Talking Trees: Many different cultures have stories about talking trees. I was reminded of the apple throwing trees in the film adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. I also thought about the Ents in Lord of the Rings. In Greek mythology, trees were considered to be sacred, to the point that they were personified as driads (tree nymphs, fairy-like creatures). Many ancient Greek myths tell of women fleeing the embrace of amorous gods and being transformed into trees as a metamorphic sanctuary. For example, Daphne was pursued by Apollo but managed to maintain her chastity by begging the earth (her mother) to give her refuge. As Goldman notes, trees also have special significance in the Sun Dance ceremony. The tree defines the ritual space of the Sun Dance and is planted in order to be at the centre of the dance. The warrior Kablaya personifies the tree saying “he will be our centre, and will represent the way of the people” (Goldman 34).

That GOD: at the beginning of Green Grass Running Water there is “that Dream.” Then it becomes “that Dog Dream” and finally it decides to be “that GOD” to emphasize his (its) importance (King 2). “That GOD” seems to represent the Christian God. That GOD is bossy and disapproves of the way that First Woman has made the world. Despite his disappointment he claims the garden and all of its contents as His own. He is not a welcome addition to the garden (41). In the biblical story of the creation of the Garden of Eden, God creates man first and puts him in charge of tending the garden (Genesis 2.8). The woman is created as an afterthought. As a companion. The biblical God gives Adam permission to eat from all of the trees except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. King seems to mock the Christian God’s refusal to share his food in Green Grass Running Water.

The phrasing of “that GOD” also calls Harry Robinson’s oral storytelling to mind. The use of “that” is contrary to customary English usage. The capitalization of the entire word GOD is a kind of making fun of how God is treated as a proper noun. The capitalization in written English is used to legitimize the Christian God as the one and true God. King mocks the custom and by capitalizing the entire word he renders it as more of a sound. He therefore gives it an oral storytelling type role.

“Sit down,” I says. “Boy, this story is going to take a long time.”: This is King’s narrative voice speaking and expressing that he is fed up with Coyote’s constant interruptions. Once again, King reminds us that even as we are reading a book, it is being told to us by a storyteller who is in a sense speaking to us. The story does indeed take a long time to tell, it spans many years, even going all the way back to creation stories.

Ahdamn:a play on Adam from the biblical creation story. King phoneticizes Adam’s name to have a different meaning. Ah, damn seems more like a casual curse versus Adam which is Hebrew for “man.”

That woman/that good woman/First Woman: once again, the language and phrasing of oral storytelling has symbolic importance. Just as King refers to “that GOD,” he refers to “that woman.” First Woman is therefore linguistically given the same (or more) importance as the Christian God is given. Flick points out that the First Woman is an important personage in Seneca and other tales (147). In the Ojibwa version of the tale, the most powerful spirit in the universe, Kitchi Manitou, asked the First Woman (then the Sky Woman because she lived on the Moon) for help creating humanity. Notably, she is characterized as good. In comparison to the irritatingly loud mouthed that GOD and the relatively useless Ahdamn, First Woman stands in sharp contrast. Here King uses the capitalization for the proper noun of the Christian God but he uses it properly with First Woman.

Ahdamn is busy. He is naming everything.
You are a microwave oven, Ahdamn tells the Elk.
You are a garage sale, Ahdamn tells the Bear.
You are a telephone book, Ahdamn tells the Cedar Tree.
You are a cheeseburger, Ahdamn tells Old Coyote. : This section plays off the biblical story of Genesis 2.19 where God brings Adam the animals that have just been created and lets him name them. Symbolically, God gives Adam quite a lot of power by letting him name the animals. This story is representative of a collaborative relationship between God and his human creations. King mocks the trust that Ahdamn has been given. In Green Grass Running Water it seems as though Ahdamn has given himself the task of naming the animals. And the names he chooses aren’t great. As Stratton says, Ahdamn “is busy colonizing the garden by ‘naming everything'” (92). And certainly, early Canadian colonizers exacted a similar kind of naming on a land that they had no entitlement to. By viewing the somewhat outrageous anectdote of Ahdamn naming an Elk “microwave oven” in juxtaposition with how European settlers descended onto Canada to give places names, the ridiculousness and offensiveness of both situations is made clear. The Cedar Tree becoming a telephone book is another form of colonization where the land itself was disfigured and violated. It is also notable that King grants the names of nature proper noun status with his capitalization. King thereby establishes what is holy. Ahdamn’s disrespectful naming is magnified all the more by this strategic grammatical twist. Once again, to refer to Stratton, “King highlights…the values of imperial culture…a belief in hierarchy, technology, exploitation, mastery over nature, progress, private property” (92).

That’s my garden. That’s my stuff: the Judeo-Christian God of the Old Testament has a sharing problem in Green Grass Running Water. Stratton says “God…is cast in the imperial mode” (92). In King’s version of the story Imperial colonizers = that GOD.

There is that garden. And there is First Woman and Ahdamn. And there are the animals and the plants and all their relations. And there is all that food: This passage is significant when contrasted with the story in Genesis. In the bible, it is very clear that there is difference between God’s creations. There is Adam and his “help meet” and then there are the fowl, the beasts, the cattle, and the trees. In King’s version of the story the language “and all their relations” suggested that everything is related. This is more of a community-minded environment than biblical Eden. Once again, King employs oral-storytelling language to recount his version of a garden creation story.

