European feudal societies developed the theory of human evolution from "barbarism to civilization” to defend against the evidence of Indigenous well-being and freedom.
Thanks for the summary, Peter! Another aspect, so-called higher learning. For example, by the 1800s the enforced paradigm became, “...literacy education as a passage between civilization and wilderness...” quote from, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880 - Phillip H. Round, The University of North Carolina Press, 2010, p.120.
I read *The Dawn of Everything* more than a year ago - as part of a huge question that keeps popping up: how can one and the same culture, or era [put in the simplest of terms], spawn Erasmus and slaveholders? Myriad paths open up - often invisible to one another, be it spontaneously or as a result of 'divide and rule/conquer'.
1) Drop out, "become an Indian" so to speak. I'd love to compose a historical novel about youngsters who do this in the 19th century; but I doubt that the two Davids would agree. It would strike them as overly 'Rousseau'; the absurdity of 'being born free [were we?] and everywhere in chains'. Mark Twain seems to have been acutely aware of the ways in which boys yearning for adventure - away from sunday schools and Christian grooming - are no less vulnerable to culture's mindfuck - sorry, system of domination - than buffalo slaughtering magnates. All the more surprising are extant reports of children who did manage to flee to a first nation and wanted to stay there - assuming for a moment that those nations would in the long run not be absorbed by the system 'marshalled' upon them. [I wonder how to interprete Kandiaronk's admission into French high society - though Jesuits!]
2) To me, it is an open question whether it is really possible to assume any identity other than the one I'm "raised" in. Identity politics won't suffice. Any "pretension" thereof mirrors 19th century (and at least by default [?]: our current era's) dominant "pretensions".** Nonetheless it seems feasible - if tricky - to honestly access non-same-culture sources of wisdom.
3) Which in turn begs the question of assessing - even honouring - my own forebears, even if they were (at least intellectually, but probably in practice as well) immersed in the domination system. I used to smear my grandparents' angst-ridden colonial nostalgia as a prototypical, slightly ridiculous case of "tempu dulu" [Bahasa Indonesia for 'past/bygone era'], lazily overlooking the trauma they got saddled with during mounting prewar tensions between various groups of the populace, Japanese occupancy, and postwar chaos - much of which was relived through an Alzheimer's lense during my mother's last years prior to her death in 2013 (she was born in 'Batavia' - now Jakarta - in 1928).
[response 2] I've followed a conversation which DOES speak in favour of your stance ('the loss of our sacred nature and beliefs' - by creating 'synthetic'/chemical nature).
“In the 1700’s, eugenics really took off with writers amongst the interbred elite, like Charles Darwin. Darwin’s family only interbred with one other family for generations and that was the Wedgwood family, the famous pottery Wedgwood’s of England; his grandfather married one. His father married one. Charles married one and after his wife died, he married his mother’s sister, another Wedgwood. They’re all Wedgwood’s and Darwin’s all mixed together, you see, until they bring in some other outside blood—like the Galton’s, another sweet bunch who believed in population reduction. They end up with, or Charles did anyway, ten children from his first wife who died in childbirth and two wives who died in insane asylums very young. Too interbred, you see.”—Scottish historian Alan Watt
But can Darwin be satisfactorily be analysed in terms of the 'ilk' [Huxley dynasty etc] he was allegedly, and in some ways reluctanty, a part of?
Misgivings aside, I think we need to listen (in) to 'the enemy' without imbibing any of his words as technocratic/eugenic Scripture. In a practical dimension: evolution does yield (some...) insight into topics like 'microbes' and 'immunity', does it not?
I used this quote in my latest book ALMOST Dead Indians: “Try as he might to comprehend the life on the far side of the ocean that the white man described, the brown man was unable. Such a life was beyond belief. He could not envision one man or a small group of men and women owning all the land, all the animals, all who dwelt upon it, all the produce, man’s labor and his harvest, and men’s lives. But he felt sorry for his friend.” – Basil Johnston, THE MANITOUS (1995), Chapter 11, AUTTISSOOKAUNUK, describing the strangers with light complexions who landed on the brown man’s land and described Europe. Tribes had no concept for what he described, which was colonization and slavery.
Thanks for the summary, Peter! Another aspect, so-called higher learning. For example, by the 1800s the enforced paradigm became, “...literacy education as a passage between civilization and wilderness...” quote from, Removable Type: Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880 - Phillip H. Round, The University of North Carolina Press, 2010, p.120.
Thanks for the book reference!
thank you very very much for your excellent summary of this book
Peter,
Thank you for such a marvelous summary of that remarkable book!
There is a good case that every society is an experiment, anchored in stories and myths, and they all have strengths and weaknesses.
