3 ms·

This article follows the tried-and-true format of "Everyone used to think ABSOLUTIST_STRAWMAN_NO_ONE_ACTUALLY_BELIEVES was true, but now we've learned the issue

by drcode 9y ago

This article follows the tried-and-true format of "Everyone used to think ABSOLUTIST_STRAWMAN_NO_ONE_ACTUALLY_BELIEVES was true, but now we've learned the issue is more nuanced."

cairo_x 9y ago
"ABSOLUTIST_STRAWMAN_NO_ONE_ACTUALLY_BELIEVES" This is itself a strawman! They spent huge swathes explaining exactly what was assumed to be true and by whom, and what is still assumed by certain people/fields etc. And if the article isn't enough go read the comments section where the two authors (who are at the top of their field*) answer questions and critiques. Going by many comments here it would seem many have skimmed the article because it's too long and have come away with their own constructed reality of what it is even saying in the first place based being reactionary to certain statements without bothering to take in the context of what surrounds them. Similarly the comments section of the article consists of the authors re-iterating what they've already said. Yes it is nuanced, which is why it requires a close reading. David Graeber is easily one of best anthropological theorist of his generation from anywhere in the world. People who dismiss this because 'evidence' should wait for the book--a good chunk of which will be nothing but citations. This is not some generalized Joe Rogan friendly pop science or pop history (see: Pinker and Harari).
dkarl 9y ago
I hate that formula as well, but in this case the misconception is still a standard narrative that gets repeated over and over again, even in classrooms. And it's true that specialists who know better have not been aggressive about correcting it, probably because they assume the updated view is already widespread and the misunderstanding is just lingering in the popular imagination. But it's not just lingering! It's actively repeated in academic contexts, maybe not by academics in directly related fields but definitely in fields one step removed, because the specialists are not spreading the word. I wouldn't be surprised if this also has something to do with the fact that (as the article points out) the outdated view got baked into the foundations of a lot of progressive political ideologies, and archaeologists simply don't want to poke that hornets' nest.

by drcode 9y ago

This article follows the tried-and-true format of "Everyone used to think ABSOLUTIST_STRAWMAN_NO_ONE_ACTUALLY_BELIEVES was true, but now we've learned the issue is more nuanced."

cairo_x 9y ago

"ABSOLUTIST_STRAWMAN_NO_ONE_ACTUALLY_BELIEVES" This is itself a strawman! They spent huge swathes explaining exactly what was assumed to be true and by whom, and what is still assumed by certain people/fields etc. And if the article isn't enough go read the comments section where the two authors (who are at the top of their field*) answer questions and critiques. Going by many comments here it would seem many have skimmed the article because it's too long and have come away with their own constructed reality of what it is even saying in the first place based being reactionary to certain statements without bothering to take in the context of what surrounds them. Similarly the comments section of the article consists of the authors re-iterating what they've already said. Yes it is nuanced, which is why it requires a close reading. David Graeber is easily one of best anthropological theorist of his generation from anywhere in the world. People who dismiss this because 'evidence' should wait for the book--a good chunk of which will be nothing but citations. This is not some generalized Joe Rogan friendly pop science or pop history (see: Pinker and Harari).

dkarl 9y ago

I hate that formula as well, but in this case the misconception is still a standard narrative that gets repeated over and over again, even in classrooms. And it's true that specialists who know better have not been aggressive about correcting it, probably because they assume the updated view is already widespread and the misunderstanding is just lingering in the popular imagination. But it's not just lingering! It's actively repeated in academic contexts, maybe not by academics in directly related fields but definitely in fields one step removed, because the specialists are not spreading the word. I wouldn't be surprised if this also has something to do with the fact that (as the article points out) the outdated view got baked into the foundations of a lot of progressive political ideologies, and archaeologists simply don't want to poke that hornets' nest.