Mr. Looking Bear: In Northwest West Coastal Native culture, bears are symbols for family and strength. The sometimes fierce, sometimes gentle character of the mother bear means that bears are associated with the family. Perhaps the reference to Mr. Looking Bear is symbolic because Alberta is “looking” for motherhood and Charlie is a potential, albeit undesirable, mate.

grove of Russian olives banked against the coulees: The Russian olive tree is large, spiny, perennial deciduous shrub or small growing tree (Collins). It is usually found in fields and other open areas (like coulees). What makes this reference significant is that the Russian olive tree is native to temperate parts of Asia and southeastern Europe and it “was originally planted in Eurasia as an ornamental tree, and was first cultivated in Germany in 1736” (Collins). In the late 1800s the Russian olive tree was introduced to North America as an ornamental and windbreaking plant. Yet the Russian olive tree has a tendency to spread very quickly and their growth threatens and out-competes native plant growth. Furthermore:

“The displacement of native plant species and critical wildlife habitats has undoubtedly affected native birds and other species.  The heavy, dense shade of the Russian olive is also responsible for blocking out sunlight needed for other trees and plants in fields, open woodlands and forest edges.  Overall, areas dominated by the Russian olive do not represent a high concentration of wildlife” (Collins).

The mention of the Russian olive trees in this paragraph is therefore a subtle reference to how the land has been affected by colonization. Not only were the First Nations people colonized by imperial nations but those imperial nations brought plants that exacted a similar kind of violent colonization on the land and the way it naturally operates.

Coulees in Southern Alberta were carved out millions of years ago by glacial meltwater. They are valleys or shallow ravines. They are the “native” state of the landscape and the Russian olive trees are the intruders.

Alberta: Alberta’s name is a reference to the province of Alberta. According to Flick, this may be because King is originally from Alberta (144).

“You’re not sleeping with John Wayne, are you?” : John Wayne is an actor famous for his roles in Western movies. Lionel longs to be like John Wayne, his childhood hero. Charlie’s question to Alberta therefore has double meaning. He is asking whether she has betrayed him to sleep with the “Indian” hating cowboy. He is also asking whether she is sleeping with Charlie who is linked to John Wayne. Flick says that Charlie’s love of John Wayne “signals his denial of ‘Indianness'” (147). John Wayne is also a duplicitous character in that in some of his films he played roles sympathetic to First Nations people but he was mostly known for the cowboy who drove the “Indians” out of town.

Buffalo Bill Bursum: Buffalo Bill reminded me of the character from Silence of the Lambs. This correlation suggests that Buffalo Bill Bursum is a questionable sort. However Flick sets me straight in that his namesakes are two men who were similarly cruel to Aboriginal people. Holm O. Bursum was a senator from New Mexico who “proposed the infamous Bursum Bill of 1921, which aimed to divest Pueblos of a large portion of their lands and to give land title and water rights to non-Indians” (148). Buffalo Bill refers to William R Cody who exploited First Nations in his show Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West. The name Bill therefore operates to link the two nefarious characters together. From the link, one can assume that Buffalo Bill Bursum wishes to profit off of resources that aren’t his even if it means exploiting First Nations people like Lionel. It also suggests that he gets gratification out of humiliating and stereotyping First Nations people. King has Bursum make generalizations like “you guys get all that free money…all you guys are related…” (King 80).

“nice is nice and Lionel is nice. He just never made it.”: My third grade teacher said one should never use the word “nice” because there are so many superior adjectives. I think this might apply in this context. Nice maybe isn’t the best, most glowing, descriptor.

“Catch the plane to Edmonton”: this statement from Charlie serves to characterize him and symbolically link him with Edmonton. It is likely that Edmonton and Blossom are not so far apart as to justify a flight. Edmonton is famous for the West Edmonton mall. Malls are sites of capitalism therefore they, and Edmonton, are linked with Charlie.

“he’ll be back on the reserve running for council”: Charlie frames this potential future for Lionel as a negative. It is set up as a comparison to Charlie’s assertion that he “made something of [him]self [but] Lionel’s never going to get out…he’ll be back on the reserve running for council” (King 43). Charlie, as a “yuppie lawyer working for a company constructing a nearby dam” sees success as something outside of the reserve (Wyile 119). Charlie sees a return to the ancestors, a return to First Nations culture as regressive and promotes a more financially lucrative (albeit morally impoverished) life.

Blossom: the Albertan town where the novel is set. As Flick says, “the name suggests natural beauty and regeneration” and may be taken as a directive for Alberta to blossom (147-8).

refrigerators organized around hamburger, frozen corn, white bread, french vanilla cookies, and beer: These are all foods of the colonizer. Hamburger meat, corn that is frozen, bread that is high in sugar. None of these foods are particularly natural.

prehistoric vegetables turning to petroleum in plastic sacks: This language recalls the recurring theme of “creation” throughout the novel. Scientists say that petroleum was created when organic materials decomposed under high temperature and pressure.

Rocky III: The third film in the Rocky franchise, the film centres on Rocky Balboa enjoying his riches as world champion. He only fights people who are hand picked by his manager. He fights Clubber Lang and loses his title. No one believes in Rocky anymore and he is a has-been. Luckily, former world champion Apollo Creed comes to Rocky’s rescue and revives his fighting spirit. Rocky has a re-match with Clubber Lang. Spoiler alert: Rocky wins.

cold, polished cotton sheets: Again, Alberta’s preference for “homey” things that are close to the earth is evident in her distaste for cotton sheets. Cotton is also associated with slavery in the United States and therefore emblematic of the colonizer.

