Ultra-patriarchal ways of life are characteristic primarily of settled, agricultural, and urban societies that have property, inheritance, surplus production, and institutional hierarchies. If by indigenous we mean societies that have a lot less of that, including hunting and gathering societies, then it seems to be the case that they are and were mostly more egalitarian and less patriarchal. — Jamal

There is no way in which that is anywhere even slightly close to true.

The closer people get to the harsh, brutal realities of survival in nature, being unsupported by large scale institutions, the less egalitarian they get. Hobbes was right about the state of nature and it's frankly amazing that Rousseau lived before air conditioning because otherwise you have to be on a hell of a lot of laudanum to believe some of the stuff he said.

Anthropologists treat it as an empirical question, not a thought experiment. The evidence from many small-scale foraging societies is that they're relatively egalitarian compared with most agricultural state societies, though of course there's variation. If you think that’s wrong, I think you should point to anthropological research showing the opposite. Simply asserting that closer to nature = less egalitarian is unconvincing.

Neither did Austrailian aboriginees or the theoretical inhabitants of distant galaxies but when the majority population of a society prospers then that is, without qualification, a historically massive achievement for any society to ever be able to claim anywhere. — BenMcLean

I disagree. A society in which 51% prosper and 49% starve does not represent a "massive achievement", nor did the U.S. of the '50s and '60s. Besides, the well-paying working-class jobs of that era were well-paying by dint of the efforts of unions, which were all leftist. Also, the global economy and computerization have made such working-class jobs obsolete.

Wengrow and Graeber argue persuasively that the liberal, individual rights European philosophers of the 17th century were influenced by Native American philosophy. I won't bother to repeat their arguments; if you're interested, get the book. IN general, the book is an anti-Neo-Marxist approach to anthropology. It argues that instead of being shaped by class conflict or the economic infrastructure, simple cultures (like our own) are more intentional. People (philosophers?) think about the society they want, and work to achieve it.

The "liberal" individual rights proponents the modern right admires (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) borrowed "liberally" from Native American philosophers. — Ecurb

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious, and adapted to enlightenment thinking. That doesn't seem to be particularly well supported, although, the previous denial of any influence is also apparently not well supported.

Simply asserting that closer to nature = less egalitarian is unconvincing. — Jamal

Not only were simple societies more egalitarian, but they were also healthier. Average height (a reasonable measure of health) decreased by 3-4" with the advent of civilization. Why? Probably a diet based on single grains, disease caused by increased population density, and polluted water supplies were the culprits. Of course the elites were healthier than the hoi palloi, but they constituted a small percentage of the population.

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious — AmadeusD

If nothing else, the age of exploration exposed Europeans to cultures with which they had previously been unfamiliar -- including pre-civilization societies. This doubtless influenced Hobbes and Rousseau to speculate about the essential nature of humans. Both notions -- that of the Noble Savage, and that of the brutish savage -- were called into question by reports (often confused and contradictory) about actual cultures. Graeber and Wengrow suggest that the popularity of the travel reports, as well as the information from actual Indians who travelled back to Europe, could very well have influenced philosophy (although it's not certain).

Yes, i understand. I doubt it was particularly moving besides your first point - finally having access to the fact that there are pre-civilised (as it were - horrid term) societies must have been a real upheaval.