965 words 
The myth of the “noble savage” — a vision of indigenous peoples as gentle, egalitarian, and in perfect harmony with nature — has bewitched the Western imagination for centuries. It is a myth born not of anthropology or history, but of guilt and escapism. As the industrialized world wrestles with its own ecological and moral failures, it projects virtue onto pre-industrial cultures, imagining them as paragons of peace and sustainability.But the record — historical, ethnographic, and archaeological — tells a vastly different story. The obsession with indigenous purity does not withstand even modest scrutiny.
In Robert Whelan’s seminal publication Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage, it is shown that the very idea of the ecologically sensitive primitive stems from Renaissance-era fantasies. When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, he declared that the inhabitants were “gentle and always laughing,” and claimed they had no religion and “knew no evil.” This was less ethnographic observation than marketing pitch — designed to assure royal patrons that he had found a New World untouched by sin.
And yet, these same “innocent” peoples practiced cannibalism. As early as the 16th century, Montaigne attempted to reframe cannibalistic rituals in Brazil as no worse than European cruelty. He romanticized accounts of tribes roasting captives and eating their flesh as quaint expressions of courage and ritual honor — overlooking the brutal reality: these were acts of ritualized murder and consumption.
The romantic image has only deepened in modern discourse. Indigenous peoples are often described as possessing an innate conservation ethic — stewards of the Earth who took only what they needed. However, Allyn Maclean Stearman aptly corrects this point in a fascinating article. Where ecological balance did exist, it was usually enforced by scarcity, not ideology. In parts of Amazonia where soils were poor and protein scarce, groups developed complex rules for land and resource use. But these were not moral choices — they were survival strategies, shaped by necessity.
As such in places where resources were more plentiful, such restraint vanished. For example, among the Yuqui of lowland Bolivia, who lived in a relatively abundant ecosystem, no conservation behaviors were observed. There were no taboos against overhunting, no spiritual prohibitions on waste. Resource use was determined by convenience and opportunity, not cosmic harmony.
The environmental myth collapses further when one examines how some indigenous groups treated the natural world. Contrary to popular belief, many Amazonian tribes engaged in destructive practices: burning vast areas of forest, overhunting game species to the brink, and rapidly depleting their surroundings. The idea that they lived as ecological saints is a fiction born of selective evidence and deliberate omission.
But ecological idealization is only part of the problem. Even more disturbing is the refusal to confront the extreme violence that characterized many pre-modern societies — not as aberrations, but as routine. Edible People by Christian Siefkes provides exhaustive documentation of culturally sanctioned cannibalism, slavery, and ritual murder across Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. In New Zealand, for instance, the Māori not only consumed enemies but developed entire systems of fattening and slaughtering slaves for food. Cannibalism was not a response to famine. It was institutional — an assertion of power, status, and conquest. Of note is that women and children were not spared. Furthermore, slaves were treated as livestock: fattened, butchered, and eaten during feasts.
In the Congo basin, human flesh was openly traded. Slaves captured during raids were sometimes sold not for labor, but for consumption. Missionary accounts and colonial photographs from the late 19th century show human limbs being roasted over fires, while children captured in raids were sometimes consumed as a public display of domination.
Cannibalism in these societies was not the rare or symbolic act some scholars have tried to suggest. It was systemic. In some regions of Central Africa, certain social classes were expected to consume human flesh, and some communities regularly trafficked in the bodies of war captives. In one image from a Belgian colonial magazine, “slave girls being fattened for the cannibal feast” are shown — not as propaganda, but as documentation of a known reality.
Meanwhile, in the Americas, the Maya conducted large-scale child sacrifices, as evidenced by altars unearthed in Guatemala. Rather than expressing outrage, as is customary when discussing European violence, one archaeologist responded by claiming, “It was their way of connecting with the celestial bodies.” This is the problem in essence: the willful suspension of moral judgment in the name of cultural relativism.
Even social structures among indigenous groups were not the egalitarian utopias they are often imagined to be. In Amazonian societies, access to prime fishing waters and fertile land was often monopolized by elites. Power was passed down through lineage, and rigid hierarchies dictated who ate, who worked, and who climbed trees — an act metaphorically and literally reserved for “slaves.”
It is no act of respect to excuse these realities. It is patronizing and dishonest. When Westerners strip indigenous peoples of moral agency by refusing to criticize brutality, they reduce them to symbolic avatars — vessels of whatever values are currently fashionable. We do not excuse ritual human sacrifice in other historical societies. We do not celebrate cannibalism as a cultural artifact when it occurs in medieval Europe. So, why then do we treat it as sacred when it appears in the practices of non-Western peoples?
Indigenous societies have nothing to teach us that history has not already made clear. Moral virtue is not the exclusive domain of those untouched by modernity, nor is violence a symptom unique to civilization. The human story — in every culture, every age — is marked by survival, power, brutality, and adaptation. The sooner we discard the myth of the noble savage, the easier we can replace it with something far more valuable: truth. Not the truth of myth or metaphor, but of complex, uncomfortable and liberating facts.
