[fckgnad]

So yes. I was right. everything I'm claiming is opposite of what the book proposes.

Perhaps I'll read it. I will say that what I'm "claiming" is what's claimed by academia. It's the status quo. If DoE doesn't agree then I don't think it's widely regarded as good by academia.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Its authors are (were, in Graeber's case) two academics.

1/3 of the pages are references and footnotes should you want to dig deeper.

Also, "academia" does not speak with one voice on the matters covered in the book.

[fckgnad]

The forward of the book stated this about one of the authors:

"He was an activist and public intellectual of international repute who tried to live his ideas about social justice"

I worry that this book may be under the same light as creationism. An attempt to retrofit evidence such that it forms an awkward scaffold that maintains an existing belief about social justice. The authors clearly have a bias against the academic status quo the same way a Christiaan has a bias against the same thing.

Clearly modern anthropology does run against the grain of what a lot of social justice warriors claim to be true about human nature, so such a hesitation is not out of place.

Nevertheless, a social justice background does not necessarily preclude someone away from unbiased analysis. I will read.

[fckgnad]

Thanks. You convinced me. I will read.