Noble Savage in Age of Atlantic Revolutions

¶ … noble savage..." etc.

The Noble, Savage Age of Revolution

When Europeans first came to America, they discovered that their providentially discovered "New World" was already inhabited by millions of native peoples they casually labeled the "savages." In time, Europeans would decimate this population, killing between 95-99% of the 12 million plus inhabitants of the Northern Continent, and as many in the south. Before this genocide was complete, however, the culture of the natives would significantly influence the philosophy and politics of the nations that conquered them. The native societies, with their egalitarian social structures, natural absence of disease, communal sharing of resources, and their lifestyles in which work was easily balanced with art and play, seemed like something Europeans had lost when Adam and Eve left Eden. "Native societies, especially in America, reminded Europeans of imagined golden worlds known to them only in folk history. . . Created of European wish-fulfillment, the image of the 'Noble Savage' was created from the cloth of this imagery, [and] fashioned by European philosophers..." (Grinde & Johansen) Europeans were astonished to find that there existed societies in which people lived in egalitarian liberty without law or aristocracy, and this possibility inspired an entire generation of debate on the rule of natural law and the genesis of society. For the first time since the Rome and the church had civilized (and tyrannized) the people of Europe, there was a call to reexamine the ancient roots of European culture to discover the "barbarian" Celts and Goths whose own egalitarian cultures has surely been effaced. "We might suggest that the traditional folk democracy of parts of Europe became viable again when merged with the actual knowledge that there were functioning democratic/communalistic societies in the world" (Grinde & Johansen) This philosophical shift is inseparable from the historical events and people that triggered it; the history is terribly ironic which records that native culture inspired the natural law movement in Europe which resulted eventually in the widespread adoption of originally native American "democratic and environmentalist tendencies" (Grinde & Johansen) and vast improvements in the liberties of Europeans -- for Europeans, in turn, erased the liberties, democratic institutions, and even the environments of their American hosts.

The ideal -- one might say stereotype-- of the Noble Savage cut both ways, at once creating awareness of a new nobility among Europeans and labeling the natives as "savages" who only incidentally happened to be noble or free. Distance in particular had a habit of "distort[ing] the reality of the image... [so that] Rousseau or Locke seems utterly more fantastical than... Franklin, Jefferson, and other influential founders of the United States, who did diplomatic business with American native people in the course of their daily lives." (Grinde & Johansen) There was a great degree to which the ideal was actually true. However, it was also an oversimplification and in some ways inaccurate. In some cases the ideal exaggerated the degree to which natives enjoyed "life, liberty and happiness" (Grinde & Johansen) and in so doing ignored the fact that most tribes had sophisticated traditions and social expectations which guided their lives. Additionally, the simplification of the vast peoples of America into a single nearly-metaphorical "savage" culture, combining "dozens of peoples and belief systems into one generic whole." (Grinde & Johansen) Nonetheless, on the whole the idea of the noble savage was inherently rooted in the real experience of Europeans in exploring the Americas and on the real cultures of the natives.

In exploring the history of the concept of the "Noble Savage," one must look at the introduction of the idea of the "savage" to Europe, its progression through the works of Rousseau and his European contemporaries, the influence of "savage" culture on Franklin and Jefferson, and the way in which the truth of the noble "savage" culture inspired many of the events and developments of the American Revolution and Constitution (which in turn is responsible for the development of the French and Haitian revolutions).

The Introduction of the Native "Noble Savage" to Europe

In exploring the development of the Noble Savage stories, one finds the earliest manifestations in Thomas More's seminal word-creating work Utopia. This work came fast on the heals of Columbus' discovery of the New World, and the "new world" of the Utopian society was inspired by native American culture. More was familiar with the "Vespucci forgeries" (Grinde & Johansen), which were a false account of Amerigo Vespucci's journey which exalted the liberties and civilization of the native Americans. Additionally, More reported having interviewed sailors who had been intimate with American natives. Utopia was "the first explicit literary example, rooted in the New World, of a political alternative to Europe's tyrannies." (Burtun, in Grinde & Johansen)

The idea of the noble savage was reinforced, rather than discouraged, the more Europeans came to be familiar with native American culture. In the early years of exploration, Indian captives were frequently brought over to Europe to be exhibited or "educated," neither of which was particularly beneficial for the poor fellow involved. However, these exchanges -- if such a term can be applied to slavery-- were very beneficial to Europeans in terms of encouraging them to cast a critical eye on their own culture. Somewhat ironically, that criticism did not generally tend to extend to the assumed cultural perogative which justified the forced visitation of their native guest. Generally speaking, it appears that visiting native Americans were used by writers as mouth-pieces for cultural critique. Many of these critiques were somewhat legitimate extrapolations of the how native cultures reflected poorly on European culture, even if the supposed statements would have been unlikely to come from the generally polite and non-English-speaking captives. For example, the Saint James Chronicle claimed to have interviewed a Cherokee captive who was recorded as saying that the English were a noble and brave people, "though undoubtedly inferior to the Cherokee Nation, and tinctured with many follies that we are entirely free from...[such as having] the path to honors... lined with gold. . . . How different in this respect are they from the Americans, among whom merit is the only passage to honors." (Grinde & Johansen)

