{"id":85186,"date":"2022-11-21T15:27:00","date_gmt":"2022-11-21T19:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=85186"},"modified":"2022-12-01T11:47:54","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T15:47:54","slug":"indigenous-critique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/indigenous-critique\/","title":{"rendered":"The Indigenous Critique: What Started the Enlightenment?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What’s the indigenous critique? What started the Enlightenment? Is the traditional narrative accurate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European Enlightenment philosophy was inspired by the native North American people\u2019s critique of European customs. That’s the view of David Graeber and David Wengrow, as presented in their book The Dawn of Everything<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continue reading to learn about this fascinating alternative view of history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Indigenous Critique: What Started the Enlightenment?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the late 1600s, European colonists in North America became engaged in philosophical discussions with the indigenous peoples of that land. Some of the indigenous people and the colonists learned to speak one another\u2019s languages fluently. Graeber and Wengrow explain that the native North Americans had strong philosophical traditions and skilled orators who challenged European colonial officials in debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What started the Enlightenment? In New France, Wendat leader Kandiaronk<\/a> raised scathing critiques of European social customs and values, particularly criticizing monarchical rule<\/a>, social hierarchies, emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and materialism, and punitive justice systems. These descriptions then made their way back to Europe, where they were widely distributed among the intellectual class<\/a> and, Graeber and Wengrow argue, became the inspiration for much Enlightenment thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notions of Freedom and Equality<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the major cultural differences<\/a> the Europeans and indigenous people found they had was the notion of equality and its connection to freedom. Indigenous ideas about equality and freedom directly conflicted with the European notions of social status and a natural hierarchy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Graeber and Wengrow say that Europe before the 1700s lacked a notion of social equality. They believed that some people are naturally higher or lower in status and authority than others. They lived in monarchies and they derived that system from biblical notions of nobility and authority. In other words, God decided one\u2019s station in life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By contrast, many of the Native American cultures had no notion that anyone could be <\/strong>born <\/em><\/strong>higher or lower in status than anyone else<\/strong> or that anyone could have authority over anyone else. In such cultures, status might be gained with age or according to merit. But the notion that people are inherently unequal or that any status could give someone the right to dominate someone else would not have existed in this kind of cultural worldview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Role of Religion<\/a> in Upholding the Social Order<\/strong>

Historically, we can see a connection between types of religion and types of social organization. In his book Sapiens<\/em><\/a>, Noah Yuval Harari argues that agriculture and organized religion evolved alongside one another. He argues that the role of religion is essentially to give \u201csuperhuman legitimacy\u201d to the established social order<\/a>, making it hard to challenge, and therefore more stable.

He compares the animistic belief systems of most indigenous peoples with the polytheistic and monotheistic belief systems often associated with agricultural states. Since an animistic belief system<\/a> views humans as simply one part of a natural order that includes everything living, equality is an inherent part of the worldview<\/strong>. In this worldview, everything in nature is considered to be imbued with spirit, and to be valued and honored. Therefore the human world is constructed similarly. 

In a polytheistic belief system, there are multiple gods that are often ranked<\/strong>, with some being higher than others. Although Harari says this form of religion tends to be more tolerant and inclusive than a monotheistic one, it still supports a hierarchical worldview. 

A monotheistic religion, he argues, can create a rationale for domination and intolerance<\/strong>, since it\u2019s based on a belief that only one god exists, and therefore any other belief form must necessarily be wrong. With such a belief system in place, a doctrine such as the Divine Right of Kings<\/a> can be justified. This doctrine, which arose in medieval Europe, asserts that a king derives his absolute power from the one absolute universal power, God. <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

According to Graeber and Wengrow, people in societies that we would call egalitarian (meaning everyone is equal) actually seem to be less concerned with <\/strong>equality<\/em><\/strong> than they are with <\/strong>autonomy,<\/em><\/strong> meaning an individual\u2019s right to self-govern<\/strong>. Each person having autonomy over him or herself is the most important value in these cultures. And while this means nobody can rightfully dominate anyone else, which in turn creates a relatively egalitarian society, individual liberty is prioritized over actual equality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Graeber and Wengrow identify three forms of freedom that are commonly at the foundation of an egalitarian cultural value system:<\/p>\n\n\n\n