Let's talk about the noble savage.

[howard112211]

I have recently come across that term for the first time, here on DU, in the context of a certain recent Hollywood movie and thought I would read it up, since what I read here confused me.

Basically, the term goes back to the 1600s and 1700s and was coined by different philosophers,
including Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

How it is usually defined is, that people are believing in the „noble savage“ when they believe that
„humans are good by nature, and all bad characteristics stem from the corruption of this good nature by the influence of civilisation“.

I must state at this point that I do not believe in this at all. I believe that humans evolved from apes, and that they will behave like apes if they are not educated to do otherwise.

Also, I think that even the most liberal among the „anti-authoritarian“ educators have realized that
a child will not benefit from being presented with no structure at all.

The way this term was brought up here on DU however, was in the context of movies
that portray tribal people as posessing characteristics other than being primitive, some of which
are superiour to „western“ type civilisations.

I do not see this connection. First of all, indigineous tribes are far from being „untouched by civilisation“. They have a civilisation of their own, which is simply different, but is far from being „without structure“.

Furthermore, parts of these civilisations could in fact be objectively viewed as „better“ than the „modern“ civilisation which they supposably are to be compared with. Take the north american Indians for example. I think it is an indisputable fact that, aside from whatever flaws and one may attribute to them, they did not produce enviroment damaging waste
at a massive scale like industrialized countries routinely do, and did in fact respect the animals that they hunted for food. Also they were not
plagued by an obesity epedemic.

From what I read, the term „noble savage“ is intimately connected to the history of colonialism
and slavery. On the wikipedia page (which I assume my be quoted in full text here) I found the following interesting piece of information:

In 1860, two British white supremacists, John Crawfurd and James Hunt mounted a defense of British imperialism based on “scientific racism". Crawfurd, in alliance with Hunt, took over the presidency of the Ethnological Society of London, which, as a branch of the Aborigines' Protection Society, had been founded with the mission to defend indigenous peoples against slavery and colonial exploitation. Invoking "science" and "realism", the two men derided their "philanthropic" predecessors for believing in human equality and for not recognizing that mankind was divided into superior and inferior races. Crawfurd, who opposed Darwinian evolution, "denied any unity to mankind, insisting on immutable, hereditary, and timeless differences in racial character, principal amongst which was the 'very great' difference in 'intellectual capacity.'" For Crawfurd, the races had been created separately and were different species. Since Crawfurd was Scots, he thought the Scots "race" superior and all others inferior; whilst Hunt, on the other hand, believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon "race". Crawfurd and Hunt routinely accused those who disagreed with them of believing in "Rousseau’s Noble Savage". The pair ultimately quarreled because Hunt believed in slavery and Crawfurd did not. "As Ter Ellingson demonstrates, Crawfurd was responsible for re-introducing the Pre-Rousseauian concept of 'the Noble Savage' to modern anthropology, attributing it wrongly and quite deliberately to Rousseau.”

and further down

"If Rousseau was not the inventor of the Noble Savage, who was?" writes Ellingson,

One who turns for help to Fairchild's 1928 study, a compendium of citations from romantic writings on the "savage" may be surprised to find (his book) The Noble Savage almost completely lacking in references to its nominal subject. That is, although Fairchild assembles hundreds of quotations from ethnographers, philosophers, novelists, poets, and playwrights from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth Century, showing a rich variety of ways in which writers romanticized and idealized those who Europeans considered "savages", almost none of them explicitly refer to something called the "Noble Savage". Although the words, always duly capitalized, appear on nearly every page, it turns out that in every instance, with four possible exceptions, they are Fairchild's words and not those of the authors cited.
Ellingson finds that any remotely positive portrayal of an indigenous (or working class) person is apt to be characterized (out of context) as a supposedly "unrealistic" or "romanticized" "Noble Savage". He points out that Fairchild even includes as an example of a supposed "Noble Savage", a picture of a Negro slave on his knees, lamenting lost his freedom. According to Ellingson, Fairchild ends his book with a denunciation of the (always un-named) believers in primitivism or "The Noble Savage" -- whom he feels are threatening to unleash the dark forces of irrationality on civilization.

