The task at hand is to first discover as many allusions as you can to historical references (people and events), literary references (characters and authors), mythical references (symbols and metaphors). While I am suggesting a method to help organize your task — you should quickly discover that there is no method for making neat categories out of King’s numerous (and humorous) allusions and references. Instead of categories, what you will discover are connections, and inter-connections and cycles.

*************************************************************************************************

Pages 110

In the novel, Green Grass Running Water, the author, Thomas King, uses lots of biblical allusions to not only develop the plot but develop some characters. Some quotes refer to a specific event in the bible, while others refer to some biblical characters and allusions. Below are some examples of these allusions.

“Eli Stand Alone stood at the window of the cabin and watched the water slide past the porch.  It was getting higher, but they had done that before, open the gates just a little and let the stream come up over the sides of the channel and wash against the logs.  A lot of trouble for nothing.” (King, 110)

Eli’s name is highly charged with biblical significance.  Not only does the word “Eli” mean “My God” in Hebrew, it is also a reference to the Old Testament prophets .  There are several significant figures named Eli or a derivative of the name in the Hebrew bible; the names Elijah and Elisha are both written in their abbreviated form as “Eli” in the text.  Like these prophets, King’s Eli is a wise man, trained both academically and with deep spiritual connections.  Not only was he a university professor, but he also demonstrates his connection to the land and his people by refusing to move from his home and allow the dam to flood the area.  His experiences also prefigure the other later narratives in much the same way that the Old Testament prefigures the New Testament.  For example, his experience at the Sun Dance as a child, in which a man appears to be taking pictures of the event, foreshadows the incident at the end of the book in which George Morning star does much the same thing.  He also makes prophetic statements about what will happen with the dam: while Sifton finds that the dam looks “Sort of white.  Like a shell,” Eli replies “Reminds me of a toilet” (King, 136).  Throughout the book, the toilet at The Dead Dog Cafe is constantly overflowing, and in the end, the dam follows suit, bursting and destroying Eli and his cabin in the process.

If this are more easily highlighted from various other points in the novel, as this is a theme and allusion that carries on throughout the entire novel.

Page 38

“Okay. There are two worlds, you know. One is a Sky World. One world is the Water World.” (King 38)

The Bible begins: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” King opens the Genesis story up to revision and adaptation in a playful way by replacing “nothing” with water and Coyote. The distortion of the opening sentences removes the importance of the Judeo-Christian model. Christians insist on one version of creation, but it’s not the only version.  King’s oral creation myth is recreated along native lines and not the Genesis storyline and acts as a way of asserting the importance of native spirituality. King addresses the fact that biblical rhetoric is dangerous and encourages us to stop thinking and to not question religious authority. King is against a central authoritative view at the expense of other viewpoints.

Page 68

(Various quotes)

In the Bible, God is all powerful. In this novel Coyote comes in and reformulates how we see God. The dog in Coyote’s dream declares himself as GOD and the dog grows in size. King deflates the posture of this figure. It is arrogance and power that makes this dog-turned GOD so much larger. God begins as a silly dream who transforms himself into a dog; God is a dog in Coyote’s backward dream and is King’s way of diminishing the Christian God’s superiority. God is depicted as selfish and unwilling to cooperate with First Woman. “All this stuff is mine. I made it.” (King 68) First Woman tells GOD that he has “bad manners” and acts “as if you have no relations” and points out the he is being “stingy.” (King 69) GOD becomes an empty figure that represents white colonial power. (King 69) When First Woman tells Coyote “there is no point have a grouchy GOD for a neighbor” they leave the garden, but it is GOD that tells them “You can’t leave because I am kicking you out.” (King 69) The reader becomes aware that the Christian God is just a troublesome version of Coyote’s imagination. King teases us with biblical narratives then lets them go in order to point out that there are other ways of seeing the origins of creation and other ways of telling the story.

*************************************************************************************************

Works Cited

Horne, Dee. “To Know the Difference: Mimicry, Satire, and Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” ProQuest. N.p., Fall 1995. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: HarperPerennial Canada, 1999. Print.

