I watched the Gun Germs & Steel documentary and read part of Collapse, mainly the part about the DR & Haiti.
I've read elsewhere that his facts are weak, or incomplete, what have you. I don't dispute that, but it's not really what bothered me about him.
All objective reality aside, there is always some subjective element in the conversation somewhere. And there is an underlying agenda, some bit of philosophy, some reason he's working on the point he's trying to make. And I came away feeling like I'd been exposed to much deeper, more profound work from so many other authors. Even if all of Diamond's facts are correct, his point is still ugly, a bit dull, and not very useful. I mean, at the end of the day, after reading Gun Germs & Steel, what does that leave us saying about colonialism? What does it add to our ideas and attitudes about the historical relationships between peoples?
Others have said much deeper things about colonialism, with deeper and more useful agendas. This book, for example, was great. It starts with a bit of etymology and moves through some historical events, but most of the book is analysis of the journal entries of colonists/planters around the world. It's fascinating and provides a view of the intermixing of ideas about race and identity, economics, desire, sexuality, and politics/the state, all woven into historical context. It's deep and rich and it gives you a new perspective on history and your place in it.
What I read of Diamond was boring, a bit trite, and it certainly didn't add anything to my perspective on colonialism, or the current situations in the DR or Haiti. Sure, ecological devastation has been harmful. He's not wrong about that. He might not be 'justifying' western dominance exactly, but maybe he's just walking that fine line between 'justify' and 'explain.' Western preeminence seems to be a salient part of his agenda. And he could be right about that, but what kind of a point is that to make? Is that useful?