Sarah Sinclair: English 385.2

It’s been a while since our discussion in class on the use of stereotypes in our everyday life. We talked about sports teams, mostly, at least that was the part of the discussion that struck me most. I decided to look into some aboriginal perspectives on the use of these “mascots” by schools/sports teams. I came across a very interesting website that I’ve linked. The main page of the site is an index of a variety of websites about Indian Mascots. Another page I found is a paper of sorts written by a Doctor of Education about the use of stereotypes in schools.

I’ve written above that I “came across” these sites but I should write that they weren’t my own discovery but are on the syllabus for another class of mine.

One of the most interesting things I learned that was common to these 2 websites is the the American Psychological Association’s disapproval of the use of stereotypes. It makes sense of course, but I was so glad to see it said so by this scholarly association.  They use words that I really liked to describe the situation: undermining, racist, hostile, unwelcome and negative. They claim that the practice is intolerable, disrespectful, and must be eradicated.

When I was a little kid I heard this argument and agreed with the idea that it honors indigenous people. Later in my teen years I saw an image we discussed in class: a cartoon of the Cleveland Braves logo along side a Cleveland Asians mock-up logo, and a Cleveland Blacks mock-up. I realized at once my mistake and whenever I hear someone saying that it’s okay to use stereotypes to descibe peoples, this is the example I give.

Here’s a very interesting article that was a surprise to me considering its title. It’s about multiculturalism, relativism, and their failings. Here’s a couple quotes that really made the article for me:

“Religion, history, tradition, and morality have always been subjected to searching criticism in the name of rationality, truth, evidence, reason, and logic. Now reason, truth, rationality, and logic are themselves subject to these criticisms. The idea is that they’re as much a part of the dogmatic, superstitious, mystical, power-laden tradition as anything that they were used to attack.”

“all truths are ideological, and that cultures should therefore be placed on a roughly equal plane. Cultural relativism-the presumed equality of all cultures-is the intellectual foundation of contemporary multiculturalism”

“Multiculturalism is based on the relativist assumption that since all cultures are inherently equal, differences of power, wealth, and achievement between them are most likely due to oppression.”

“A sincere effort to study other cultures “from within” requires a rejection of the Western lens of cultural relativism. Multiculturalists who wish to take non-Western cultures seriously must take seriously their repudiation of relativism”

“Students do need to be exposed to the great accomplishments of other cultures, as well as their influence on the West. But when multiculturalism goes beyond this to insist that we should understand cultural differences without applying (inherently biased) standards of critical evaluation, it forbids at the outset the possibility that one culture may be in crucial respects superior to another. An initial openness to the truths of other cultures degenerates into a closed-minded denial of all transcultural standards. Seeking to avoid an acknowledgment of Western cultural superiority, relativism ends up denying the possibility of truth.”

That’s a lot of quote but these really give a good idea of the tone of this article.  I found myself both agreeing with and disgusted it. There are passages that make a lot of sense and passages that sound simply crazy to me.

I highly recommend this and some other Columbus-related readings that I’ve linked to on the side.

As part of the truth and reconciliation process the government has been running programs to basically pay people back for their experiences at residential schools.  Some of this has been briefly mentioned but I thought I would write a little more about it.

Common Experience Payment: this is a flat payment for any student who attended and lived at an IRS (Indian Residential School) in Canada. You have to have lived at the school to qualify for this payment because it is meant to compensate for “loss of language and culture”.  There are schools that aren’t on the list because the residences were billets in the commuity, like the one my dad attended. The payment is $10,000 for the first year and $3000 for every subsequent year one attended an IRS.

ADR/IAP: this is the program for abuses recieved at an IRS. This program is a lot more complicated; the CEP is a pretty basic 4-page form whereas the IAP (Independent Assessment Process) is a 40-page form. The government suggests-and pays for-laywer assistance for folks entering this program. My uncles have a 2-man law firm that is doing about 150 files of this kind. I worked as a form-filler for them, interviewing clients and bascially filling in the forms for them. The interview process is always emotional and sometimes very difficult. Some people do experience emotional trauma after talking about their experiences in these interviews.  There is a counselling phone line set up specifically to help people through the IAP process. The whole thing takes about a year, on average, from the time that i interview the person to the time they get their money from the government. The payments are made on a point system and vary widely from several hundreds to several hundred thousands of dollars . The person gets points based on their abuse and the effects of that abuse over their lifetime.

I could go on and on about this stuff because I feel like I know quite a bit about it. The clients that I interviewed a year and a half ago are just now starting to get their money, and it’s pretty gratifying to have helped.  The government pays the laywers an amount equal to 15% of the client’s settlement, the money doesn’t actually come from the client. So if a client is awarded $5000, they get $5000 and the lawyer will get a seperate payment of $750.

GREED: there are lawyers collecting clients for this program in order to exploit them. They send out these mass letters to whole reserves and have community meetings where they tell the people that they’re in for a lot of money. The lawyers get the folks to sign with them without making sure that they understand everything-it’s very unethical. The lawyers charge people percentages of their settlements regardless of the fact that they are getting paid by the government to do this. Some firms have several hundred claims/clients and have never met their clients face-to-face.  Some people have come to my uncles’ firm to get away from lawyers like this, and I’ve heard some awful stories of people being bullied and ignored by their lawyers.  This is a terrible practice, an abuse of the system, and a propogation of the elements of our cultural relationship that the T&R Comission is trying to get rid of!

I am reading this book for two classes: this class, and my INDG 201 class. I think it acts as a great primer for someone who has no idea of what indigenous peoples are, but it has not sparked any great lines of inquiry for me.  There is one exception to this, though, because of the ethnocentrism and generalizations in this book, I have been wondering if I am careful enough when I read.

This book keeps making huge sweeping statements of the sort I was warned against if my first year. I am simply amazed that the author got away with this. The author seems to think that every indigenous group belongs to the same worldview, or perhaps she just didn’t have enough room to write properly. Anyway, here is an example of a generalization from this book: “Music is the food of life for indigenous communities…[music] often accompanies story telling, as elders gather round the fire with the younger generation after the day’s labour is done” (Hughes, 108).  From this statement am I meant to understand that every indigenous group lives in this fashion? That they all, all of them gather round the fire after working to listen to songs and stories from the elders?

I will balance this criticism by saying that the author does use many specific examples from individual indigenous groups.  These examples, while taken with a grain of salt, were the most informative part of this book for me.

When I read a textbook I am not usually shocked at the ethnocentrism in it. This book, while warning against ‘exoticization’, does just that to indigenous peoples. The book says that “indigenous peoples are not simply victims”, but also paints indigenous peoples as environmental guardians, keepers of a great spiritual wisdom that would benefit humanity if only we were to stop oppressing them (Hughes, 82). I get the feeling that the author is some kind of new traditionalist, someone who idealizes and romanticizes indigenous traditions and believes that if indigenous peoples had never come in contact with white folks, they would be living in perfect peace and harmony with nature and themselves.

I would recommend this book for someone who wants the basics about indigenous life, but not for someone who cannot read critically. The reader of this book must be careful not to be swept away in the strong current of ethnocentrism running through it, nor be taken in by the constant generalizations.