Humbly asking which parts of the article would get refuted by the books you listed?
Why and in which instances could they be seen more authoritative?
Toxic masculinity could arguably be extended to colonialism (see even the quoted passage before); let's keep it focused here though on context and the crushing constraints on choice with harmful outcomes.
The primary thesis - perhaps overstated - of Wade Davis's book - is that it was more or less the demons/memory of the Great War that drove them. having not read Conefry's book yet - it's only been published for less than a month, I don't know if this is Mick's thesis or your thesis.
All that said, Davis's book is held in high regard by the mountaineering and the historians of the period.
Why and in which instances could they be seen more authoritative?
Toxic masculinity could arguably be extended to colonialism (see even the quoted passage before); let's keep it focused here though on context and the crushing constraints on choice with harmful outcomes.