At first, the influence of the "savages" appears to have been relatively limited to philosophical or satirical fiction or fictionalized journalism. These genres, while influential, tend not to be in the front wave of revolutions. When the concept was embodied into philosophy, however, and particularly into political philosophy, it gained a new power. The term "Noble Savage," as it applies to a philosophical archetype, appears to have been coined by Jean Jacques Rousseau and because of his rather extreme and controversial romanticism it has often been used rather disparagingly to describe any attempt to uphold native cultures as worthy of emulation. However, the basic theory of looking at the noble savage was used not only by Rousseau but by most of his contemporaries who -- upon finding that there were in America highly functional societies with none of the stratification, inequality and repression that was common in Europe-- developed an interest in the possible arrangements and theories of society and government. It became standard for European philosophers from Rousseau to Locke to Hobbes to base their critiques of and theories for society on speculations as to how primitive government had been generated. For liberals like Rousseau and Locke, the argument for a democratic, rights-based society draws its justification from the idea that primitive and ideal government is of this form -- and the justification for that argument, historically, comes not so much from logic as from that generation's experiences with (or least awareness of) native cultures such as those in the Americas. It has frequently been suggested that the American Revolution drew from European philosophical well-springs, but one would be amiss not to acknowledge the degree to which those European philosophies were educated by the native American experience.

Of Continental Philosophers, and Rousseau's "Noble Savage."

John Locke once wrote that "In the beginning, all the world was America." (quoted in Johansen) His arguments for the "state of nature" were obvious appeals to the natural state of Northern American natives. That in the original state of nature man would be free from all state coercion and interact with one another in a democratic fashion has less in common with ancient Greek culture (in which democracy was limited to a single city that was still corrupted by state control so severe that Socrates was killed there) and more in common with the "united nations" of the Iroquois. "The state of nature and of natural equality to which men might appeal in rebellion against tyranny was set not in the remote dawn of history, but beyond the Atlantic sunset... [Both] Hobbes and Locke... show a familiarity with the social structure of the American Indians which they used to good purpose.... [they were] in search of a more valid ordering of society. . . . The American Indian was believed to have found many of the answers." (Johansen)

Locke's claims, which were born out by the more politicized Indian tribes such as the Iroquois, were that the state of nature was defined by mutual assistance and preservation among individuals, mutual good will and peace, and the individual defense of life, liberty, and property. He suggested that government arose to create an organization capable of protecting and enforcing natural rights and peace. According to European tradition, he suggested that such an organization would naturally develop fixed laws and penalties including the death penalty. Interestingly, the Iroquois at least did indeed create their Council in order to protect the peace of their nations, particularly in order to prevent war. However, this council did not create fixed laws and penalties, and certainly did not create mandatory death sentences, as these issues too were left up to the rule and consent of the governed. The democracy of the tribes was profound, and decisions were made neither by law nor by aristocracy, but based on reason and ethics as presented by grand orators. "Politically, there was nothing in the Empires and kingdoms of Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to parallel the democratic constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, with its provisions for initiative, referendum and recall, and its suffrage for women as well as for men." (Johansen)

Locke's impression of the state of nature and its development into primal and just government made one significant deviation from most of the actual native cultures: he placed property rights at the center of his development of government. His contemporaries in America, who saw more of the actual state or nature, would later replace his argument for life, liberty, and estate with a cry for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the fundamental aspects which government must protect. Property rights are one of those things which should be offered up (without coercion), native cultures generally seemed to suggest, when they go contrary to the good of the community. This perspective is far more in tune with Rousseau's later treatment of the Noble Savage.

Rousseau, who introduced the subsequently infamous phrase, does not seem to think particularly poorly of savages, and his romanticism actually tends towards embracing all aspects of that culture. "The French philosopher believed that the sciences and the arts were the fruits of indolence and luxury and a source of moral decay. Rousseau boldly asserted that man was, by nature, good and innocent. Therefore, morality was not the product of reasoned thinking but of natural feeling. He reasoned that a person's worth depends not on intellect, but on one's moral nature." (Grinde & Johansen) This position reminds one of a story told by Benjamin Franklin, in which several Iroquois youth were taken to a college and educated in the best European fashion. They subsequently returned to their people, who were deeply disappointed in the results, and quickly waived an invitation to have any more of their children so educated, saying "They were instructed in all your Sciences, but when they came back to us, they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the Woods, unable to bear either cold or hunger. . . [they were] good for nothing." (Johansen) Yet Rousseau, who is highly intelligent and educated himself, does not seem to think poorly of intelligence. Likewise, the natives of America were able to weave histories into bead belts, compose complex and moving orations, and memorize long and artistically compelling oral traditions, all of which require more skill than many modern students express.

