On 1766, Horace Walpole published An Account of the Giants Lately Discovered: In a Letter to a Friend in the Country. In this texts, Walpole satirically addresses the rumours of the existence of giants in Patagonia. These rumours arose following the arrival of Captain John Byron to London who, having circumnavigated the world on board of HMS Dolphin, reported the sighting of people as tall as 9 feet. However, the myth of giants in Patagonia had originated as early as the 1520s, when Antonio Pigaffeta, chronicler of Ferdinand Magellan, reported the sighting of giants in the shores of Patagonia. All these stories proved to be exaggerations of the height of the Tehuelche people in the region, who were all at least four inches taller than the average European.
Apart of making fun at European people’s credulity, Horace Walpole uses his satirical piece as means of criticising European politics towards different territories. As early as 1766, Walpole already points out the inconsistency of political liberties enjoyed in Britain but inexistent in overseas territories. He also criticises the treatment of natives from other regions, slavery, the annexation of territories, economic colonisation, religious hypocrisy and even the notions of «civilisation» and «discovery» prevalent in the literature of the era. I recommend eveyone to read this piece: Walpole’s critique is not only incredibly lucid and ahead of its time, but also very funny.
After describing the supposed encounter, Walpole addresses the political relevance of the new discovery since, as he claims, his reader «will be impatient to know if captain Byron took possession of the country for the crown of England, and to have his majesty’s style run, George the third, by the grace of God, king of Great-Britain, France, Ireland, and the Giants!». However, Walpole advises annexing the territory is not a good idea because «modern improvements are wiser» and it would be much more covenient to put giants «under their majesties, a West-Indian company!». In this way, Walpole criticises not only direct territorial annexation but also the plans of economic domination, much preferable and cheaper for Britain, that were already emerging in 1766. For Walpole, annexation and economic domination are reprehensible. This can be seen when he ironically asks: «What have we to do with America, but to conquer, enslave, and make it tend to the advantages of our commerce? Shall the noblest rivers in the world roll for savages? Shall mines teem with gold for the natives of the soil? And shall the world produce anything but for England, France, and Spain?». Here, Walpole critcises the greed on European nations, as well as the inconsistency in their thought: they claim European territories should be for the «natives of the soil», except of course when Europeans travel to someone else’s soil. In this point, Walpole’s ideas are revelant even today.
Walpole uses the possible annexation of Patagonia or establishment of a West-Indian company in the region to take advantage of the giants, as an opportunity to criticise the treatment of African slaves and natives in overseas territories:
As soon as they are civilised, that is, enslaved, due care will undoubtedly be taken to specify in their charter that these giants shall be subjects to the parliament of Great-Britain, and shall not wear a sheep’s skin that is not legally stamped. .. [Experience] will teach us, that the invaluable liberties of Englishmen are not to be wantonly scattered all over the globe. Let us enjoy them ourselves, but they are too sacred to be communicated. If giants once get an idea of freedom, they will soon be our masters instead of our slaves. But what pretentions can they have to freedom? They are as distinct from the common species as blacks, and, by being larger, may be more useful. I would advise out prudent merchants to employ them in the sugar-trade: they are capable of more labour; but even then they must be worse treated, if possible, than our black slaves: they must be lamed and maimed, and have their spirits well broken, or they may be dangerous.
In this fragment, Walpole uses the example of the black slaves to illustrate the atrocities committed by the British and other Europeans towards the lands and peoples that lived in the territories they claimed for themselves. Moreover, Walpole points explicitly towards the economic profit extracted from the «civilisation» of «savages». Walpole’s critique attacks one of the fundamental aspects that supported exploration and geographic expansion as an ethical action: the intention of «civilising» those groups considered savage and less fortunate. Walpole reveals that the process of «civilising» was fostered by mere desire of enslavement for economic gain. Later on, Walpole reveals how Christianisation participated also in this process of brutal exploitation and economic gain, when he explains that, of course, «The first thought that will occur to every Christian is, that this race of giants ought to be exterminated, and their country colonised».
