He starts with the result and writes to reach the objective.
I didn't sense any political agenda in this particular article. Did I miss it?
Oh, I didn't see any either. I have no particular problem with Diamond.
The central conclusion of his first popular book was that civilizations that became advanced did so because of lucky geographic locations....more domesticable crops and animals...not because the people that lived there were fundamentally smarter than people that lived in more primitive areas.
This seems to annoy a lot of FReepers.
2) Like most of Diamonds writings, I found a lot of rhetoric and little substance in his writing. North Africa and Sub-saharan Africa have little to do with each other.
Madagascar is included for some reason, but it is not part of Sub-saharan Africa, its an island in the Indian ocean. Further, what do the Boers have to do with Black Africa? The Boers didn't come to Africa until the 1600 or so, and didn't have large scale contact with Black tribes in the north until the 1800s.
3) Basically, Diamonds whole career is based on PC and wishful thinking. According to Diamond the 3rd world isn't undeveloped because "gasp" white/Asians are superior in some way to American Indians/Blacks/Melonesians/Aborigines but because the EuroAsian lands/climate allowed them to have horses/cattle, grow certain crops, and be free of certain diseases.Its the old left-wing argument, environment trumps character.
4) I find Diamond unpersuasive, takes a few points and expands them endlessly, and never fairly represents opposing views or adequately addresses views that conflict with his own.