Alberta had just gotten beyond sex with both men before derailing the social locomotive on a grassy shoulder of pleasant companionship and periodic intercourse: This sentence recalls the theme of being on the road. It suggests that Alberta does not want to be colonized by a man into the role of wife. Just as the Canadian railroad was a tool of colonialism to colonize the country, Alberta sees social ceremonies as similarly subjugating.

apart from no men in her life, two was the safest number.: Alberta subverts the message that One is the Loneliest Number.To Alberta, who fears the colonization of marriage, two is safe and one is independence.

Men wanted to be married.: Once again, Alberta’s storyline attempts to subvert cultural norms and stereotypes about women. Alberta, contrary to the stereotypical woman, wishes to remain independent and although she wants a baby she would rather raise it alone than be enslaved by the title of wife.

Works Cited

Andrusiak, Jason. “Land Forms Along the Oldman River.” Oldman River, 2000. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

Collins, Emily. “Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.).” Invasion Biology: Introduced Species Summary Project. Columbia University, 6 Mar. 2002. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature. 161/162 (Summer/Autumn 1999): 140-172. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

Goldman, Marlene. “Mapping and Dreaming: Native Resistance in Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature. 161/162 (Summer/Autumn 1999): 18-41. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

Jim Kindheart. “Wizard of Oz-Vegan Slap!”. Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 27 Aug. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

“John Wayne.” IMDB. IMDB, 2014. Web. Mar. 21 2014.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2007. Print.

MovieZya | Movies Information Made Easy. “Rocky III (1982) HD Trailer.” Online video clip. Youtube. YouTube, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

Ozone31912. “One is the Loneliest Number.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

Stratton, Florence. Cartographic Lessons Susanna Moodie’s Roughing It in the Bush and Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature. 161/162 (Summer/Autumn 1999): 82-102. Print. 19 Mar. 2014.

“The Bear.” Squamish Lil’wat Culural Centre. Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre, 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

“The Creation of Turtle Island.” Native Art in Canada: An Ojibwa Elder’s Art and Stories. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Ed. Bartleby.com. New York: American Bible Society, 1999. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

The Zhengjian Book Series Edit. “Unveiling Prehistoric Civilizations: (Part 11) Petroleum and the Theory of Evolution.” PureInsight.org, 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

“Trees in Mythology.” Ancient Yew Group. Ancient Yew, 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

Wyile, Herb. “‘Trust Tonto’: Thomas King’s Subversive Fictions and the Politics of Cultural Literacy.” Canadian Literature. 161/162 (Summer/Autumn 1999): 105-124. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

In Green Grass Running Water, King makes use of numerous techniques of oral storytelling to enrich his story with symbolism, allusion, and a kind of linguistic riddling. From the onset of the novel when the reader is introduced to Hawkeye, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe and the Lone Ranger, the reader is alerted to the fact that this book will demand a more thorough kind of reading. Even if the reader is uncertain of the specifics of the aforementioned characters of popular culture, they will most likely have heard the names referred to, and therefore attempt to place them within a real world setting. Information about the characters will be drawn from the reader’s experience with the various characters, relationships will be deduced, and the reader is asked to contribute their own cultural knowledge to the knowledge provided by the novel. The reader is asked to engage in a new kind of reading. This reading involves voicing some things aloud in order to best make sense of them. King seems to implore his reader to play. To understand “the unifying metaphor or the cultural impact” rather than just “appreciate the superficial aesthetics” of the book, the reader must find a new way to “read it” (King 128). Green Grass Running Water asks its readers to “lov[e] the sound[s] of it…[to appreciate the] majesty [of the] name[s]” (128). To read Green Grass Running Water successfully, the reader must understand that “there is no reader of the novel…who is not outside some of its networks of cultural knowledge…but every reader is also inside at least one network and can therefore work by analogy to cross borders into the others” (Fee and Flick 131).

The reader is therefore asked to bring his/her personal experience and cultural knowledge to the novel and to apply it to the world that King creates. What is not understood should be investigated where possible. Sometimes it will be decoded, and sometimes, it is meant to exist outside of comprehension. Words must be played with. Spoken aloud, rearranged, shortened, pronounced in different ways. The reader is taken back to the process of learning to read and is asked to sound things out.

A number of the allusive names that are illuminated through being spoken aloud are biblical names. Ahdamn, Dr. Joseph Hovaugh, and A.A. Gabriel are some examples of these. King therefore suggests that his book should not be treated as scripture. By engaging in word play with biblical characters he gives his reader permission to ask questions, to challenge accepted stories and to re-frame them within other cultural understandings.

Joseph Hovaugh is an example of a name that King asks his reader to engage in wordplay with. King places Dr. Hovaugh within a biblical context immediately. He is attended to by Mary, he asks for John, he observes the garden, and he discusses acquiring a pair of peacocks. Yet if the reader does not engage in wordplay with the name Joseph Hovaugh, they might miss the allusion that Joe Hovaugh = Jehovah. On my first reading of the novel, I must admit, I missed the full allusion.

