3 ms·
> an attempt to counter widely held but incorrect (in the eyes of the author) assumptions about human societal evolution. Doesn't the book take decent argument
by unmole 4y ago
> an attempt to counter widely held but incorrect (in the eyes of the author) assumptions about human societal evolution.
Doesn't the book take decent arguments to deranged conclusions in Graeber's trademark style? From the reviews I've read, the books supposedly argues that egalitarian thought was introduced by Native Americans to Europe and that the Enlightenment was based on these borrowed ideas. And the book supposedly also portrays mammoth houses i.e. hides stretched over mammoth bones and tusks as an example of monumental public works. Is that not the case?
- josefresco 4y ago> egalitarian thought was introduced by Native Americans to Europe and that the Enlightenment was based on these borrowed ideas Not exactly or rather that's not the conclusions I gathered. He points out that Native Americans were fully aware of the European way of life (not innocent & naïve as they were portrayed), and openly mocked it. >And the book supposedly also portrays mammoth houses i.e. hides stretched over mammoth bones and tusks as an example of monumental public works. There are actually numerous examples of complex "public" works (irrigation, light farming, monument building) cited to back up the claim that complex societies, or large works of civic architecture were possible without the modern structures of politics, and even royalty. Much of the book is basically showing how human evolution was not a single inevitable line forward from hunting gathering > farming > complex civilization. Too much to write here but I enjoyed it (just finished!)