The Importance of Dialogue
We began this unit by discussing assumptions and differences that we carry into our class. In “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” Lutz makes an assumption about his readers (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). What do you make of this reading? Am I being fair when I point to this assumption? If so, is Lutz being fair when he makes this assumption?
In Lutz’s essay “First Contact as Spiritual Performance” he describes a “cycle of confusion” which existed or even continues to exist due to a language barrier (Lutz 30). Lutz definitely speaks to a more European audience, introducing mostly Indigenous mindsets, tradition or reactions instead of the former. Dr Erika Paterson raises this as one of Lutz’s assumptions, which is indeed evident and brings about what I believe is a flaw in Lutz’s essay as it is counterproductive towards his main points.
Lutz states that it is a challenge to “step outside and see one’s own culture as alien”, which is exactly what Samuel P. Huntington describes in his article “The Clash of Civilisations” (Lutz 32). Similar to what Huntington describes, Lutz is advocating for mutual understanding and respect to exist now as it did before. Lutz notes that “it was the spiritual that… determined the peaceable outcomes” and furthermore in a time wherein understanding was only forged through gestured and devoid of language (Lutz 31). That being said, it is interesting to consider whether or not Lutz’s addressing of his target audience is one which can be asserted. Perspectives and perceptions are constantly altering, not just restricted to the dynamics between the Indigenous and Europeans for example, but on a larger scale of between ‘European-esque’ cultures and other cultures as well. “Europeans are shown as associated with the spirit world” within Indigenous history (Lutz 36). As such, Lutz is trying to reconcile the spiritual differences that exist now with the ‘peace’ that had been constructed based on the mutual respect and understanding of spirituality.
However, Lutz indeed makes the flaw in creating an essay more appealing towards the European reader, when in fact what would have been the hardest to ‘understand’ were other human beings in “strange vessels” entering their land (Lutz 36). Lutz does try to insert humour which I believe can be understood as slightly insensitive, that “there was only one rational thing (for the Indigenous) to do. Douse oneself in urine” (Lutz 36). Perhaps he is trying to adopt a more relaxed tone in the understanding of such rituals, but it is evident that he caters for an audience who finds understanding Indigenous performances.
This misinterpretation of actions is also prevalent in Vancouver. In the last few weeks, Premier Christy Clark, as well as a few corporate giants had endorsed an event called “Om the Bridge”. A yoga event targeted at community building and perhaps with no ill intentions, it has since been cancelled after uproar at the cost to taxpayers, but more importantly that it was to be held on National Aboriginal Day. Using this as an example, instead Indigenous peoples could have in the past, and evidently still have the high possibility of understanding European-centric points of view. Why would one want to cause somewhat of a ‘public disturbance’ on a day of observance?
Assumptions and differences thus need to be put into dialogue. Although Lutz’s argument can be described as slightly single faceted at times, it should not discredit the fact that he provides a solid interpretation and discussion of the need to promote dialogue in order to establish more harmony and understanding of perspectives. After all, if it could have been done by our forefathers, why should we be unable when we have language as our tool as well?
“Burrard Bridge Yoga Plan Mocked by Singer Raffi Cavoukian on Twitter.” CBC News Online. 9 June 2015. Web. 12 June 2015.
Huntington, Samuel P.. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs Online. 1 June 1993. Web. 12 June 2015.
Lutz, John Sutton. “First Contact as Spiritual Performance: Encounters on the North American West Coast.” Myth and Memory: Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007. Print. 30-45.
Why indeed. I think we’re on the right track, and when I say we I mean Generation Y. Maybe there’s a correlation close to what Lutz proposes. Maybe the number of people in Gen Y might finally be high enough to ask the question why, specifically to these questions of cultural (mis)understanding.
I like that you included the recent Burrard Bridge mishap. When I first heard about it, I wasn’t surprised that a government official had made an oversight that resulted in the disrespect of Aboriginal culture and subsequently began to chime in. However, I then remembered that — although on a much smaller scale — I’ve been directly in Christy Clark’s position. I’ve made a mistake that resulted in the unintentional disrespect of another group.
What I liked about the article you shared was the way in which Raffi called out Christy: directly. The way in which the situation was resolved is what interests me. Do you think Raffi, specifically with his Twitter comments, did a good job in confronting Christy? In order for communication and understanding to be as transparent as possible, is there anything that you would have done differently in order to repair the situation?
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your comment!
Yes I agree, all of us have been in a similar position.
In terms of the way Raffi Cavoukian so directly called out Premier Clark… Perhaps he could have done so through a better channel and in a more formal manner? That being said, I do agree that it is a breath of fresh air to see someone stand up for his beliefs without any sugar-coating. Admirable, not politically correct, but then again, Cavoukian is not a politician and need not worry about such matters!
