Is this a good read or crazy lefty cherry picked bias tier revisionist fucking history?

[Anonymous No.19588833]

Truly want to know if it's good before I dive in

[Anonymous No.19588842]

>>19588833
Given the writers' ethnicity I suspect it's the latter, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19588844]

>>19588833
I'm not buying it

[Anonymous No.19588850]

Both authors have very feminine, sneaky looking faces

[Anonymous No.19588853]

>>19588833
Barzun did history better

[Anonymous No.19588854]

>>19588850
Good fucking lord things are worse than I had realized.

[Anonymous No.19588859]

>>19588853
Barzun is Kmart shopper tier

[Anonymous No.19588866]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.19588871]

>>19588866
So fucking based. Chud gets fucking wrecked. Send that transphobic fucker back where he came from. Fuck yeah! Chud gets fucked! Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

[Anonymous No.19588878]

>>19588866
Wow you really owned me!...This type of posting doesn't work anymore and you will never be a janny, cringeoid.

[Anonymous No.19588908]

>>19588878

[Anonymous No.19588916]

>>19588908
Wow, the average right winger. White, angry, and crying

[Anonymous No.19588918]

>>19588866
You probably think niggers are people, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19588964]

>>19588833
David Graeber is an anarchist so his readings wil obviously be sympathetic to anarchism. He is still a professional and highly skilled academic however, so he will never just cherrypick or make shit up.
the worst he will do is bias a narrative in the way he phrases or interprets otherwise completely true data. David Wengrow is less engaged in activism than Graeber, and more of a full time academic.
Ive read Graeber's debt book which was excellent. Ive watched some talks and interviews with Wengrow on the premise of this book and it seems excellent as well. if youre still not sure i reccomend you watch one of those talks.

[Anonymous No.19589074]

If I saw something I had written in that kind of company I would have bought every copy I had from them and blacklisted them from ever selling anymore. Fucking globohomo tranny niggers.

Tldr; idk but looks like shit

[Anonymous No.19589092]

>>19588833
David Graeber is fucking based and Wengrow is his usual sidekick. Didn't read this book, it seems a bit out of his ballpark because he's an anthropologist, but I expect it to be worth my while when I read it, which I plan on doing.

[Anonymous No.19589403]

>>19589092
>>19588964
Graeber is absolutely based. One of the best modern nonfiction writers I’ve read. Always picks interesting directions to go. Debt, bs jobs, utopia, and his essays are all fantastic. Only got through the first 100 pages or so of Everything, but it seems just as interesting. I realize this post doesn’t have very much substance to it regarding what he actually writes, but it’s hard to summarize it all. He basically writes like Howard zen but he actually has a sense of humor about it all and is far more competent at his actual field when compared to zen.

[Anonymous No.19589658]

Read Graeber's debt book and stop asking /lit/ if its safe for you to read things

[Anonymous No.19589696]

>>19588916
>average right winger
>white

[Anonymous No.19589701]

>>19589403
>Graeber is
He ded
>>19589658
It’s not about safety it’s about dodging a bullet of bullshit

[Anonymous No.19590028]

>>19588833
I find Graeber to be a genuine writer in that he is just beyond simple characterizations as left vs. right. Admittedly, he's more of what I would call a convenient Marxism, i.e. he uses Marxism as a criticism and not as an absolute form of correction. I think he provides healthy insight into the world and he definitely had a unique perspective, but he is, unfortunately, not a Christian and so his works have limited long term validity. I think he gets pretty much as close to the picture of truth as you can, but he is very much so a relativist so should be read with a good deal of salt. His research, criticisms of capitalism and the technostate, and also just general prose are all first rate.

[Anonymous No.19590097]

>>19589696
Lol someone pose a /pol/ meetup, it's inspiring how diverse white nationalists can be

[Anonymous No.19590125]

>>19590097
The wholesome diverse racist thing is a bit overstated. There are some guys on /pol/ who are outright genocidal. I'm guessing they dont go to meetups

[Anonymous No.19590357]

>>19589701
>he ded
I know :( but I like to write about him as if isnt
>>19590028
Nice.

[Anonymous No.19590547]

>>19588833
these 'everything' books are worthless. you are better off just studying history in general. won't have to navigate nearly as much slimy ideological shit and half-truths as well.

[Anonymous No.19590846]

>>19590547
>thinking graeber wouldn’t name a book with a focused thesis something that would make everyone buttmad

[Anonymous No.19590903]

[Anonymous No.19591039]

>>19590903
woah wtf, indians are based?!

[Anonymous No.19592526]

>>19590028
>convenient Marxism

He isn't a Marxist and whenever he mentions Marx its generally in a vaguely critical way. I'm pretty sure in this book he compares Marx negatively to Freud, as a significant thinker who was idolised in spite of being wrong about a lot of things

[Anonymous No.19593131]

>>19590903
Packing my bags for patagonia lads.

[Anonymous No.19594550]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19594767]

>>19588833
I'm currently reading it and am about half way through. It's interesting, but you need to take everything the authors say with a grain of salt. Personally, I'm going to use it as a springboard to pursue more specific interests. As I've seen some reviews by people who are knowledgeable in specific areas of the book who say the Davids are misrepresenting some things. So far the main points that I can recall at the moment are:
1. That we should expect our ancestors to have practiced various forms of government, societies, lifestyles etc. given that they were just as smart and creative as we are and have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. They weren't just simple-minded cavemen living in little tribes. We also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what hunter-gatherer people were capable of.
2. The European Enlightenment owes a great deal to Native American critiques of European society.
3. Cultures and people often formed themselves in response to other cultures around them. To essentially differentiate themselves from their neighbors. A process they call 'schismogenesis.' They use examples of slave-free forager societies living next to slave owning fishing societies. The Davids use this as more evidence of the political nature we all have as humans to form our own societies.
4. The agricultural revolution was not really a revolution and it certainly didn't immediately enslave humanity or create necessary hierarchies. The Davids state that farming was more of a supplement, likely carried out by women, to help in areas where foraging was not as suitable. They say it was more like gardening and was not intensive work. They say is lasted this way for three thousand years before it became more 'serious farming.'
5. Cities can develop and function with thousands of people without needing a ruler or bureaucracy to run it. If a city did have a ruler, they were still at the mercy of civilian councils. People had the freedom to leave the city or run the ruler out. This was touched on earlier in the book when it talks about how a lot of chiefs in native tribes had no hard-power to use on their people and had to rely on charisma and being likable.
Again, you have to take what they say with a gain of salt. Luckily, a lot of what they say is cited and their is a huge bibliography in the back that is over a hundred pages. I'm only covering a little of the book in this post because it goes over a lot of material and I will probably re-read one day.