In her collection titled The Land of Little Rain, Mary Hunter Austin, known for her early 20th century writings about the Native American community, presents an enchanting view of Southwestern California and its Indigenous inhabitants. Scholars often praise Austin for her “detailed descriptions of the wild creatures and landscapes [that] she observed so lovingly.” Yet, if we consider the stereotype of the ecologically noble savage, her poetic observations often group Native Americans with the “wild creatures” of the desert. Though she is celebrated as a Native American rights activist, Austin supports the idea of the ecologically noble savage through her romanticization of Native people and their relationship with the environment. By using this stereotype, she fosters a generalized pan-Indian culture and undermines individual tribal identity.
In order to recognize how the ecologically noble savage appears in Austin’s collection, we must understand the term itself. You may be aware of the noble savage, or the Rousseauian philosophy that society corrupts the innately good and innocent “savage,” or Indigenous person. In more recent times, however, the term has taken on a new meaning. The ecologically noble savage maintains his innate goodness, but this goodness extends beyond his treatment of others and into his treatment of nature. As conservationist Kent Redford explains, this stereotype portrays Natives as “another species of animal, largely incapable of altering the environment.”
In reality, though, Indigenous people altered the environment like any other civilization, exposing the falsities of the trope. Northeastern tribes, for example, “burned forests to force out elk and deer, creating gusts of hot wind, soot and smoke powerful enough to make October feel like July.” Meanwhile, some tribes in the Great Plains region drove large numbers of bison off of cliffs, leaving many to rot. Even though some tribes had sustainable practices, like the Iroquois who punished tribal members who over-hunted deer, the majority of tribes stopped these sustainable practices after European contact. Anthropologist Raymond Hames asserts that the “introduction of breech loading rifles, the high trade value placed on local hides and furs, and perhaps religious conversion led to clear cases of over harvesting.” Indigenous people did what they had to do to survive, even if it meant harming the environment. Though this harm pales in comparison to that caused by Western settlers, Native Americans did not live in complete equilibrium with nature. This, therefore, dispels the idea of the ecologically noble savage. Now, with an understanding of this incorrect stereotype, I will turn my attention towards Mary Hunter Austin.
In The Land of Little Rain, published in 1903, Austin examines how both humans and animals interact with romantic Southwestern landscapes. Perhaps her most famous piece, the collection of lyrical essays is revered as one of the most influential examples of nature writing, inspiring famous authors such as Gary Snyder and Terry Tempest Williams. The collection also gained notoriety for its representation of Native Americans. Austin gives detailed profiles of several Natives, distinguishing them by tribe and experience, and focusing on the spiritual connection between tribes and their land. This fascination with the Native American experience led Austin to become an advocate for Indian rights, as she supported the Indian Arts Fund and fought for Indian land rights. However, despite advocating for Indigenous people, as well as writing about them in a more personal way than what was typical of the period, she uses the factually incorrect and harmful ecologically noble savage stereotype within her collection.
Austin’s use of this stereotype betrays her support of Native American rights. In her romantic descriptions of Natives, she often transforms the interdependence between tribes and nature into mere resemblance. For example, she claims that “[y]oung Shoshones are like young quail, knowing without teaching about feeding and hiding, and learning what civilized children never learn, to be still and to keep on being still, at the first hint of danger or strangeness.” Though seemingly poetic, this simile reduces human children to quail, another species of animal, aligning with the stereotype of the “ecologically noble savage.” Here, Shoshone children are depicted as innately attuned to their environment, not through learning or culture, but through instinct—a trait that Austin implies is superior to the cultivated ignorance of “civilized” children.
