Yeah, I also went to Amazon looking for the definitive negative review, but I have yet to find it. I'd forget the argument-from-authority, though, and just say

Yeah, I also went to Amazon looking for the definitive negative review, but I have yet to find it. I'd forget the argument-from-authority, though, and just say that Graeber went into this project with some kind of irrational antipathy towards "debt", which despite years of careful research he's been unable to shake. Much like if a KKK member decided to write the definitive history of the US Civil War [substitute less inflammatory example if you feel like it] he might put together a really well-researched, well-footnoted piece of writing but still be just plain missing some fundamental piece of understanding due to the blind spots he had when going in. The history of debt, in all its glory, is a fascinating subject. There have been debts which turned out mutually beneficial, debts which drove debtors to ruin, debts which drove creditors to ruin. There have been debts imposed under terms unfair to one party or the other, and debts between close friends where the terms are kept extremely lenient both ways. There have been formal debts and informal debts, debts of money and of literal backrubs. But Graeber, for some reason, seems to skip over all those debts which make the concept of "debt" look good and only describe those which make it sound bad. It's frankly just plain weird. It reminds me of Eric Cartman's class report on Asian culture: "Asian culture has plagued our fragile planet for centuries. It must be destroyed."