Ellingson argues that the term "noble savage", an oxymoron, is a derogatory one, which those who oppose "soft" or romantic primitivism use to discredit (and intimidate) their supposed opponents, whose romantic beliefs they feel are somehow threatening to civilization. Ellingson maintains that virtually none of those accused of believing in the "noble savage" ever actually did so. He likens the practice of accusing anthropologists (and other writers and artists) of belief in the noble savage to a secularized version of the inquisition, and he maintains that modern anthropologists have internalized these accusations to the point where they feel they have to begin by ritualistically disavowing any belief in "noble savage" if they wish to attain credibility in their fields. He notes that text books with a painting of a handsome Native American (such as the one one by Benjamin West on this page) are even given to school children with the cautionary caption, "A painting of a Noble Savage".

To summarize: It appears as if the term „noble savage“ is somewhat of a strawman, used discredit anyone who
suggests that other cultures may posess traits that are superiour or even only equal to ours.

I tend to think that complaints about the „noble savage myth“ are a right-wing meme, that are used to justify colonialism and imperialism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. You're misusing the term.

In this context "noble savage" refers to the racist hollywood cliche, much like the "magic negro" stereotype. Many Hollywood movies are badly written, Avatar among them, continually stick minorities into these stereotypes. There's the mystic noble native american who uses his magical powers to save the white hero (I don't know, Poltergeist 2 for example), then there's the friendly non-threatening African American in rags and a charming southern accent who uses his magical powers to help our white hero (Bagger Vance). That includes tall blue thinly veiled metaphors for Native Americans. Native Americans were and are just like anybody else. Some were noble, some were dicks.

Oh, and as an aside "civilization" refers to some culture/people/nation which builds cities. Civil engineer, civic works, civilian, all from the same root. The Native Americans, not having built permanent cities, would not be considered a civilization. Cultured? Sure.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Have not built permanent cities? Slap yourself for being stupid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I will if you will.

There were various semi-nomadic villages in the north east. There were some very large seasonal camps in the Great Lakes regions, the name of the tribes escapes me. There were cliff dwellings in the south west, longhouses in the north wests. There were the mound builders. There was the Mississipian culture which may have arguably been a civilization, although that's hundreds of years out of the context of "Native America" as we're using it- North American, post-Columbian. Now the Mayans- there was a civilization. You could call them Native Americans I guess, but that's stretching the context again.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Get yourself a library card and do some research.

Oh, also, the mayans are Native Americans. Just because today we have made up new man made borders doesn't mean they weren't native Americans.

Also, those cities in the SW US were permanent cities.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Get yourself internet access and read post #4.

I'll say it once again- the Mayans were Native American in the literal sense of the term, but in the context we're using here. Nobody's argued that the Mayans didn't have a civilization.

And I don't think the cave dwellings, Chaco canyon, etc. would qualify as permanent cities.

[Chulanowa]

13. Holy shit, I'm sorry, but that's just dumb

"You could call them Native Americans I guess, but that's stretching the context again."

No! It's not! Good fucking lord, man. Everyone from the Inupiat south to the Fuegans were (and are) Native Americans. Though most of us use the term "Indians."

The vast majority of these people were settled in permanent or seasonally permanent homes, founded what could definitely be called "civilizations" and even to this day, properly call themselves nations. The only spots that had regular nomads were those places where nomadism was the best choice - the tundra, the continental divide, Patagonia and northern Great Plains.

