The 'Noble Savage' and We the Indians

Reading Blog 10

We the Indians is a very good book, I’ve really enjoyed reading and discussing it. One quote from the conclusion, which my group brought up in class, really had me reflecting on some particular concepts within Indigenous studies.

“The indigenous populations are the least distorted by capitalism and its consumer society. The more ‘savage’ and ‘backward’ an indigenous population is, the less tamed it is, conserving its original human principles in the purest form. In Peru it was the rainforest population, who were looked on with contempt even by the indigenous people of the mountains who taught us how to defend Mother Earth, unifying various ethnicities and laying down their lives.” (Blanco 171)

This quote makes me think about the concept of the ‘noble savage’, a colonial interpretation of the Indigenous subject that I have studied in previous courses. Blanco seems to be describing the Indigenous peoples of the highlands as the ‘noble savage’, as they are considering themselves ‘above’ those of the rainforest. However, Blanco’s undertone is describing both groups favourably, as he describes the Indigenous peoples of the rainforest as representing “original human principles in the purest form.” The use of ‘pure’ to describe these peoples is evident of the ‘noble’ status Blanco is ascribing to them. Now, I don’t actually know much about our author outside of what he is telling me as the reader in the book, but I don’t think he is actually intentionally falling in with the ‘noble savage’ concept. I just noticed, especially in his language, evidence of this colonial narrative. Another key example is his description of the Indigenous highland peoples as teachers who “taught us how to defend Mother Earth.” More often than not, the Indigenous peoples who were considered by colonizers as ‘noble’ were those who were helpful, in the sense of generosity in first contacts specifically. The criteria specifically revolved around those who were physically fit, sexually ‘free’ (particularly the women), and living in close proximity to the ‘wild’. The thing about the noble savage was that it was kind of a form of projection; the European colonizers envied those they considered ‘noble’ Indigenous peoples for these traits. However, the concept was ever-evolving, so if an Indigenous people deviated from this criteria, they would lose this ‘noble’ consideration in an instant. The concept of the ‘noble savage’ was particularly prevalent in the Americas and among Pacific Island Indigenous communities. Oftentimes, portrayals of the Inca remind me of this concept, as the King Inca has often been described and portrayed in art as physically robust and living in tandem with the ‘wild’ Andes mountains. However, drawing again from Blanco’s quote, his consideration of the Amazonian Indigenous peoples of the Peruvian rainforest as the ‘purest’ and as free with their bodies, as he states later on page 173, “many of them do not use clothing on their bodies because it is too hot,” indicates that they could have fit into the arbitrary criteria of the ‘noble savage’ as well.

Again, it is his language and descriptors that have inspired this reflection on the concept, more so than his tone; I don’t think Blanco was trying to add to the ‘noble savage’ narrative. However, I question how this narrative can be traced back through our other course texts, and through more colonial writing on various Indigenous groups of and Indigeneity in Peru.