Prompt:

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 would answer yes to all of the above. I would say yes, he is assuming both, that most of his readers belong to the European tradition and that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances—than the other way around. I, again, would say yes, you are being fair to point out this assumption, and Lutz is fair to make the assumption. I think these assumptions are partly due to the book’s intended audience and the European genocide of Indigenous culture.

First of all, let’s think of this book and its intended audience: people that are of, or familiar with European tradition. The most obvious evidence for this is that it is published in English, and even if you aren’t a native English speaker, to learn the language to the level needed to read and understand an academic book like this requires a long time of using the language. To further this point, there is no better substitute for learning to read a language than, quite obviously, reading. This means that people reading this textbook will be quite familiar with European tradition due to having read a decent amount of its stories. Me, someone who isn’t of European tradition, is more familiar with it than my Asian traditions, having lived my entire teenage and adult life in Canada. This makes me a blend of two traditions, it is simply unavoidable as someone who lives here. Also, I’m attending UBC, which, even with all the effort to decolonize, is still very much of an education facility catering to the European tradition.

Which brings me to the next point, it’s an academic textbook and thusly it is aimed towards academics, possibly many of them students like ourselves attending a western university. How do you enter a western academic facility? Through good marks and studying, of course. And how much are we taught and tested on Indigenous performances and storytelling? Virtually none. This means, even if you are of Indigenous background, the reader of this text would most likely be partially of European tradition, or at the very least familiar with it. With being taught so much of European stories in school, and so little of Indigenous stories, for people of our time, it is a sad fact that European stories are indeed easier to understand than understanding something “alien in culture”.

My final point is how much damage that has been done to the Indigenous culture by the Europeans, and that there is lasting cultural damage that is still felt today. As mentioned in the lesson, the Potlatch ban lasted nearly seventy-five years, long enough that majority of the population that was familiar with the tradition to be dead by the time the law was lifted. Of course, we can’t forget about the residential schools, an attempt to exterminate the Indigenous culture within the young of their population. During this time, much of Indigenous culture was lost and later had to be recovered. Now, they are left with reserves which are known for its terrible infrastructure and financial conditions, forcing most Indigenous people to live outside of reserves. In the US, Indian Relocation Act of 1956, pushed many of the Indigenous people off of reserves as well, forcing them into the cities. In such situations, many of these people begin to lose parts of their culture.

With so much damage has been done to the Indigenous culture, even today, most of their people are forced to follow European traditions. So is it wrong for Lutz to assume his readers would be more familiar with European traditions than Indigenous? I don’t think so.

Citations

Indigenous Corporate Training. “Potlatch Ban: Abolishment of First Nations Ceremonies.” Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, 16 Oct. 2012, www.ictinc.ca/the-potlatch-ban-abolishment-of-first-nations-ceremonies.

Penner, Dylan. “Federal Party Leaders Urged to End Drinking Water Crisis in First Nation Communities Once and for All.” Council of Canadians, 13 Oct. 2015, canadians.org/media/federal-party-leaders-urged-end-drinking-water-crisis-first-nation-communities-once-and-all.

Milke, Mark. “Increasing Number of Aboriginals Choose Not to Live on Reserves.” Fraser Institute, www.fraserinstitute.org/article/increasing-number-aboriginals-choose-not-live-reserves.

Whittle, Joe. “Most Native Americans Live in Cities, Not Reservations. Here Are Their Stories.” The Guardian, 4 Sept. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/native-americans-stories-california.

CBC News. “Fear of Losing Culture Rises among Indigenous People in Manitoba.” CBC, 12 June 2017, www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/more-than-half-manitoba-indigenous-culture-eroding-1.4156978.