The Westerner’s obsession with ennobling the savage (or at least what he deems as savage) is merely his coping mechanism for his internalised guilt stemming from his prejudiced judgments (whether fair or unfair).

What else could it be? Since Western cultures are more predisposed to guilt (which admittedly is a bit more noble than shame-based cultures), they can’t help but engage in reverse-racist favouritism when they can’t help but deem someone “savage.” And so, the Westerner treats his savages with the same over-enthusiasm that we grant a toddler making his first steps, or a mentally challenged child kicking the ball in the field: We let them win, we give them condescending advantages, we disrespect them with our patronising favouritism - then we wonder why they hate us.

“…if we have anything to learn from the Noble Savage, it is what to avoid. His virtues are a fable; his happiness is a delusion; his nobility, nonsense.”

- Charles Dickens

Why is the noble savage so attractive and appealing?

The noble savage trope signifies the contrast between being a barbarian and exhibiting the slightest elements of nobility, even if that nobility is lesser in comparison to the nobility of the already noble. It still appears to be more profound in the case of the noble savage because of the intense contrast between his base nature and his occasional noble characteristics or behaviours. But this is just like comparing the lightweight athlete with the heavyweight. It is recognising this disadvantage that makes the lightweight’s achievement more awe-inspiring, even though in total numbers, that is no achievement at all for others.

The irony of the noble savage trop

By displaying condescending awe towards someone for minute expressions of civility is recognising that he is a barbarian to begin with. It’s like a D+ for effort. It is velvety insult.

The noble savage story is about pretending to appreciate an uncivilised barbarian more than the already noble, just because the former is disadvantaged by his circumstance. The irony is that, if you treat your noble savage as a noble savage, then you must first admit that he is a savage. You treat him in a discriminatory matter, and you rob him of his agency in his persuasion. You even deprive him of the benefit of the doubt that he may indeed not be savage at all.

You treat him like the mentally challenged kid playing football against a professional football team who disrespect him enough to let him win, and then pretend to cheer for him in a condescending manner as if he actually won. Does that make the child happy for a moment? Of course it does. But I’m sure that heroin can also make him happy - it is no meaningful happiness, nor is it helpful to him.

Examples of noble savages in pop culture

Remember the mental gymnastics behind the promotion of Black Panther, the supposed “first black superhero movie” (a demonstrable lie), a movie that would “finally” represent black people, and give them a voice and all that nonsense? How condescending was that towards black people? Nobody made a fuss about Blade (the first Marvel superhero movie, and still unbeaten) back in 1998 - the media weren’t yet deliberately stirring racial divide.

She’s your savage, isn’t she?

Avatar: “I project my self-loathing by “becoming” the romanticised caricature of what I deem as savage. I’m morally superior that way.”

In Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, the noble muslim is here to teach those Western savages. This passive aggression condescends both groups.

The original Avatar.

The Northman - another piece of tribute to mindless barbarism as if it’s noble.

Nothing says noble savage like monkeys upholding gun rights.

The ethics of the Prince of Persia movie are questionable at best: the Eastern noble savage, mindless killing, unnecessary war on a whim, blind obedience to authority, forced marriage, all presented and packaged as if noble.

The Last Samurai treats the “savage” Japanese with the same condescending favouritism. Yes, indeed, Japanese culture is noble and beautiful, but let’s not delude ourselves: samurai were brainwashed fanatic war dogs. There is no meaning in defining your life’s purpose by a pointless attachment to arbitrary royal hierarchies and loyalties to corrupt degenerate aristocrats who have no understanding of or connection to the people they presume to represent.

Let us not forget how, in Warcraft 3, virtue-signalling Blizzard passive-aggressively humanised and sanctified orcs no less - the clearest representation of a villainous antagonist, the embodiment of barbarism and evil that made the stakes of the story even higher. What’s the meaning of a story if the antagonist is better than you? Boring. Forgettable.

The passive-aggression of the noble savage trope

The noble savage trope is passive aggressive and disrespectful. It’s someone’s desperate coping mechanism for the judgments he can’t help but feel. It doesn’t matter if those judgments are warranted or not. He makes those judgments regardless. But he is then so weak to stand by them, that he allows his guilt to overwhelm him. So, he engages in favouritism towards the people whom he baptised as “noble savages” so that he can mitigate his guilt.

It is selfish, weak, and exploitative to show such condescending pity-ridden faux kindness. Sure, the noble savages will take the opportunity of favouritism shown to them, but deep down they know - deep down they understand that they are disrespected and looked down upon. Deep down they pick up on the condescension, the passive aggression and the humiliation of the noble savage branding. They will not forget that you treated them with pity as if they were beggars, even though they accepted your alms - why wouldn’t they? And one day, they will find a way to act upon their boiling underlying resentment against those who presumed to be their betters.

The movie ‘The Animal’ nailed it back in 2001: The black man felt condescended by the favouritism he received on the merit of his colour. Non-blacks treated him as a noble savage, a victim of his circumstance. He was right to resent that favouritism, and he was noble enough to reject it.

Conclusion

Those who engage in noble-savaging others are simply reacting to the guilt from their own prejudiced judgments. Not only that, but they deny their chosen savage the decency of granting him respect, accountability and agency. Instead, they give him a free pass whenever he engages in savagery, as they romanticise his ungentlemanly behaviour, branding it as “culture” or “enrichment.”

Perhaps there is no greater abuse than encouraging someone to remain complacent in primitivism, and to reward him for his rejection of civility.

Do you know any noble savage patronisers out there? Do they mitigate their guilt for their prejudices via virtue-signalling favouritism towards their noble savage playthings?

Treating someone as a noble savage is self-serving exploitative narcissism from a morally insecure mindset…

Related reading

‘The Noble Savage’ by Charles Dickens

Shame-culture and Guilt-culture

The Data on Global Culture Types

Guilt-shame-fear Spectrum of Cultures

Someone you know needs to read this. Do them a favour and share it with them…

Subscribe for free to stay in touch. I won’t flood your inbox. Much of what I publish doesn’t go through email anyway.

I cherish your feedback. Criticise me, if you wish, even in a disrespectful manner, but please respect yourself enough to give me logical arguments.

If you aren’t already arguing with strangers on Substack, then what are you even doing with your life?

Get the app

Love me? Send me a message. Hate me? Send me two.