Question 3: 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?

In “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance” Lutz describes how both groups (Native and European) relied on their spirituality to make some sort of  sense out each other.  His description of their differing belief systems illustrate that his assumptions regarding how the Indigenous have a better understanding of European performance are evidenced in the contact stories.

The natives believed that there was no barrier between the natural and spiritual world. The arrival of the explorers did not destabilize their beliefs, as they symbolized “the ongoing proof of these beliefs” (Lutz, “First Contact” 38). The inclusion is evident in Nuu-chah-nulth stories that recorded that Captain James Cooks vessels were seen to have come from the sky ;“these were the moon men. They wore yellow, had a brass band in their caps, brass buttons” (Lutz, “First Contact” 36).  Their broad understanding of the world is evident in various accounts told about the same events by different groups. In all of these accounts Europeans were included whether they  were “returned from the land of the dead or peoples from the sky” (Lutz, “First Contact” 38).

Great Chain of Being.

The descriptions of European spirituality differ greatly from those described above. The European belief system contained more rigid categorizations such as the distinction between “sacred and profane” (Lutz, “First Contact” 31). Their individual standing in the world was governed by hierarchies of god, man, animals, plants (Paterson). This is  similar to what we know as the “Great Chain of Being”. The presence of the natives symbolized a challenge to their hierarchical beliefs.  Initially, they tried to make them recognizable by thinking that the Haidi were “forming themselves in a cross as they approached the ship” (Lutz, “First Contact” 39). However, their total reliance on their belief systems meant that the natives were eventually marked as inferior. Their un-Christianity associated with transformer myths meant that they could not be contained within the same imagined category of “man”. They were unfairly seen as “not fully human” and seemingly took the position at the bottom of the great chain of being (Lutz, “First Contact” 40).  The false assumption that natives were irrational dangerously materialized into myths that have been perpetuated today. Furthermore, these assumptions contributed to the idea of  Terra nullius (nobodys land) which was the justification for missionaries and the colonization of Canada.  The supposed empty land, gave them a clean slate to color their ideas with. This very nation is built on their performances of sanitization.

Oka Crisis (1990)

It is evident based on Lutz’s descriptions of European belief systems, that it would be difficult for those of that tradition to understand Indigenous performances. There is too much reliance on ” non-rational spiritual beliefs” to truly see performances with fresh eyes that wouldn’t be subject to categorization  (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). Furthermore,  another problem noted by Lutz is that “we are still in that contact zone”. The “contact zone” which contains a struggle to understand another groups culture will always require translation.  The problem with translators is that they transform ideas “into something that makes sense to us” (Lutz, “Contact” 11). In Canada, the translation of performances is seen as essential in maintaining the story of the “other”.   Paterson succinctly notes, that “we know ourselves through misrepresentations of the other”. News portrayals in Canada of “Indians” illustrate the danger of these translations. For example, the WD4 rule illustrates how Indigenous individuals only make the news if they are a warrior or are drumming, dancing, drunk, or dead.​Shaney Komulainen’s iconic picture during the Oka Crisis (see above) illustrates the warrior complex.  Protests which usually involve conflict and drama are used by the media to misrepresent the Indigenous as the  “uncivilized Indian”. The translation of their performance describes them as a threat to progress in Canada.

Are there any other mistaken representations of Indigenous individuals in the news that are not part of the WD4 rule?

Works Cited:

Great Chain of Being 2 (lighter). 2008. wikimedia . Web. 12 June 2015. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/>.