This animalistic framing appears again in “Other Water Borders,” where Austin writes, “The Indian never concerns himself, as the botanist and the poet, with the plant’s appearances and relations, but with what it can do for him.” She continues, asking rhetorically, “How does a cat know when to eat catnip? Why do western bred cattle avoid loco weed, and strangers eat it and go mad?” By comparing Native plant knowledge to that of animals guided by instinct, Austin further essentializes Native Americans as part of the natural world rather than as conscious, reasoning agents within it. Her use of rhetorical questions suggests not just admiration but a kind of scientific detachment, as if she is observing an organism rather than describing human behavior. She answers her own inquiry by attributing this intuitive knowledge to “a sort of instinct atrophied by disuse in a complexer civilization,” reinforcing the notion that Native people are ecologically attuned precisely because they are untouched by modernity. In doing so, Austin employs the noble savage stereotype to romanticize and legitimize her portrayal of Native Americans—an effort that ultimately undercuts genuine advocacy by reducing cultural knowledge to biological impulse.
The ecologically noble savage allows Austin to portray Natives as environmental experts and then appropriate that expertise. She names Native Americans as being the authorities on Southwestern nature when stating, “Live long enough with an Indian, and he or the wild things will show you a use for everything that grows in these borders” (88). Austin supports her environmental wisdom with her time living in the area. However, she specifies that she lived “with an Indian,” implying that her time with Natives makes her even more knowledgeable. She also sells the idea of this Indian expertise to her reader; in theory, they too could live with Natives and learn all about nature. Additionally, she uses Indian names for landmarks and plants throughout the piece, and even derived the title of the collection, The Land of Little Rain, from the Indian name of the area. Beyond utilizing Native American culture to boost her own legitimacy as a nature writer, Austin also promotes an overgeneralized interpretation of what it means to be Native.
Even though she is commonly viewed as an Indian rights activist, Austin’s stereotyping promotes a pan-Indian culture that subverts unique tribal identity. She draws sweeping conclusions from only a few interactions with individual Native Americans. For example, after hearing the story of Winnenap, a Shoshone medicine man, Austin declares that “broken bones and bullet holes the Indian can understand, but measles, pneumonia, and smallpox are witchcraft.” In addition, as a result of her discussion with Seyavi, a Paiute basket maker, Austin concludes that “[e]very Indian woman is an artist” and that “[v]ery early the Indian learns to possess his countenance in impassivity, to cover his head with his blanket.” In these descriptions, she depicts “every Indian” as being superstitious, artistic, and emotionless. Moreover, throughout the collection, Austin refers to all Natives as “the Indian.” In doing so, she ignores individual tribal identity, and contradicts her own belief that “there is no greater offense than to call an Indian out of his name.” Ultimately, Austin stereotypes and generalizes the Indigenous people within her work, which compromises her efforts as a Native American rights activist.
By utilizing the ecologically noble savage trope to bolster the legitimacy of her writing, Austin supports the idea that Native American culture is a national heritage that is available for anyone. To this day, Austin is celebrated as an advocate for Indigenous people. Yet, it is because of pieces like The Land of Little Rain that there is this belief in the contemporary U.S. that “Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event.” For instance, you may have seen the “Crying Indian Commercial” from 1970, an attempt by the environmental organization Keep America Beautiful to guilt Americans into caring about pollution. This is similar to how Austin used Natives to convince her reader that she was a nature expert. We must be made aware of how society appropriates Native culture for its own benefit, as it leads to the erasure of Native identity.
Works Cited
Austin, Mary Hunter. The Land of Little Rain. United States, Houghton, Mifflin, 1903.
Hames, Raymond. “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 36, 2007, pp. 177–190. JSTOR.
Hirschfelder, Arlene, and Paulette Molin. “Stereotyping Native Americans.” Stereotyping Native Americans – Jim Crow Museum – Ferris State University.
Ruppert, James. “Mary Austin’s Landscape Line in Native American Literature.” Southwest Review, vol. 68, no. 4, 1983, pp. 376–390. JSTOR.
Lee, Gary. “DID EARLY NATIVE AMERICANS LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Dec. 1994.
Redford, Kent H. “The Ecologically Noble Savage.” Cultural Survival, 1 Mar. 1991.
Viehmann, Martha L. “A Rain Song for America: Mary Austin, American Indians, and American Literature and Culture.” Western American Literature, vol. 39, no. 1, 2004, pp. 4–35. JSTOR.
Leave a Reply