Rousseau not only spoke of the virtue of "primitive simplicity" (Johansen) as some Luddite might do -- he was deeply concerned with the natural equality of men, and the way in which that equality was perverted by the misuse of rules regarding private property. "Society in the eighteenth century had masters and slaves, cultured and uncultured, rich and poor, all as a byproduct of reasoned thought. Hence, western civilization had corrupted humankind's natural inclinations." (Grinde & Johansen) He contrasted the brutish slavery of most of European's populace with the easy freedom of native Americans. If man was allowed to merely follow his goodwill, Rousseau suggested, then he could create a good society such as though found in America. He is quoted as praising their ways: "Natural freedom is the only object of the polity of the savages; with this freedom do nature and climate rule alone amongst them . . . they maintain their freedom and find abundant nourishment . . . people who live without laws, without police, without religion." (Grinde & Johansen) Yet Rousseau was not an anarchist, but suggested that individuals willingly must sacrifice certain rights in order to be granted protection and/or guidance by the government. This sort of sacrifice could be extremely profound, as in the case of European citizens, or easy and tolerable, as in the "polity of the savages" in which the object was the maintenance of "Natural freedom." (Grinder & Johansen)

In studying Rousseau's perception of the Noble Savage, it is important to keep in mind the limitations of assuming that Rousseau (or Locke, for that matter) based their conclusions on native cultures, though many of their foundational elements were based on fact. For both of these continental philosophers, the state of nature was seen as a somewhat mythical or at least metaphorical state, despite the fact that it was based on fact. The ahistorical role which the savage plays for Rousseau may be summarized as based on historical accounts but nonetheless fictionalized:

The concept of the Noble Savage was more of a hypothesis than a reality for Rousseau. His portrayals of people in the original state of nature stemmed from Rousseau's having read accounts of aboriginal tribes around the world. The French philosopher's Noble Savage is a social and political fiction that enables readers to understand an aspect of human nature that is operative at all times. Rousseau sought to isolate the essence and instinctive nature of man by departing from human nature as it is constituted in civilized societies and eliminating the influence of education and social intercourse. The essential nature of human beings is embodied in immediate feeling and the role it plays in binding everyone together. Rousseau holds that beneath the intellectual activity, science, art and other artificialities of civilization, it is feeling that binds people to a common purpose. (Brinde & Johansen)

This fictionalization of the savage is a particularly European trait. When the ideas which were developed there came home (as it were) to America, one finds that the political philosophers of the colonies are far more closely tied to the actuality of a state of nature. As mentioned above, the ideas of Locke were adapted to the actual practice of the Iroquois by Franklin, Jefferson, and their cohorts. Certainly, Rousseau and Locke have historically been credited for the age of revolutions. The ideas of the latter are widely recognized as among the major influences on the American revolution, as the former was to the French revolution. Nonetheless, it is vital to recognize then that the societies which they proposed were not drawn from their own imaginations merely, but were carefully thought out applications of the native American traditional forms of societal and governmental commerce to a distinctly European culture and conception of property and self.

Note on the Iroquois Confederacy and History

Before continuing on to the ideas which Franklin and Jefferson had concerning the "noble savage," it would be useful to give very brief over-view of the situation they faced when actually interacting with these savages in person. Benjamin Franklin, in particular, had a very close relationship with local Iroquois tribes, having actually been responsible for a significant militia action taken to preserve their lives and borders against vigilante settlers. He frequently communicated with them, and was known to publish and distribute copies of treaties that had been signed between the natives and colonists, in an attempt to see that these were followed by settlers. Jefferson both had some experience with the natives, and was very familiar with -- and influenced by-- Franklin. So certainly either one of them would have been very knowledgeable of exactly what was meant by a "state of nature" or the actual arrangement of natural savages.

