John Guy’s 1612 encounter with the Beothuks in Trinity Bay. This piece of artwork is a depiction of a European’s first encounter at Trinity Bay. Notice the body language of the people in the art, the Indigenous dressed in few clothes (vulnerability?) and trading with/welcoming the Smartly dressed Europeans onto their land with outstretched hands. Notice the difference between the Europeans grand ships and the Indigenous peoples small wooden huts, as if the artist wanted to depict an obvious economical hierarchy between them.
Question 3: 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?
First contact was often focused on minimalizing danger and maximizing opportunities for both parties, however it was not simply a diplomatic/trade based relationship and often included the spiritual as well (Lutz, 2007). For Lutz, first contact and the imaginary are closely linked and the encounters were often a product of expectations. The Europeans “went into new territories full of expectations, ideas and stereotypes”(Lutz, 2007), discovering what their popular myths at the time suggested they would find. The Europeans did “not see their new worlds with fresh eyes; they saw them through the lenses of their ancient stories” (Lutz, 2007). The First Nations of the Americas also drew encounters from mythologies, claiming that the Europeans were from the spirit world, spirits revisiting earth. It is important to note that both encounters were based off the imaginary, but, because storytellers in modern European tradition wrote first hand narratives using the “I/eye”, this gave them a credibility of sort, even though it has been discovered that many narratives were either borrowed, exaggerated, or fabricated (Lutz, 2007).
Lutz claims that it is difficult to comprehend performances and stories of Indigenous peoples, therefore we must “perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans” (Lutz, 2007). I believe that Lutz is attempting to explain to his readers the reasons as to why Indigenous performances may have been/continue to be difficult to comprehend for many non-Indigenous people ( of European origin of not). He does so through speaking about the imaginary encounter (of both Europeans and Indigenous), as well as both groups strong beliefs of a spiritual world in regards to their realities and historical events. Lutz offers a reason as to why many non-indigenous people cannot comprehend oral narratives; it is because the “narratives will often unsettle the European notion of event” (Lutz, 2007). The indigenous peoples “framed the event differently with different causality and temporality, making the narrative with series of related happenings into a single story” (Lutz, 2007). Therefore, the structure of oral narratives already have people such as the Europeans confused, even before the analysis of the actual story itself.
According to Lutz, a way that we can understand another cultures performances is to begin by stepping outside our own culture and viewing our own practices, spiritual beliefs etc as alien themselves. I imagined what someone might think of a typical British, Christian wedding (since I am both British and Christian), if they had never been exposed to one. How strange would our practices seem to others?
– a bride dressed entirely in white
– the exchanging of rings that must be worn on a certain hand/finger
– a first dance to a specific song that symbolizes the couples “eternal love”
– best man’s speech, cutting of the tripple layered wedding cake, or tossing of the brides bouquet of flowers.
If I was to tell a story about my parents wedding to a person who had never encountered a Christian wedding, they might misinterpret certain elements, express confusion over my traditions, or even take what I am saying to be fictional. I feel that Lutz is maybe addressing a more “European” audience, by instructing the reader to “think outside the box”. By giving examples of the Europeans own spiritual and imagined encounters with Indigenous, he is claiming that both cultures first encounter histories and performances are equally difficult to understand.
As a reader, what struck me about “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance…” was the part about spiritual performance’s and the First Nations of the Northeast coast. The Gitxaala story of first contact was very intriguing; a European ship had sailed into Gitxaala territory around 1787 and the First Nations people believed them to be raven tricksters, (because of the ship appearing over a spot associated with supernatural beings). On first contact, the Gitxaala man recalls his feelings of fear and awe at the spirits (European men) who eat maggots and fungus, with his natural reaction being to douse himself in Urine for protection (Lutz, 2007). Reading this as a Canadian in the 21 century I automatically knew that the “raven spirits” were Europeans and their food of rice and bread was misinterpreted as maggots and fungus. However, if I had been one of the Gitxaala hearing a re-account of this story later that day, I would have been terrified! Likewise, one of the Europeans recounts in a letter home about a “man who peed on himself twice” would have baffled the reader. First encounters are not only filled with the will the maximize opportunity and minimize danger, but they are also wrapped up in confusion and misinterpretation.
