De Sousa on Difference: A Mini-Symposium

By the Reel American History class, Lehigh University, March 2012

[Teacher's Note]
In "Theatrics and Politics of Culture in Sixteenth-Century Brazil," Gerald de Sousa is one of the few critics who substantively compares Hans Staden's saga with the Nicholas Pereira dos Santos film. And his pivotal point is "The film shows Jean [the Frenchman] resigned to his fate, accepting a Tupinamba identity and the seductive ideology of assimilation. Hans Staden, however, vehemently resists assimilation into Tupinamba culture" (93)." Our class used De Sousa's claim to focus our own readings. Where is he strong, where weak? On what basis does he make that claim? Is there reason to disagree with him? Can the relationship between the two films be seen in a different, even contradictory way? What further questions need to be asked? Here are some of the results of our thinking.

Contributors: Kim Weber, Kelsey Cannon, Eddie Strumfels, and Tatum Lawrence

Kelsey Cannon
Merriam Webster defines “assimilation” in a multitude of ways that are relevant to de Sousa’s article: 1, “to take in and utilize as nourishment: absorb into the system,” 2, “to make similar,” and 3, “to absorb into the culture of mores of a population or group.” Considering these three definitions in conjunction with de Sousa’s descriptions of Jean’s assimilation into the Tupinamba culture, we can more closely examine the extent to which Jean did or did not assimilate. In the sense of the first definition--most often used in scientific contexts--Jean would be thoroughly assimilated as he is ingested, regardless of his willingness to serve as “nourishment” for the tribe, which is cohesive with de Sousa’s statement of the last phase of Jean’s tenure with the Tupinamba. De Sousa states “The prisoner’s status improves as his execution nears: worthless slave, a womanish man who cannot enjoy the company of other males, a brave warrior, the food that sustains the tribe and the blood that quenches the tribe’s revenge against the enemy” (92). The second definition “to make similar,” implies a certain superficiality that is, perhaps, satisfied by Jean’s adoption of the Tupinamba style and his roles within society as a farmer, a soldier, and a craftsman; unfortunately, this definition, in its brevity, does not address any depth of the concept--does “similarity” imply true adoption of beliefs and culture, or merely just playing a role? We can be certain, from Jean’s appearance and occupations that he did assimilate in this context. He played the role of the Tupinamba, but is that enough? Finally, the third definition addresses a bit of depth. The word “absorb” implies that cultural beliefs and practices are accepted rather than simply practiced, in which case, it is debatable whether or not Jean assimilated. Did he really believe in the ways of the natives?

Kim Weber
De Sousa’s argument is stronger in his work with Hans Staden than in his assessment of Jean. One example is the fact that de Sousa uses Staden’s religious beliefs as evidence that Staden had not completely accepted his fate or assimilated into the Tupinamba culture. My only hesitation with fully accepting the argument is the fact that there is not much to back up or cross-reference Staden’s writing. With the exception of the ethnographic accounts of the Tupinambas, the reader only has Staden’s word to trust. After all, he “self-fashions.” He could easily be making his experiences up to attempt to look more faithful upon his return. Or, he could have exaggerated stories of his manipulation of the Tupinambas in order to make himself look smarter in such a desperate situation. Further, I have a hard time believing he did not take up a wife as was Tupinamba custom and as Jean did in the film. It would be smart for a God-fearing man like Staden to remove unsightly details like a Tupinamba wife from his account when writing of his experiences for a Christian audience, and I can’t help but wonder if Staden engaged in some of this self-editing to look more pious than he may have actually been.

Staden also tries to ward off critical readers like myself, casting further doubts on the overall legitimacy of his account. He says that “if there is a young man among you, to whom this writing and these witnesses are still insufficient, then lest he should live in doubt, let him, with God’s help, undertake the voyage himself” (qtd in de Sousa 97). Here, Staden makes a rhetorical move which puts him in control over the reader. The reader will either believe Staden’s account, deciding not waste time with the journey, or he will wish to verify details but be perturbed in doing so by a fear of the cannibalistic Tupinambas. Staden cleverly adds what appears to be credibility to his account by putting forth an offer he knows no one will take him up on. De Sousa seems to share some of my sentiments when he notes that “Staden is obviously a man of deep religious convictions, but his claims to miracle are often self-serving” (96). Perhaps I am being too critical, but these lingering questions all make me a bit wary of putting all of my trust in Staden’s account.

