Painful questions of cultural superiority have been raised in Canada. Former International Olympic Committee vice president Dick Pound’s comments about Native Canadians’ “savage” pre-contact culture sparked major controversy, and Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente’s recent column defending his statements stoked the flames. The uproar surrounding Wente’s piece, which unabashedly positions Western culture as superior to that of the “neolithic” Native Canadians, exposes a painful rift in North American cultural values.
The artificial Anglo/Native dichotomy exposes a startling lack of intellectual curiosity and respect for empirical, evidence based inquiry. The cultures of Western settlers in North America and Aboriginals are different, to be sure. But does difference imply superiority? A century ago, most European anthropologists and historians would have said yes. I disagree, though I might be accused of fence-sitting. Difference only means difference, not superiority, and certainly not “savagery.” The task of intelligent people in any field is to explore these differences and present them fairly, rather than romanticizing theories and presenting them as fact.
In his sweeping History of Madness, Michel Foucault claims that the rise of the therapeutic asylum in nineteenth-century Europe was the result of a “grand confinement” of those who did not comply with the goals of emerging capitalist states. In order to “encourage the others,” those who wouldn’t work were placed in lock up until they came to their senses. Those on the outside were warned to be on their best behaviour. Foucault’s treatise raises many questions about the nature of state control in the Western world. But as a historical account, nothing could be more flawed.
The rise of the asylum in Europe coincides with the Enlightenment-era ideas of physicians and nascent psychiatrists empirically testing the value of confinement and therapy in the treatment of the insane. Despite this fact, Foucault’s “history” gained currency among the chattering classes. The work of historians who have actually investigated the issue has been ignored.
Something similar has happened in the field of Aboriginal studies. The romantic notion of pastoral, peaceable, highly developed First Nations peoples has taken on a life of its own. Caged in by ignorant attacks, intelligent people have been forced to defend Native Canadian culture rather than research it. Those who want to study rather than rhapsodize have had little choice but to promote the archetype of the one-with-nature Native Canadian. This is akin to claiming that Fuji apples are superior to naval oranges. Each should be explored in its own context. Of course, when speaking of Native culture, one is generalizing about many different cultures. The many groups that existed in pre-Columbian North America were distinct, and while some were building complex urban areas, others were leading nomadic lives on the plains. This holds true for “European” culture as well: what is the primary connection between Germany and Portugal?
In a response to Wente, Aboriginal scholar Hayden King of McMaster University fell into this common trap. King defended Native over European governance, showing his own lack of understanding by claiming that Natives had strict incest laws while the “crowned heads of France and England were as inbred as poodles.” Any medievalist or early modernist will tell you that the Catholic Church had stricter consanguinity laws than we have in Canada today.
King also claims that traditional forms of healing practiced in Native societies have directly impacted modern medical practice. It seems to me that traditional healing has little to nothing to do with modern, empirical-based medicine.
This is not to say that traditional healing ought to be dismissed as “savage” any more than the practice of blood-letting. Each represents a unique period of scientific development in two very dissimilar cultures. Every modern Canadian must live with the historical reality of European conquest. Sadly, it is impossible to know how traditional healing would have developed without Western intervention, but we cannot allow guilt to motivate historical inquiry and inform cultural values. Romanticizing Native Canadian or European culture does little good for anyone, and contributes very little to genuine understanding. We must insist on intellectually sound, evidence-based interpretations of each culture, and resist the impulse to declare one superior over the other. Wente’s and King’s comments about Native culture are not simply “stupid” or politically incorrect. They have both committed an even greater intellectual sin: laziness.
