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?
Ever since reading Chamberlin I have been quite wary of taking sides on questions regarding Indigenous and European culture. The Assumption in John Lutz article “First Contact and Spiritual Performance” is that it is more difficult for Europeans to understand Indigenous performances than the other way around. Do I see this as an accurate and fair assumption? First I need to put myself in the shoes of each side and consider the perspectives I might experience at first contact for each side. After considering different elements I think that I would have to agree with Lutz’s assumption based on a few area of contemplation as well that my thoughts on the first contact story provided on pages 33-35 of “First Contact”.
- Culture: European’s possessed a more developed way of life. For example, tools and food have been developed to make life easier.
- Language: Perhaps less complicated to learn a European language than a Native language? More structure?
- Motives: Perhaps more intriguing for indigenous cultures to learn European lifestyle because of the aspects that Europeans could add to their way of life. On the flip side, Europeans did not have so much the idea of learning Indigenous way of life as they did to settle their way of life in a new land.
To put it in simple terms (and perhaps this is a biased point of view), European way of life was less complicated and more refined in the standards we would base it on today in terms of advanced technology. Therefore, it would be easier for Indigenous cultures to understand European performances rather than the other way around, as Lutz suggests.
The 1787 story about first contact on the northern coast of British Columbia (Lutz, 33-35) helped me to pinpoint the elements that I noted above. In that story, the way the “Gitrhala used to protect themselves from monsters and supernatural beings and ghosts, by rubbing themselves with their urine” (Lutz, 35) stuck out to me as being a very defining characteristic that shows the vast difference between cultures and perhaps why is would be harder for Europeans to understand Indigenous performances. The urine would symbolize the unhygienic and “savage” way of indigenous peoples while the Europeans offering the man “soap” represents the civilized man trying to cure and better a lesser civilization in their eyes. Considering the turn of events since first contact I think it is a fair assumption to say that Europeans saw their contact with natives as more a way of fixing rather than adapting. Would you agree that these point have any impact on the way in which Indigenous and European cultures understand each other or am I too involved in the “European tradition” of readers?
Work Cited:
Lutz, John. “Contact Over and Over Again.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories ofIndignenous- European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 1-15. Web.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-languages/
Hi Sarah!
I chose the same question to answer thou I think my answer was a bit different, if your interested, take a look at my blog 🙂
Personally, I feel that one of the main reasons it was easier for First Nations to “adapt” and understand European culture was because they had been introduced to it multiple times, even before “first contact”. First Nations of America had “extensive experience with visitors from a spiritual world, where they imagined many of the early Europeans had come from” (Lutz, 2007). These strangers were seen as something old and semi-familiar, obviously the Europeans traditions and lifestyles were vastly different from the First Nations peoples, but it is important to remember the power relations at play. The Eurocentric attitudes of European explorers probably caused them to disregard any other cultural practice other then their own. Apart from the need to minimize danger and maximize opportunities, there was probably little interest in learning/understanding First Nations cultures.
From what I understand, most First Nations and Europeans communicated using European languages. You said that this is possibly because the First Nations dialects were harder for Europeans to learn, however wouldn’t their languages be equally difficult for the First Nations who are not familiar with European education systems? I would be interested to learn why dialogs between the two groups were mostly in English/Spanish or French!