McGill, Robert. “Against Mastery: Teaching Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” The Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry. N.p., 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Robinson, Marilynne. “The Book of Books: What Literature Owes the Bible.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Frye Writes: Indigenous people – as a distinct people, is never brought to light. In 1924, in his role as the most powerful bureaucrat in the department of Indian Affairs, Scott wrote:

The policy of the Dominion has always been to protect Indians, to guard their identity as a race and at the same time to apply methods, which will destroy that identity and lead eventually to their disappearance as a separate division of the population

For this blog assignment, I would like you to explain why it is that Scott’s highly active role in the purposeful destruction of Indigenous people’s culture is not relevant for Frye in his observations above?

*************************************************************************************************

There are a few reasons that Scott is not relevant to Frye’s observations. The most prominent I would say, is Frye’s focus on distinct people. He thinks there is a difference between unity and identity. Frye tells us that unity is something national and identity is local. The idea here is that these two are not the same and cannot be treated as such. With identity comes perspective, something that is subjective. In The Bush Gardens Frye explains how we often think that our Canadian perspective is unique to us – this is an ignorant thought (236). In reality, most of perspective is one that aligns with North America or even the West as a whole. Scott’s, on the other hand, from what I can understand speaks about methods being implemented on a national scale – this would lean more towards unity. With that in mind, I do not think that Frye is disregarding the issues discusses, but rather focusing on a different area.

Later on in the book Frye explains the “white civility” and how it is definitive of Canadian identity. He goes on to describe how its use illustrates nations of diverse people are represented in both the past and the future as if they are a natural community.  Again, looking at perspective, some may view this as a positive outcome. White Civility is a term that I have never heard before and it intrigued me, so I did some further research on it. Coleman (22) white civility observes that these claims for comparative civility are particularly shrill in Canada; Canadians, conscious of being citizens of a “younger” nation than their competitors, make up for feeling belated in the race between nations for recognition as the most progressive civilization by insisting, more forcefully than others, on the signs of our own civility. With a greater understanding of this term – I gained a greater understanding of the difference in Scott and Frye. Scott refers more to the carrying out of acts like white civility, while Frye discusses, again – perspective and how Aboriginal people should be viewed and treated, not so much the actual treatment.

In addition, Frye discusses national consciousness (identity and unity). I know when he discusses it, it is in reference to Aboriginal people, however it is a topic that I think the entire country is struggling with. I bring ti up because unity is a national concern, and so is consciousness, so in some ways it is relevant to Frye’s theories. As mentioned above, Scott discusses disbanding and carrying out physical actions, Frye discusses more theories and observations. National consciousness is something that has been on Canada’s radar for a while now, as a country we struggle with this. Our ignorance about people in our country who do not fit in our ‘box’ is embarrassing. It took a national state of emergency to get any decent media attention on current crisis’s with our Aboriginal people (The Guardian, 5). There is no better, current example of lack of unity in our country.

Looking at my classmates blogs as well as the Professors, I can see that I have gathered different information than others. I think this is the perfect example of perspective. Everyone reads things with a different tone and focus, without the ability to sit in lecture and hear the narrative desired when this assignment was created, I am more free to interpret. When I did this autonomously, I did not get to the desired destination. With that in mind, I thought that my take still highlighted why Scott’s narrative was not relevant for Frye on this specific topic.

Works Cited

Coleman, Daniel. “”From Contented Civility to Contending Civilities: Alternatives to Canadian White Civility”” Daniel Coleman 38 (2008): 221-42. Erduit Editing. 2008. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Frye, Northrop. “The Bush Garden.” Google Books. House of Anansi, n.d. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Sutherland, Rory. “Perspective Is Everything.” TED. N.p., Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

“We Need a Shift in Our National Consciousness.” The Guardian. N.p., 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Describe how King uses the cyclical paradigm (recurring example) of the Medicine Wheel (and a little help from Coyote) to teach us to understand, or at least to try to understand the power behind the stories we tell ourselves.

