Whether he's a tomato plant or not, watch the way he starts out by retelling how the guy who studied the Yanomami had been accused of serious dishonesty, but it has now been conclusively proven that it's the guy who accused him who was the fraud. Right away, he's expected to be taken as an expert, and he knows he's talking to non-experts, but he's telling us, don't listen to those people, listen to me.
And then he goes on with the sort of grand narrative that even I know - though I'm not an anthropologist - that most of them don't want to make, and are deeply sceptical about (also when made by people from the other political side, like Graeber)
For all I know he's even right about his claims. But if you believe them just from coming across his article first (as opposed to those who would no doubt try just as hard to poison the well against him), then what's the point?
