For Locke Indians were 'wild', 'like savages', and devoid of the capacity to raise themselves unaided to the level of the 'civilized part of mankind'. Since they lacked the basic drive to accumulate wealth and engage in international commerce, without which property, the arts and sciences and political society were impossible, they would, if left to themselves forever remain in the same state of nature.
Locke's second assumption related to this monistic vision of the good life... He never asked if the Indian way of life might not be good in its own way, represent a different view of human flourishing, and contain elements missing in his own way of life and from which he might learn something. Even when Locke noticed that Indians led peaceful and content lives, were 'free of hurry and worry'.... did not quarrel over property, settled disputes peacefully, avoided litigation and generally did not commit offences, the qualities he himself admire in other cotexts, he did not ask how these qualities were developed and nurtured by the Indian way of life and whether it might have useful lessons for him.