Clark perhaps could address the situation through a forum, have members of the public voice out opinions. There’s always room for change and I believe everyone needs to and knows to embrace that!
🙂
I agree with what you have said about Lutz’s article being very European-centric in its perspective. I think his one story about the boat meeting the fishermen was sufficient in highlighting the oddity of the European explorers. The story helped illuminate the differences in technology, and the misunderstandings created by different beliefs and languages. However, I can see where it would be appropriate to further expand upon the Indigenous perspective as well. Your point about his use of humour was interesting as well in that it seems inappropriate to joke about a culture’s belief, because from another perspective the European practices would also seem strange. I failed to notice this humour at first glance because the information was new to me, and I was naive to the tone.
I had heard about the “Om the Bridge” event from a friend, and that it was cancelled due to complaints. I hadn’t heard which day it was, and now it makes sense since it seems to also downplay the importance of a culture-specific day (National Aboriginal Day). This serves to highlight the point of misunderstanding by pointing out how views can often be formed without evaluating all facets of information. My circumstance wherein I had an idea about why the event was cancelled, while not being aware of the date and meaning associated with it. And the Premier’s situation where she had positive intentions to create an event, but didn’t account for the repercussions. I think this illustrates the need for greater cultural awareness to be created.
Hi Landon,
Thanks for your reply!
🙂
Hello Debra,
I wrote on this one too! We both had the same thought that Lutz was trying to speak to a European audience. Saying that it was harder for the European’s to understand these new people is an understatement. It would have been just as difficult for the Indigenous people to understand these new people that have come to their land. What I just found out from a post on my blog is that apparently on his UVic page he talks about defining his passion from living within the provinces of BC. This makes it very difficult to understand where he is coming from and the points that he is making. He seems to go back and forth on the topics.
Like you said, he advocated for mutual understanding and respect that is now in play. But he used to consider these people as “strange vessels” and “aliens” because he couldn’t take the time at that moment to understand these new people. He goes back later after this first encounter and says that we should be trying to reconcile the differences between them.
Not sure where he stands on this message!
-Kathryn
Hi Kathryn!
Thanks for your reply!
I think his difficulties stem from his inability or uncertainty as to reconcile his stance, whether it is more European-centric or whether he indeed sees more equality and understanding that needs to be forged!
🙂
I read about that yoga event, frankly I was relieved it was cancelled for several reasons. The least of most not being the astounding cost to the tax payers after fighting the teachers union tooth and nail for every cent but that is not relevant.
I found the Lutz reading very one-sided as well, and perhaps even a little diminishing as you mentioned but I feel like the over all message was a good one. That being said I feel like it could have been phrased better in spots. I like how you can appreciate both the message but also how the phrasing could be seen as offensive.
Do you think the message would have been less “European friendly” if it had been written differently? Do you think it would have been ok if the bridge was closed for an Aboriginal event?
Hi James,
Thanks for your reply! I think it could have portrayed a more impartial and appealing view if it were less European-centric for sure! Therefore it definitely could have been phrased differently in many areas.
I think so, after all, it was to be held in an area owned by First Nations, and there should have been consent sought from the necessary parties first.
🙂
Hi Debra,
Just stopping by to make a few quick points.
Without a doubt, it is hard to step outside of one’s culture and see it as alien; but it’s just as hard to step outside of one’s culture and understand another.
Talking about assumptions and differences is easier said than done. People tend to get offended because problems are usually pinned to an individual; as a result, further conversation is cut because it then turns into something personal.
Your Huntington reading was really interesting. It’s funny how he talks about every society not Western is essentially trying to be Western, and doing so by trying to match the level of economic, military, etc strength the West presently has, I found it strange, but agreeable, how he says different societies (or ‘civilizations) basically have the same goal yet are divided.
Additionally, what are your thoughts about the whole yoga on the bridge thing? Are you opposed to it because it just happens to fall on National Aboriginal Day? Or because it’s happening somewhere unconventional? Or both? The event is scheduled at such an odd location but that alone ingeniously promotes International Yoga Day.
Hi EJ,
Thanks for your reply!
I had quite a few oppositions to the event. Firstly, I drive and live downtown, I understand when there are road closures due to events such as Christmas, Pride and other parades… but it just seemed like yoga, on a bridge no less, was an unreasonable reason for myself to be stuck in traffic for what often comes up to 4-5 hours? Besides, yoga could be done in a more conducive environment! The park perhaps?
Also National Aboriginal Day! It definitely should have been done in an area which was in a territory which was not owned by the First Nations.
🙂