Once King has established that nothing within his novel should be taken at face value, the reader is encouraged to continue manipulating the words and concepts of the novel to glean more information. Ahdamn seems an obvious reference. Phonetically, Ahdamn and Adam are quite similar. Yet the spelling of Ahdamn urges the reader to speak it aloud. “Ah, damn!” is quite different from “Adam.” By asking his reader to say the name in such a way, King makes a statement about just how seriously biblical stories are taken in his novel (King 68-69). The result is that the Adam character in the biblical creation story is diminished. First Woman becomes the active character, versus Eve in the biblical creation story who is vilified and damned. Ahdamn is passive in King’s version and First Woman is the active personage.

A.A. Gabriel operates in a bit of a different way. He is introduced within the context of his biblical significance. He encounters Thought Woman (whose name is Mary) and runs her through the requirements for immaculate conception. Yet once again, King asks the reader to play with the words of the character’s name. The reader must investigate and make the jump in logic to relate the situation to the character. The wordplay continues when Coyote “confuses” the “hosanna da” that is sung for the religious song Hosanna in the Highest. King then engages in word play to make a political point by having his narrative voice “mix up” the religious song for the nationalistic song “Hosanna da” as in “O Canada.” King’s political point is extended when he says the lyrics are “our home on Natives’ land” (King 270).

There are, of course, many other examples of names that must be read aloud to be fully understood. King demands that the reader not take the printed word at face value. Often, there are allusions that beckon to the reader like deja vu. For example, Polly Hontas might be passed over at first when traditionally read, but when read with an engaged approach of applying one’s cultural knowledge, the name suggests Pocahontas. Similarly, when Changing Woman encounters Ahab, the men shout “Whaleswhaleswhaleswhalesbianswhalesbianswhaleswhales!” (King 195). King asks the reader to go over what is presented at face value and to investigate it for deeper meaning. When read aloud, further significance is uncovered. Although I missed a number of Canadian historical references on first reading, I recognized Dr. Loomis as a character from the series of slasher horror films, Halloween. My recognition of the character from within my cultural knowledge of what he represents in the films colours how I perceive him as a character in King’s novel.

King therefore asks his reader to apply oral storytelling and listening techniques to their reading of Green Grass Running Water. The book becomes malleable. What one person brings with them as cultural knowledge will not match up with any other individual’s interpretation of the characters, events and settings. The result is multiple layers of meaning that are influenced by each reader’s worldview and relative knowledge. The story that is told aloud is manipulated and fiddled with, and King asks his reader to engage similarly with Green Grass Running Water to infer meaning. In oral storytelling, each listener has a different impression of the stories being told. One listener will glean certain things that are informed by his/her worldview and another listener will remember different things as important, things that are informed by his/her worldview.

In King’s storytelling, no story is told the same way twice, and no word should be limited to one incarnation. The reader must engage, ask questions, and play with language in order to truly find meaning. Nothing is as it seems, everything should be examined and investigated, even age old characters that have previously been treated as scripture. What is sought out may thus be found.

Works Cited

Davidpetercantus. “Hosanna in the Highest.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube. 11 Jul. 2010. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

“Dr. Sam Loomis.” IMDB. IMDB, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Fee, Margery and Jane Flick. “Coyote Pedagogy Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature. 161/162 (Summer/Autumn 2009): 131-139. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Fredde21. “National Anthem of Canada (O Canada).” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube. 26 Feb. 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2007. Print.

I knew this act was trouble when I got to the section that defined “Indian.” According to the Indian Act, an Indian is “First. Any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band; Secondly. Any child of such person; Thirdly. Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person” (Indian Act 18.3.3 emphasis mine). By the time I got to the section that outlined “half-breeds” I knew I was in trouble (Indian Act 18.3.3.e).

And just when I thought it could not get any worse, I read the following definition: “The term ‘person’ means an individual other than an Indian, unless the context clearly requires another construction” (Indian Act 18.3.3.12).

———————————————————————————————————————————-

The Indian Act of 1876 stipulates a variety of regulations for First Nations peoples. It regulates everything from individual identification (status), to reserves, to bands. The act is confusing because it enacts regulations that would protect reserve land and give First Nations peoples rights to reserve land while it establishes those regulations within a racist, prejudicial framework. The act defines what it means to be ‘Indian’ and how status is given and revoked. It establishes governance for reserves and establishes the consequences of trespassing. It sets out rules for timber and the exchange of resources (such as timber) for the infraction of unpaid dues. It locates the responsibility of financial transactions within the Governor in Council and the Receiver General and therefore out of the hands of the ‘Indians’ to whom the funds belong. It enacts regulations for who may vote and how long of a term Chiefs can lead for (three years) but rests grants the Governor in Council the authority of calling elections and deposing of any Chiefs perceived to be dishonest or corrupt. Any of the authority of making rules and regulations that the chiefs are given is tempered by a stipulation that any regulations must first be approved by the Governor in Council. In Manitoba, Keewatin and North West Territories, First Nations were not allowed to have farms (or homesteads). Indians were forbidden from using any kind of intoxicants (alcohol, drugs) and any use of intoxicants was punishable by imprisonment. Enfranchisement was encouraged by a number of clauses in the Indian Act. For example, if an Indian were to graduate from medical school, they would be automatically enfranchised and thereby no longer have status. The whole Act of 1876 may be accessed here (warning: it’s a PDF).

The Indian Act was amended numerous times for better and for worse, albeit until recently, mostly for the worse. In 1884 the government banned potlatches in the Indian Act and subsequently banned other ceremonies (Hanson). Another amendment in 1920 stipulated that every Indian child must attend residential school and rendered it illegal for Indian children to attend other educational facilities (Hanson, “The Residential School System”).