*************************************************************************

The Native Americans view the medicine wheel as a pathway to truth, peace, and harmony. These are also three themes Thomas King strings into his novel, Green Grass, Running Water. The medicine wheel is based off of color, direction, and elements. The medicine wheel is an integral part of Native American spirituality and Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water

There is no doubt that King wants us to work to get the story. Personally, it took me a good amount of research and help from other scholars to wrap my head around this hugely metaphorical book.  With that in mind – I took something different, than my classmates away from the book. While the words written on the page of the book are the same, my theories and understandings of it will differ from yours. Why is that? Well the story and the narrative are two different things. This book is a narration of Indigenous theories and beliefs.  That being said, after reading some of my classmate’s blogs I have come to see that while everyone may understand the general story but – each of us has our own interpretation. We all read the exact same text, but it has come to give different meanings to all of us, there is a different between a story and a narrative.

It’s essential when it comes to organizing and making sense of narrative and the way people deploy or use them. Stories are pieces that can come and go, change, and morph, but the narrative remains. When the narrative shows great resilience, we have “master narratives,” meaning narratives that have endured the test of time and become deeply embedded in culture. These are the most important narratives in strategic communication. People make use of them all the time. The narrative provided by the medicine wheel in Indigenous teaching allows for the obtaining of knowledge through interpretations of the story.

In many Indigenous cultures, the Medicine Wheel metaphor contains all of the traditional teachings and can therefore be used as a guide on any journey, including the educational process. While there is some variation in its teachings and representations, the underlying web of meaning to Medicine Wheels remains the same: the importance of appreciating and respecting the ongoing interconnectedness and interrelatedness of all things. The medicine wheel is the narrative.

The story, on the other hand, is coupled with our interpretation of what is being said. Stories are important, but not as important as the narrative. Indigenous knowledge is attained by choosing to do what is necessary to obtain multiple perspectives from which to view the world. This in-depth searching for knowledge is what leads to wisdom – becoming aware of the learning through all the senses, requiring the learning to be introduced to the students in multiple modalities – giving multiple ‘stories’.

Keep in mind that oral storytelling is perhaps the earliest method for sharing narratives, we see this practiced throughout aboriginal. During most people’s childhoods, narratives are used to guide them on proper behavior, cultural history, formation of a communal identity, and values, as especially studied in anthropology today among traditional indigenous peoples. Narratives may also be nested within other narratives, such as narratives told by an unreliable narrator (a character) typically found in fiction genre. An important part of narration is the narrative mode, the set of methods used to communicate.The structure of Green Grass, Running Water symbolizes a circle like the medicine wheel, Coyote’s voice helps in achieving this. Each part starts the way it ends. On p. 1 it says, “In the beginning, there was nothing. Just the water.” It also starts with the story of Coyote. On p. 107, the last page in part one, King is back to Coyote and the last two lines read, “In the beginning there was nothing. Just the water.”  The whole book starts with I, Coyote, and the topic of water and the whole book ends with I, Coyote, and water. It also ends literally with water because the damn breaks. The narration is the theory of the medicine wheel – it should not change, it is the theory. The story emphasizes the power of words to each individual who reads them.

“To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing” (Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson and explain why it is important

***************************************************************************************

I think the topic of authenticity is really relevant today. I understand that the context on which we are learning about it is different than in say, the American Presidential race, but the fundamentals are the same.

In a ted talk about authenticity, Brown, a researcher, discusses how, in order to understand authenticity, you must widen your perception. I think this is a great point. Authenticity is a challenge. Not only to those trying to portray it, but also to those judging it. The same story can come across so differently, depending on who you are. The biggest job of authenticity is to create a connection, make yourself vulnerable, show the true you or the true idea and see what follows. I think this is something that the aboriginal community does as a whole. They are very proud of their history, traditions and culture. That being said, authenticity is something they struggle with.

