In English language there's a clear separation between debt and guilt. Debt is used for money, guilt for (e.g.) the legal system when talking about criminal activities. Those are 2 different words with 2 different meanings.
But in Dutch language we don't have different words for debt and guilt. Both concepts are essentially translated to the Dutch word for guilt ("schuld") which has a much more negative connotation than debt when talking about money. The same is true for the German language for example. And this might impact policies when dealing with debt, see: https://www.ft.com/content/a2c51e14-1ded-11e0-badd-00144feab...
"And forgive us our debts, just as we also forgive our debtors." (Matt. 6:12)
> and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children.
I'm still willing to give this book a chance, but it's not a good look when the third page already contains an emotionally manipulative and gross misuse of "literally".
One thing he does point out, however, is that in recent decades, much of our debt has seemed to shift from a more useful tool for robust modern economies - as it was used in early 20th century for Keynesian stimulus and the likes - to more of a tool for subjugation, through new forms of debt peonage - e.g. with student debt in the USA or financial aid packages to former colonies - very similar to what we've seen in earlier times.
I think it's a fantastic book, offering a very compelling narrative of how our social systems have evolved around these notions of debt since civilisation began. Also, if anyone wants to dig into the book right away, there are free versions of the book online[0], including an audiobook[1]. Since Graeber is an anarchist, I'm sure he doesn't mind if not everyone is paying for it ;)
[0] https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf [1] http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years