4 ms·
> It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history
by eightysixfour 4y ago
> It's kinda light on evidence for some things, which isn't great when we're talking about someone they describe as an "activist" challenging mainstream history.
I agree. I find it interesting that Graeber makes the same mistake he admonished so many others for - the interpretation of small amounts of historical data through their specific lens with minimal evidence - however, since his perspective is unique compared to much of the mainstream his view feels novel, interesting, and ultimately should open reader’s minds to the idea that their view of the past is exceptionally biased by the paradigm we live in today.
There are alternate paradigms, and the same evidence can be interpreted entirely differently to challenge many preconceptions.
- Natsu 4y agoThis puts it in a weird place because if you interpret the evidence in light of the theory, it's not really usable as evidence that the theory is right, because it ends up begging the question of why we should believe the theory in the first place. That said, agriculture did radically transform society, as several other technologies have done since then. I do think this is worth highlighting, it just comes off better when it's not coming from someone trying to sell you on an ideology. Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women, and we know those groups were quite different all over the world until the technology of birth control upended things.
- eightysixfour 4y ago> Because I bet that their idea of 'egalitarian' only includes castes like priests and kings, but not men & women According to the book, some included both.