¶ … Cultural Binary Opposition Demystified Although it was initially created for popular consumption, there are a number of varying points of academic interest found in Karl May's novel Winnetou, The Chief of the Apache Part 1 Enters Old Shatterhand. This work is actually a study in post-colonialism and indicates many of the different mores that were popularized to propagate colonial notions. Perhaps the most important of these pertains to the conceptions of culture that are evinced in this novel, and which are typified in colonial endeavors almost anywhere throughout the course of history. Specifically, the notion of binary opposition emerges as one of the chief justifications for the colonization found in May's novel. Binary opposition is the diametric polarization of a pair of cultures -- in the case of May's novel, these include that of the Eurocentric westerner and that of the Native American. In May's work, the Eurocentric westerner perceives himself and everything associated with his culture as good, modern, and correct. Meanwhile, he perceives everything about the Native American and his culture as negative, incorrect, and in desperate need of correction by European influences. This sort of binary opposition is not only consistently found in May's work, but also operates as the fundamental tenet upon which colonialism itself is justified. However, the most interesting aspect of this concept is that in many ways, May actually demonstrates his conviction that binary opposition is really a false notion and one that is wrong. To that end, he illustrates numerous positive qualities about the Native Americans, while detailing some negative characteristics of the Westerners. A close examination of this work illustrates the fact that the idea of binary opposition upon which the postcolonial tendencies of Westerners are predicated is actually incorrect.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to deconstruct the aforementioned text without considering the context in which it was both written and perceived. May actually published numerous works of non-fiction about his fictional Apache chief Winnetou; a number of them featured Winnetou's comrade and Western counterpart Old Shatterhand. In fact, when one considers the effect of these works on popular culture, some of the cultural ramifications of May's novels become eminent. These books sold extremely well, and inspired numerous other stories -- including major motion pictures. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that some of the values espoused in these works that May produced actually resonated with his audience. Specifically, those values include rendering Native Americans in the 'noble savage motif'. This motif, although stereotypical in an undeniable way, helps to undercut the sort of binary opposition that was prevalent in colonialism and which is successfully challenged in Winnetou, The Chief of the Apache Part 1 Enters Old Shatterhand. There are multiples instances and a variation of characters in May's novel in which the Native Americans actually demonstrate admirable characteristics, and those that are much more complex, nuanced, and even beneficent for which conventional binary opposition allows for. Moreover, the popularity of May's works underpin the notion that this perception of Native Americans actually resonated with a wider audience, and substantiates the notion that binary opposition is merely a limited viewpoint that is actually incorrect.

An analysis of the characterization found in this foregoing book of May's also supports this viewpoint. Winnetou is unequivocally the protagonist of this work (as well as of the popular series that this particular book helped to spawn). However, his counterpart Old Shatterhand is German, and a salient representative of Western culture. There are a couple of truly significant ways in which Old Shatterhand's characterization demonstrates that the binary opposition tenet that was so vital to colonization is actually rooted in falsehood. Firstly, Old Shatterhand is allied with the Apaches, and with Winnetou in particular. This fact is important because if there was truly a simple dichotomy in which Eurocentric people were good and Native Americans were not, there could never be such an alliance. Additionally, it is worth noting that Old Shatterhand's relationship to Winnetou is far from exploitive. In a truly romantic gesture, the pair even become blood brothers to underscore the kindred they feel in all but genetics. Moreover, Old Shatterhand works diligently with Winnetou in the latter's efforts to unite the Apache tribes. In fact, there are many admirable qualities of Winnetou that draw him to Old Shatterhand. Granted, some of them pertain to the martial arts as both men are skilled in...

Still, the fact that there is a European character who is willing to live amongst Native Americans and help them to achieve their ends is indicative of the fact that those people and their aims are not necessarily bad. If they were, there is no way that Old Shatterhand, or Mazy himself, could reconcile such a glaring contradiction. The truth of the matter is that there is no contradiction whatsoever, because Old Shatterhand is proof that many of the virtues that Winnetou in particular personifies and that the Native American people are striving for are equally as virtuous, if not more so, than the goals of some of the Europeans with which they come into contact.
Actually, the characterization of Old Shatterhand is vital to the exposition of the binary opposition as just a myth and a convenient means to perpetuate colonization upon what in actually is an undeserving group of people: Native Americans. He functions as the narrator of Winnetou, The Chief of the Apache Part 1 Enters Old Shatterhand (as well as of many of the other novels written by May) and frequently narrates in a first person voice. This fact is pivotal for two reasons. Firstly, this style of narration maintains a distinctly Eurocentric perspective to which May's predominantly Western audience can certainly related. Secondly, that perspective is able to unambiguously expose that audience to the truth about the events depicted in such a way that helps it to realize that the binary opposition concept is actually mythical. This combination is certainly enough to impress what one might argue is actually one of the primary themes of this particular book of May's, that the notion of binary opposition is bogus. An excellent example of this fact is demonstrated in the passage in which Old Shatterhand wants to teach a lesson to one of the Native Americans named Tangua. The former merely wants to maim the latter. However, there are other Eurocentric Americans (namely Sam), who wish for Old Shatterhand to actually kill Tangua. Sam believes that it is "imprudent" (May 488). However, Old Shatterhand's reply to May is extremely revealing. He explains "the white men aren't innocent" (May 488) in the affair that led to his purported maiming of Tangua. The implications of this passage are extremely important to the thesis of this document. Old Shatterhand's diction is somewhat idiomatic. By stating that those of European decent are not innocent, he is actually implying that they were the aggressors and had some sort of noxious intention for the Native Americans. Such an implication is aligned with the fact that it is an oversimplification to blindly believe in the cultural binary opposition that everything Caucasians do is right and justified and that the Native Americans are deserving of their fate. Although this passage is just a mere implication of this idea, the fact that such a phrase was uttered by a fellow Eurocentric person must have resonated with May's audience and helped to disseminate the notion that the concept of binary opposition is flawed in this particular case. The larger implications, of course, are that if it is flawed in this case then perhaps it is flawed in general.

May utilizes the narration of Old Shatterhand and the degree of authority and trust he fosters in the reader to further denote the viewpoint that the cultural polarization between Caucasians and Native Americans is inaccurate. The author's characterization of Winnetou is certainly indicative of his reality. The foregoing characterization greatly pertains to the perception of the innate noxious nature of Native Americans. During colonial times, Caucasians were quick to believe that Native Americans were untrustworthy, thieves, and duplicitous, even. This perception, combined with the dearth of understanding about the religious viewpoints of Americans and that pertaining to their attire, resulted in the motif of Native Americans somehow being akin to savages. Yet May utilizes Old Shatterhand's narration to dispel these facets of the cultural binary opposition. This fact is demonstrated eminently in the passage in which Old Shatterhand engages in combat with Winnetou's father. After disarming the Apache chief, Old Shatterhand finds himself in a situation in which he is one of the few Westerners in the presence of numerous Native Americans, who can essentially do to him whatever they like. Still, he explains his decision to return with Winnetou to his camp with the simple phrase that, "Winnetou is just, and he won't break his word" (May 473). Such an assertion from a Westerner about any non-Westerner, is immense. It demonstrates that even when surrounded by Native Americans who can exert their influence over…