The heartwarming tale of Arthur the King, starring Mark Wahlberg, has captured the attention of millions with its story of an endurance athlete and a stray dog forming an unlikely bond during an epic adventure race. While the film, based on a widely circulating narrative and adapted from multiple books, emphasizes themes of perseverance, sacrifice, and the human-dog connection, a closer examination reveals a more complex truth beneath the surface. This narrative, deeply rooted in the concept of saviorism, carries significant weight due to historical and ongoing issues of settler colonialism and white supremacy. By dissecting the story of “Arthur,” we can uncover how deeply ingrained racism and coloniality persist even in seemingly simple tales. This narrative of saviorism is particularly compelling when we consider the power dynamics at play.
The True Identity of “Arthur”
The dog at the center of this story, known as Barbuncho in his native Ecuador, hails from a village where extensive fieldwork has been conducted for over two decades. Contrary to the portrayal in the film and popular narrative, Barbuncho was not a stray or abused animal. He was a cherished farm and jungle dog, known for his adventurous spirit and his tendency to accompany visitors, including doctors and ecologists, on expeditions. Barbuncho provided significant comfort to his owner, Esteban (a pseudonym), especially after a divorce. Esteban even penned ballads in honor of their deep companionship. The sentiment from Esteban’s grandson, “I really miss our dog. Why do gringos come here and take our dogs away?”, highlights a recurring issue where well-intentioned volunteers adopt dogs, sometimes without full community consent, and remove them from their familiar surroundings.
The question of why this story, despite attempts to correct the narrative, has generated such strong emotional investment and even hostility, points to underlying sociocultural forces that shape belief. The backlash against those who question the prevailing fiction illustrates how worldviews influence what people choose to believe and disbelieve. This story’s power is amplified by its resonance with historical narratives of settler colonialism and racialized violence, demonstrating how such deeply embedded ideologies can be perpetuated through even the simplest of stories.
Correcting the Narrative: Barbuncho’s Ecuadorian Home
In 2014, a widely circulated article described a “stray” dog who “adopted a team of Swedish trekkers in the Amazon.” This account, featuring a dog named Arthur following Mikael Lindnord and his teammates through challenging terrain, felt familiar. The dog in the photograph was, in fact, Barbuncho, a well-known dog in the Ecuadorian reserve where fieldwork had been ongoing. The adventure racers were on the Ecuadorian coast, not the Amazon, though the environment shared similarities.
Upon confirmation that the dog was indeed Barbuncho, efforts were made to contact Mikael Lindnord. Esteban, Barbuncho’s owner, was concerned about his dog being taken across the world, especially as Barbuncho had a history of accompanying various groups on adventures and always returned home. The local community operated on a system of shared care, where Barbuncho had multiple “homes” and was looked after by family and friends if his primary owner was away. This communal safety net, which supported animals, children, and the elderly, was a significant aspect of community life. To those who knew him, Barbuncho was a dog who relished his freedom.
When Barbuncho’s owner, Esteban, was eventually identified by the Ecuadorian press, it led to a surprising backlash. National petitions emerged, primarily fueled by urban elites and animal rights networks, seeking to penalize Esteban. This social media outcry echoed a broader anxiety that rural and coastal Afro-Ecuadorians and mestizos were perceived as holding the country back. The celebration of Lindnord’s perceived more “cultured” approach to pet-keeping by some Ecuadorians aligned with a progressive notion of modernity, leading to Esteban and his community being labeled as national embarrassments and their way of life as backward and abusive.
Colonial Perspectives and Deception
The inconsistencies within the evolving “Arthur” narratives are revealing. They not only highlight the need for hyperbole in making a story captivating for a global audience but also expose the distorted lens through which the Global North often views the Global South. Lindnord’s insistence that the dog was near death, despite its ability to traverse difficult terrain for days, exemplifies a subconscious narrative of deprivation and suffering stereotypically associated with the Global South. This narrative is further reinforced by broad characterizations of rural life as lacking value for animals, perpetuating racist and colonial tropes. Lindnord’s reflections, such as attributing the dog’s condition to the lack of kindness from “natives,” tap into age-old characterizations that dispossess and disenfranchise rural populations.
This perspective frames “saving” not just as an act for an individual animal but as a mission to rescue all “Arthurs” from uncivilized environments. The Arthur Foundation, though seemingly inactive, supported a carceral response with stricter animal abuse laws, aligning with a Global North ideal of pet-keeping governed by law and structured care.
The publishing industry and Hollywood have amplified these embellishments. Barbuncho’s journey has been conflated with the team’s extensive race route, and claims of the dog traveling hundreds of miles and the racer facing disqualification have become central to the narrative. Filming in the Dominican Republic, after an initial attempt in Puerto Rico, was attributed to COVID protocols, but arguably served to distance the production from the original location and maintain the deceptive narrative. The consistent ambiguity of the setting—whether Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico—underscores the function of these diverse tropical backdrops: they serve as a foil to highlight the supposed civility and heroism of the Global North.
The Desire for Feel-Good Narratives
The appeal of the “Arthur” story lies in its reward of celebrating loyalty and friendship, especially when it involves a dog’s unwavering devotion. In a world often dominated by challenging news cycles, such feel-good narratives offer a welcome emotional respite. Dogs, as uncomplicated companions, allow for the projection of desires for loving relationships. Counterarguments to skepticism often center on the idea that “the dog chose us,” intended to close the debate. However, when directly asked about the dog’s original owner, Lindnord’s response remained firm: “I have microchipped Arthur. I am his owner.” This assertion directly contradicts any notion of shared ownership or a desire to reunite the dog with his family.
The “incredible true story” of Arthur, in its deceptions, reveals a deeper truth about the enduring power of racist and colonial “common sense.” This logic frames rural backwardness and supposed savagery as justification for the North’s perceived civility and inherent claim to property. These stereotypes not only misinform but also validate intrusive ideologies and interference in the affairs of the Global South. In such narratives, rural populations are stripped of agency, cast as villains, and their complex realities are oversimplified. Ultimately, the focus remains on heroism and conquest, overshadowing the systemic issues of extraction and dispossession that enable these tales. This narrative benefits Lindnord, the film’s producers and cast, and global dog lovers, while the ultimate deceit lies in the moral and political disenfranchisement of Barbuncho’s home, family, and community.