Tatum Lawrence
It is with De Sousa’s reading of Jean that I take issue. According to De Sousa, Jean becomes “resigned to his fate, accepting a Tupinamba identity and the seductive ideology of assimilation.” There are a few scenes which, for me, break down this apparent “acceptance” and a few flaws in his argument that consistently show Jean’s inability to truly become Tupinamba. The first scene in which Jean is shown to be incompliant with his eventual death is when he is going over the ritual with his given wife. She tells him exactly what he is expected to say: “When I am dead, my friends will come to avenge me.” It worthy to note that when Jean reiterates the lines, he intentionally leaves out the phrase “when I am dead,” insinuating that he is incapable of dealing with the inevitability of his eventual slaughter. She does correct him forcefully, as if trying to get him to understand his fate. Furthermore, when he is about to actually be executed, he changes the line of the ritual again, failing to follow its prescribed course. Again, he omits the lines “when I die” and adds to the end, “no one of yours will remain upon this land.” The dialogue here distinctly sets Jean apart from the Native tribe and completely disintegrates any hope of assimilation, as De Sousa claims exists. By omitting the lines “when I die” a second time, he is choosing to rebel against his fate, rather than accept it. By also threatening the complete annihilation of the native population, he is emphasizing his “otherness”: “no one of yours,” he snarls, “will remain upon this land.” The emphasis is on the separation between him and the tribe, a separation that can only end by the tribe’s swift slaughter.

Eddie Strumfels
I agree strongly with de Sousa’s interpretation of Hans Staden’s account -- that Staden had placed “the Tupinamba on the very borders of humanity but himself at the center of power,” but I disagree with his conclusion regarding Jean as a man who decided “to die bravely,” fully incorporated into Tupinamba life. I do believe for much of the film Jean wanted to be assimilated into Tupinamba culture, and that in one sense he was. My problem with de Sousa’s conclusion is that he posits that Jean decided to die bravely and that in his death Jean decided to die bravely as a fully integrated member of Tupinamba culture. I believe it was quite the opposite, that it was in the last moment of his life that Jean realized he wasn’t incorporated into the Tupinamba in the way he imagined, and so before his death he responds to this perceived rejection with a kind of European malice that would certainly go on to avenge Jean’s death. Jean misunderstood his role in Tupinamba culture because of his relationship with Seboipep; he accepts her as his wife (an aspect of Tupinamba life curiously left untouched in Staden’s account) and because of their loving relationship, he doesn’t believe he is truly meant to die. This idea, I believe, is supported in his final love scene with Seboipep when Jean refuses to repeat the words “When I die,” the first lines of his death-script. Seboipep chastises him, and they complete the lines, but Jean never admits that he is to die. He believed his love with Seboipep would eventually save him from the death-ritual, and when this illusion is shattered in the following scene (where Seboipep shoots him with an arrow as Jean tries to escape), Jean has lost all hope of being a member of Tupinamba society in the way he imagined (and I would argue he has imagined that sort of integration from the moment we meet him, in trouble with the Europeans for supporting the natives). Once forced to begin the death-ritual, he has been forced back to thinking of himself as an Outsider or Other to the Tupinamba people. When the time comes for Jean to recite his death-script, he again excludes the opening line “When I die,” shoves his wife away, and with his final words prophesies the fate of the Tupinamba people -- Jean’s friends will come, they will avenge his death, and soon the Tupinamba will never walk on their homeland again. I don’t reject the notion that Jean died “truly incorporated into Tupinamba life,” since, even without considering his life in the months preceding his death, he played what was the central role in a very important ritual of Tupinamba life. But Jean did not decide to die bravely and, instead, died against his will, with malice and not bravery, forced for the first and final time to acknowledge that he was never meant to live a long and integrated life with the Tupinamba. His role in their society was to be killed and to be eaten, and when he realizes that he was never more than that, even to his own wife, he dies as an Other.