—————————————————————————————————————————–

The Act is therefore riddled with racist ideologies. The Act effectively redefines words in order to establish “a ‘fictive ethnicity’ [that]…occupies the position of normalcy and privilege in Canada” (Coleman 6-7). The Act is frequently described as “paternalistic” and it certainly does resonate as condescending. First Nations people, are clearly set apart as non-people, are therefore subjugated under the guise of being granted rights. Coleman’s argument that there was a “literary endeavor” to “formulate and elaborate a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” is demonstrated in the redefinition of words (5). The Act differentiates between an “Indian” and a “person” and therefore dictates that an Indian is different. An Indian is uncivil.

By banning potlatches, mandating educational practices, granting privileges yet limiting those privileges with caveats, the Indian Act attempts to strip the Indians of their culture. The Act “aimed to assimilate First Nations” by making stipulations that “people who earned a university degree would automatically lose their Indian status, as would status women who married non-status men” (Montpetit). Through enfranchisement, the Indian Act tried to amalgamate Indians into the “fictive ethnicity…[of Canada by representing the diverse peoples of Canada] as if they are a natural community” (Coleman 7). The Indian Act therefore support Coleman’s argument about white civility and fictive ethnicity.

The Act, “discount[s] people…but…[it] define[s] a community, and claim[s] land” (Chamberlin 45). Despite the racism inherent in the language of the Act, it “is historically and legally significant for Aboriginal peoples [in that] it acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada” (Hanson). Its existence bears witness to the problematic history between the Canadian Government and First Nations people. Also, in its differentiation between First Nations and the descendents of settlers, the Indian Act might be seen as a form of resisting assimilation. If the Indian Act were to be replaced or restructured as an “alternative political relationship…worked out between First Nations and the government…[Aboriginal leaders widely agree that] First Nations will need to be active participants in establishing it” (Hanson).

—————————————————————————————————————

Reading the Indian Act I couldn’t help but think of Robinson’s story about the twins who were in charge of creating the earth. The Indian Act, I imagined, might be like the “written document–a “paper”–[that the younger twin] had been warned not to touch” (Robinson 9). Insofar as the younger twin is dishonest and represents the ancestor of the eventual ‘settlers’ of Canada, it seemed to me that the Indian Act might have originated as a similar kind of trickery from the younger twin. The piece of paper of the Indian Act contains good things and terrible things. This duplicitous nature seems in line with the stories we have read about the twins and what to expect from the younger one. I thought this was an interesting connection.

Works Cited

AuroraKismet. “Potlatch 1.” Online Video Clip. YouTube. Youtube, 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd., 2004. Print.

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Cited by Erika Paterson. “Lesson 3.1.” ENGL 470A Canadian Literary Genres: Canadian Studies. UBC Arts Department, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Crey, Karrmen. “Enfranchisement.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

——. “The Residential School System.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Montpetit, Isabel. “Background: The Indian Act.” CBC News. CBC, 30 May 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.

“The Indian Act”. 12 Apr. 1876. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Sparke suggests a number of possible inspirations for Judge McEarchern’s “map that roared” comment. All three possibilities suggest that Judge McEachern was disdainful and condescending of the map presented at trial.

First, Sparke makes reference to the turn of phrase “paper tiger.” The “colloquial notion of a ‘paper tiger'” is taken from a Chinese expression (Sparke 468). The expression describes someone/something that has a threatening appearance but is harmless in reality (Bourque). When applied to McEachern’s comments regarding the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen territory map, the “paper tiger” interpretation is patronizing. Rather than interpreting and evaluating the map as a textual authority in the way that the maps of the colonizers would be viewed, it segments the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen attempt to chart their land into a threat, or an act of bravado with little authority.

Sparke also mentions that the “map that roared” might refer to the Peter Sellers film The Mouse That Roared. The film is about the world’s smallest country which decides to declare war on the United States of America. The punch line of the film is that a primitive, under-dog of a country would deign to take on one of the large super power nations of the world. The trailer declares that it is “the funniest war ever waged…the war that had to be lost to be won.” In this respect, comparing The Mouse That Roared to the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen Territories trial is an apt assessment. It is doubtful, however, that Judge McEachern was sufficiently clairvoyant to foresee that his ruling against the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen claims would pave the way for the eventual Delgamuukw Decision in favor of recognizing aboriginal title as a property right to land.

In both the “paper tiger” and The Mouse That Roared interpretations, Sparke justly interprets a “derisory scripting of the plaintiffs as a ramshackled, anachronistic nation” (Sparke 468).

Sparke’s third interpretation is likely more in line with the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen understanding of what they were trying to achieve. The idea of “a roaring map simultaneously evoked the resistance in the First Nations’ remapping of the land: the cartography’s roaring refusal of…Canadian colonialsim on native land” (Sparke 468). The word roar certainly has revolutionary connotations: Exhibit A, Exhibit B. The map presented to Judge McEachern thus reads as a battle cry issued by people who will no longer suffer injustice. Sparke’s interpretation of the map as a revolutionary roar is strengthened by his grounding his investigation within a musical framework. Sparke suggests that narratives about land should be understood as a musical score (468). While “the Canadian state takes the position that jurisdiction over the land belongs to the settlers” the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen cartographic narrative roars its own (hi)story about the land we now call Canada (Asch 30). The two story lines are independent but they are interdependent in their harmony like a musical composition. They complement and contribute to one another when they are considered as harmonious works. Narratives about the land must be given “contrapuntal voicing…[to] enable [the] national Canadian audience to rethink the colonial frontiers of national knowledge itself” (Sparke 468).

