- 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?
I believe that this reading of Lutz (it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around) is both accurate and fair for many reasons. If we dissect this interpretation, we can argue for it’s validity.
- It is more difficult for a European to understand an Indigenous performance, than the other way around. – According to information from both of Lutz’s articles assigned for reading, as well as Thomas King’s powerful creation narratives, it seems fair to say that people from the European tradition would find it more difficult to understand an Indigenous performance. The reasons for this are highlighted in the many differences between European and Indigenous people, present at first contact, and still around today. The first if the European tradition of religion. Highlighted excellently in Thomas King’s comparison of creation stories, the European tradition values a singular, all powerful presence of God, and believes they were made in his image. This attribution of power leaves no room for any other alternative interpretations, and therefore makes it difficult for them to see Indigenous performances as anything other than heresy. The Indigenous tradition, however, attributes spiritual power to all things and believes that every aspect of their life is steeped in spirituality. Lutz states, ” Native people lived in a world where there was no firm divide between the natural and the spirit world” (Lutz 35). This point of view, shown through Thomas King’s cooperative creation story, would enable the Indigenous person to more easily consider the validity of the European performance, as their religion makes it possible to fit the European story into it, rather than excluding it immediately. Second, European “Enlightenment” thinking (An opinion piece that highlights the problems with Enlightenment thinking is here) and focus on scientific discovery skewed has skewed their perception of truth and fiction. The European tradition demands empirical evidence and proof of all assertions, and believes that this dedication to logic is the basis of their moral and intellectual superiority over other people. This tradition would not allow Europeans to consider Aboriginal performances in any serious light, and would relegate them to the realm of fairy tales, thereby missing out on the informative and educational value of these performances. Though it is necessary to point out that they were still ruled by their faith, and as Lutz states “a closer look at the Europeans shows that their rational behavior was determined in part, by their non-rational spiritual beliefs” (Lutz 32). Furthermore, the European tradition asserts that only what is written or recorded is valid. Aboriginals, however, use performance and storytelling for a wide variety of important and political negotiations including territory and resource disputes that often take place during potlach’s. (I’m not sure how accurate the information in this video is, but I thought the “performance” quality of the potlach depicted was beautiful and helped me to imagine the performances that might have taken place during first contact) Therefore, Aboriginals value the importance of story telling as more than just fun and performance. Story telling is their way and their law, which would make them more open to honouring the validity of the European performances.
Works Cited
Lutz, John. “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance: Aboriginal — Non-Aboriginal Encounters on the North American West Coast.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 30-45. Print.
Mia Calder
June 21, 2016 — 9:34 am
Hi,
I thought your analysis of Lutz’s assumption to be really well argued. At first, when I read the question, it seemed like the aim of the question was for us to argue against Lutz’s assumption, but like you Lutz’s point made sense to me. I, however, couldn’t find the words to explain why — but the idea of completely different faith systems — monotheist vs. (I guess) polytheist, and the power the God(s) have would make comprehension almost impossible on the European’s side (or as you said, made it impossible to see another faith as anything other than heresy). I believe the Europeans had the same trouble with Indian deities. What’s interesting is that the Europeans aren’t entirely working on a “clean” slate here — Anglo-Saxons were polytheist, as were the Greeks and Romans to whom the Europeans looked to for inspiration during the Renaissance.
Laura
June 21, 2016 — 12:05 pm
Hi Mia,
Thanks for your feedback. I was getting a little worried because the more I read of other people’s blogs, the more it seemed like I totally misinterpreted the question! Hahaha.
I don’t know a lot about (any!) religion, so that’s really interesting to me about the Anglo-Saxon, Greek and Roman influence on Christianity.
Were you as surprised as I was that Indigenous performance and storytelling was more than what it seemed? I was coming at it from a totally Euro-centric point of view assuming it was all pageantry. Learn something new everyday!
LorraineShen
June 22, 2016 — 10:34 am
Thank you for your post Laura. I enjoyed reading it. I find it interesting that not only did Europeans believe in “a” God, they also made Him in man’s image (especially that of a regal and serious monarch who is determined to judge people at the end of one’s earthly life), although they thought otherwise. I find that many orthodox Christian religions interpret God in a way as though he were “a” being rather than “being” which underlies all creation. Since God is omni-present and omniscient, it ought to be that “He” is always here at every moment and everywhere. In this sense, could it be that the Native tradition might have had a deeper connection to “God” in that they believe God is found in every “aspect of their life” like what you say about their spirituality?
Cheers,
Lorraine
Laura
June 26, 2016 — 1:04 am
Hi Lorraine,
I really like what you’re suggesting here. I think it is possible that certain Indigenous traditions may have a more holistic, naturalized and individual connection to spirituality, rather than God. Maybe that’s what I mean? I think that (from what I’ve read so far, I may be wrong) the Indigenous tradition was not as focused on hierarchy (since everything had a connection to the spirit world) and without this hierarchy spirituality or religion was more of a hands on and consuming state of being.
Thanks for sharing your cool idea 🙂
Laura
JohnWang
June 22, 2016 — 3:35 pm
Hi Laura-Marie,
Thanks for your insights.
I do think Christianity creates an exclusive and superior mentality for the Europeans when they come in contact with First Nations. If First Nation ceremonies and stories are categorically dismissed, there can be no understanding.
For those of us who educated in the West or the global North, how much do we believe our own European ceremonies? Do we believe there has been a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, or do we see it as an analogy? What about the creation story? (Not mocking the Christian tradition, I have great respect for people like Mother Teresa.) The point is, if we can accept these stories, then why not the First Nation narratives?
– John
Laura
June 26, 2016 — 1:07 am
Hi John,
This question has made me consider the original posting in a bit of a new light. I was going to share that I thought it would be really hard to decide if the entire Western tradition really believed the stories of a number of religions, because I feel that some people genuinely do (ask my Grandpa) and some people do not.
But this made me realize that this aspect of believing and not believing probably existed in Indigenous spiritual practices as well. It never occured to me before that an Indigenous person had the opportunity not to believe, and this kind of opened my eyes in a weird way.
Thanks!
Ashley Nicholson
June 24, 2016 — 11:58 am
Hi Laura,
I really enjoyed reading your argument! We wrote on the same topic, but I think you explained yours a little more clearly. In particular, I like how you compared the idea of performance as entertainment vs performance as law. I think the classic European model of performances is to tell a story, but the main goal of storytelling is to entertain. And though lots of European stories are parables, I think that if they weren’t at heart a story to entertain its’ audience, they wouldn’t get any traction. Thanks for giving me a new way to think about this question!
Laura
June 26, 2016 — 1:07 am
Hi Ashley,
Thanks for your kind feedback 🙂
Laura