No, what I and the other commenter are saying is you don't understand why the article is misleading because you don't know the actual scholarly knowledge here.
In your other comment you use wording along the lines of "still useful to show what problem each technology solved" but the part you're missing is the explanations are largely wrong, not just in the sense of not telling actual history but you will come alway with mistaken conclusions because the imagined/example history is fundamentally wrong.
So, consider if you're getting this from multiple people, perhaps you're missing something on the topic.
There are two commenting critics. So "multiple" is true, I suppose, but only quite weakly so. And there are more than 4x that many upvotes on the top-level comment. So I don't think it is as simple as "everyone is saying you are wrong."
I admit my knowledge of Graeber is quite weak, and it will be something to study up on. But I do see that one criticism is that he jumps from a small amount of evidence to big conclusions.
I have no idea if that is a fair criticism or not. I certainly can't conclude that from the 2-3 reviews of the book that seems most relevant that I have now read.
But I do see some irony here with my interlocutors who have concluded that I am saying something I really haven't.
No, what I and the other commenter are saying is you don't understand why the article is misleading because you don't know the actual scholarly knowledge here.
In your other comment you use wording along the lines of "still useful to show what problem each technology solved" but the part you're missing is the explanations are largely wrong, not just in the sense of not telling actual history but you will come alway with mistaken conclusions because the imagined/example history is fundamentally wrong.
So, consider if you're getting this from multiple people, perhaps you're missing something on the topic.
There are two commenting critics. So "multiple" is true, I suppose, but only quite weakly so. And there are more than 4x that many upvotes on the top-level comment. So I don't think it is as simple as "everyone is saying you are wrong."
I admit my knowledge of Graeber is quite weak, and it will be something to study up on. But I do see that one criticism is that he jumps from a small amount of evidence to big conclusions.
I have no idea if that is a fair criticism or not. I certainly can't conclude that from the 2-3 reviews of the book that seems most relevant that I have now read.
But I do see some irony here with my interlocutors who have concluded that I am saying something I really haven't.