Prompt for this week ” 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?”
To be able to assume that Lutz thinks that the majority of the audience he is reaching out to would be ones of those with European persuasion would be correct. At this point Lutz probably thought that the majority of the settled world had European roots or something similar to the area. This is seen when he talks about how the European settlers perceived these new people.
“Undoubtedly, what was sent via the performance was imperfectly received by the audience, and the response to the misunderstood message was no doubt also misunderstood in a cycle of confusion” (30)
Lutz makes it seem that it started out with these new people’s fault and in turn making “us” not be able to understand what they are trying to communicate about. Just because something is different from what you are used to doesn’t mean it is any less wrong from what we know. What do you think it felt like for them as well? These strange people show up and them not being able to understand what you are trying to say to them. Who do you think they thought of the Europeans?
I think it would have been difficult either way, Europeans having troubles with understand Indigenous performance and Indigenous trying to figure out the Europeans why of communicating. No two ways were similar, they spoke different languages, had different actions for things and two completely different mentalities for thinking. Indigenous people drew from the land, their thoughts and feelings were in a common circle. Unlike the Europeans who were more focus on what they wanted and how they were going to get it regardless of the obstacles. There must have been some common ground for them to start on and go from there. Once you are able to understand the minimal the rest comes easier.
“The first contact was not so much “an event” for both European and Indigenous people as an initiation of a dialogue which, once commenced, could not be easily broken off.” (31)
Lutz did understand that once a dialogue between people was established there wasn’t much that could be done to separate them as they were living on the same land. The Indigenous peoples were probably wondering what they wanted to do with the land and interact with what they saw was proper. With this contact between them lots of things could be understood about what they could expect in the new land and how they could prepare for it.
Work cited
Lutz, John S. Myth and Memory Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Vancouver: UBC, 2007. Print.
Patterson, Erika. “Lesson 2:2.” Web log post. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres May 2015. UBC Blogs, n.d. Web. 9 May 2015.
Hi Kathryn! I did my post on this question as well, and we had the same answer about his assumption – he did write his book catering to a more European-centric audience. People who would nod their head and agree that yes, the Indigenous people are harder to understand and we, as a fellow colonized by Europe, do understand Europe better than an alien culture. Which I found to be very unfair and a little tipped to one side. I was reading his short bio from his UVic page, and he shares his passion for defining “home” from where he lived in the provinces of Canada. So it’s a little confusing to really get where he stands on the matter. And why not spend more on getting his readers to understand Indigenous performances than presenting them as a definite alien culture to a European audience. Perhaps he did in the end, when he concludes that chapter by saying it takes time to make the unknown familiar – that we’ll eventually comprehend the performances better overtime. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint one conclusion he was trying to make.
“Unlike the Europeans who were more focus on what they wanted and how they were going to get it regardless of the obstacles.” This really made me think of how Europeans were travellers, going on voyages in search of land while the Indigenous are the ones who have been living on their land since the beginning. So your analysis of Indigenous beliefs being drawn “from the land, their thoughts and feelings were in a common circle” shines a whole new perspective on the subject. Europeans take their story from one place to the next, sharing it with people that allow their stories to grow more familiar over the course of time. But the Indigenous only share their performances and culture amongst themselves, the outside world totally alien to their stories. This is such an excellent reading of this concept. Such a great insight!
-Angela Olivares
Hello Angela!
Thanks for the compliments, and thanks for reading my blog 🙂
It is very interesting to hear that he shares his passion for defining “home” from where he lived in the provinces. I don’t think he is truly able to understand the beauty of what lives here when he can’t be able to understand the past of this land. It is very hard to see what he is wanting people to understand what he is trying to say, not the most straightforward person!
-Kathryn
🙂
Hi Kathryn!
Great Blog! I just had a question about one of the sentences in your blog. You wrote, “Indigenous people drew from the land, their thoughts and feelings were in a common circle. Unlike the Europeans who were more focus on what they wanted and how they were going to get it regardless of the obstacles.”
You make a good point here. I was just wondering what you meant by the term common circle? Is it the same stream of thoughts or an understanding?
I think this is an interesting point open for discussion, as the First Nations people did engage in trade with the Europeans I wonder if they did have some sort of material gain they were wanting to get. I also wonder if they would have also gotten to their goals regardless of their obstacles, from my previous research I have found that we don’t have much way of knowing because so many facts were lost in history and the hollywood of the idea of barbarous indians. I also wonder if they traded for peace as much as they did for gain? For co-operation? What do you think Kathryn?
Tai
Hey Tai,
This seems to be a common assumption about this paper! For your first question it was yes, the common understanding that all Indigenous peoples had for the land. Even though the groups didn’t all have common ideals they are thought about the land and the way that we should interact with it.
It is an interesting thought to have to think why the Indigenous peoples were trading with the Europeans. Could have just been curiosity of what these people had that they didn’t or it could have been trying to form some sort of communication between them as they were living in the same area and should interact is some way. Hollywood defiantly doesn’t show these people as anything but barbaric and misunderstanding of the “common” ways of live. Would be interesting to actually know the true reason as why everything started!
Thanks for reading 🙂
-Kathryn
🙂
Hi Kathryn!
I did my post on this as you know, haha and I feel like perhaps Lutz did enter writing his essay with good intentions! There’s always going to be a tray area and the difficulties with trying to maintain an unbiased tone whilst still trying to drive across his main point, which is that it is necessary for open dialogue to be created. Through dialogue only can understanding and respect be forged. As with this Om the Bridge thing in Vancouver which I posted about, should more consultation have taken place with First Nations parties, and with understanding and endorsement, the event need not have been cancelled, perhaps relocated and held with more respect!
Hey Debra!
Seems that lots of people had the same thoughts about his assumptions! Even though they could have been good he went about it the wrong way. I agree! Anything that goes on the land should be considered by all people that it effects and their personal ties to the land.
Glad you like my post 🙂
-Kathryn
🙂