Lesson 1:2
Assignment 1:3- If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?
Write a summary of three significant points that you find most interesting in the final chapter of If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?
Contradictory Truths
Chamberlin has time and time again shown his fascination with the notion of contradictory truths—how it is “troubling” (221) but at the same time, necessary. He illustrates this notion using the story of how the changes to one of the river valleys came about. One of the truths was that the changes were brought by the rage of the valley spirit, the grizzly, and the other truth was the scientific explanation of an earthquake. In the end of Chamberlin’s recollection, he emphasizes that “[b]oth, for [the Girksan People], are true” (221). It is a confusing idea to acknowledge two contradictory truths, and I was bewildered by why Chamberlin seems so interested in portraying the importance of this. Elif Shafak’s TED talk, titled The Revolutionary Power of Diverse Thought, also touched upon the significance of embracing diverse perspectives. Although the two topics are different in what they want to convey, Shafak’s words, “In the face of high-speed change, people long for familiarity, and when things get too confusing, many people crave simplicity,” helped me, in some ways, understand Chamberlin’s passion for contradiction. To have more than one truth means to have more than one perspective. Just like his example of painting a ship in the twilight. If only one truth could exist, we might only get a grey ship with twenty-seven portholes. However, because of another pair of eyes gazing upon the same scenery, we have the privilege of witnessing the ship in tones of pink and green. Embracing contradictory truths may be frightening in an age where simplicity and a fast pace is essential, but it may also bring about beauty and depth to matters we may otherwise overlook.
Ceremonies of Belief and Disbelief
According to Chamberlin, we are always telling stories, even in ways of history, math, and science, subjects we consider to be facts and knowledge. In this section, he raises an interesting point of how “the deconstruction of our narratives” helps us “maintain our sense of what we are doing and why” (234). In bringing “disbelief to bear on our beliefs, [we] recognize their interdependence” (235). The fact that belief and disbelief is joined by the word ceremony suggests an indisputable link between the two ideas. In definition, ceremony means a grand performance of some sort, with the idea of celebration. What is it that we are celebrating? I think it may be the blurring of lines between imagination and reality. To be able to accept both belief and disbelief, to put aside the innate desire of leaning towards one or the other and instead stand in the “common ground”. These are some of the things that ceremonies allow us to do, and that in itself is worthy of celebration.
Borders
It is interesting that while Chamberlin emphasizes on the notion of accepting contradicting truths, he also emphasizes the importance of recognizing the existence of borders. This means that he is not suggesting that reality and imagination, belief and disbelief should meld seamlessly together, but that even in recognizing the clear separation, we are able to accept both at the same time. Chamberlin’s story is about finding common ground. However, common ground cannot be found when there is no distinction in the first place. I mentioned Elif Shafak in the first point about contradictory truths and her statement on our fear of complexity. To deny the existence of borders does not mean we welcome contradictory truths or thought, instead it is a continuous resistance against diversity, and an attempt to simplify matters. Therefore, it is important that we make the effort to recognize borders and accept the complexity that they may bring.
To end my blog, I thought it was interesting to think about the assimilation of Indigenous People through the use of classrooms. There have been many stories about the cruelty of stripping away Indigenous identity and forced cultural assimilation in residential schools. Thinking about this in the context of this blog, the classrooms acted as place that rejected all three of these points Chamberlin deemed to be important to finding common ground. They were places which feared complexity and vouched for the singlemindedness of assimilation. As a result, they also erased the recognition of borders between cultures, as well as abandoned the ceremonies of belief and disbelief.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Knopf Canada, 2003. Print.
Shafak, Elif. “The Revolutionary Power of Diverse Thought.” Ted, Ted, September 2017. Web. 18 Jan. 2019. https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_revolutionary_power_of_diverse_thought#t-712724
Crey, Karrmen. “Aboriginal Identity and the Classroom.” Indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca. 2009. Web. 18 Jan 2019. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_identity__the_classroom/
Hi Zhong Yue, thank-you for your summation of Chamberlin’s Contradictory Truths. You have some very interesting thoughts, but I have some concerns about the comparison between Shafak’s TedTalk and Chamberlin’s, “If This is Your Land, Where are your Stories?”
You summarized:
“Shafak’s words, ‘In the face of high-speed change, people long for familiarity, and when things get too confusing, many people crave simplicity,’ helped me, in some ways, understand Chamberlin’s passion for contradiction.”
My concern for this summary derives from how Shafak’s thoughts indicates a hierarchy of value and accuracy exists between contradictory truths.
I get this impression because he says one truth is craved because it is familiar and simple, and people do not like to be confused. The implication seems to me, that one truth is somehow “unprogressive/primitive” and a comfort which prevents people from being willing to find the more complicated and possibly destructive yet, more accurate truth.
Chamberlin, on the other hand, was very firm in his statement that neither truth should be considered less valuable or important than the other: and considering the other truth inferior in some way is, one could say, inherently colonizing and problematic.
In the story Chamberlin gives of the Indigenous peoples going to the court over a land claim, the Indigenous peoples provide evidence that they lived in the land first through traditional oral story.
While the court did acknowledge that Indigenous peoples lived in that valley first, they did not do so because they valued Indigenous story to be truth, but because geologists confirmed Indigenous story with a scientific story.
Chamberlin expresses how Indigenous peoples needed the court to understand that the scientific story only collaborated with the oral story: not confirmed it. They were remiss to let the court believe the scientific story was more valuable in its truth than Indigenous story.
Perhaps I misunderstood the TedTalk however? How did you read the TedTalk, and how did it help you understand Chamberlin?
Hi Alexis,
Sorry about taking so long to reply. I don’t think you misunderstood the TedTalk, but maybe I have misunderstood its underlying messages. What I was focused on during Shafak’s talk was when she said that we underestimate feelings and perceptions during this day and age, when our political systems thrive on the manipulation of emotions. It kind of helped me understand Chamberlin in the way that it allowed me to think about the difficulty and importance to abandon our favor towards one truth, and find common ground between different beliefs. This means that we need to abandon our emotions towards the truth that speaks to our perceptions or values and in order to do so, we must first understand our feelings, be able to grasp them, and then push them aside. One of those feelings is often the fear of contradictions and complexity, and to be able to push that aside is no easy task. I though this might be one of the reasons why Chamberlin was so passionate about making the statement about finding common ground, because it goes against our emotional nature and fear of ambiguity.
Sorry if that was confusing! I might have overlooked the overall message in Shafak’s talk in favor of that one moment which got me thinking. Thank you for your comment!