2:4 Difficulties and Assumptions: Interpreting First Contact Stories

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?

The first question I need to clarify is what is this “most obvious difficulty” a barrier to? My interpretation is that Lutz is trying to find common ground wherein we, as audiences to the stories of first contact, can learn from the moments in which European and indigenous peoples could be seen “speaking to each other” as opposed to “speaking past each other” (“First Contact” 31). If this interpretation is accurate, I assume he is arguing that the difficulty of comprehending Indigenous performances acts as a barrier for us as an audience. This “most obvious difficulty” inhibits our ability to learn from the moments in which European and indigenous people could have been considered successfully speaking to each other, as he puts it. With that clarified slightly, we can tackle the question of Lutz’s assumption. First of all, I disagree with Lutz’s assumption that comprehending historical indigenous performances is “one of the most obvious difficulties” of learning from first contact stories. By pointing to indigenous performances only, he has left out an entire element of what makes it so difficult. As we’ve seen from this lesson’s other readings, the ability to learn from contact stories is difficult because of barriers to interpreting European narratives as well. Barriers such as the acknowledgement that many written European narratives are wrongfully accepted as first-hand accounts or “true” interpretations; long inherited assumptions that written narratives are somehow superior to oral; and that in many cases, European first contact narratives are products of “expectations, conditioned by imaginary worlds conjured long before [their] arrival” (Lutz, “Myth Understandings” 2). If we widen our perspective and focus on the difficulty of interpreting both sides, Lutz’s argument that interpreting contact performances is difficult because one must “enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture” stands stronger. As someone that could be considered to belong to the European tradition (although even for myself I don’t really understand what that means, the best I can muster is defining that as not being raised in an indigenous tradition), I find it just as difficult to try and imagine how I might perceive Europeans in the context of contact stories. I imagine their world to be just as alien and different from my own as that of indigenous peoples. To me, this distance in time and culture is the most obvious barrier to learning from contact stories now, no matter what tradition one belongs to.

Lutz’s choice to omit the obvious difficulties of interpreting European narratives in this section of his argument makes it easier to agree that he is assuming his readers belong to the European tradition. Whether or not it is fair to say he is assuming that it is more difficult for Europeans to interpret indigenous performances than the other way around is more difficult.  If we accept that he is assuming this however, I argue that he is making an additional assumption, incorrectly, that readers belonging to the European tradition (again, what that means is probably a topic for a separate blog post) might find it easier to span the distance in time and culture to connect with the European world than the world of indigenous peoples.

To conclude, I would like to move away from discussion of the many difficulties that stand in our way of learning from contact stories to focus on a couple of points made by Lutz that I found hopeful and interesting. I believe Lutz was successful in his attempt to find common ground wherein we can learn, now, from historical contact stories. I found this in his discussion of how both groups approached each other initially, both seeking “to minimize the danger and maximize opportunities” (“First Contact” 30). For me, this point bypassed cultural and historical differences to land on a basic quality shared by most human beings: the desire to survive and prosper in uncertain or potentially threatening circumstances. I experience this (much more subtly of course) on a daily basis whenever I meet someone new. I understand how it feels to ask the types of questions Lutz imagines both parties to have asked themselves, like “What face to put forward to show the right mixture of strength and openness? What precautions to take to indicate readiness but not fear?” (“First Contact” 30). By framing the instances of first contact in this context of basic human interaction I could more easily travel that distance of time and culture to understand how it might have felt, for either side.

What about you? Have you caught yourself approaching interactions with new people in your life similarly? Or is there another way that you’ve been able to travel the distance of time and culture to truly connect with a story from the past? I’m curious.

Sierra

Thoughts on assignment 2:4

Works Cited:

Davidson, Lauren. “How European are you? Take this quiz to find out.” The Telegraph. 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Ifould, Rosie. “Acting on impulse.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. 7 March 2009. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Lutz, John. “Myth Understandings: First Contact, Over and Over Again.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous- European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 1-15. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.

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. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.

Weatherford, John. “Examining the Reputation of Columbus.” Understanding Prejudice: Exercises and Demonstrations. Adapted from article in the Baltimore Evening Sun, 1989. Social Psychology Network, 2002. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.