwater
Diamond's book discounts the obvious truth - that certain cultures are better at achieving higher standards of living. “Guns, steel and germs” was a diatribe that assumed that no culture is inherently superior, and that only being born in different geographical conditions was the difference in success in technological advances.
Certain cultures/ethnic groups do have higher ingenuity and ambitions. That is the uncomfortable truth. Even today we see test scores and success disparities between the SAME groups that Diamond tried to explain away. “Guns, steel and germs” shouldn't matter anymore if all cultures and ethnicities are indeed equal.
But alas, the disparities remain today. The same countries continue to produce the technological advances. Conversly, the same countries are mired in poverty and tribal infighting.
Diamond's book is based on his faulty premise of cultural equality, then he bends over backwards to create excuses for the underperforming cultures. In reality, there are measurable differences in ingenuity and ambition between ethnicities. Albeit small, but that's all that is needed to reach new technology first.
这本书低估了一个显而易见的事实——某些文化更擅长达到更高的生活水平。
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》是一篇讽刺文章，它假设没有一种文化是天生优越的，只有出生在不同的地理条件下才会在技术进步方面取得成功。
某些文化/民族确实有更高的创造力和野心。这是一个令人不安的事实。即使在今天，我们仍能看到戴蒙德试图解释的同一组人在考试成绩和成功方面的差异。如果所有的文化和种族都是平等的，那么《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》就不再重要了。
遗憾的是，这种差距在今天依然存在。同样的国家继续发展先进的技术。相反，另一些国家却深陷贫困和部落内斗的泥潭。
戴蒙德的书基于他错误的文化平等的前提，然后他竭尽全力为表现不佳的文化找借口。事实上，不同种族之间在聪明才智和雄心壮志方面存在明显差异。尽管差异很小，但这是实现新技术的首要条件。
Diamond's book discounts the obvious truth - that certain cultures are better at achieving higher standards of living. “Guns, steel and germs” was a diatribe that assumed that no culture is inherently superior, and that only being born in different geographical conditions was the difference in success in technological advances.
Certain cultures/ethnic groups do have higher ingenuity and ambitions. That is the uncomfortable truth. Even today we see test scores and success disparities between the SAME groups that Diamond tried to explain away. “Guns, steel and germs” shouldn't matter anymore if all cultures and ethnicities are indeed equal.
But alas, the disparities remain today. The same countries continue to produce the technological advances. Conversly, the same countries are mired in poverty and tribal infighting.
Diamond's book is based on his faulty premise of cultural equality, then he bends over backwards to create excuses for the underperforming cultures. In reality, there are measurable differences in ingenuity and ambition between ethnicities. Albeit small, but that's all that is needed to reach new technology first.
这本书低估了一个显而易见的事实——某些文化更擅长达到更高的生活水平。
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》是一篇讽刺文章，它假设没有一种文化是天生优越的，只有出生在不同的地理条件下才会在技术进步方面取得成功。
某些文化/民族确实有更高的创造力和野心。这是一个令人不安的事实。即使在今天，我们仍能看到戴蒙德试图解释的同一组人在考试成绩和成功方面的差异。如果所有的文化和种族都是平等的，那么《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》就不再重要了。
遗憾的是，这种差距在今天依然存在。同样的国家继续发展先进的技术。相反，另一些国家却深陷贫困和部落内斗的泥潭。
戴蒙德的书基于他错误的文化平等的前提，然后他竭尽全力为表现不佳的文化找借口。事实上，不同种族之间在聪明才智和雄心壮志方面存在明显差异。尽管差异很小，但这是实现新技术的首要条件。
很赞 3
收藏