[swalling]

Suggesting the Americas were some communal relic of Ice Age cultures before European arrival is laughably wrong. As far north as modern St Louis, the Mississippian city of Cahokia was larger than contemporaneous London 1,000 years before contact. You then have the Mayan, Incan, and Aztec Empires that were highly stratified civilizations featuring warfare, state religion, slavery, and pyramid building.

This misperception exists largely because most of the population was wiped out by introduced disease long before European colonization happened in earnest in most areas. (Read 1491 by Charles Mann.)

[NorthOf33rd]

Communal societal or economic structures don't preclude "highly stratified civilizations featuring warfare, state religion, slavery, and pyramid building." Centralized control is a common theme.

Read the Egalitarian Continent chapter in Pekka Hamalainen's Indigenous Content. Cahokia is specifically covered including how the communal nature of the civilization shifted over time to something more autocratic and materialistic, and how the shift contributed to the collapse of that society.

[swalling]

Describing a set of societies that featured large scale human sacrifice as in any way communal or egalitarian is bordering on deranged. Even examining them purely economically, they were often heavily based on extracting and centralizing resources from weaker communities subjugated through violence.

Hämäläinen's book is widely thought of as trying to stretch a pretty weak and biased historical narrative, and presents a far from universally accepted view of history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/10/05/indigenous-c... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/arts/indigenous-continent...

[NorthOf33rd]

In the course of these comments you've referred to me as deranged and laughable. I'm going to bow out and let you hold onto your opinions, it's clear you're not interested in a conversation.

[swalling]

Declaring that strident criticism of an opinion or perspective is the same as a personal attack on the person who holds it is your assumption, not mine. Good, kind, intelligent people have objectively wrong opinions all the time. This kind of fragility is why The Coddling of the American Mind ended up getting written.

[NorthOf33rd]

So first, you didn't call the comments "objectively wrong" you called them deranged.

Deranged: 1) Disordered; especially, disordered in mind; crazy; insane. 2) disturbed or upset, especially mentally 3) insane

It's not "my assumption," that it's a personal attack, it's the english language. An idea can't be disordered in mind, disturbed mentally, or insane. Only a person can be.

Second, go back and reread your comments and omit the derision. It adds nothing at all to your argument, in fact, it's much more compelling without it.

I just don't care enough to argue with you about the meaning of "communal" to try and change your mind. Your language choices clearly signal me that you're not open to changing your mind. Instead it signals that you're more interested in dunking than engaging. The Coddling of the American Mind is not about hacker news or my personal choice to ignore you for being rude. It's about institutions. If you want a more relevant book to this conversation, I'd suggest How To Win Friends and Influence People or The Elements of Rhetoric -- How to Write and Speak Clearly and Persuasively.

[AndrewKemendo]

It's not either or - it's both