[michaelchisari]

I'm not arguing any societies were completely void of violence, obviously. There is a significant difference between a society where violence occurs and one in which violence is the defining principle and method of organization. Yet even in societies organized around violence and domination, the majority of people are not violent and do not commit acts of violence.

At this point, it's not worth continuing the conversation here. You'd be best served engaging with anthropological sources themselves since your perspective has been well addressed by the field. "Humankind: A Hopeful History" by Rutger Bregman was suggested below. I haven't read it myself, but I've heard good things and it's sources might serve as a good jumping-off point. "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber I have read and it is a light read and works well as a starting point, despite it's issues.

[alex_sf]

Those are certainly interesting books, but Graeber's work in particular has been widely criticized by his peers[1]. Dawn of Everything was a naked attempt at (further) politicizing the field, and was riddled with logical and historical errors. Much like his other writings.

> One review it’s known that he did read, because he wrote a response to it, is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s in the New York Review of Books. Entitled Digging for Utopia, it accuses the authors of making ideologically driven arguments at variance with the studies they cite.

> [historian David A Bell] referred to “an astounding collection of errors” and accused the authors of coming “perilously close to scholarly malpractice”.

You would be best served by not basing your opinions on fringe material.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/12/david-wengro...