The Iroquois, who were the most intimately connected with the colonies at that time, had a quite sophisticated culture and governmental system. They were a confederacy of five (later six) other tribes, all gathered under the Great Law of Peace, which was visualized as a white pine which spread its roots among all people, and which could eventually encompass all nations. These tribes had once been at war with one another, but the coming of Hiawatha and of the virgin-born Peacemaker taught them to bury their weapons and undertake to wage peace. The divine law of the Peacemaker divided the people into clans that cut across tribe lines, and each clan held positions in the Great Council. Representatives to the Council were chosen by the wise matriarchs of each family line, and additional representatives could be selected by members of the council based on merit. There were five tribes, divided into two groups which each had to consider an issue, and a third which had the power of veto. All agreements had to be unanimous. This conservative democratic arrangement allowed the Iroquois to have a functioning democratic society for hundreds of years. A historical accounting of their government sounds fascinatingly like a descriptor of what the early United States revolutionary government will aspire to be:

"They are all Republicks in the Strictest sense; every Nation has a general Council, whither deputies are sent from every village; [and] by a majority of votes everything is determined there. What is most singular in American Government is that there is no such thing as coercive power in any Nation . . . . [Their] National Councils have Power of War and peace . . . [but] they can neither raise men nor appoint officers [leaving such matters to those who of] their own accord unite in a Company [and choose] their war Captain, nor has this Captain any power to compel his men, or to punish them for neglect of duty [and] yet no officer on earth is more strictly obeyed, so strongly are they influenced by the principle of doing their Duty uncompelled." (Johansen)

Historians estimate that the Iroquois confederacy had continued unbroken for between three hundred and seven hundred years prior to the American Revolution -- to this day the white-American attempt at democracy is still at least a century younger than the Iroquois Union was at the time of its meetings with Franklin. "At the time of European contact the Iroquois Confederacy was a free tribal society practicing economic and political democracy. Thus, it served as a beacon of freedom while European nations were grappling with the concepts of peace and freedom in theory rather than practice." (Grinde & Johansen)

Despite having a strong and long-lasting government, the Iroquois did not have a penal system nor what European tradition would recognize as fixed laws. (Obviously, they had cultural precepts which governed behavior and the treatment of those who injured their peers) Conflicts seldom arose, as groups worked together for mutual benefit and survival -- when they did, they were resolved through discussion and appeal to the wisdom of elders. The nations of the Iroquois were very strong, and attempted to share this strength with their colonial allies. (In the beginning, Iroquois and settlers were on very friendly terms, fighting on the same side against the French). The following speech is frequently credited with helping to push the colonies into alliance and eventually the search for their freedom: "Our wise forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations. This has made us formidable; this has given us great Weight and Authority with our neighboring Nations. We are a powerful Confederacy; and by your observing the same methods, our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire such Strength and power. Therefore whatever befalls you, never fall out with one another. --Canassatego, 1744" (Johansen) With a strong history of democratic and egalitarian government, and a tendency to pressure their colonial allies into similar strategies, the Iroquois culture was certainly influential on the founding fathers of the United States.

Franklin & Jefferson -- the Noble Savage idealized at home.

As mentioned above, Benjamin Franklin was intimately acquainted with the Iroquois and had a long history of friendly relationships with them. Like many of his compatriots, Franklin found that exposure to the natives (in peaceful conditions, at least) very quickly bred admiration. He once wrote that "No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies." (in Johansen) Franklin found three important truths about the so-called Savage Life which he would later apply to his understanding of the goals of the revolution. Each of these understandings he shared with his many admirers and students, including Thomas Jefferson. These three truths, in no particular order were: that the simple life of the Indians allowed them leisure and the pursuit of happiness; that government may exist by the consent of the governed with no need for force, or any punitive measures; and that profit and property should be secondary considerations under the good of the people.

The first of these issues, that of the pursuit of happiness, would later be espoused in the declaration of independence. Franklin was a firm believer in "simplicity and happy mediocrity," (Johansen) and he praised the degree to which the natives existed without consumerism, greed, or the need to accumulate riches to prove any point. He wrote: "Having few artificial Wants, they have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious Manner of Life, compared with theirs, they esteem slavish and base; and the Learning, on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous and useless... human Nature [desires] a life of ease, of freedom from care and labour [evidenced] strongly in the heretofore little success ... To civilize our American Indians." (in: Johansen) For Franklin, the right to leisure and comfort were an inherent part of freedom.

The freedom which allows such relaxation, Franklin claims, will be closely related to that of the natives. He speaks of the enviable way in which Iroquois culture is free from tyranny of any sort: "All their Government is by Counsel of the Sages; there is no Force, there are no Prisons, no officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment." (in: Johansen) Franklin asserted, and Jefferson would later agree, that this example proved the possibility of a minimal government which was intensely responsible to public opinion. Government by democratic consensus was radical, and Franklin went further to argue for the need to allow man to be absolutely free and equal, men and women alike, all people sharing in the community good and the community government. Franklin saw this as being the way of nature, because it was the way of the Iroquois.