It is also quite apparent that the current dominant story, our Eurocentric western one, has some very serious and even fatal flaws.
Our current challenges are also our opportunities to evolve.
The stories and myths of other cultures potentially provides “the DNA“ to help us evolve as a species.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this urgent project.
Graeme
"Our current challenges are also our opportunities to evolve." ... well said!
Thank you for this post.
I will be buying "The Dawn of Everything" based on your excellent review. I know I will learn a lot--all I never learned in school.
I read *The Dawn of Everything* more than a year ago - as part of a huge question that keeps popping up: how can one and the same culture, or era [put in the simplest of terms], spawn Erasmus and slaveholders? Myriad paths open up - often invisible to one another, be it spontaneously or as a result of 'divide and rule/conquer'.
1) Drop out, "become an Indian" so to speak. I'd love to compose a historical novel about youngsters who do this in the 19th century; but I doubt that the two Davids would agree. It would strike them as overly 'Rousseau'; the absurdity of 'being born free [were we?] and everywhere in chains'. Mark Twain seems to have been acutely aware of the ways in which boys yearning for adventure - away from sunday schools and Christian grooming - are no less vulnerable to culture's mindfuck - sorry, system of domination - than buffalo slaughtering magnates. All the more surprising are extant reports of children who did manage to flee to a first nation and wanted to stay there - assuming for a moment that those nations would in the long run not be absorbed by the system 'marshalled' upon them. [I wonder how to interprete Kandiaronk's admission into French high society - though Jesuits!]
2) To me, it is an open question whether it is really possible to assume any identity other than the one I'm "raised" in. Identity politics won't suffice. Any "pretension" thereof mirrors 19th century (and at least by default [?]: our current era's) dominant "pretensions".** Nonetheless it seems feasible - if tricky - to honestly access non-same-culture sources of wisdom.
3) Which in turn begs the question of assessing - even honouring - my own forebears, even if they were (at least intellectually, but probably in practice as well) immersed in the domination system. I used to smear my grandparents' angst-ridden colonial nostalgia as a prototypical, slightly ridiculous case of "tempu dulu" [Bahasa Indonesia for 'past/bygone era'], lazily overlooking the trauma they got saddled with during mounting prewar tensions between various groups of the populace, Japanese occupancy, and postwar chaos - much of which was relived through an Alzheimer's lense during my mother's last years prior to her death in 2013 (she was born in 'Batavia' - now Jakarta - in 1928).
**remark above Steve Newcomb's review of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's autobiography: https://ictnews.org/archive/on-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-book-my-own-words
Darwin and others of his ilk made sure we LOST our sacred nature and beliefs.
[response 2] I've followed a conversation which DOES speak in favour of your stance ('the loss of our sacred nature and beliefs' - by creating 'synthetic'/chemical nature).
At least, this was my takeaway from https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/interview-with-leslie-manookian-heath#media-2f801ff5-21bc-4dca-83bc-7dedca688dc7
“In the 1700’s, eugenics really took off with writers amongst the interbred elite, like Charles Darwin. Darwin’s family only interbred with one other family for generations and that was the Wedgwood family, the famous pottery Wedgwood’s of England; his grandfather married one. His father married one. Charles married one and after his wife died, he married his mother’s sister, another Wedgwood. They’re all Wedgwood’s and Darwin’s all mixed together, you see, until they bring in some other outside blood—like the Galton’s, another sweet bunch who believed in population reduction. They end up with, or Charles did anyway, ten children from his first wife who died in childbirth and two wives who died in insane asylums very young. Too interbred, you see.”—Scottish historian Alan Watt
Duly noted - thank you for reminding me of the Wedgwood connection.
[response 1] Perhaps.
But can Darwin be satisfactorily be analysed in terms of the 'ilk' [Huxley dynasty etc] he was allegedly, and in some ways reluctanty, a part of?
Misgivings aside, I think we need to listen (in) to 'the enemy' without imbibing any of his words as technocratic/eugenic Scripture. In a practical dimension: evolution does yield (some...) insight into topics like 'microbes' and 'immunity', does it not?
I used this quote in my latest book ALMOST Dead Indians: “Try as he might to comprehend the life on the far side of the ocean that the white man described, the brown man was unable. Such a life was beyond belief. He could not envision one man or a small group of men and women owning all the land, all the animals, all who dwelt upon it, all the produce, man’s labor and his harvest, and men’s lives. But he felt sorry for his friend.” – Basil Johnston, THE MANITOUS (1995), Chapter 11, AUTTISSOOKAUNUK, describing the strangers with light complexions who landed on the brown man’s land and described Europe. Tribes had no concept for what he described, which was colonization and slavery.