Stories of their (Salish)  past are told orally. There are a few reasons for this. The first and most obvious is when the stories began, there was a lack of literacy. If the story was written it couldn’t reach everyone. Another great point is, like with authenticity, stories can be observed and judged in very different ways. Through using an experienced story teller, you can control the narrative. Which brings me to the most important and, to me, curious part about orally telling stories. If the story is told badly, or the storyteller does not have all the facts, then the story is not told at all. Telling it wrong would be insulting to the people. My issue with this is over generations it could be like a game of broken telephone. Not on purpose of course, they all work extremely hard to preserve their narrative, but there will always be an element of human error. So one of two things can happen. Either the story teller realizes they do not have all the details and refuse to tell it..losing the culture that accompanies that story (surely they must know some of it) OR through this broken telephone the story unintentionally completely changes. Obviously both of these would be considered failures, but I don’t see a way to mitigate the risks and ensure an outcome of factual historical stories that will continue for generation.

Obviously writing down the stories would help, but there is a long list of reasons why this is not something that happens regularly. Orality does certainly have its strengths, but they depend largely on the situation it is used in. This is why not just anyone can tell the story, those tasked with doing so hold a large responsibility. Oral tradition is, therefore, a collective enterprise. A narrator does not generally hold singular authority over a story. The nuances evident in distinct versions of a specific history represent a broader understanding of the events and the various ways people have internalized them. Often, oral histories must be validated by the group. This stems from the principle that no one person can lay claim to an entire oral history. Narrators will also “document” the histories they tell by citing the source of their knowledge, such as a great grandparent or an elder. Such collective responsibility and input maintains the accuracy of the historical record.

I think the most key part to all of this is that storytelling is reserved for certain individuals. This is one way they Salish people have worked to improve authenticity in their story. One of the worst things that has happened to their history is European interruption. Settlers not only distorted their stories, but decades later, when they tried to tell the story as a form of tourism, they insulted the people and cut ties even further. There are few things more disrespectful then misrepresenting their cultural stories. Our sad attempt to make a connection actually severed our weak connection further.

All of this is to say that I do think authenticity is in the eyes of the beholder. I may see the exact same story in a different light than you. But to the Salish people, authenticity of their culture is a communal and unified understanding. One that is the very definition of who they are as people. For them there is no variance – just right and wrong. It is a concept that I find hard to relate to but I can understand. After all, I don’t have much of a “cultural” background and if I did, I know I would want to work hard to preserve it. So really, when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the only tool the Salish people have for preserving their culture is truly authentic stories.

Read at least 3 students blog short stories about ‘home’ and make a list of the common shared assumptions, values and stories that you find. Post this list on your blog with some commentary about what you discovered.

I struggled a lot with this assignment. While the very broad and bigger picture of each individual description of home is, they vary largely. Trying to cohesively describe my thoughts and findings while comparing my classmates thoughts was difficult for me. I hope I managed to communicate it in a way that makes sense to you!

After reading my classmates blogs it is clear that most people find comfort and the feeling of home with the ones they love ( Linda Purcell). That means ‘home’ in a physical sense can alter as you grow and mature, as long as you have the ones you love. Similar to that, ‘home’ was said to be where you have a sense of community – outside your 4 walls and immediate family (Deepak Nijjer), it is in the community they spend their free time with. Another common response was home is where you feel that you ‘belong’. For example, one classmate (Victoria Woo), stated she has lived in many cities and countries, but she feels at home places with personal emotional attachment. I think the general consensus is home should equal comfort and stability.These three traits seem to be among the most common, not only in our class, but also for society. That being said, I do not think there is one common trait across the board. Home is something you chose.

I have experienced this on a larger scale in the UBC community. Being such an international school, the questions “where is home?” is a very complicated one. The most interesting part is a common phrase is “well I was born here” or “I went to school here” and is followed by “but I consider my home to be here”. I found an article that also described how parents giving a child space to discover themselves, also helps the child figure out what “home” is to them. This illustrates further how home is different for everyone and it takes time to figure out. I want to stress that home is not necessarily where you are born. Like Victoria stated in her statement, the physical feelings of belonging and emotional attachment is what makes home. An individual needs time to figure that out for them self.

