Add new comment

I like Immerwahr's more modern analysis (mostly familiar with his book, How to Hide an Empire) but he's definitely playing devil's advocate here or perhaps rocking some status quo confirmation biases of his own?

Like, every single one of his criticisms can be flipped back on itself if you're just a little more sympathetic to the large claims being made by Graeber and Wengrow.

Why did indigenous people get absorbed in to the dominant culture in the americas? (When they weren't being exterminated?!?!)
Don't overestimate the amount of agency they had and there's your answer. Same is highly likely true for ancient civilizations and the subjects of their conquest.

Asking the question in a more candid way provides a much better answer: why did people submit to the great machine of mass death and slavery? Well, the ones who didn't, ain't around anymore so it really skews the outcomes of the discussion lol

Basically, the conclusions your draw here reflect your politics in either direction and you can see him making the mistake of assigning way too much benevolence to nation states when asking "if they suck, why are they everywhere?!"

dude, why is cancer everywhere right before it kills the host? by this logic, cancer is the superior form of cellular organization.
he's just confusing scientific skepticism with not being an anarchist. it's ok daniel, we can't all be super smart and sexy with our understanding of history. maybe you'll get there some day champ!