the common history of societal progress - nature, savagery, agriculture, society - is a myth
there was a great diversity of social organization, "linear progress" is reductive and presumes "modern == better"
interactions of Europeans with American Natives challenged their views on social structure, morality, etc and contributed to the Enlightenment (particularly Kadirondak)
the myth of progress was a response to the indigenous criticism of European society
ie. Europe is further along in "progress", civilization requires compromises re freedom and equality
"When our ancestors mad the fatal decision to divide the earth into individually owned plots, creating legal structures to protect their property, then governments to enforce those laws, they imagined they were creating the means to preserve their liberty. In fact, they ran headlong to their chains." - Rousseau
one of the unique aspects of humans is that we engage in politics
"politics"
the ability to reflect consciously on different directions one's society could take, and to make explicit arguments why it should take one path rather than another
pre-history humans were likely as intelligent as we are
there is much evidence of societies that shifted between radically different social arrangements between seasons - hierarchical, authoritarian, patriarchal during hunting season; egalitarian, communal, anarchic, matriarchal during other times
much diversity among these arrangements
egalitarian society
most people in a given society feel they really ought to be the same in some specific way or ways that are agreed to be particularly important
that ideal can be said to be largely achieved in practice
cities existed before agriculture
schismogenesis
neighbouring similar cultures tend to find arbitrary ways to differentiate and polarize over time
culture often best described in terms of what isn't done, rather that what is
various cultures had various ways of avoiding the "tragedy of the commons"