A common theme I saw in my classmates responses was comfort. Everyone may find that comfort from a different area of their life, but “home” was always linked with a sense of security. That security could come from the physical attributes of home, the people who fill and surround your home or the place you found yourself. It all revolves around stability. Ultimately, I think what can come from this is, looking at the bigger picture. Ultimately, where you are from is less important than where you are going. That tells you more about someone. The choice of where to call home is very different than the place they were born into and call home.

Write a short story (600 – 1000 words max) that describes your sense of home and the values and stories that you use to connect yourself to your home and respond to all comments on your blog. 

I am a child of divorce. The statement sounds harsh and sad, but in reality it has given me a lot. Don’t get me wrong, it would have been nice as a young child to not have to go back and forth between my parents. I never was able to go far in any given hobby because I could only participate every other week (my parents lived about an hour apart). I spent a lot of time packing and unpacking. However, the constant moving around has given me a few skills that have helped me out in life and one that I am very grateful for; my ability to be comfortable anywhere. I don’t need personal pictures or specific people to feel at home.

My parents divorced before I was two and were both in serious relationships by the time I was 5. That meant not only was I going in-between my mom and my dad’s house, but I was also spending nights at their partners houses, my grandparents or my now step grandparents homes. On top of that my father had a condo where we went some weekends to ski in the winter and a cottage in the summer. While I did have a “home base” at my mother’s house, I lived a majority of my life out a suitcase. Don’t get me wrong, I know I was fortunate to have so much family and the ability to escape to the cottage or the condo for a weekend. But the result was, as a child I spent very few consecutive nights anywhere. For a while when I was in elementary school I felt like I didn’t have a home. I knew I had shelter, food, clothing and a bed but I never felt like I had a home, like one I could picture as my “home sweet home” that I craved after a long day. At that young age I didn’t even really know what that entailed, I just knew I didn’t feel it. It was never something that brought overwhelming sadness or anxiety, rather it was more of a curious observation. What I did know was, no matter which parent, house or location I was in, every day I needed some all me alone time to be with just myself.

In high school, as I became more social and began having sleep overs at friends’ houses, I spent even fewer nights in the same place. Oddly enough, this is when I started to figure out what a “home sweet home” meant to me. I remember distinctly when I realized, my father and I were having a conversation over tea one night before bed (a ritual of ours). He asked me if I felt like a bit of a nomad, with no real home. When I thought about it I said “no”. I actually just felt like I had a lot of homes. I have the ability to get comfortable and determine a home base almost instantly. All I need for a place to feel like home is my own space. It does not need to be big. One time my home base was a bunk bed with a curtain you could pull across for privacy in a hostel. It was the farthest thing from fancy, but it brought me the same comfort that my true home base gave me. If I spend more than one night in a location I very quickly not only call it my home, but really let it feel that way.

I must admit, I feel a little strange not saying home is where my family is or where my friends are. It is not like I don’t love my family, we are actually quite close and speak every day. I have amazing friends. I just do not need specific people by my side to feel like home. The ability to make anywhere home has afforded me great opportunities. I went to school in Europe for my grade 12, not seeing my family for 8 months and not knowing a soul at the school I attended. I adjusted easily and unlike my colleagues who spent the first month adjusting, the only time I was homesick was Christmas morning (I didn’t go back home to Ontario). I went to UBC despite having grown up in Ontario, having no family in BC and once again not knowing a soul at UBC. I was the youngest at overnight camp 3 years in a row and I never needed to call my parents. I don’t really get home sick. Because ‘home’ to me is really just a state of mind. As a result of that I can dive into opportunities head first and not be distracted. So while being a child of divorce would not have been my first choice (I’m sure others in my shoes can agree), it is also not the worst thing. I think it forced me to be independent and comfortable no matter where I am. I feel at home where I can be comfortable and have my own quiet time.

I’d like to note I have not received my books in the mail yet so I am unable to complete this portion as of now.

Please check back on June 3. I would love to hear your feed back once I have had an opportunity to read The Truth About Stories. THANK YOU!

Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or written culture” is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article ‘Orality’.

*************************************************************************************************

The connection of oral culture and written culture is closely wound, while simultaneously being separate. That being said – we must not make the mistake of believing that it is an either or relationship. I think this mistake should not be made for one specific reason; evolution. Both Chamerblin & MacNeil touch on the effect of technology. Various forms (computers, tv, telephones, cameras) are reinventing what literacy and orality is by expanding the definition. While in many cultures, oraliy is the dominant art form – it is not the only form of expression. Efforts to separate speech from orality provides a more attractive alternative: that orality is not the opposition of writing, but rather the catalyst of communication more generally, which is part both writing and speech.

Today the way we communicate is not strictly speech or through written word, the various forms listed as well as media outlets. Orality is the worlds global village of modern media – therefore we must recognize all of the mediums diverse functions serve the practical purpose of knowledge exchange (MacNeil, 2003).  The global arena for this is made possible through both the media and the technology used in our day to day lives. Chamberlain expands on this idea and (2013) explains that “computers oscillation between reader and write, which reintroduces the oscillation between literate and oral coordinates that stands at the center of classical western literature”.

Both of these examples highlight why saying a culture is either ‘oral’ or ‘written’ is too narrow. Especially with the expanding and evolving scope. That being said, understanding that they are not the same, but they are connected, they support each other is important. This has never been more evident than with computers and how their presence encourages fusion within the pluralistic realm of the global village. In terms of distinguishing a culture specifically on their oral or written habits is also a narrow view. Not only is there more to a culture than that, but as I have expressed so much in this post, these two are really interconnected. It is hard for one to exist without the other, therefore it would not be prudent to pick one or the other to evaluate,

Works Cited

Chamberlin, Edward. “Interview with J. Edward Chamberlin”. Writer’s Café.  Web April 04 2013.

MacNeil, Courtney. “The Chicago School of Media Theory Theorizing Media since 2003.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. N.p., 2003. Web. 12 Aug. 2016.

TEDxTalks. “Creating Critical Thinkers through Media Literacy: Andrea Quijada at TEDxABQED.” YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 12 Aug. 2016.

TEDxTalks. “Creating Critical Thinkers through Media Literacy: Andrea Quijada at TEDxABQED.” YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 12 Aug. 2016.

Welcome to English 470! I am pleased to be in the class with you and look forward to growing my understanding of Canada and our history. Although this is not a required class for me, I chose it because I have an interest in history and connecting how things (in this case Canada) came to be what they are today. This class will use literature along with active participation to help grow our knowledge of Canada and the voices and stories that brought us to where we are today. We will look at who told stories and the impact of those stories. Over the course of this semester I hope to gain a broader view of the country I call home. I want to see past the ‘Canadianisms’ we are known for and hear a more diverse set of voices, because that’s what Canada is to me – diverse.

In our modern day and age stories are not told like they used to be. Fewer people, especially youth, are picking up books. Instead, they are turning to media outlets (social media, websites, commercials, shows and movies) to hear stories. Our countries narrative is largely controlled by commercials. Last year I took a class on Canadian studies. During my semester in the class I discovered that Canada has a very narrow image that it displays to the rest of the world, we are partly responsible for the stereotypes me receive. We, as a country may not create them, but we certainly encourage them. The first point I would like to illustrate is our obsession with fitting the mold. For example our focus on winter. Yes, we do get winter, and yes in parts of the country it is quite harsh, but the majority of the country is quite average, yet we only focus on one season. This not only encourages the idea that we live in an igloo but it ignores a majority of our experiences. A prime example of this is a commercial recently release by the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) for the Rio summer Olympics.The second example of this is Molsons tag line ‘I am Canadian’. The entire campaign is based off of Canadian stereotypes, the advertisements basically say, if you do not experience these things you are not a true Canadian. 

SOURCES:

Russell1935. “The Three Best Molson Canadian Commercials.” YouTube. YouTube, 25 Apr. 2009. Web. 17 May 2016.

“Team Canada – Ice in Our Veins.” YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2016.