I leave you now with a video of the Pikangikum First Nations story of the Thunderbird. Challenge yourself to watch the clip while alienating yourself from your own culture and possibly absorbing another 🙂
Works Cited
Gitxaala Nation. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. <http://gitxaala.com/>.
“John Guy’s 1612 encounter”. Colony of Avalon. Web. February 06, 2015. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/avalon/history/bry.html
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.
Lutz, John. “Contact Over and Over Again.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indignenous- European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 1-15. Print.
Thunderbird Story: Pikangikum First Nati. Youtube, 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC4xalWuSuE>.
Hi Leana,
I found your blog most interesting, especially your description of a British-Christian wedding as I’ve never been to one and, while the bride dressed in white and exchange of rings seem normal to me, I had no idea that the first dance was supposed to be to a song that symbolizes the couple’s “eternal love” or that there was a “triple layered wedding cake” (does this apply in Canada too, I wonder, or only in Britain?). The only Christian wedding I can recall going to was in Spain and that was over 10 years ago, so if these traditions applied, I don’t remember them (I was probably too busy chatting with the other teenagers to notice). While I am not Christian, my family comes from the Euro-Christian tradition, so it’s interesting to see how these traditions are both familiar and foreign. Much of Christianity is the basis for European culture and thus very familiar to me; however, the first time I attended a Catholic church I found the traditions to be very strange and illogical. Are you Catholic? Certainly the eating of bread seems very odd to an outsider (and still makes no sense to me, even with an explanation: if the bread is “Christ’s body”, why would you eat it?).
Thank you for sharing the Thunderbird video; however, I would argue that it is impossible to “alienate myself from my own culture” without first gaining a new one. I’ve lived in four countries and find that there is always a stage of cultural conflict and misunderstanding before understanding comes. I think that one must familiarize oneself with a culture and come to understand it from that culture’s perspective before one can shed one’s own culture. After all, with no culture, we would be as babies! All our knowledge of the world has been fed to us through a cultural lens, so while I agree that acknowledging this and recognizing the odd traditions that tint our own understanding of the world is important, I would argue that it is impossible shed our culture and maintain any understanding of the world. Everything that we believe to be universal is actually cultural, so giving up our culture seems an impossible task to me. What do you think? Have you ever been surprised to discover that something you took for granted was unknown to someone else? If so, how are we to shed our cultural assumptions without even knowing what they are?
Heather
Hi Heather,
Thanks for the response! I agree about what you have said in regards to traditions, even though I take part in certain traditions, when I really think about them, I find many of my own traditions very strange! For example, my partner is Mexican-Catholic and every year after Christmas we celebrate El dia de Reyes and eat Rosca de Reyes (King’s Cake). If you find a tiny plastic Baby Jesus in your slice of cake, that means you have to cook tamales and host a party on February 2, El Dia de la Candelaria (Candlemas Day) . When he first introduced me to this tradition I thought it was funny and was even concerned that I would choke on the mini Jesus! However as time passes, I think that some traditions become almost second nature and you don’t think twice about them.
And in response to your thoughts/questions about alienating oneself from ones culture, I have left a reply on your blog 🙂
Hey Leana,
I remember finding the Epiphany (El dia de Reyes) strange when I first celebrated it as a teenager, but it no longer seems odd to me. The Mexican traditions are different from the French ones (which sadly does not include tamales), although not overly. In France the figure can be anything — not just Jesus — and the celebration isn’t as big of a deal as in Mexico. It’s interesting both to discover new traditions (such as the Epiphany) and to learn to see your own traditions (such as Hallowe’en) as foreign. Just spending Christmas, Easter, etc, in France was interesting for me as they’re celebrated very differently there than they are here! Of course, culture varies from household to household and my family’s celebration of any one of these holidays would not be the same as yours. A few years ago I celebrated Guy Fawkes Day in an Inuit village in Labrador -– a holiday not commonly celebrated in Vancouver! The way traditions are carried across time and space can be very odd sometimes.
Heather
Hey Leana!
As a girl who is also British and Christian I am rather excited to stumble across your blog 🙂
I also really liked how you pointed out our own western traditions and that these would seem odd to a different culture.
