Better-received by experts, that is!

Or is the book actually well-regarded on the whole and still worth reading despite the criticisms? I'm not in a position to know, unfortunately, as I'm an uneducated schmuck.

Thank you!

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 2 days ago

I found this to have a similar vibe, but I think it’s backed up by actual science rather than being kind of anecdotal

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

https://archive.org/details/1491.newrevelationsoftheamericasbeforecolumbusbycharlesc.mann/mode/1up?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson. Fairly readable and straightforward argument.

    Freedom Rising by Christian Welzel. Very ambitious and not a light read. It changed my life.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago

    Graeber and Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

    Don’t let Wikipedia fool you: Diamond is a bonafide academic and Guns*, Germs, Steel is a pretty good read. There’s been plenty of criticism of the work and the author, and much of it holds water, but that’s largely a product of its popularity and influence. You won’t be wasting time if you pick it up, though do take the popular critiques under consideration.

    That being said, Charles Mann’s 1491 and 1493 are the best books that cover similar ground while staying rigorous and casually readable. I also wholeheartedly recommend Pekka Hamalainen’s work for a North American lens on the Transatlantic exchange.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    I think any work that tries to compress all of the worlds human history into short digestable points is going to have to simolifynthings in a way that doesn't satisfy academics in various fields. It's an enjoyable read and has some food points to make.

    Would I consider it an accurate reference material? No, but I don't think the author would want me to, either.

    It's like freakonomics. It is both true and not 100% accurate at the same time.

  • source
  • parent