21 comments
Montaigne was part Jewish, so that’s not surprising.
When whites stopped believing in christian heaven, marxist thinking filled the void. For many whites it’s necessary for their mental well-being to believe that all evil is unique to their own society and time, and outside there is some utopia than can be reached one day. Because whites are naturally moralistic and seeing moral evil makes us suffer from guilt and depression (I don’t think other races experience this nearly as much, if at all). Defining goodness as something inherently outside (and in opposition to) our own race has been the greatest catastrophe and it’s at the root of all out problems. Right-wingers have no real answer to this because they don’t understand that the only way to beat race-communism is by creating an alternative moral framework that shames whites for anti-whiteness and tells them that the paradise existed in older white societies and can be reached again through pro-white culture.
Another aspect of the fantasy inherent in the noble savage myth that doesn’t get talked enough in my opinion, is the way that it offers whites escape from the burden of civilization. White explorers and colonizers who traveled to non-white lands always engaged in behavior that would’ve been unacceptable in their own countries, like sleeping around with the native women (or children or men – lots of such cases are recorded) and abandoning any children they had, mindless violence, doing local drugs etc. If you read these accounts it’s obvious that a lot of these people enjoyed their time in these foreign lands because it was a release from the moral obligations and duties of white society… But those obligations are what makes white societies great. Whites continue to do this all the time, adopting black ghetto culture because it’s so “liberating” to sing about bitches and hoes and wear hoodies instead of proper shirts and twerk your ass instead of getting married.
That was a really insightful comment, thanks!
“Because whites are naturally moralistic and seeing moral evil makes us suffer from guilt and depression”
In other words, whites don’t acclimatize easily to the presence of evil, while other groups tend to not care as long as their kin/ingroup is not harmed or slighted.
When a major collapse occurs (i.e., loss of the requirements of civilization) we shall see soon enough just how moral everyone really is. Judging by how quick some Christian parents are to”forgive” some minority who murdered their child, I would not be too surprised to see them behaving in a similar way in post civilization conditions, maybe even handing their own children over to others to consume or at best to turn into slaves.
Black and brown people should be forever thanking the White man for ending this savagery and depravity but all we get is vicious hatred for being “racist”. It’s enough to make one quite fatigued.
We’ve passed peak neeg-fatigue a long time ago. I believe Calvin Candie meets Dario D’ambrosi and Giuseppe Loconsole’s most infamous role are effective solutions for inducing obedience to the swine’s betters.
Watch The Green Inferno (2013) if you want to see some jews disabused of their infantile fantasies—not for the faint hearted! 🤮
I just read a brief synopsis of the film – oh my!
By Eli Roth, of Hostel fame. He was also the sadistic guy who wielded a baseball bat in Inglourious Bastards. Green Inferno was terrifying and realistic.
Eli Roth remade that movie and used an alternate title that the original often goes by. In the US it’s better known as “Cannibal Holocaust”. It’s from the late 70s and it’s actually an Italian film.
Europeans risked their lives in the Americas to try and civilise it and it was reasonably successful. The world was much better for white expansion.
The locals in parts of Central and South America were worshipping demons around the time of the conquistadors.
Carrying a statue of Our Lady in the Amazon with cannibal tribes lurking in the jungle ready to attack at any moment is the type of big balls our guys are famous for.
I believe The Oregon Trail has been updated with diversity over the years to keep the joo lies going about noble savages.
Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony, -Edgerton,
is a very good read on this topic. This subject should, must, and shall be openly discussed throughout our Occident and other’s societies. This can become common knowledge to be! Enough of worshiping the Stone Agers among us. This world is a dark and brutal misery. Our Occident is the light!
“The Noble Savage” can be likened to the Indo-European tradition of the Golden Age (see Hesiod, the Hindu Satya Yuga – or even the Biblical Garden of Eden). It’s a spiritual/metaphysical statement, not an anthropological one, as simply being uncivilized in the current age/Kali Yuga is not the same as living in a primordial state (i.e. primitive != primordial).
There were more or less conscious attempts to return to that primordial state in modern times, Hippieism being one example thereof. But the Hippies were “sex-addicted, atheist, communist artists” as one woman who grew up in a Hippie household put it (see the book “Wild child – girlhoods in the counterculture” [1999] which is a short collection of childhood accounts from women born to Hippie parents).
The German Wandervogel were a much better attempt. I think it speaks for the European soul that we can still envision that state, in whatever vague and distorted form, which is why only Europeans came up with notions like “The Noble Savage”.
Related: https://www.hipplanet.com/hip/activism/hippie-roots-the-perennial-subculture/
Returning to anthropology: I think Tacitus’ and Caesar’s description of the Germanic tribes basically amount to semi-noble savages, which makes it plausible that their ancestors in truly remote, pre-Indoeuropean, pre-agricultural times could have fully fit that picture.
