To: 1king who wrote (199 ) 3/3/1998 1:15:00 PM From: Winer Respond to
There seems to be three sets of semantics at play here. Regardless of from whom these sets of meaning emanate, each of the three deserve consideration. Briefly:if Mr. Lowe misrepresented the situation... etc.," I meant that if the perception of what might be the general consensus among the Innu evolves, somehow, into something other than what that consensus actually is, particularly as a result of Mr. Lowe's writing, then those who are interested in discovering more about this development will eventually find out about it. It may not be the case here at all, but it does sometimes occur that personal and unrelated agenda's lie behind non-Native peoples use (appropriation) of Native culture. So, can Native concerns be justifiably married to Inco bashing (is it Inco bashing or industry bashing)?culture they reach for their gun(s). But Mr. Lowe has raised it as an issue. The subtext of his article contained evidence of a culture clash and therefore any suggestion of misrepresentation (the possibility that Mr. Lowe could have misrepresented the Innu viewpoint) has to go beyond simply saying that person X was misquoted. As you pointed out, Mr. King, it appeared that the words of a few were to be understood as representative of the whole constituency. But, as you also mentioned, the probability of that is low, at least from a non-Native perspective. So who can reify the Native point of view? My guess is that it will be Native people in a non-Native forum.
