Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This pretty much says it all. 100 or so pages of essays (many by well known historians, not just journalists) is just too damn long for you to try to bite off in order to get a perspective on 400 years of history.
Pontificate away, lazy dude.
|
Actually, where you're right, you're quite right.
Factfulness is awesome.
1619 is a biased, baggy mess. And Rosling, or even Pinker, whose views are similar to Rosling's, or Taleb, who disagrees with Pinker's factual analyses but applies the same level of rigor, would find considerable fault with
1619.
It's a faith as much as fact. I'd gain nothing from reading the entire Bible, which is a pile of nonsense and superstition. You seem to hold an affinity for both religion and the pseudo-religion of wokeness. Whatever works. But it's all different points on the continuum of narrative. Narratives which include many conservative bromides.
