FWIW, I wasn't that impressed with "Dawn of Everything", I wish it had more data and less polemic. (I think the polemical argument would have been stronger if, paradoxically, it had been weaker.)

>I wish it had more data I mean that really seems to be the wish, and the problem, with a lot of historical and archaeological research.

Its bibliography is very, very large. You can root around in there for a lifetime. I doubt you would find anything to contradict him.

That's kind of my point: there's so much fascinating and important work going on right now that the book just sort of gestures at in the rush to make their political points. FWIW, I'm sympathetic to their arguments, but I'd like to see them more well-supported (than they were in that book, IMO.)

I will only note that the book is quite large, and that David Graeber has, tragically, left us.

FWIW, I want to make it clear that I'm not criticizing David Graeber. I'm not an anarchist myself, but I very much value and respect his work.

Also, when I used "their" above I meant David Graeber and the co-author of the book David Wengrow.

While I'm at it, I should mention that when I called GH a "kook" in the other thread, I also meant it in a "takes one to know one" kind of a way. To wit: I'm a kook (by many measures, not my own) too. E.g. I believe Bigfoot is real, that they are hominids, and that they may well be as intelligent as H. sapiens or more so. On alternate Tuesdays I believe the Earth is hollow, just to keep my brain in shape.

Cheers, and well met.

Yeah my recommendation isn't because I think it's a fair and balanced viewpoint, but that it provides a much-needed perspective. It shouldn't be the ONLY book you read about such issues. I also like Guns, Germs, and Steel, which the authors have criticized (mostly respectfully).

There are many things about human history that we simply don't know, and triangulating between experts with very different viewpoints is a good way to get closer to the truth, or at least make you think.

A key point is that human history is hundreds of thousands of years long, and for many periods of hundreds/thousands of years, we only have 1 or 2 artifacts. And the world is very big. Entire civilizations with complex social structures have come and gone with little trace, and many of them lasted longer than the United States or the modern governments of Russia or China. (Obviously 20th century growth rates make that comparison hard, but it's still worth thinking about)

Also, I would say that DoE is better at criticism than at making claims, or providing a concrete path toward more egalitarian societies. It's responding somewhat to "big history" books, so it's probably better to read those first.

I'm sympathetic to the arguments presented in the book, my complaint is that it's "preaching to the choir" too much. I think it would be a stronger book if it was less polemical.

I think it's fascinating and important that Native lifestyles were preferable to European/American lifestyles. That extended quote from Franklin raises some very salient questions, IMO.

You're completely right, but I also want to caution (you mention this too) readers that Graeber himself has a strong perspective. When evaluating historical narratives, it's essential to dig into sources closer to primary sources when possible. There's too much at stake for most modern states for there not to be controversy.

This sort of tension exists for foundational histories in many, many cultures. South Asia's existing religious tension motivates people to evaluate and reevaluate historical events trying to show one or another religiously-aligned power as good or bad. Western history probably has it the least because it's well-preserved, well-studied, and has many copies of primary sources lying around which allows lots of people to cast critical eyes upon an analysis.