Looking at the information surrounding the sources you've cited, it seems like you've literally cited the dissenting voices from the consensus view. It's not a

Looking at the information surrounding the sources you've cited, it seems like you've literally cited the dissenting voices from the consensus view. It's not a coincidence that Scott literally names his book "Against the grain" and that reviews of his book point to his pre-existing political beliefs as colouring his view on a time in history about which we know relatively little. It certainly doesn't seem like any of your sources actually describe a well-accepted understanding of the history. In which case it's kind of like, ok well sure we can all cherry pick academics who have quite idiosyncratic views of the topics we pick but it's a little bold to be going "Well actually" to the standard view. If you read the paragraph I pulled that quote out of, it's quite clear that the author of this blog has an extremely rose-tinted view of "mortal intensity" and "novel virtue" and finding life "at it's ... highest". A literal reading of that section is advocating for you to quit your job and to rule over those who keep theirs.