[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[david buchanan]

Arlo, Scott and y'all:

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 replied:
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...

dmb says:
I'm with Arlo here. As I understand it, the European political philosophers 
"formalized" ideas about freedom and equality during the Enlightenment 
period as a response to the "noble savage" encountered in the new world. 
This is not to suggest that the idea of a natural man never occured to any 
European until after Colombus sailed from Spain. Not at all. Julius Ceasar 
admired the German tribal people for being natural. Interesting that Scott 
should mention Adam and Eve in this context. I can see how this is related, 
but I also think the "famous" phrase suggests that class is not an invention 
of God more than anything else. But its interesting to bring up the original 
couple because the "noble savage" is to be contrasted with "original sin". 
See, the standard view in Christian Europe was that man is essentially evil 
and in need of redemption whereas the romanitic view of the noble savage 
asserts the essential goodness of man. See, there is the natural man as 
sinner who is tamed and civilized by society and then there is the noble 
savage who lives in nature and is therefore uncorrupted by society. As I 
understand it, the idea of the "noble savage" basically overturned the 
mainstream Western beliefs about the essential nature of man and his 
relationship with society.

"And yet, although Jefferson called this doctrine of social equality "self- 
evident," it is not at all self-evident. Scientific evidence and the social 
evidence of history indicate the opposite is self-evident. There is no 
"self-evidence" in European history that all men are created equal. There's 
no nation in Europe that doesn't trace its history to a time when it was 
"self-evident" that all men are created unequal. Jean Jacques Rousseau, who 
is sometimes given credit for this doctrine, certainly didn't get it from 
the history of Europe or Asia or Africa. He got it from the impact of the 
New World upon Europe and from contemplation of one particular kind of 
individual who lived in the New World, the person he called the "Noble 
Savage."

Naturally, I'd rather be a noble savage than a savage noble.

Thanks
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/