If I remember correctly the Rwandan massacre was instigated by right wing talk radio stations. Perhaps we ought to heed the warning.
I don't know about the US, but here they are rallying their listeners against immigrants every day, cultivating an atmosphere of hatred.
I think the strong point in Diamond's 'Malthus' argument about Rwanda is that it wasn't just Hutu slaughtering Tutsi, which you could trace to the legacy of Belgian imperialism, but also Hutu killing other Hutu, often in their own family groups. I know little about Rwanda, so he may have cooked the books on this information. But if it's reasonally accurate, it does bolster his argument. Or am I way off base?
As for Kerela and other Indian provinces, my understanding is that after the partition with Pakistan, many of the provincial boundaries were redrawn to be more in tune with language groups, and this helped local political stability, CPs coming to power, and progress somewhat in some areas, unlike Africa, where the boundaries are mainly drawn by the former imperialists for their own market purposes, and have little to do with political realities.
I agree Diamond is a liberal and not a Marxist, and I'm sure there are better works out there, but I've learned a good deal from his books nonetheless.
On Saturday, as I mentioned in my blog entry on Left Forum 2005, I heard Richard Smith, Neil Smith and John Bellamy Foster critique "Collapse". Although John described the book as terrible for the same reasons as me, he did have kind things to say about "Germs, Guns and Steel". He said that despite the environmental determinism, it had the merit of making the case that the rise of the West was not a function of racial superiority. It is anti-racist book.
However, John and Neil were quite adamant about a streak of racism that permeates "Collapse", a point that I haven't even tried to make. They singled out the treatment of Haiti mostly, which Diamond argues became a failure because it was too "African" while the Dominican Republic absorbed European influences.
John also said that he had relatively high hopes for "Collapse" before it was published. He read an article by Diamond on the Easter Island that eventually became a chapter in "Collapse". This chapter blamed the ruling class for the collapse of the island. Labor and resources were wasted building stone statues in a kind of vain display you see today in houses in the Hamptons.
He hoped that "Collapse" would adopt this approach to contemporary capitalist society which is also plagued by short-sighted, despotic class rule. However, the book refuses to apply the same lessons to the USA as it does to Easter Island. That's a point that Neil Smith drove home as well.
You rightly criticize what seem to be weaknesses and oversights on Diamond's part, especially concerning Haiti. The info you've mentioned is priceless and deserves a further look on my part. However, you seem to ignore much of what he says thus distorting his arguments.
-- the main thrust of his argument in the chapter concerning Rwanda is not just overpopulation as a cause of the 'Malthusian catastrophe' but rather certain social customs concerning land (re)distribution and ownership which created great socioeconomic hardship and inequality, especially for youth. Something I thought a Marxist would have easily remarked. It is these unjust customs, which, coupled with 'inferior' agricultural technology and high population growth which led to the genocide. His explanation which you quote is accurate and true but unlike your commentary he doesn't make any value judgments on what has been and is. I don't think he's an apologist of these 'vicissitudes of history' as you aptly put it; he doesn't defend colonialism but simply enumerates and describes facts in 'cold Hegelian logic'. I am sure England would dissolve in chaos if its industrial agriculture infrastructure fell apart--no outside interference needed. The need to feed and basic instincts would be to blame.
Your commentary also implies that Belgium successfully developed industrial agriculture by accumulating the capital necessary through colonial exploitation yet most landlocked and non-colonial European countries didn't benefit from mercantilist policies and developed adequate agricultural production techniques and trade infrastructure without such exploitative wealth accumulation. The failure isn't there. If population exceeds feeding capacity, food imports and therefore trade become necessary. This is where Rwanda failed. Since most Rwandans were farmers and knew of nothing else and directly depended on their land, they were headed for disaster.
-- you make it seem as though he is uncritical and praises Balaguer's dictatorship while he doesn't. He enumerated how his policy was great for the environment, but criticizes his methods as cruel and violent. He describes his legacy as bitter-sweet in that respect and still controversial among locals. Furthermore, while Cuba is exemplary in many ways, he picked Hispaniola because it is more relevant and revealing than Cuba could have been to illustrate his point as to how societies can adapt or fail to environmental constraints in order to survive and prosper. While you are straightforward in your opinions and Marxist bias--which is fine--it doesn't dispense you from honest consideration and intellectual rigor.
Commenting by HaloScan
