Re: No TP: Commentary on “The Dawn of Everything”

[Neal Fultz]

I asked for it for Christmas, would like to go through it with a group
also at some point.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 2:43 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not reading anything substantive about it until I have read it.....I
> am still hunting for members to read it together....
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:39 PM David Elliott via Pynchon-l <
> pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:
>
> >  Thanks for commenting. I shared hoping to get some feedback.I plan on
> > reading it early next year after finishing some other books. It will
> > probably take a long time for me to get through it since I will be checking
> > some of the sources and reading other material on some of the periods
> > covered.
> >     On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, 02:45:08 PM EST, Joseph Tracy <
> > brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Just finished the book and am re-listening to the early part in question.
> > Not really troubled by Bell's critique for several reasons.
> > First is the new testament quote or the idea that Judaism was egalitarian.
> > That this is what he came up with to exemplify an important western ideal
> > of egalitarianism is tellingly weak.The OT is the story of a ‘chosen
> > people’ who make war on the inhabitants of what is now called Israel based
> > on the visionary promise of Yawheh to Abraham. They were supposedly slaves
> > in Egypt and when they, according to the  story, kill off most of
> > Cannanites these conquered people are made slaves as is fitting for pagans.
> > The NT verse from Paul is pretty qualified if you read more of Paul where
> > he exhorts slaves to obey their masters and everyone to yield obedience to
> > any earthly ruler since all rulers are appointed by God. He also disallows
> > woment to teach men.  The hierarchical structures of the religion that
> > emerged historically and its connections to empires and nations was well
> > embedded by the time of Rousseau.
> >
> > Also the authors moved away from a book about the origins of inequality
> > because how do we understand the meaning of equality: social sharing of
> > food and resources, identical personalities and habits,  equal rights for
> > all or for some? They move to other more measurable qualities to make
> > socetal distinctions.
> >
> > As to Rousseau’s private life the only thing the authors actually imply is
> > that Rousseau had servants. I don’t know or care what his exact court
> > ambitions were, but doubt the athors just made shit up about Rousseau.
> >
> > The argument over how Lahontan got his version of Kandiaronk is left open
> > by Wegner and Graeber. They take a position but also tell us that the
> > position taken by Bell is the more common academic position.
> >
> > The main points made by Kandiaronk can be found in other Native American
> > intellectuals. And I had encountered all Kandiaronk’s arguments  before
> > hearing about Kandiaronk in this volume.
> >
> > The main value and use of the material drawn from historic and
> > ethnographic information on the tribal peoples of the Americas and
> > elsewhere is to show that their variety of social arrangements was not
> > merely an accident of culture but a product of thoughtful exchange within
> > these communities, and that they often had lively traditions of debate
> > about decisions and self governance.  There are many supporting materials
> > for this. The authors show the range of societies from hierarchical empires
> > to large non-hierarchical cities and that they do not happen in a linear
> > progression.
> >
> > ANYWAY. The core ideas of the book do not rest  or depend on Bell's
> > academic question. The core has to do with the diversity of prehistoric
> > social arrangements which are indicated by archeological digs over the last
> > 50 years. These archeological findings combined with the diversity among
> > historic precolonial cultures bring into question the idea of a linear
> > progression of human development  and that  has powerful implications for a
> > worldview which rests heavily on the idea that  current global social
> > arrangements are  the inevitable apex of a natural progression. It is
> > heavily footnoted, so readers can look at source materials.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2021, at 10:34 AM, David Elliott via Pynchon-l <
> > pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > There was a mention on the list of David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The
> > Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.
> > > I haven’t yet read it. This critique focuses on the authors’ approach to
> > the French Enlightenment.
> > >
> > https://www.persuasion.community/p/a-flawed-history-of-humanity?fbclid=IwAR3HN_zhNXGnxbGd4HCG8do3ML28QveplW60lANW6OFdR3jeY1wcEBljdfs
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l