Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: White Guilt
“‘And am I answerable that thoughtless and unprincipled men exist, whose shades of countenance may resemble mine?’ Cora calmly demanded of the excited savage.”
— James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans
Nothing is new. Published in 1826, Cooper was tackling the issue of collective white guilt for sins against American Indians. Cora’s question struck me as so timeless and relevant to our current controversies over reparations and the American sin of slavery. It’s really an argument in defense of herself as an individual. Thus, it’s an argument that places individual character and behavior above racial and tribal identity.
For more context, Cora is responding to the accusation that white men are to blame for introducing Magua to “fire-water,” which caused his excommunication from his own tribe for his drunken misdeeds.
I didn’t initially notice the line after her question until I decided to use it for the Quote of the Day. How does Cooper’s addition of the words “calmly demanded of the excited savage” change the reader’s sense of Cora’s question?
As modern readers, we could infer that she was just excusing the bad deeds of her own people because she (and Cooper) thought the Native Americans were sub-human. Or perhaps, the word “savage” implies that the tribal way of viewing the world ignores the importance of individual actions.
Published in Group Writing
“Savage” was standard and very common English usage of that day.
Your two good guesses at its meaning–“sub-human” and “ignoring the importance of individual actions”–turn out to be wildly off.
Without looking it up, but having read it in many hundreds of different texts of that era, all of which use it the same way, I would say it simply referred to people of a “primitive” society, one that was closer to nature. In the American intellectual tradition, the idea of “the noble savage” has been very popular from an early date.
To quote an even older text, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
You can place the major influence for “the noble savage” on Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 1760’s, although the Wiki article tries to dismisses this. However:
Typical leftest thinking. In addition:
At that time, arts and sciences were supported by the (aristocratic) rich, so naturally Rousseau dismissed them.
The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. There is only 1 open day left on the October Signup Sheet. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!
I meant to imply that such a modern reading would be wrong, and I actually think Cooper is saying something more interesting than just using “savage” in the way typical of his era. To me, the fact that she “calmly demanded” of the “excited savage” suggests that Cooper is showing a preference for a reasoned argument over an emotional or passionate attribution of collective guilt.
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that there are only two ways to interpret the meaning of the language. I could probably write a lot more, but this post is a starting point. I am sharing the quote here to hear what others think!
I don’t think that “savage” means “sub-human” at all. They were living in a savage and primitive culture. This is objectively true. The Christian goal was to bring them a better way, thereby civilizing them. This was often not very effective, and as whites moved into Indian lands, the Indians understandably objected and went on the warpath, often in a savage and barbarous way.
There was a real problem in the European encounter with tribal peoples. It occurred largely in the Americas, Australia, and sub-Saharan Africa, which were overwhelmingly primitive and tribal (with a few notable exceptions such as the Aztecs and Incas, who were quite barbaric but had more sophisticated social organizations, even empires). In other areas, such as India, Southeast and East Asia, and Indonesia, there were sophisticated and advanced cultures.
In the encounter with tribal peoples, there was no real authority with which to negotiate. Europeans, or later Americans, could make a treaty with a tribe, but the tribe had no real enforcement mechanism. Moreover, most of the tribes truly were savages, relying on raiding, murder, and pillaging as part of their regular economy. This was not unique to them — the history of Israel during the period of the Judges and the early period of the Kings was very similar.
Conflict was inevitable in this situation.
Yes, I think that the book is a specific example of these general conflicts.
I almost wrote “less civilized” instead of “sub-human,” but I didn’t think it quite captured the way that the modern ear reacts against the word “savage.” And apparently I did not adequately convey that I don’t think that’s the correct interpretation of the word.
No one seems interested in discussing the modern relevance of the collective guilt aspect of the quote, which was my primary interest.
Apropos of nothing: Etymologically, the word “savage” simply means “forest-dweller”. It comes from the Latin silvaticus, from which we get the word “silvaculture”.
So, it’s a step-up from calling others “barbarians”, which etymologically means something akin to “people who speak gibberish”.
Thank you for this definition! I recall reading somewhere that Cooper’s writing is very heavily influenced by Latin. I just looked up his biography, which says he was the best Latin scholar in his class at Yale. I think it makes more sense that he was using the word in the sense of “forest-dweller” than as in “noble savage.”
I also looked it up on http://www.etymonline.com, which says:
Savage (adj.): mid-13c., “fierce, ferocious;” c. 1300, “wild, undomesticated, untamed” (of animals and places), from Old French sauvage, salvage “wild, savage, untamed, strange, pagan,” from Late Latin salvaticus, alteration of silvaticus “wild,” literally “of the woods,” from silva “forest, grove” (see sylvan). Of persons, the meaning “reckless, ungovernable” is attested from c. 1400, earlier in sense “indomitable, valiant” (c. 1300).
If introducing “fire-water” to American Indians was considered a “sin” by the author, some of his characters, and many of his contemporary readers, then perhaps the term “savage” simply identifies them as heathens.
Cooper was indeed showing a preference for a reasoned argument over an emotional, passionate attribution of collective guilt.
In the story, the emotional attribution was made by the excited savage. In another story with another cast of characters, he might have put the words into the mouth of the excited Pilgrim, or the excited middle linebacker, or the excited Mr. Billings.
I think you may be reading too much into the word “savage” simply because that word, in context, means something different to a non-reader today than it meant to a reader then, or to a reader today. A non-reader by definition lacks the ability to determine the meaning of a piece of text. Whatever his misinterpretation may be, it isn’t of interest to anyone because it is wrong.