Now why are sterotypes kind of divided into this kind of positive and negative,
categories? I, I think it kind of goes back to the
first encounter with Columbus. So when, when Aboriginal people discovered
Columbus on their shores, he was making certain assumptions, which were taken back
to Europe and kind of formed the archetype of how we were to understand indigenous
peoples in the New World. And they kind of went into two categories.
There were the Caribes who were assumed to be this warrior, militant, fighting even,
even described as cannibals. That's how violent and militant they were.
So when they resisted that onslaught of exploration and potential slavery, then
they were characterized as violent, militant, bloodthirsty savages.
On the other hand the Aerowax, who were also encountered who gave gifts and
welcomed the newcomers by giving all of these different items in exchange for what
they saw as, as new and interesting items. They were treated as childlike, primitive,
noble savage. Columbus' journals describe them as kind
of, you could do whatever you wanted with them.
You could subjugate them with only 50 of our men, and you'd have the whole village
under control, is how he described them in his journals.
So we kind of had this notion set up right from the beginning that you kind of fit
into this one category where you are, you're savage because of your militancy,
your warrior, your, your, your violent tendencies, your uncivilized nature.
Or you are very primitive and childlike, and that was your true nature.
You can kind of see how both lead to certain actions.
And so it's interesting to see that these archetypes kind of continue on through the
resulting centuries and result in a certain way of acting upon Aboriginal
people. So first the, the kind of the western gaze
develops a certain way of looking at, constructing, and knowing an other, which
is the indigenous peoples. And then that enables a certain action to
follow. So when you construct the other as this
violent, warlike uncivilized barbarian, then it, it seems like it's self defense
to then contain them militarily, or to subjugate them into slavery.
Because you're doing it out of self-defense.
You're kind of saving yourself from the, these uncouth barbarians.
Sorry. On the other hand with the noble savage,
it sets up the an, the, the actions of saving.
So you have this, this notion that they are, they are in need of guidance, so we
need to come in and show them the way to their development into a civilized people.
So they remain uncivilized, but, in this case you can actually work with them to
help them find God. So that, that sets up the missions, it
leads to the things like residential schools.
Certainly the kind of paternalistic legislation policies and kind of
development projects that are enacted upon Aboriginal people.
Because it, what, what, both of these, notions do, both the bloody-thirsty savage
and the noble savage do, is they set up, a path for development, a linear path.
And this is very important when you kind of compare Western world view and
indigenous world views about time and history that the European world view at
the time certainly saw history as a linear development.
And there was an assumption that all cultures would move through one phase to
another to another as they progressed, so the notion of progress, that's linear as
well. For indigenous people seeing time as
cyclical and as patterns that repeat themselves, this notion of where one's
headed, , doesn't have the same kind of marching goal of progress.
And so the European could know that the uncivilized other, necessarily had to go
through these stages of development, it assumed that.
And so by acting in certain ways was hastening their development.
[inaudible]. Okay?
So it's kind of giving themselves the authority to help speed up what is
inevitable. So in, in essence, the progress of
indigenous peoples is already determined for them.
Because they have this mindset that well, you go through a preliterate stage.
Then you necessarily develop literacy. You necessarily develop all the other
trappings of civilization and you have to move in this way.
So they kind of know the answers for Aboriginal people already.
Sound familiar? I mean,[LAUGH] we're having a lot of
discussion lately about, the Indian Act. And certainly there's a lot of paternalism
in that piece of Legislation, where Canada determines for Indians.
They're living where, where they can reside, who counts as an Indian, who is
defined as an Indian by law. What certain rights are bestowed upon them
by being on that Indian register and so forth.
Kind of has its roots in this first encounter.
And this first assumption about who is the other.
So I want to take a, take a moment now to talk about what's going on when the other
is constructed in this way. And really what is being said is not
anything about who are indigenous people. Well, actually that is happening, but I
would say what the real story is what's really going on is that a mirror is being
held up to the self. And so, when the western gaze constructs a
violent, blood-thirsty savage other. It's really saying something about itself,
its saying I'm not that. I am civilized.
