In his article, “First Contact As a Spiritual Performance: Encounters on the North American West Coast,” John Sutton Lutz elaborates on the difficulties of “the first and ongoing contacts between native and stranger” (45).  Undoubtedly, the interactions must have been perplexing to both sides, given the language barrier, and the lack of knowledge of the other culture.  Lutz, however, through his writings, seems to make the assumption that the reader is either European or that the Europeans had a harder time understanding indigenous culture.  Whether this assumption is fair or not, I will argue, that it is of minimal significance considering what he is trying to assert.  The value of the article, I believe, is in his suggestion to accept the spiritual influences of all cultures, and to not disregard them as irrational, non-scientific beliefs.  With this, we can perceive cultural differences of both history and present times in a less judgmental manner.

The assumption that the reader is of European descent – if that is what he assumed – is in fact, a fair one.  Even if the reader was of native descent, the world of academia is dominated by Western cultural influence, and the reader would most likely have been immersed in a Euro-centric way of thought.  For example, as a philosophy student, all of the courses I have experienced so far only covered Western philosophy, and none of Eastern.  In fact, I believe there is only one course covering Eastern philosophy – the focus of the philosophy degree is dominated by Western thought.

And if, Lutz had made the assumption that Europeans would have a harder time interpreting the performances of the indigenous, I believe it would be a fair assumption as well.  He speaks of the Europeans feeling a sense of superiority already because of their advanced technology, and it is widely presumed that the indigenous way of life is more primitive, perhaps due to nomadic ways of living off the land.  The sense of superiority, I believe, makes it harder to empathize and/or accept the different ways one thinks.  It is clear even in present day, with clashes of religion and even political views – for an individual or group that thinks they are right in opposition to their differing counterpart, it takes quite the open mind for them to begin to interpret their opposition’s beliefs with respect.

These assumptions, to me are not anything to be deeply concerned about.  John Sutton Lutz’s article is so valuable, in my perception, because, whether or not he assumes that European thought is the dominant one, he encourages the reader to really question that dominance.  Although, presumably more rational because of the Enlightenment’s focus on science and education, Lutz suggests that “a closer look at the Europeans would show that their rational behaviour was also determined, in part, by their non-rational spiritual beliefs” (31).  For instance, it was in the belief of a religious view that Europeans thought the indigenous needed to be converted and saved spiritually – despite the disrespect and violence that was involved in the process.

Lutz illustrates that both sides were governed by their religious or spiritual beliefs that defined their world.  One is not necessarily more rational or superior than the other, merely because of technological advantage.  Technology, I believe, is not a reflection of a flourishing society when the scruples of a people are compromised.  It is important to question is morality is a function of rationality – such as utilitarianism, a belief that the right thing to do is defined by the advantage to the group, the greater good.  A moral compass, the ability to empathize and feel compassion, and an ability to let go of egoistic individuality, are more rational factors for a society to flourish than advanced technology.

The Multiculturalism Act of 1988, signed on by the late Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, was a means to accommodate immigrants of all nations, races, religions, and languages.  The Act is “seen to represent official commitment to ensuring that all ethnic and racial groups are able to maintain their cultures while fully participating in Canadian society” (James 31).  It was a nice attempt to relieve the pressures and undo the prevalence of Canadian “whiteness” that Daniel Coleman speaks about in his book, White Civility.  His work illustrates the dominance of the cultures of the colonizers, shown in his examination of widespread literature from 1850 to 1950.  The ideas about Canadian citizenship were promoted in light of British culture, and despite the Act, the perception still exists today.

Coleman’s thoughts about the dominant white culture is apparent even when looking at things such as the Canadian national holidays, including Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Obviously, the national language is English, and the assimilation of immigrants includes the learning of the language.  When looking at the oppressive incidences of the residential schools, that would be a clear example of the cultural dominance of “whiteness”.  What we see on television especially is a reflection of the white way of man – definitions of beauty, family structure, and other societal expectations are normalized through popular culture.

To define oneself as Canadian, was a different experience for my parents’ generation (being immigrants), as it was for my time – post-Multiculturalism Act.  My mother still speaks of herself as being Korean, even though she holds citizenship in Canada, speaks fluent English, and even went to university here.  I, however, despite having grown up in a Korean home which maintained much of its culture through language, traditions, and even food, identify myself as both Korean and Canadian, and to me that does mean being multicultural.  As a child, I did feel less Canadian and more Korean when we coloured pictures of turkeys to celebrate Thanksgiving, and my mother did not gather our family for dinner for such festivities.  The culture was definitely prominent.  As I grow older and do not let the insignificance of things like Canadian traditions bother me, or define what it means to be Canadian, I can and enjoy identifying with both cultures.

The Multiculturalism Act, although seemingly just symbolic, is a fantastic addition to the official Canadian culture.  Multiculturalism is even included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making it not just a privilege to maintain one’s non-white culture, but a right.  More and more, steps taken to undo the British dominance, I believe, will result in a truly multicultural and equal society!

Works Cited

James, Carl E.  “Multicultural and Anti-Racism Education in Canada.”  Race, Gender & Class (Spring 1995), pp. 31-48.

A map is much like a story – it tells of a shared cultural history as much as it does geopolitical landscape.  The trial of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people against the Crown was a great example of just how the Aboriginal population proved so resourceful in their fight for sovereignty.  In Matthew Sparke‘s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation,” he examines the correlation in theme of the trial and the writing of volume one of the Historical Atlas of Canada.  The importance of cartography is highlighted in these cases, and Sparke shows the challenge they present to the pre-existing homogeneous, dominant perceptions of our nation’s history.

The Atlas invites readers not only to learn more about the history of Canada, but also to re-think their perspectives about what Canadian citizens have been commonly taught in schools.  It challenged the political certainties of affirming the nation-state as the ones in power, the ones in charge.  It undermined the idea that the sovereignty of Canada has always been a legitimate and just accomplishment.  However, the Atlas shows that it is not just sovereignty from Britain that Canada successfully acquired, but sovereignty over a native population whom had to be conquered.

Sparke speaks of a concept metaphor, which he calls ‘contrapuntal cartographies’.  It is the perception that the solid cartographies already in existence, need to be questioned and sometimes re-mapped.  It is through this interpretation that there can be “a strategic revoicing of the subdominant to make it equal to the dominant and thus to orchestrate a balance that can potentially edify and educate an audience about the power relations of culture” (Sparke 467).  Canada and the world are in dire need of this openness to re-interpret and re-evaluate the histories that have been fed to a gullible world.

When Chief Justice Allan McEachern reacted to a map dictating Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan territory with the words, “we’ll call it the map that roared,” (Sparke 468) it illustrated a beautifully tragic metaphor.  The roar could interchangeably be one of turmoil or triumph, depending on the two interpretations that Sparke offers.  One reflecting the tumultuous anachronism of the situation, and one of a fiery resistance.  Seeing as how Chief Justice rejected Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan claims, perhaps he perceived the roar as one of futility – that of a dying wild animal, tired from its fight, yet persistent in its frustration.

The resistance – a fight worth fighting!  The roar is a pledge of non-compliance, of sovereignty and self-governance, of independence as a society.  The roar is a shaming of Chief Justice and his decisive blows to an entire population of people attempting merely to reclaim what was rightfully theirs.

Bibliography

Sparke, Matthew.  “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.”  Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Vol. 88 No. 3) Sept. 1998: 463-495.