The Spanish and early English explorers found very definite civilizations. The Missisippian civilization and its satellites met (and kicked the ass of) De Soto. Mayan city-states had lost their empire but were no less civilized than middle-ages Europe. The Pueblo people of the southwest lived in communities that would very rightly be called "cities" if they were found in the Near East instead of the American southwest. The people of the pacific Northwest built extensive villages and though divided into lots of different bands and tribes, shared a rather common culture in those towns. Over on the eastern seaboard, the English could sail for days and never find wilderness - it was all huge corn fields and well-populated towns. Way down in the southern continent, Spanish explorers found towns and cities of similar size all along the Amazon basin, and archaeological evidence points towards there being huge irrigation systems supporting extensive townships in Bolivia. And of course there were the Mexica and Inca, both of whom were as much a state as any European power of the time.

These civilizations came crashing down because of disease. Diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox don't travel well in untrammeled wilderness between isolated tribes. They need close company to spread. And these diseases shot across both continents like wildfire. The Inca were dying of smallpox and influenza before any Europeans knew there was such a people. The "tribes wandering through untouched wilderness" image, is more accurately a depiction of refugees fleeing from fatal pandemics, the shattered remnants of once-great societies.

The history of the Americas stretches between both continents and doesn't begin with European contact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. When people say "Native American"

...which Native Americans do you typically think they're referring to?

Be honest.

[Chulanowa]

16. Depends, how ignorant are these people you're asking about?

'Cause I mean all my cousins in the Western Hemisphere. It's not my fault that Hollywood has taught all the dumb white kids that only Lakota in war bonnets can be called "Native Americans"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. The ones that are not so ignorant that they can't read context.

[Chulanowa]

25. Again, not my fault that the context presented is incorrect

Native Americans spanned both continents.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. It's not that the context is "incorrect..."

it's that you're purposefully being obtuse. When the OP is describing the view of some people that Native Americans did not have civilization, he's not referring to the Mayans because everybody agrees the Mayans had civilization.

[Chulanowa]

44. Even then, it's wrong

Because the Native Americans of North America did have civilization - both in the sociological definition of the word, and in your super-restrictive definition of "having cities".

I suppose I am being obtuse, but only because I'm trying to counter ignorance and educate you, and whoever else may be confused on this issue. the people of the Americas - North, South, Caribbean, Arctic, wherever - were, for the most part, every bit as civilized as the Eurasians and Africans of the time. The popular image of nomadic forest-dwellers is a recent part of their history, brought on by the destructiveness of contact with Europeans. The slave trade had a similar effect on Africa, and even Asian's civilizations came close to the brink during the chaos caused by imperialism by foreign powers.

To put it bluntly, the presumption of the OP is wrong.

[comrade snarky]

20. Sorry HFPS

I would include people from more than what became the United States of America in the term Native Americans.

It covers everybody on both continents in 1491. Honest.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Who do you think the tall smurfs in Avatar are supposed to represent?

The Mayans? Or the cliched Lakota warriors that Chulanowa mentioned?

[comrade snarky]

28. Dunno, haven't seen it

Probably wont bother either. I want more than effects for my movie dollar.

But that doesn't change anything about the term "Native American" meaning more than a stereotypical N. American plains indian. I would suggest not going to the Yucatan and telling the Maya there that they aren't Native Americans.

Most of those dudes aren't tall, but I remember one guy who had to turn sideways to get his shoulders through a standard doorway. :evilgrin:

[Chulanowa]

29. On that note...

I get a chuckle at how apparently, if you speak Spanish you can't be an Indian. All these people coming north over the border? Most of 'em are Indians. But they don't have feathers in their hair and they don't worship The Great owl or whatever, so they "don't count".

Very bizarre

[comrade snarky]

31. Reminds me of a line from the Simpsons

When Homer says something is mythical like "Leprechauns or Eskimos"! If those guys aren't Native Americans there sure were a bunch of unusual looking Spaniards who settled in Oaxaca.

Thing is, I'm sure HFPS is right, there are people who think Native American means plains indian. Doesn't mean they're right or that the rest of us should accept that explanation.

Just like having an ignorant excuse for a President saying nuk-u-lar doesn't make that right either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. When people say "American" who do you think they're talking about?