The Gitxsan Wet’suet’wen roaring map therefore “subverts any punctual notion of a singular national origin, displacing it with an invitation to readers to reevaluate the ways in which the template of contemporary Canada is imposed proleptically on a heterogeneous past” (Sparke 468). When viewed in such a way, the map that roared may be seen not only as a counterpoint but as an elaboration, a fleshing out, of the story of the land we live in.

Works Cited

Aisthesis. “J.S. Bach – The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 – T. Koopman and T. Mathot.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Asch, Michael. “Canadian Sovereignty and Universal History.” Storied Communities: Narratives of Contact and Arrival in Constituting Political Community. Ed. Rebecca Johnson and Jeremy Webber Hester Lessard. Vancouver: University of British Columbia P, 2011. 29-39. Print.

Bourque, Jeremiah. “A Paper Tiger.” English Idioms. English Idioms. 9 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

Collier, Russell and Martine Rose. “The Gitxsan Model: A Vision for the Land and the People.” The ESRI Conservation Program. ESRI, May 2007. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

ROAR Magazine. ROARMag.org: Reflections on a Revolution, 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Saw1110. “Helen Reddy – ‘I Am Woman’ (Live) 1975.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 4 Jun. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Sparke, Matthew. “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation Author(s).” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88.3 (Sep. 1998): 463-495. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb 2014.

Troz2000. “The Mouse that Roared Trailer.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

In his analysis of creation stories King employs a number of dichotomies. King emphasizes the dichotomies between the story of Charm and the Christian biblical creation story in order to emphasize the danger of either/or modes of thinking. If one is to ascribe fully to one creation story as truth, than other stories must be dismissed as untrue. Yet in King’s retelling of the creation stories, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize the commonalities of the two stories, rather than prove one as fallacy. It is King’s storytelling that undermines the similarities of the stories and imposes difference.

King uses creation stories because they feature “relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist” (King 10). Certainly, there are similarities between the two stories. The earth starts out as water. Humans are introduced into a world that has already hosted animals. Yet in his presentation of the stories, King also sets a trap. King sets “the trap that categories always lay for us…[dichotomies] have become hard-wired into our consciousness…but the choice between them…is a foolish choice between false alternatives” (Chamberlain 24).

King plays to a number of assumptions historically implemented in the misleading categorization of stories. Firstly, the story of Charm opens “back at the beginning of imagination” (King 10). In contrast, the story of God creating the world occurs “in the beginning” (21). In his organization of the stories King has already lent more credence to the Christian creation story by omitting any reference to imagination. If one is to believe the biblical creation story as fact, it wouldn’t do to acknowledge that at some point, the story sprung from imagination. King sets up his reader to make the “false choice between reality and the imagination” when truly both stories “locate us in between…[and neither is solely imagination or reality but rather] ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or'”(Chamberlain 126-127). He also designates the Charm story as exotic. The word exotic suggests that something is different, different from what we are used to.

Furthermore, King’s storytelling mode changes the way the stories come across. Throughout the story of Charm he apologizes for the story. He emphasizes how unbelievable it is “given the fact that we live in a predominantly scientific, capitalistic, Judeo-Christian world governed by physical laws, economic imperatives, and spiritual precepts” (King 12). And yet in comparison to the candid, communicative telling of Charm, the biblical creation story King’s recounting of the biblical creation story is unyielding. King’s storytelling voice between the stories insists on ‘truths,’ the quality of one story over the other, and yet his assertions seem misinformed. After recounting the story of Charm, King introduces the Christian creation story by remarking on “the beauty of the language” and that “the story…captures the imagination” (21). The reader has just read an engaging, accessible story and in comparison, the biblical creation story seems lackluster. The beauty of the language King comments on is not visible nor does it seem to allow for any imaginative variation.

King thereby positions the reader to listen and personally evaluate rather than to exact judgement and strict categorization. King’s categorizing through the narration is ineffectual and therefore the reader/listener must listen with an open mind rather than accept the strictures placed on the stories by an outside authority. By setting himself up as an unreliable narrator, in effect, King comments on the danger of seeing in dichotomies. The reader must look to and embrace the complexities rather than limiting a story to a specific category. Like Wickwire found in his experience with Harry Robinson, setting aside stories that appear to be anomalies can be a dangerous, externally-imposed categorization (22). While historically, western culture has used categorization to clarify, King therefore exposes that rather than clarifying, categorization limits and even erases important cultural truths.

———————————————————————————————————-

This unit reminded me of this video. Someone had posted it on Facebook awhile ago and I had watched it then. In the discussion of contact stories, I was reminded of the video. The video is of Jean Pierre Dutilleux, a Belgian filmmaker, encountering a Papua New Guinea tribe. The assertion of the video is that the Toulambi people had never seen a “white man” before this. From what I’ve read up on it, much of the video may be ‘performance’ or ‘acted’. I think the video is problematic in a number of ways. It makes me a bit uncomfortable so I was hesitant to post it. Yet I also thought, what does the video say about contact stories and our fascination with them? What is being suggested by the video and why would someone go to such great lengths to ‘falsely document’ such a moment? Does the video corroborate what Lutz says about contact stories being a form of performance for all parties involved? Does the video exoticize the people in its portrayal? How are things portrayed and what does the film medium contribute/alter in its portrayal. If the video is, indeed, fake then it says a lot about expectations of content in contact stories. If it isn’t fake, is it insensitive to capture people on film without their express consent. If you’d like to read up on sources who contest the accuracy of the video there is a thorough examination here and a forum of evidence here.

