



Or, a storyteller and an audience.










“Claude Lévi-Strauss.” Philosophers.co.uk. 2012. Web. Accessed June 16, 2016.





6 thoughts on “Lesson 2:2; Assignment 2:4; Question #2

  1. sean sturm

    Hi Mia,

    I think you have captured both the essence of the readings for this week while highlighting some of the glaring issues that have created this large divide between ‘First Nations’ histories and traditions and those of ‘Western’ peoples. As you pointed out, the very essence of First Nations history is directly tied to the orality of it. There is much context that is lost when stories that were meant to be delivered orally are captured, and ultimately frozen in time, on paper. Just as a written work, as it appears in its original form, was designed to be consumed that way; oral histories, and their varying presentations, are meant to be consumed in that manner. I really enjoyed reading the subtext in your article, which is the expressed superiority of Western ideologies, and the belief that oral accounts were at the best inaccurate, but viewed by the colonizers as nothing more than children’s tales. Even today, with some overt attempts to reclaim and honour First Nations traditional historical practices, there is still a widespread scepticism towards them. My question for you is do you think that ground has been gained in the process of accepting and validating traditional First Nations oral traditions? If so, or not, what can be done to improve the flawed perception of the invalidity of them?

    1. Mia Calder Post author

      Hi, thanks for the comment! I think that there are some better steps being taken to validate oral traditions — the fact that we (and the scholarship on them) have realized the disparaging way in which they’ve been dealt is a good step. But I think it does take an overhaul of what we think we, intuitively, know and trust — that anything written down is more important or more trustworthy than oral accounts. I think this is cultural thing, though; I mean, everything in Canada that is important is written (while also said orally, as Chamberlin points out, but the emphasis is on the written). Business deals, law suits, medical surgery forms, adoption, marriage, etc. etc.
      So I’m not sure how well the validity of oral traditions can be included into our cultural beliefs. As long as we keep trying!

  2. NickBabey

    You’ve pointed out some valid issues with broad categorization. I agree that such “mismanagement” can be harmful when it becomes too broad, but how far must one go before it becomes useful? You yourself categorize the “West” into an entire people. Certainly, “Westerners” in reality are far more culturally and historically diverse than that one, single category. If we need to avoid the issue of sweeping generalization when discussing Indigenous peoples, should we not do the same with all peoples?

    A simple “yes” answer seems to be the one, but I think the complications run deeper. How can we possibly study “a people” without grouping them together into certain categories and labelling them based on broad commonalities? Thought the “hot” and “cold” categorization of Native American stories is problematic, it may be less mismanagement than miscategorization.

    1. Mia Calder Post author

      Hi Nick,
      I see your point, but on the other hand “Western” ideals are pretty conglomerated, at least in the scholarly sense of the “West.” Sure, it’s an umbrella term, and created in the general interest to point out the difference of Western ideals over any others — but it still has a purpose in our discussion. I think there’s a difference between labeling European/American/Canadian countries as Western and categorizing all Indigenous nations as “Indian” or what have you. In our (Western) case, its to show where we agree, in the Indigenous case its to push them into one box. Perhaps the distinction seems arbitrary, and it probably is, but I think that history and our (Western) way of dealing with other cultures has been to create arbitrary distinctions (the Orient, for one) which don’t rely on much sense. Why is Western a useful term, while Indian cultures/the Indigenous/hot/cold cultures is problematic? Mostly because our relationship has been problematic since first contact (and second contact, and third, à la Lutz).


Leave a Reply