Yes, technically that could be anybody from North or South American. But 99 times out of 100 it specifically refers to a citizen of the USA.

The same general rule applies to Native American. Or African American. Or Irish American.

[comrade snarky]

35. Sometimes sure, like I said above

Some people don't know what the heck they are talking about. No where near 99% though. At least not in my circles, even the most noble savage infected crystaly new ager I know wouldn't do that.

Part of the problem is the silliness of the English language and the arrogance of the US to want the name of two whole freakin' continents for ourselves.

What do you call someone with parents from Ghana who grew up in Ireland and moved to Ohio? Black Irish American? No, that's taken already.

Dang...

[PufPuf23]

34. "Noble Savages" is an Ignorant term

Your writings are those of an ignorant and offensive poster.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I'm not the one using it, goofball.

[PufPuf23]

37. I read the entire thread before responding to you. nt

The term is offensive and what you wrote is ignorant. Sorry. JMHO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Maybe.

But apparently you didn't read it very well.

I'm objecting the "noble savage" stereotype.

Reading is fundamental.

[paulsby]

2. noble savage is neither a strawman nor a right wing meme

and fwiw, it might have been me you referred to. i referred to the noble savage myth in regards to avatar, and iirc also referencing back to 'dances with wolves'

the noble savage myth is essentially the fun house mirror opposite of the "savage savage" myth. iow, one portrayal of indiginous people's is a total distortion on one side of the spectrum, as little more than rapacious animals.

the noble savage myth is the exact opposite where (we see this in numerous movies and books), the indiginous culture is portrayed as oh so in touch with nature, with how things "really are", etc. etc. it is (also) largely mythological.

i used to see this a lot in hawaii in regards to kanaka maoli.

the noble savage myth underplays (or completely ignores) negative aspects of native culture and puts them on a pedestal. it's just as stupid as the "savage savage' myth in that it turns a culture into a cartoon stereotype.

the noble savage myth in regards to native americans is also ridiculous, because there is VAST (to put it mildly) diversity in native tribes. for example, some were quite viking like. essentially, they survived and thrived by raiding, raping, and pillaging. others, were more agrarian. there's pretty good evidence that despite the "stewards of nature" elements of the noble savage myth, that some tribes were responsible for a great amount of deforestation and environmental devastation.

the worst aspect of the noble savage myth (imo) is the luddite aspect. iow, the idea that if only we could throw away all these shackles of technology, society, etc. that we would be so much happier, healthier, etc. this is just patently absurd.

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

Interesting subject

These terms and 'concepts' are always methods of dehumanizing the working classes.

[Chulanowa]

7. I regard "noble savage" as pretty demeaning

It's the same thing as "magic negro" or the more obscure, "Asian kung fu master." It comes with the assumption hat the person in question isn't really a person, complete with interests, flaws, opinions, likes and dislikes. Rather it turns them into a thing, some alien "other" for white people to admire and gawk at like a zoo exhibit. It never crosses their minds that the noble savage / magic negro / kung fu master might have a purpose to their life other than giving white people an uplifting, "spiritual" message to make them feel better about themselves. The only purpose of these stereotypical archetypes is to provide a service to improve white people's lots.

You point out that the North American Indians didn't produce industrial-level pollution and weren't plagued by obesity. This is entirely out of context of the reasons why; instead you're trying to use these as examples of how Indians were superior to Europeans - why? Because they're Indians and it comes naturally, one is left to presume. The actual reason is that Indians didn't have major industry. It wasn't that they "nobly" chose to abstain... it's simply that they lacked it.

Fuck, just look at the term. Noble savage. You think anyone wants to be called a savage, whether it's appended with "noble" or not? Ironically that's a really good way to get yourself savaged.

[howard112211]

11. Rarely are characters in stories "complete persons".

Usually they are defined by one or a few rough charactersitics.

Gandalf is the "wise old man". He has no flaws and is no complete person. Does that mean it is somehow demeaning?