Works Cited

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.

Dutilleux, Jean Pierre. “Filmography.” Jean Pierre Dutilleux. Jean Pierre Dutilleux, 22 Jun. 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

“Is the ‘Tribe Meets White Man for the First Time’ Video Fake?” Skeptics Stack Exchange. Skeptics Stack Exchange, 24 Jun. 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2014.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.

Kranz, Peter. “Toulambi 1976 contact: fact or fable.” Keith Jackson & Friends: PNG Attitude. PNG Attitude. 11 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

Lan, Kevin. “Isolated Tribe Man Meets Modern Tribe Man For the First Time – Original Footage Full.” Online Video Clip. Youtube, 18 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.

The Big Myth. Distant Train, 2007. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

The following words seemed to be common in many of our stories of home:

Comfort
Nostalgia
Tradition
Earth
Family
Loved ones
Stories
Safety
Feeling
Language
A place to leave/a place that will be returned to
Memories
Remember
Difficult to describe
Bittersweet
Haunting

I think we had more similarities than differences in our stories of home. And what differences we had seemed to be more details than over-arching themes.

I have a great story to tell you…

This all happened a long, long time ago, so long ago that it happened before people recorded history in books but used their voices instead. All of the people of the world used to live together in one big city. This city was called Peace. All of the citizens of Peace lived together with compassion and respect. Skyscrapers of gold reached up into the sky at the heart of Peace and at the city limits golden crops of wheat nestled up against emerald meadows where powder-puff sheep grazed. No one ever felt the urge to leave Peace because, well, it was so peaceful. The Peaceables wanted for nothing.

“What happened?” you must be wondering. “What happened to Peace? The world has been divided for as long as I can remember and even longer than that.” Something happened. Something happened that eroded Peace at its very core and divided its people. Dust moved in where the golden skycrapers once stood and the exiled Peaceables were driven out in search of new places to settle. The erosion of Peace has remained a mystery for many years. As luck would have it, I know the secret of Peace. It was whispered to me over food and drink some time ago and now I will whisper it to you.

The people of Peace were not superhuman. They were regular people like you and me. They had human feelings of sadness and envy and greed. Thoughts of anger and hate crept up at times but they managed to live at ease with each other. “How were they so happy if they understood the pain of life?” you ask. I will tell you. The Peaceables had a sacred structure at the central city square. It was a temple of sorts. A beautiful, round building. At the heart of the building stood a stone figure. It was so old that no one remembered who it was meant to be. They called the figure Peacekeeper. One Peaceable would enter at a time to air their grievances to the Peacekeeper and rid themselves of any ill-will. The room was constructed in such a way that the words they uttered would echo back to them in the darkness. A Peaceable would go in and speak their darkness to the Peacekeeper and the room would echo it back, at first, before swallowing it. Darkness feeding darkness. All that is darkest and hardest about humanity reverberated in that room. And perhaps it was a mistake to have it all live together in the shadows. Perhaps it was wrong to let all of the sadness and hurt and loneliness and anger mingle together for so long. Because one day the darkness stopped swallowing the echoes and it began to whisper back a story. Layers of echoes, one over the other, came back in the form of the foulest story you have ever heard. Grievances from years ago, heartaches that had long been forgotten, sounded back to the ears of each Peaceable that entered the room. And when they left the temple, they looked upon the city with troubled eyes. Peace was plagued with the whispered story. Gossip and animosity permeated the air of Peace. As the story passed from person to person it became uglier and more destructive. Soon the story of evil was on the lips and in the minds of each citizen of Peace. Their sleep was troubled. Their relationships were wounded. Suspicion laced every interaction.

The story from the whispers boiled up until the citizens of Peace realized something had to be done. They came together in the city square and pleaded with one other to stop the stories. To leave the echoing whispers in the confines of the temple. They knew they could no longer live together with the story. It would continue to devour their contentment until they warred with one another. Life in Peace would be at an end. They beseeched the once sacred building, now a malignancy on the topography of Peace. “We were doing okay without it. We can get along without that kind of thing. Take it back. Call these stories back!”

But of course, it was too late. For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world.

______________________________________________________________________

I discovered that I don’t tell this kind of story to my friends and family. I felt a little bit sheepish at first launching into the storytelling form. I’m not used to telling stories in such a structured, yet fanciful way. Most of the stories I tell are fact-based. I noticed that I changed things according to how my audience was reacting. If they really seemed to be enjoying a certain part, I would embellish a bit more, and it was fun to add comments that would engage them. It was a nostalgic experience and I felt like my audience enjoyed the nostalgia as much as I did. It’s so much fun to be told a story.

When I set out to change the story I knew it couldn’t be witch people because I am quite fond of witches. So that was my main reason for changing the original tale. I like that Silko doesn’t locate the blame of evil in any one sex, race, etc. but I felt uncomfortable locating evil in witches. I wanted to avoid a Pandora or Eve situation so I tried to make it a universally human error rather than specify a scapegoat.

