After having read Donna Haraway and Silvia Federici, the Book on Fire podcast now turns our attention to Graeber & Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything. We will cover the good, the bad, and the ugly, one chapter at a time. Chapter 1 out now.
https://t.co/j01MhTDnVF
@shabloozy @FoodForestNetwk Haha no if I didn't want to invite comments I wouldn't post! Not that I'm even on this site very much. The podcast is called The Book on Fire. There's a link to it in my pinned tweet in our profile. I appreciate your curiosity!
Really having a hard time rereading the first few chapters of Dawn of Everything for the podcast. Why do the authors hate egalitarian hunger-gatherers so much? You'd think that an anarchist would be excited for the world to learn abt the existence of these very free people, but
@shabloozy @FoodForestNetwk Here's an example of the kind of anthropology they don't want to meaningfully engage with. We are devoting Episode 3 to including this kind of thing.
https://t.co/W0qxPwheIq
@shabloozy @FoodForestNetwk They really don't want us to consider this scholarship, so much so that they tell lies about it, and I'm trying to figure out why.
@autonomytucson And thanks for that reply. I am trying to stay oriented toward what has felt necessary and effective about what the book is doing, and it's good to hear it from others. Otherwise I can get distracted arguing with them as I reread the chapters.
@FoodForestNetwk I would much rather see them bring their colleagues front & center, name them and take them to task directly than spend all this time establishing that Rousseau and Steven Pinker are bad and then sneakily equating the rest of anthropology to these baddies.
@FoodForestNetwk They equate the theory that humans had significant egalitarianism for most of prehistory, which has many adherents, with Rousseauian claims to HG "innocence" and the "myth of the stupid savage."
@autonomytucson Yes, they do all of that. But along the way of critiquing how paradise and fall narratives enter the popular consciousness in this way, they throw many of their fellow anthropologists under the bus, claiming that they reiterate those narratives when they don't.
It's like the whole long book and all of its rhetorical gymnastics are to lead us away from concluding that we're in a tough spot collectively and that revolutionary change won't be easy. But does anyone really dispute that it won't be easy?
Really having a hard time rereading the first few chapters of Dawn of Everything for the podcast. Why do the authors hate egalitarian hunger-gatherers so much? You'd think that an anarchist would be excited for the world to learn abt the existence of these very free people, but
...and we'll either give up trying to be free or become anarcho-primitivists. Instead they want to focus on egalitarian farmers and city dwellers--great, but why spend so much energy trashing and misrepresenting your rad colleagues who study hunter-gatherers?
but instead they ignore, downplay, confuse, and obscure their significance, and disparage the researchers who study them. It's like they're afraid that if we focus on them too much, we'll get stuck on how different the conditions of their lives are from ours...
@cognazor @brightabyss This is a good article from a teacher of mine on translating syntropic principles to temperate climates. It includes a useful introduction to Syntropic agriculture as practiced in the tropics.
https://t.co/jXZbxlx4eD