Excerpt from The Dawn of Everything, English, Non fiction
Description
Vocal Characteristics
Language
EnglishTranscript
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
From the dawn of everything by David Graber and David, we grow in which we show how Europeans learn from Native Americans about the connection between reasoned debate, personal freedoms and the refusal of arbitrary power in political terms. Then French and Americans were not arguing about equality but about freedom. About the only specific reference to political equality that appears in the 71 volumes of the Jesuit relations occurs as an aside in an account of an event in 16 48 it happened in a settlement of Christianized Wende near the town of Quebec after a disturbance caused by a shipload of illegal liquor finding its way into the community. The governor persuaded when that leaders to agree to a prohibition of alcoholic beverages and published an edict to that effect. Crucially, the governor notes backed up by the threat of punishment. Father Lamont again records the story for him. This was an apoca event from the beginning of the world to the coming of the French. The savages have never known what it was so solemnly to forbid anything to their people under any penalty, however slight they are free people, each of whom considers himself of as much consequence as the others. And they submit to their chiefs only insofar as it pleases them. Equality here is a direct extension of freedom. Indeed is its expression. It also has almost nothing in common with the more familiar Eurasian notion of equality before the law, which is ultimately equality before the sovereign. That is once again, equality and common subjugation. Americans by contrast, were equal in so far as they were equally free to obey or disobey orders as they saw fit the democratic governance of the debt and the five nations of the Hoai, which so impressed later European readers was an expression of the same principle. If no compulsion was allowed, then obviously such social coherence as did exist, had to be created through recent debate, persuasive arguments and the establishment of social consensus. Here we return to the matter with which we began the European enlightenment as the apotheosis of the principle of open and rational debate. We've already mentioned se's grudging respect for the facility and logical argumentation. A theme that also runs through most Jesuit accounts at this point. It is important to bear in mind that Jesuits were the intellectuals of the Catholic world trained in classical rhetoric and techniques of disputation. Jesuits had learned the Americans languages primarily so as to be able to argue with them to persuade them of the superiority of the Christian faith, yet they regularly found themselves startled and impressed by the quality of counterarguments, they had to contend with how could such rhetorical facility have come to those with no awareness of the works of Vero and quintillion in considering the matter, the Jesuits almost always noted the openness with which public fairs were conducted. So, Father Leen Superior of the Jesuits in Canada. In the 16 thirties, there are almost none of them incapable of conversing or reasoning very well. And in good terms on matters within their knowledge, the councils held almost every day in the villages and on almost all matters, improve their capacity for talking. Or in Lamont's words, I can say in truth that as regards intelligence, they are in no wise inferior to Europeans and those who dwell in France. I would never have believed that without instruction, nature could have supplied a most ready and vigorous eloquence which I have admired in many huon or more clear sightedness in public affairs or more discrete management in things to which they are accustomed.