Ahead of his time, Walpole criticises the concept of discovery altogether. He does this when addressing how ridiculous it is that Europeans claim any land they land on as their own: «because whoever finds a country, though nobody has lost it, is from that instant entitled to take possession of it himself, or his sovereign». Here, Walpole criticises the notion of ‘discovery’ prevalent in his time and still held by many today. By finding places «that nobody lost» and, for that reason, claiming them to themselves, European explorers supported the idea that things do not come into existence until Europe has recognised them.
Finally, even more ahead of his time, I would like to argue that Walpole’s texts suggests questioning the term «aborigine», and probably by extension the word «native». Firstly, Walpole explains that philosophers have classified Patagonian giants as «aborigines»: «that is, that their country has been inhabited by giants from the creation of the world». Just after this, Walpole points out that, according to theories of the population of the world and the migration of human species, they must have come through Asia:
Did the monsters pass unobserved from the most Eastern part of the continent (the supposed communication by which America was peopled) to the norther parts of the other world, and migrate down that whole continent to the most southern point of it, without leaving any trace, even by tradition, in the memory of mankind? Or are we believe, that tribe of giants sailed from Africa to America? What vessels wafted them?
This second explanation about how Patagonian giants got to the place they were in requires Europeans to recognise the historicity of these giants, in order to be consistent with scientific discourses. Aborigines/natives must have come from somewhere, and therefore the notion of them as «aborigines» located in one place since the beginning of the world is not consistent. However, the inconsistency between theories of migration and population, and the ahistorical view held about aborigines or natives by Europeans is even prevalent today. This notion of «aborigine» or «native» suggests non-Europeans have been located where they are «from the beginnig of the world». This is used to mark presence in a territory as a constitutional part of the self of non-European individuals. This also suggests that non-Europeans live in ahistorical realities unless they interact with Europeans.
The conception of «aborigine» or «native» that Walpole denounces is in the root of discourses that try to give recognition to native groups by saying they were «always» in a particular territory, and in that fact lies their right to land. Although this is a cause that I would approve of, these discourses suggest natives/aborigines are intrinsically tied to the land, as different from Europeans, who have the privileged of travelling anywhere in the world without losing their true self. In this prevalent definition of nativeness, non-European people that move to different territories are seen as «Westernised», since their identity is tied to the land, while Europeans who travel always keep their selves intact, since they belong and own planet Earth as a whole. Moreover, the vision Walpole criticises is one that has been used to further disenfranchise non-European groups by not recognising their own history. Natives/aborigines are always described as «having lived in a certain manner since forever» until Europeans came. This generates a false vision of natives/aborigines as ahistorical people with no history or developments developed for themselves, without the presence of Europeans.
I want to argue that Walpole, in a manner that maybe is even ahead of many of the thinkers of our time, suggests that the above explained notion of natives/aborigines people is not even consistent with other scientific discourses that circulate. The two consequences of the held notion of nativeness, i.e.: the understanding of non-Europeans as (1) always tied to their land, which if they leave transforms them into «Westernised» individuals with no true self, and (2) ahistorical groups with no relevant events in their entire history until Europeans met them, have been historically used against those described as natives/aborigines. This vision of nativeness is present in most of the accounts of non-European groups even until today. I think these notions, used to limit the agency of non-European people, extension of a patronising vision towards them, must be abandoned. In order to do this, it is central to recognise the historicity of aborigines/natives from all over the world, who own a lively history, regardless their interaction with Europeans.
literature&travel 
This was a very interesting reading. It reminds at some points of Zizek’s argument about the use of the word ‘native’ to refer to native Americans, as if they were part of the realm of innocence and nature, while Europeans were on the side of civilization and rational thinking. It surprises me that the author already acknowledges all these points in a very ‘early’ time.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona