I argue there's been linear historical development, but I don't credit it automatically as being progressive. The value judgment is separate from whether there are patterns in history. (See the link below for my take on progress.) Clearly, if modern society ends up destroying the ecosystems, we can't speak about such general progress. Technology has progressed in its empowerment of us, but that doesn't necessarily make for social progress or an increase in general wisdom. On the contrary, our technological improvement may be infantilizing us, so we'd be more childlike than our prehistoric ancestors, at least in some respects.
That was a fascinating chapter from Dawn of Everything, about how the Native American may have served as a model for the Enlightenment's concept of the free individual. I hadn't come across that idea before, but from reading reviews, too, I found that some of the details of that book are controversial. The authors were certainly pushing an agenda, and it may have affected how they presented the evidence.
My main takeaway from the book is that the evidence isn't so straightforward for simple linear development from nomadic to sedentary societies. Instead, prehistoric people experimented with different forms of society, often shifting with the seasons or the herds, dividing their time between both lifestyles. Still, that amounts to a detail because eventually sedentary societies won out--not because that lifestyle is necessarily better since much of it may have happened by force, as city-states expanded and dragooned folks to serve as slaves or soldiers.
I haven't seen Crash Course History. I'll check it out. I certainly don't claim to be an expert historian.
