The kind of society that “won out” over the other kinds we’ve tried is definitely a contributor. When Europeans were integrating with the plains Indians in the US and Canada many of them noted how the “less-civilized” people seemed to be a good deal more civilized than themselves in a lot of respects (like with mutual aid, division of labor and resources, etc.). But there’s no reason to think we can’t get there again.
Is there evidence of this? Most historical writings on colonial attitudes towards Indigineous people is that they were seen as primitive and backward for not having similar infrastructure, focussing on sustainability rather than productivity and not being Christian.
It would be fascinating to hear of there were more balanced voices back then but the general attitude of European settlers at the time was we are here to take land and control trade because our God ordained it.
There are numerous contemporaneous writings that are either (a) in French or (b) hard to read because of flowery Enlightenment-era English, but Dave Graeber and David Wengrow do an excellent job of collecting together a lot of the relevant information in The Dawn of Everything. There are also plenty of other really good histories of the Wendat and Huron people and Pacific coast potlatch societies though I can’t think of the authors I’ve liked right at the moment.
Its a fascinating postulation that Indigineous thought leaders may have influenced enlightenment thinkers. Its unfortunate (understatement) that the European colonial machine ultimately chose to create a racist counter narrative to justify generations of genocide despite this.
During the colonial era the West was often very quick to take credit for knowledge imparted on other regions while quietly neglecting to cite sources when they learned from others.
Its too bad that they who adopted such wisdom could not see the humanity in those it came from.
The kind of society that “won out” over the other kinds we’ve tried is definitely a contributor. When Europeans were integrating with the plains Indians in the US and Canada many of them noted how the “less-civilized” people seemed to be a good deal more civilized than themselves in a lot of respects (like with mutual aid, division of labor and resources, etc.). But there’s no reason to think we can’t get there again.
Is there evidence of this? Most historical writings on colonial attitudes towards Indigineous people is that they were seen as primitive and backward for not having similar infrastructure, focussing on sustainability rather than productivity and not being Christian.
It would be fascinating to hear of there were more balanced voices back then but the general attitude of European settlers at the time was we are here to take land and control trade because our God ordained it.
The “noble savage” trope is an example of this.
There are numerous contemporaneous writings that are either (a) in French or (b) hard to read because of flowery Enlightenment-era English, but Dave Graeber and David Wengrow do an excellent job of collecting together a lot of the relevant information in The Dawn of Everything. There are also plenty of other really good histories of the Wendat and Huron people and Pacific coast potlatch societies though I can’t think of the authors I’ve liked right at the moment.
Its a fascinating postulation that Indigineous thought leaders may have influenced enlightenment thinkers. Its unfortunate (understatement) that the European colonial machine ultimately chose to create a racist counter narrative to justify generations of genocide despite this.
During the colonial era the West was often very quick to take credit for knowledge imparted on other regions while quietly neglecting to cite sources when they learned from others.
Its too bad that they who adopted such wisdom could not see the humanity in those it came from.