Document Interpretation 1: The Other

Micmac Chiefs Observation of the French

How does the Micmac Chief talk about the Europeans?

Does his response to the French match up with what we are traditionally taught about
Native Americans?

This document is the first person account of a meeting between the Micmac Indians
and French colonists from the perspective of the Micmacs chief. The observations of the
Micmac chief reflect not only how the Micmac view the French but also ideas about the
lifestyles between the two groups. Those lifestyle differences include the types of housing
and even the attire that each wears. This examination of differences between them is an
example of the other to be discussed for this weeks document interpretation.
The Micmac Chief, in particular, is very critical of the French and he basically implies
that they are stupid by remarking about his surprise that they are stupid. The Chief labels
this a lacking in cleverness. He is attempting to describe them in negative terms because
he simply does not understand them or their ways. Instead of honoring the differences
between himself, his tribe, and the French, or working to find ways that they can all relate, he
uses the differences as a method of distinguishing the ways of the Micmac as superior.
This does not really seem to match up with how we are taught to look at Native
Americans. When I review my own experiences with learning American history, they always
seem as though they are supposed to be the morally superior party because they were
willing to accept all walks of life and work on a communal system. This reflection, on the
other hand, suggests that categorization happened on the side of the Native Americans as
well. This does not diminish what white settlers did, but it does help to support the
realization that the other, the category of someone perceived as lesser, does exist on both
sides.
This lesson is one I can see with some familiarity to the Charlie Hebo incident. While it
is true that this something that deals with the question of free speech, there is something to
be said for how that magazine could also go too far. In particular, the renderings of Muslim
images were not flattering or kind and could be very offensive. The end result, of course, is a
greater divide between those who are Muslim or are, at least, willing to sympathize with
Muslims, and those who believe the Nation of Islam is nothing more than terrorism
masquerading as a faith. Refusing to recognize people can hold beliefs different from your
own is what promotes the idea of the other and permanently divides them.