5 ms·

Hancock is very questionable in motives and methods (talks a lot about how he is suppressed rather than what he thinks is true) But it’s true that narratives a

by chubot 4y ago

Hancock is very questionable in motives and methods (talks a lot about how he is suppressed rather than what he thinks is true) But it’s true that narratives around past civilizations are controlled for political reasons Eg in China the winners want to paint the picture that the way they govern is inevitable and mandated, when really there was a lot of diversity, experimentation, and violence Including matriarchal societies!! I recommend reading Dawn of Everything by graeber and wengrow for peer reviewed info on past, ignored, alternative civilizations It does have an axe to grind but it’s a welcome contrast and asks good questions You don’t need to invoke hypothetical pre ice age societies for any of this However the book does give a good perspective on how much of history we simply don’t know, which leaves room for speculators like Hancock

carapace 4y ago
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.)
- mhuffman 4y ago
  >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.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Its bibliography is very, very large. You can root around in there for a lifetime. I doubt you would find anything to contradict him.
  - carapace 4y ago
    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.)
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      I will only note that the book is quite large, and that David Graeber has, tragically, left us.
      - carapace 4y ago
        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.
- chubot 4y ago
  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.
  - carapace 4y ago
    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.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
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.

by chubot 4y ago

carapace 4y ago

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.)

mhuffman 4y ago
>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.
moloch-hai 4y ago
Its bibliography is very, very large. You can root around in there for a lifetime. I doubt you would find anything to contradict him.
- carapace 4y ago
  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.)
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    I will only note that the book is quite large, and that David Graeber has, tragically, left us.
    - carapace 4y ago
      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.
chubot 4y ago
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.
- carapace 4y ago
  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.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

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.