G E T T I N G IT R I G H T : IM A G E S O F IN D IG E N O U S P E O P L E S IN C A N A D IA N F IC T IO N IN T H E E I G H T I E S TERRY GOLDIE Memorial University of Newfoundland I n some ways, the eighties seem like quite a humble age. We had faith in technological progress in the fifties and then pledged our devotion to backto -the-land primitivism in the late sixties and early seventies, but we now are completely sure that we don’t know what to believe. In contrast to the visions found in the writing of earlier unacknowledged legislators, the fiction of the eighties often asserts its limitations: “ I can’t claim to be giving you any more than what dribbles off the end of my pen: no blinding insights, no glimpses of the noumenal sphere.” Yet that rejection of past Shelleyan arrogance is not complete. The patina of humility often hides the hubris of the present, a disease to which all periods succumb. Such an attitude leads to certain assumptions. The first is that the past is a cloud of complacent — or bull-headed — ignorance. The second is that our contemporary open-mindedness has overcome such selfdeception . That faith in the present is the source of my title. About five years ago I was listening to a CBC radio interview with the Canadian writer Mel Dagg. He was commenting on representations of the Indian in Canadian literature.1 Although more than willing to admit the racism and stereotyping of earlier periods, he claimed that today some authors are “ getting it right.” As a prime example, he selected W. P. Kinsella’s stories of life on an Alberta reserve. Any thinker with an historical sense should be able to recognize the danger in judging contemporary material as the success in opposition to past failures. Michel Foucault asserts in “ Prison Talk” : I adopt the methodical precaution and the radical but unaggressive scepticism which makes it a principle not to regard the point in time where we are now standing as the outcome of a teleological progression which it would be one’s business to reconstruct historically: that scepticism regarding ourselves and what we are, our here and now, which prevents one from assuming that what we have is better than — or more than — in the past. (49) E n g l is h S t u d ie s in C anada, x iv , i , March 1988 Foucault opposes complacent teleology with a recognition of the “systems of power” which control the “Truth” of a culture, in the past, present, and future (“Truth and Power” 114 ). The most useful source of analysis is not chronological but ideological distance. Historical perspective might provide a shift sufficient to re-examine a past text, but something else must be added to decipher the subtle unconsidered elements which shape a contemporary text. A good example is provided by Charles Mair, who most would no doubt now consider “racist” in many ways and whom Dagg would no doubt view as having “gotten it wrong.” Mair believed himself to be very much on the Indian’s side. Pauline Johnson, a Metis who identified as an Indian and was a strong and articulate supporter of native rights, said, in a letter to Mair, “Oh! you are half an Indian, I know — the best half of a man, anyway — his heart” (letter of 18 December 1892; Shrive 19 1). Lacking chronological distance, Johnson had insufficient ideological perspective to provide an ade quate analysis. Chronology does not save the indigene from a limiting semiotic process. Throughout Canadian culture, from the beginning to the present, the image of the Indian and Inuk exists within a limited semiotic field, in which the image, the signifier, has at best a tenuous relationship with the referent, the indigene of “ real life.” 2 The borders of this field are best seen in light of the “ standard commodities” which Edward Said notes in Orientalism (190). These are the aspects of the image given most...