When explorers from different European countries encountered the peoples of the Americas, they often formed views of these communities and their practices reflective of their state or kingdom of origin. One group that attracted divergent views in the eighteenth century was the Nuu-chah-nulth, or Nootka, people of the Pacific Northwest. According to Spanish observers, the Nootka may once have been cannibals but had long since abandoned this practice. According to the British, however, these peoples were still habitual consumers of human flesh.

Historian Carol Higham explores the reasons these two European groups, encountering the same culture, could come to such different conclusions. She finds an explanation in how the British and the Spanish interpreted their connections to the Nootka in relation to their own imperial space.

“Comparing Spanish and British accounts of Nootka cannibalism demonstrates how the two empires’ goals shaped their ideas about humanity and human progress and their portrayal of indigenous people,” she writes. As British and Spanish ships moved around the globe, the experiences of captain and crew

with other non-European groups molded their interpretation of the Nootka. Both Spanish and British writers saw reformed cannibals near the center of their imperial influence (Mexico and Nootka Sound for the Spanish, and Hawai‘i and New Zealand for the British) and active cannibals on the edge of their perceived empire (the interior of the Northwest Coast for the Spanish and Nootka Sound for the British).

Whether the potential cannibals were “our” natives or “their” natives was an important point, a convenient argument on either side. As Higham writes,

[T]he Spanish presented Nootka cannibalism as a past practice, driven away by their influence, thereby demonstrating their control over the territory. In contrast, the British described current practices of cannibalism flourishing on the edge of British dominion, justifying British expansion into a region benighted by Spanish rule.

One important source, the diaries of British explorer Captain James Cook, who undertook several Pacific voyages, were edited by Bishop John Douglas after Cook’s death. Douglas embroidered the text to add in theories of cannibalism among various Pacific peoples, even when Cook had not suggested it. This text unfortunately became influential despite its inaccuracy.

“Cook’s published work, shaped by Douglas,” Higham writes, “became a standard for his maps and descriptions of Pacific peoples and their practices, influencing trade and ethnographic knowledge.” The diaries were widely read, including by Thomas Jefferson, who would sponsor Lewis and Clark to head for the Pacific.

In later debates, during which the British suggested the Nootka were “savages” in need of colonial guidance, the Spanish argued that they were reformed savages, having already received the benefit of exposure to Spanish culture. Both imperialist powers believed Indigenous people would be improved by European influence, but they differed on whether the Nootka had already received it, and from whom.

The Spanish “used cannibalism, or the lack thereof, to solidify their claim that Nootka Sound belonged to the Spanish, diplomatically, physically, and culturally.” The disappearance of the practice was clear evidence of the strength of morality of Spanish culture.

Meanwhile the British “compared the Nootka to South Pacific islanders [who practiced human sacrifice] to situate them in the growing British power and argue that their influence might stop Nootkan ‘barbaric’ practices,” justifying the expansion of British control.

“Put more succinctly,” writes Higham,

the Spanish viewed the Nootka as potential native allies on a long road to civilization, reflecting the benefits of association with the Spanish. The British viewed the Nootka as morally benighted, not yet influenced by Enlightenment civilization, and perhaps held back by their association with the Spanish.

The truth of the Nootka, or how they felt about cannibalism, was subsumed in an Enlightenment debate colored by ideas of savagery and civilization. The imperial goals of European rival nations dictated how they read the cultures they saw, justifying their differing interpretations as they described those cultures to the world.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.