Just because non-White hunter-gatherers in modern times are ignoble savages doesn’t mean our Ice-Age selected ancestors far far back must have been like this; in fact, today’s polar hunter-gatherers (Inuit, Siberian peoples, Saami) are already quite different from equatorial primitives (e.g. in the Amazon, Africa or New Guinea). Nobility has always been in the race, in the blood, not in the environment.
When I visited Hawaii a few years ago, there was a surprisingly frank historical portrait of the native Hawaiians in a museum in the now destroyed town of Lahaina. They were a deeply hierarchical society, and this included the punishment of having your brains bashed out on a rock if you allowed the shadow of a noble to fall on you, a peasant or slave.
Empire of the Summer Moon should be required reading for us. It’s the story of the Comanches, and in particular, Quanah Parker, mixed race son of a white woman abducted by Comanches, whose story motivated the film, The Searchers. The book reveals the Comanches’ unbelievable cruelty. All American Indian tribes practiced torture. But the Comanches were unique: in mounted fighting ability and in their savagery.
Watch Bone Tomahawk (2015), it was reviewed on this website. 🤮
Whites could use a moderate dose of cultural appropriation by comanchization against their enemies instead of the self-de-eunuching by Austin Metcalf’s disgrace of a father and the endless more like it and more to inevitably come.
Not only were Native Americans not natural conservationists living in benign harmony with their environment, their ancestors also almost certainly hunted many indigenous species to extinction through predation upon arriving in the Americas.
Some archaeologists have sought to explain away these extinctions in terms of climate and habitat change around the time of the end of the last ice age, but the timing of the extinctions being coincident with the apparent first arrival of humans, together with the fact that these same species had survived through several earlier cycles of ice ages and their aftermath, makes the arrival of humans almost certainly the decisive factor.
The French philosophers were the forefathers of modernism. They were more interested in the idea of being celebrities than the truth.
Here in Australia we have to listen to endless claims about the wonders of aboriginal “culture”, most of it invented on the fly. These days it’s all about their “management” of the environment which as far as I can see was starting bushfires everywhere they went. They’re still at it. Most primitives are pyromaniacs. And of course they lit the fires to flush game, making it easier to hunt, not because they had an elaborate plan to ‘manage’ the landscape. Before aboriginals arrived Australia was temperate forest from coast to coast, inhabited by megafauna. 40,000 years of uncontrolled burning killed off the large species and changed most of the country to desert. I don’t blame them. I would have done the same thing if it made it easier to catch dinner. But the mythologising that it was a result of moral superiority and integrity is very annoying.
“When Westerners strip indigenous peoples of moral agency by refusing to criticize brutality, they reduce them to symbolic avatars — vessels of whatever values are currently fashionable.”
That was a killer sentence.
“We do not celebrate cannibalism as a cultural artifact when it occurs in medieval Europe. So, why then do we treat it as sacred when it appears in the practices of non-Western peoples?”
I think the answer to this is because it’s edgy. And intellectuals LOVE to be edgy.
Mr. Matthews: …The sooner we discard the myth of the noble savage, the easier we can replace it with something far more valuable: truth. Not the truth of myth or metaphor, but of complex, uncomfortable and liberating facts.
—
Biological truths to be precise: liberating racial facts.
Good essay. The author’s kinsmen will not be pleased with it, and he still will not be eligible for National Alliance membership.
Dr. Pierce reviewed Mr. Goodrich’s shocking Scalp Dance about “noble savages”:
…When a group of Indians spotted a wagon train of such prospective settlers unaccompanied by soldiers or experienced scouts, they would approach with smiles and other indications of friendly intent, sometimes waving a white flag. Almost certainly there were good Christian souls in those wagon trains who told their husbands, “Put away your rifle, you fool! Can’t you see that they’re friendly? If you’re holding a rifle, that will just provoke them.” When the Indians got close enough to evaluate the situation fully, they either would strike immediately or mix with the prospective settlers and wait for the opportune moment to begin cutting throats and taking scalps. Then, after a day or so of amusing themselves raping the White women and listening to the screams of the White men staked out on the ground with a small fire burning at their crotches, they would move on and leave the scraps for the wolves and coyotes. Such fools soon enough were weeded out of those Whites who settled in the plains and survived Indian attacks, but there seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of them back East, where the preachers continued pumping new heads full of dangerous nonsense. It’s really too bad that the preachers and other propagandists of the “noble savage” school didn’t head west themselves to try out their ideas on real savages.
Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879. – Cosmotheism
Drawing heavily from diaries, letters, and memoirs from American Plains settlers, historian Thomas Goodrich weaves a spellbinding tale of life and death on the prairie, told in the timeless words of the participants themselves. Scalp Dance is a powerful, unforgettable epic that shatters modern myths. Within its pages, the reader will find a truthful account of Indian warfare as it occurred.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.