[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Scott Roberts]

Arlo (Platt mentioned),

Arlo said:
I believe Pirsig's (and William Sidis') argument was not that the actual 
phrase
"all men are created equal" came from the Indians, but the value of this
belief. Europeans formalized it, but the premise came from the Indian.

Scott:
Then they're wrong. It came from social unrest in Europe, such as the 
Peasant's Rebellion in the 14th century (whence the famous phrase "When Adam 
delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"), and the English Civil 
War. Locke was followed by the Enlightenment philosophers, challenging 
authority in various ways, attacking such assumptions as the Divine Right of 
Kings, and in general, the aristocracy. All culminating (in Europe) with the 
French Revolution ("Liberty, *Equality*, Fraternity"). There was input from 
Indian culture in the formation of American democratic government (the 
Iroquois Confederacy, in particular), but the idea of human equality came 
from Europe. This doesn't mean it was absent in Indian culture, just that 
the source for Jefferson and his cohorts came from Europe. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal.

Arlo said:
As for warfare, I don't think so. He talked about "Primitive tribes such as 
the
American Indians have no record of sweetness and cooperation with other 
tribes.
They ambushed them, tortured them, dashed their children's brains out on 
rocks.
If man is basically good, then maybe it is man's basic goodness which 
invented
social institutions to repress this kind of biological savagery in the first
place."

Scott:
Yes, that's what I was referring to, and you're right....

Arlo said:
But this "biological savagery" was a characteristic of MAN, not some 
exclusive
value held by the Indian. To say that Indians valued "dashing their 
children's
brains out on rocks" is like saying Europeans valued "murder". (Also 
remember
that he points out "kindness to children" as an Indian value). And "warfare" 
is
also not exclusive to the Indian. In fact, I'm not sure how you can make an
argument that the Indian valued warfare, but the European did NOT?

Scott:
One cultural difference was that by the 19th century, Indians were still 
torturing their captives "for the hell of it" (as the whites saw it -- for 
the Indians it was more of a social ritual, a test of bravery), while the 
whites saw this as barbaric. Of course, whites all come out of cultures that 
practiced all sorts of barbarities, but by the 19th century had begun to see 
such stuff *as* barbaric. So when a white got captured, they would scream 
and beg for mercy -- something an Indian wouldn't do -- and so the Indian 
saw the white as inferior, and vice versa. A culture clash, in short, which 
we now mark against the Indians of that time, while marking other things 
(like "plain-speaking") in their favor.

And I agree -- and retract -- about warfare in general. Furthermore, I 
mostly agree with you in what you are saying to Platt, the Newspeak is a 
fault of *all* sides. That Platt focuses only on one side, and in general 
reduces complex problems to simple us/them categories, results in him losing 
credibility, in my opinion.

- Scott