Don't be silly. Of course it added to the discussion. Just curious, are you a git? (oh darn, another rhetorical question. So sorry).

There's been a lot of change over the years, though. Many, if not most, of the big industrial families of the last 2 centuries are descended from ordinary people, and during the middle ages well-to families would typically only maintain their affluence for only a few generations. The only people who really have been…

Hmm...So basically we have had the 1% leading the 99% for 7,000 years? Hmmm anyone else think a change is far overdue?

Well said. Why assume class stratification in ancient stone age cultures when more contemporary stone age cultures don't tend that way? Difference in status, sure, but that is not the same thing.

Do we deny the existence of social hierarchies in hunter gatherer societies? It all started with parents and the relationships between them and their children (this could include adults in a small hunter gatherer group that do not have children themselves). This is where social hierarchies and eventually social…

I am certainly not an anthropologist but, I'd say no, not until the development of agriculture. When stone aged people developed that, then class divisions came into being. I think class division only goes back to the invention of agriculture and pastoralism. It's only at that point that you have people specializing…

It goes way back further than that. Even a group of monkeys (apes) are sometimes divided into the haves and the havenots.

Back then, the 1% was about a dozen people, total.