Also, the term "noble savage" is usually not used by those who are accused of believing in it.

edit: OMG what on earth is a "magic negro"?? now i will have to go to wikipedia all over again...

[Chulanowa]

15. Gandalf is also a magical being belonging to a fictional race

I don't think there are any Maiar around to get upset at his one-dimensional depiction. Sort of like how there's no orc interest groups.

Trying to compare this to depictions of indians being magical and spiritual and flawless simply because they're Indians is just silly.

And "magic negro" is a stereotype-archetype, the descendant of the Slave-era Old Uncle / Mammy archetype. It's a character who, through soley through being black, has a big bag of good ol' folk wisdom, common sense, and is able to perform amazing, almost magical things. Most often he uses these abilities either to improve the life of a white kid. Willie Brown from "Crossroads" and Bagger Vance from "The Legend of Bagger Vance" are obvious examples. Even Morpheus from "The Matrix" could count - and The Oracle from the same movie is so completely over the top with this meme that I'm certain she's there to lampshade it.

Take a look on TVtropes, you'll find a good definition and a list of examples.

[howard112211]

19. I think the idea of flawless beings existed before it was projected onto indians

Every culture or religion has its "angels" or "elves". How do you think would be a good way for humans to live out their fantasy world of perfect beings?

[Chulanowa]

22. But angels and elves don't actually exist

Pardon me if I don't feel like being lumped into the same category as a fucking mythological creature.

By the by... Ever actually read up on elves? Not the Tolkein kind, but the little sons of bitches in the mythology? I'd hardly call those guys "flawless"... They're total assholes most of the time.

[howard112211]

24. All I am saying is that...

...many people are very naive about things they don't know, and the fact that they fall for an idealized picture of something does not necessarily imply that they look down on others.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. An idealized stereotype is still a stereotype.

The "mammy" stereotype may be sentimental and endearing, yet it's still insulting.

[Chulanowa]

27. Not necessarily

Honestly, if people took the "Noble Savage" stereotype, felt inspired, and then actually learned the facts and history of our peoples, then I would be fine with it serving as sort of a "gateway drug"

That's usually not what happens. Instead the noble savage becomes the take-home message, the be-all end-all for the reader / moviegoer. And you get crap like "Yeah so like, the Indians were totally spiritual and like took care of the animals and stuff? I dunno."

At least with the "magic negro," most people will meet enough black people in their lives to realize that hey, that stereotype is kinda stupid and offensive. Unless you live in Oklahoma or Alaska or somewhere, the same isn't likely to happen with the "noble savage"

[howard112211]

30. Reading your other posts here....

... I think we are on the same side. Unfortunately I gotta check out now.

Congratulations, you made me feel like "the glass that is already full" ;) A buddhist parable, although someone somewhere probably thinks I believe in the noble savage because I have read some buddhism ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Have you read the actual novel The Lord of the Rings?

Wasn't there there rather stereotypical NA cliche that Strider runs into in Return of the King? They were cut in the movie.

[howard112211]

21. which one are you referring to?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. The Return of the King.

After Strider and companions leave the Paths of the Dead, they're set upon by a group of NA stereotypes, who almost kill them with their poison arrows, before beings convinced to fight for the good guys against the evil orcs and Arab and African stereotypes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. You may be thinking of the 'Wild Men of the Forest'

It's not Strider, but the Riders of Rohan who encounter them. Yeah, I think they count as 'noble savages' - they're shy hunter-gatherers with great woodcraft who lead Rohan on a short cut so they can get to the battle on time, and just want to be left alone, but are on the right side. And they speak a sort of pidgin English (not that it's called English in the book, of course).

Though they're not necessarily NA stereotypes: British folklore has some tales about the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Britain, and how they still lived in the woods and hills long after the Celts arrived (though real anthropology is tending to say Celtic culture arrived, these days, rather than a large influx of new people), and Tolkien may well have been drawing on that.

