Oh Canada ENGL 372

In his book, John Lutz states that a difficulty of interpreting the first contacts between Native peoples and Europeans is “enter[ing] 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” (32). Lutz starts his book with this request for many different reasons.

First, to make his reader examine their bias. Through the writing, editing and compilation of his book Lutz  came into contact with many different people with different backgrounds and biases. Everyone has implicit bias, an important step to recognizing your bias is admitting that you have one. The next step is to work towards overcoming your bias but also to remind other of their bias. Lutz pointing out the difficulty in interpretation is a tactful way to remind readers to recognize their potential biases. When considering first contact stories between Europeans it is important to recognize a European bias when considering the Native perspective. It is also important to remember to examine the indigenous perspective. Consideration of the Indigenous perspective is still a relatively new concept in academia, especially consideration that includes respect for indigenous beliefs and their validity.

Another reason Lutz begins his book with a reminder that these stories are “distant in time and alien in culture” (32) is to combat the difficulties inherent in examining Indigenous stories in general. Indigenous stories that have been written down in English are lacking many crucial elements that would allow readers to examine the stories from an indigenous perspective. The translation from Indigenous languages to English is imperfect. “Languages contain a wealth of cultural information” (Maclean) that is lost in translation.  The stories are intended to be told orally which allows for more interpretation by the storyteller including voice inflection, pauses and intimacy. “The cultural “rules” regulating the oral tradition” (Simpson) are also integral to the story and the story’s interpretation. They also regulate the conditions that the story can be told in i.e. who needs to be present which can limit the number of times the story is told and how many people can hear it.

Another problem with interpretation of Indigenous culture is the period of time when the residential school system was active. The residential schools, among many cruel effects, hindered or halted the continuation of the Indigenous oral tradition by outlawing their ceremonies and language. Children were taken from their families unlawfully, removing them from the influence of their elders who were responsible for passing on stories, beliefs and traditions. The Indigenous tradition of storytelling and recording history is oral. These oral stories, as mentioned above, are ceremonially told in the Indigenous language and sometimes to specific family members. The family members who would have been imparted with the stories may have been taken to residential schools and may never have returned because the mortality rate was so high. If they returned they may not have sufficient knowledge of the language to understand the story.

During the time that the Indigenous people’s language and practices were outlawed the oral historical tradition was effectively outlawed. Lutz requests that his readers ensure they observe first contact stories from the Indigenous perspective not just the European. This request does not assume that his readers are European nor does he assume that it is more difficult for Europeans to interpret Indigenous behaviour in first contact stories. Lutz is assuming that it is harder for everyone to interpret the Indigenous perspective in a first contact story. Lutz’s statement that his readers should try to view the first contact stories from the Indigenous perspective is resultant and reflective of the harm that has been done to Indigenous populations. It is an incredibly unfortunate truth that it is hard for anyone to understand the historical Indigenous perspective because we lost the context during the residential school period. Lutz assumes that even Indigenous people may have a hard time viewing the encounter from this perspective because of the irreversible harm that was done to their culture which disabled the ability of Indigenous people to freely pass down their culture and history.

Lutz rightly assumes that some readers may have an implicit bias that they need to confront in order to interpret the first contact stories from both perspectives. This assumption is fair because we all have implicit bias. Lutz further assumes that the Indigenous perspective of first contact is remote to all readers, not just Europeans, because Indigenous records of their history and traditions were immutably injured.

Work Cited

Kelly, Lewis. “How to check your unconscious biases” Folio, https://www.folio.ca/how-to-check-your-unconscious-biases/. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

Lutz, John. “Myth and Memory Rethinking Stories of Indigenous- European Contact”, UBC Press, 2007.

MacLean, Taylor. “Lost in Translation: How Language Can Contain a Worldview,” University of Toronto, https://indigenousstudies.utoronto.ca/news/lost-in-translation-language-and-worldview/. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

Simpson, Leanne. “Stories, Dreams, and Ceremonies: Anishinaabe ways of learning” Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 4 – Summer 2000, https://tribalcollegejournal.org/stories-dreams-ceremonies-anishinaabe-ways-learning/. Accessed 7 Feb 2020