This was a very interesting experiment for me and I really enjoyed it. I was surprised at how easy it was to re-write the story. It came easily to me. I started writing my version at work, while I was standing in a government liquor store, asking people to sample wine. Liquor store samplings are quite tedious and lonely at times. It was nice being able to escape into my imagination and it made me much more cheerful with the patrons I spoke to. I really had a lot of fun with it.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.

There is wonder inherent in words. They  are wonder-full because they are representative of the concepts and images that they describe and yet they are not those things. Words therefore exist in a liminal space. In Chamberlin’s investigation of language and stories he situates words in the intersection between reality and imagination. Words are factually based and yet they are not reality. Just as the word cat is a “cat that is both there and not there” the words in story convey facts that operate outside of reality, in the imaginary realm, so to speak (132).

Chamberlin explains that “in a riddle, it is language that gives, while the world stays just as it is…in a charm, it is the world that changes” (239). This definition applies to words within a broader context. Words operate as riddles in that they “highlight the categories of language and life” in their representation of concepts. And yet they also function as charms by “collaps[ing]” the same “categories of language and life” that they symbolize (239). Words thereby occupy a unique position for they are tools to recount concepts that lay in the intersection between reality and imagination.

Life is full of in-betweens. Waking and sleeping, adolescence, pregnancy, being affianced, some may even say grief is a transitional phase. There are the facts that we know about each of those phases. Yet some things that happen during the in-betweens seem more imaginary than factual. When the facts fall short we turn to stories. Stories; through their use of the riddle, charm, factual, nonsensical aspects of words can propel the reader/listener/teller into an in-between place where the complexity of the world can be satisfactorily addressed. The fairy stories of childhood “present experience in vivid symbolic form…the truth [is] exaggerated and made more…fantastic…in order to comprehend it” (Lurie 359). A comfort, clarity and understanding can be obtained through story that is rarely accessed by other means. In the world of words, the intersection between reality and imaginary, the story receiver is well positioned to deal with all that is unclear about life. Just as dreams are vehicles for working out the complexities of day to day lives, stories employ the conscious and subconscious in a unique way, thus enabling a higher understanding of the topic at hand.

My parents enrolled me in French immersion from kindergarten to grade 6. The French world of words I learned occupies a separate space in my mind. There were words that I understood for the representations they were. I understood their meaning in much the same way that I understood English. Yet there were some aspects of French that remain, very firmly, in the in-between place in my mind. The place where magic happens. We would sing “O Canada” every morning at my French immersion school. I must have learned the words phonetically because it won’t do for me to try and repeat the song to you by focusing on the meaning of the words. When I sing O Canada in French I need to focus on the sounds and the feelings they give me. How certain verses feel in the mouth as they flow into the next one. Presumably, as a child, the words didn’t make sense to me so I gave them a new story. Both of my parents speak English. I grew up in a very anglophone household. However, there are times when I can’t find the words in English to convey the experience I wish to convey.

The crux of what Chamberlin says about the world of words lies in his discovery of the “something that has to do with wonder…a sense of mystery that comes to us with startling clarity…with reasonings that come as revelations” (120). There is so much about human experience that cannot be understood from facts. You eat your first grape and say “it doesn’t taste the way I imagined it would.” It is the experience of tasting that grape and then telling the story of that first taste that allows the intersection of reality (what the grape tasted like) and imaginary (how it felt to taste that grape). The complexity of the world of words is overwhelming. Where else can truth, nonsense, riddle, charm, contradiction, ceremony, lies, reality, imagination intersect seamlessly and in such varied ways.

I recently happened to catch a documentary/interview with Paul Simon on CBC Radio 2 for the 25th anniversary of his album, Graceland, that he collaborated on with South African artists including Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Much of what they discussed connects with Chamberlin’s writing about home and homelessness. The song Homeless is one of the most political songs on the album as it deals with the homelessness enforced by Apartheid. A Q&A with Joseph Shabalala, the leader and lead singer of Ladysmith Black Mambazo, may be found here. The song Homeless really tells a story even when you don’t understand the language being spoken. The following story about the writing of the song Homeless appeared in Glide Magazine:

Inspired by Ladysmith’s music, Simon wrote a simple couplet: ‘Homeless, homeless, moonlight sleeping on a midnight lake.’ He then recorded a simple version and sent it to the group. Shabalala listened repeatedly. Though excited when recording began, the group struggled to create a vocal arrangement their first day in the studio.  Stressed, they prayed and practiced that night in their hotel room. Shabalala confessed to the band that he had been confused about how to approach the recording and simply encouraged them: ‘…let us try to do what we know. Just give them what we know…, then they will give us what they know.’ Later that night the group created the arrangement we know today. The next day when they performed it for Simon he immediately approved (Moore).

Works Cited

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2003. Print.

Irving, Cathy. “Paul Simon’s Graceland.” CBC Music. CBC, 29 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Lurie, Alison. “What Fairy Tales Tell Us.” Folk & Fairy Tales. Ed. Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009. 359-367. Print.

Moore, Hunter. “25 Years of Paul Simon’s Graceland.” Glide Magazine. Glide Magazine, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

MusicSpaceChannel. “Paul Simon Homeless HQ.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 13 Sep. 2013. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Robbins, Li. “Q&A: Ladysmith Black Mambazo on Paul Simon’s Graceland at 25.” CBC Music. CBC, 4 Jun. 2012. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.