Your last sentence “First encounters are not only filled with the will the maximize opportunity and minimize danger, but they are also wrapped up in confusion and misinterpretation” got me thinking… I’m wondering if this is just the case between those who come to conquer another culture, and those who come to learn and understand. My inkling is that if you do not want to, or have no interest in understanding a new culture you will leave confused – but if one can immerse themselves into it and try to understand maybe these ‘first encounters’ would not be so scary….?
Obviously we have a pretty poor example of good encounters through out most of history – but I do think of some missionary stories and how they would go and understand the ways of the people and try and relate their stories to the stories of the bible…(think movie: THE MISSION). Sure this is one example and I acknowledge that their are countless of other stories which are not so pleasant – but I feel like there have to be some good stories of first cultural encounters out there… we just focus so much on the bad ones….
okay rant over… thanks for a great read and I look forward to your response!
Susie
Hi Susie,
Glad to hear we have something in common 🙂
I agree with what you have pointed out about the difference between wanting to learn a culture and wanting to conquer it. When the European explorer and trades people first came into contact with the First Nations people, they were probably very cautious and worried about danger ( after all, they were on un-charted territory). But after “claiming” parts of North America and establishing a power hierarchy, there interest in learning about the First Nations was probably less important then maximizing their own opportunities and benefits. Of course there are pleasant stories of encounters, but first encounters are usually about establishing relationships, and unfortunately, not all relationships are equal.
Hey Leana,
Do you this that this lack of inequality stems from – in most cases- a language barrier, or just a misunderstanding/ no understanding of cultural practices? I feel like both factor in but I want to hear (read) what you think 🙂 Even in countries that share the same language, there are different cultural practices that are not understood so I am wondering how we categorize this inequality you speak of! (This is going out on a limb but i am curious)!
cheers!
Hi Lena,
Thanks for your blog. I think you really drove home Lutz’s point that, initially, both groups first encounters were a product of expectations. For the Europeans, they had preconceived ideas of whom they’d find through stories written previously by travelers like Marco Polo and classical writers such as Pliny, Homer and Herodotus (Lutz “First Contact” 2). I like how you emphasized the point that despite the illusion of creditability European narratives were proven inaccurate. I listened to an interesting CBC radio segment on how “memories are malleable”. The host stated that the “people who study memory are saying all memories can be false anyway and that how our mind works in recall means most of us can get it wrong” (Tremonti 2015). As I was listening to this I thought about this question of first contact stories and whose version to believe. Lutz argues that the Europeans got it wrong on many occasions and uses the Marco Polo’s eye witness account as one example ((Lutz “First Contact” 2). Both doctors on the show do a great job of convincing the public that our memories are very impressionable and prone to error. I’m just spitballing here but my first thought in hearing this is, how are we to have faith in any historical account – written or oral? It’s a question that continues to nag at me. I recommend listening to the show – website is provided below. Let me know your thoughts.
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
Tremonti, Anna Maria. ‘Memories are malleable’: Looking for truth behind false memory. The Current, CBC. 2015.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2015/02/11/false-memory/
Hi Leana,
Thanks for your blog. I think you really drive home Lutz’s point that, initially, both groups first encounters were a product of expectations. For the Europeans, they had preconceived ideas of whom they’d find through stories written previously by travelers like Marco Polo and classical writers such as Pliny, Homer and Herodotus (Lutz “First Contact” 2). I like how you emphasized the point that despite the illusion of creditability European narratives were proven inaccurate. I listened to an interesting CBC radio segment on how “memories are malleable”. The host stated that the “people who study memory are saying all memories can be false anyway and that how our mind works in recall means most of us can get it wrong” (Tremonti 2015). As I was listening to this I thought about this question of first contact stories and whose version to believe. Lutz argues that the Europeans got it wrong on many occasions and uses the Marco Polo’s eye witness account as one example ((Lutz “First Contact” 2). Both doctors on the show do a great job of convincing the public that our memories are very impressionable and prone to error. I’m just spitballing here but my first thought in hearing this is, how are we to have faith in any historical account – written or oral? It’s a question that continues to nag at me. I recommend listening to the show – website is provided below. Let me know your thoughts.
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
Tremonti, Anna Maria. ‘Memories are malleable’: Looking for truth behind false memory. The Current, CBC. 2015.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2015/02/11/false-memory/