Strider, after the Paths of the Dead (in the book) just goes through inhabited lands of Gondor. I don't thik there are any 'noble savages' in that section.

[winyanstaz]

9. As a Native American Mc'kmaq...I find it ludicrous

that once again...whitemen are trying to define us and tell us what we were or were not.
"Savage" is a demeaning term...usually applied to others by savages.

[howard112211]

10. Well. The terms "noble savage" is usually not used by those accused of believing in it...

[winyanstaz]

12. :) true....

[Bucky]

39. Well, I for one believe quotation marks should be superscript, not subscript.

I expect I will be persecuted for these beliefs... and I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Your punctuation is an Ignorant punctuation.

Offended and Alerting.

[bemildred]

43. I'm OK with that.

I dunno if I'd call it "right-wing", but "Orientalism" or "Colonialist" or "Paternalistic" would work for me. "Right-wing" is itself a parochial term.

[JCMach1]

45. It also has roots in the thoughts/ideas surrounding Romanticism

i.e. that somehow being closer to nature makes you purer, healthier, spiritual, etc.

So, it wasn't a right-wing meme at all. If you know the history of the Romantic movement, you know about how they idealized the French Revolution at first and would (obviously) have been reading philosophers like Rousseau. i.e. it's LIBERALISM

In the 20th century, theorists like Edward Said, deconstructed similar memes.

Said would probably say that the image of the noble savage is similar to how natives of the 'exotic' east were portrayed.

-illogical
-child-like
-relying on nature to survive
-prone to violence... etc.

So, the first move is that the noble savage concept was just one in a serious of archetypes, memes, images, used by the Romantic movement to reject the whole nexus of 18th century enlightenment philosophy and beliefs.

The second move (in the 20th century) was to reject the Romantic enterprise and deconstruct how it did things like uphold and scaffold colonialism with concepts such as the 'noble savage'.

People like movies like Avatar because it revives the old ideals of the Romantic movement inside a modern form. This is why even conservatives can enjoy that film on an artistic level. At the level of politics, it is also LIBERAL. Not in the modern sense, but in the 19th century definition of liberal.

But to stop there is to ignore a century of scholarship that deconstructs the romantic artistic enterprise and sees it as part of the liberal, colonialist agenda (in the 19th century it wasn't just the Right who were colonialists).

However, it shouldn't prevent us from enjoying art in this mode... be it a Beerstadt, a poem by Wordsworth,

or an entertaining movie about blue monkey/cats that presents a liberal fantasy about the resistance of native people's to colonization.





Sorry for unleashing my inner professor... :(

[fishwax]

46. Racist Stereotypes Dehumanize, and the term "Noble Savage" is a way to describe a racist stereotype

which presents a mere caricature of Native American culture. (It isn't restricted to Native Americans, incidentally--the term has been used to refer to representations of other indigenous populations as well.) Far from being a right-wing meme, it has been employed by critics (including thinkers in fields like Native American studies and postcolonial studies) who take issue with representations of Native cultures within the dominant culture.

There are a number of problems with the whole noble savage myth, many of which have been discussed above. Another central problem with this tradition of representation is that it renders invisible the diversity and vitality of Native American cultures today. This has actually been a common theme in attitudes towards Native Americans since the founding of the Republic: "they had a great culture," the logic went, "but it's gone now and isn't that sad and lets move on." Living people are transformed, in this cultural imagination, into museum pieces. What's more, the extension of this logic held that, since this ideal culture had been thus degraded, there was nothing that could (or needed, or ought) be done for those Native Americans who survived this process.

Perhaps I need to reiterate this, since there is sometimes the perception that the whole noble savage myth is pretty harmless--simply a "wow, Natives are cool!" kind of thing. What makes the noble savage figure in representations of Native Americans so culturally appealing is the very fact that the noble savage was destroyed by the process of civilization. In other words, the logic of the Noble Savage myth holds that the apotheosis of Native American culture is in its extinction. That's pretty messed up.