I do bring order and you know order to the wild plains.
Okay so that, that's one that we in put up there, but this idea of wild and untamed
being equated with Indianism. That kind of finds its way into terra
nulius and this idea of the spaces were open and unused.
Because aboriginal people just moved about on the land looking for food where they
could find it. Kind of disregards the, the sort of
ecomanagement practices that actually went on with, with most first nations that I've
had any chance to study. But putting that aside there's this
equation of the wild other. Which then by disconstructing them that
way, says as a self, I am order, civilization law, the rule of law.
Whereas they're lawless and wild and savage, and we are civilized.
So by constructing an other who is all those savage things, it's really saying
about the self how much better they are. It's putting, putting oneself up above
another. I, I, you know, I like to kind of equate
it to the actions of bullies and bullying. Lot of times what they're doing is about
their own self esteem when they're putting others down.
It's not really that, you know, putting those others down is about putting them
down, it's about feeling good themselves that they're not the ones in that
situation. They have the power in that situation.
How does this work with the like the positive stereotypes?
It's the same thing. It's a mirror again, right?
So when the Indian is, and I'm going to use the Indian because I'm thinking about
it as a construction. It's not really something we called
ourselves or believed ourselves to be, but some, a term that's kind of imposed upon
us from outside. And becomes like a symbol.
So it's a symbolic identity. It's not like a, it's not something that's
kind of coming from, originating from our own belief systems, Okay?
So the Indian idea, Indianism where we talk about oh, they're so spiritual and
they're so close to nature. What is the mirror doing then?
It's critiquing western civilization. So the philosophers who would use Indians
as examples and symbols to then critique their own institutions are actually,
selectively choosing these examples of, of you know, Indian understandings of nature
and environment. Understanding Indian spirituality and, and
so forth, and using it as a way of critiquing one's own institutions and
saying, look, look what we've lost by being civilized.
So ultimately it's not really about describing Indians in an accurate way.
But using Aboriginal people as symbols to make a case about the self.
So in the, in the negative side, it's to elevate self.
In this side, it's to critique self. In both cases, Aboriginal people really
are symbols. And so what is the danger to Aboriginal
people themselves when they are Symbols, mere symbols.
I've hear it written about as the burden of representation.
So, you then carry this notion of we are necessarily these things, which is very
limiting, right? And also contradictory.
What I think is really interesting is when you, you can really see the, how the
mirror works. By how one uses the exact same stereotype.
So, we don't have it here, but wild, ok, wild, untamed free from law and order.
And so this is, is sometimes used as a way of constructing the other to then
legitimize certain acts of violence that establish an order, establish a settlement
on a territory. And they say, well, they were lawless and
wild, and by us bringing order we're improving the state of nature, therefore
we have the right to be there. Interestingly, counter cultural movement
in the 60s in the U.S. The untamed Indian becomes a symbol of
freeing yourself from western institutions and is looked upon as a positive thing.
Look how free and untamed and wild they are.
That's what we need to be. We need to dispense with these
institutions that contain and control us. So it's the exact same, stereotype used in
one instance to enact a, a certain type of violence.
And in another instance it's a, it's a positive thing.
It's an emulation. It's an honoring of a people.
But really, it's, again, speaking to self and one's own needs to develop in a
certain way. And using people as a symbol, in order to
do that. So the damage of being a symbol only, is
it's dehumanizing. We kind of lose our humanity a bit as
actual, real Aboriginal people when we're expected to fit into these symbolic
representations. So where is the intention in this?
There may not be an intention to harm. Especially with some of these more
positive ones, right, if we look at this column.
There might not be the intention, like, I'm honoring you.
How, how often have I heard that? Especially about like sports mascots.
We're honoring you. But really, what it, what it's saying is
more about the self. And, it's not really concerned with how
are we constructing you. It's more like, I am this because you are
that. Or rather, because, because you are this,
I am not that, therefore I am. And, and so by constructing self through
that relationship to other,[SOUND] we end up dehumanizing that whole group that can
never actually realize these, these kind of traits in totality.
Jean-Paul RestouleAssociate Professor
