3. 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). He asks us to begin with the assumption that comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants is “one of the most obvious difficulties.” He explains that this is so because “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans.” Here, Lutz is assuming either that his readers belong to the European tradition, or he is assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around. 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?
What do you make of this reading?
I am intrigued to read about the diversity of the many Indigenous cultures on the west coast of British Columbia. Throughout the reading, I was reminded of my profound influence of the Western-European culture living in a settler Canadian society today. For example, the story pertaining the oral histories of the Ts’msyen people in relation to the importance of supernatural encounters and taking a ‘rational’ approach in dousing themselves with urine when the vessel appeared over the supernatural spot and Raven (Lutz 36), made me address the concept of what was considered to be ‘rational’ in a historical lens and how rationality could be applied contemporarily if someone was to do that today.
I was interested in the approach that Lutz took by addressing the controlled efforts by both Europeans and the Indigenous people in efforts to attain a level of peace, even in times of miscommunication through providing examples like “What gestures to make that would not provoke? What costumes to wear to aspire the appropriate awe or respect? What face to show forward the right mixture of strength and openness?” (Lutz 30). Lutz provides a perspective that is contrary to what is taught in today’s education system as it pertains to the historical relations between European settlers and the Indigenous people, the emphasis placed on the importance of showing respect for the Europeans and the Indigenous people is different due to the reference of positive communication opposed to focusing on the negative outcomes for the Indigenous people as a result of European influence (30).
It is difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances
In regards to Lutz’s statement about how European’s misinterpret the Indigenous, I argue that Lutz is implying that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances. The supporting argument that in order for one to understand the level of misunderstanding between the Indigenous people and the Europeans, one must be able to place themselves in the context of the situation through the binary perspectives supports level of difficulty for Europeans to understand Indigenous people due to a lack of prior experiences in communication between the Europeans and the Indigenous people.
The binary beliefs illustrated in the notion ‘god’ for Indigenous people and Europeans is indicative of Lutz’s argument in how one of the most salient difficulties for Europeans could be communicating with the Indigenous people reinforces. For example, I found it interesting that the Indigenous people do not believe in a god, and how earlier in the article, Lutz discusses how Indigenous people perceived the Europeans as supernatural beings, in which the Europeans misinterpreted that the Indigenous people had perceived them as ‘gods’ (32). This point supports the level of misunderstanding in the communication between the Europeans and the Indigenous people; through the Europeans making the automatic link between the concept of ‘supernatural’ and ‘god’, implying that the Indigenous people believe in a god-like figure that is a super natural, and that the construal of the Europeans as ‘super natural’ must mean that the Indigenous people see the Europeans as ‘gods’ (32).
Is Lutz’s assumption fair? Yes.
The point made by Lutz that comprehending the performances by the Indigenous people is difficult for Europeans is a fair assumption to make; suggesting that the reader should enter an unknown time and challenge us to interpret un-familiar cultural practices is an appropriate justification supporting the difficulty for Europeans to understand Indigenous performances as a means for communication (Lutz 32).
Works Cited
Higgins, Jenny. “Aboriginal Relations with Europeans 1600-1900.” Heritage.nf.ca. Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site, 2008. Web. 15 June 2016.
Lutz, John. “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance: Encounters on the North American West Coast.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007. 30-45. Print.
Smith, Derek G. “Aboriginal People: Religion.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 15 June 2016.
“The Explorers and the First Nations, Their Lands and Their Lives.” VirtualMuseum.ca. Maritime Museum of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 15 June 2016.