Yup, if there is one demographic group this kind of behavior seems plausible for it is definitely immature, adolescent, spoiled rich kids!

I always thought that was the point of the novel. At the end, they get rescued, and the ship captain sees what they have done. He is astounded that there could be such barbarism among British children.

It's not about human nature, it's about the assumptions of what civilization means.

And got arrested immediately after being rescued for "stealing" the boat. They were released after it was cleared up, but so for coming back to "blessed law and order" and glorious civilization. Ironic, how the thing Locke said we'd all instantaneously combust without, imposed violence immediately upon return.

Oh and one of the boys was a different ethnicity, and was actually the one who broke his leg, and even then, there was no bigotry or resentment between them. They took care of him for weeks, and didn't leave him to die.

That book wasn't about regular kids. It was written by a man who taught rich, spoiled British children.

Were they british? No? Oh then it doesn't count.

Also by the way you say children but like there was a 19 year old in that one.

Phew! Thank god people being bad to each other is just fiction. I was so afraid they could actually be like that, now I feel much better knowing it doesn't happen and I can trust people with my well-being.

I also thought previously that I experienced violence toward me in two different schools, but now I see those folks must've meant well.

Seems believable to me if you look at the US as 1 big island and we are all the nice kids being bullied by the 1 orange asshole.

Yes, but it gave us the greatest phrase in the English language:

Sucks to your ass-mar.

Sucks to anon's ass-mar

I really struggled with reading (well, listening to the audio book) Dawn of Everything. The narrator just seemed to take this tone of "I'm smarter than you and you're a fool for having ever thought to the contrary of what I'm saying". Seems like narrator was British, so maybe that's just my sensitive American ears.

Nonetheless, I really felt talked down to and couldn't muscle my way through it on account of that. Don't suppose there's other books that convey similar message / lessons with different tone that you'd recommend?

as I believe humans to be social and compassionate by nature

It's best read as part of the broader debate about whether human nature pushes people into being cruel or generous or noble or something else, in the absence of social structure.

It's not even necessarily commentary on the average person, but whether a power vacuum would enable the worst among us to be even worse than they can be in a highly structured society. Bad people taking power can still happen in a group that is 90% good, if the cruel or evil or narcissistic will take control for their own ends, and the good aren't successful (or don't try) in maintaining social control for good.

The mistake people make is thinking its about humans in general rather than English grammar schoolboys specifically. I went to an English grammar school, those kids are selfish, spoilt, self aggrandising little shits and the book is horrifyingly accurate in its characterisation of them.

I assume by "of the time", you mean any time before you were born. The difference in their publication dates is nearly the current age of the United States.

Robinson Crusoe was first published in 1719 and is generally considered the first true English novel but otherwise sure.