Question: In the following paragraphs in her essay, Maracle answers her question describing what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish society. Summarize her answer and then make some comparisons between Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building.

In Maracle’s writing, she writes on the traditional criticism in First Nation narratives, often made by Western culture. As Western culture continues to grow in power and prevalence, it becomes apparent how often we look down on items that do not reveal as similar to ours. Lee poses that European literature becomes a rule or law of standard that is compared to when addressing or evaluating traditional First Nations stories. Thus, there is a sense of superiority or supremacy imposed by the European culture over the marginalized communities of the First Nations people.

Theorists in the First Nations community apply analysis in connection to their society’s knowledge with consultation to the origin of the story, such as in cases of oral footnotes used by the Salish people. Criticism is done by individuals within the culture who understand its base and Maracle stresses that these criticisms cannot be done by members outside the community who do not have the contextual background needed to fully understand the impact of the story and the cultural implications behind it. Thus, Western members should not and cannot use their methods to define, criticize and evaluate the stories of the First Nations stories. One item of note is the cyclical manner of Western culture and its ability to slowly engulf the other cultures that attempt to life within the same space as it. As per the government, the education system is built upon the ‘winners’ which are the Europeans that reside in Canada. The newer and younger generation are taught these theories and teachings of the European society, which further separates them from the First Nations culture as a whole. It becomes almost impossible for First Nations to have a culture within a society where it becomes constantly less and less prevalent in the coming years. Without proper systems in place, First Nations culture becomes powerless as there are no individuals in place that have experienced enough of the sacred culture, to pass down the tradition, or become involved with the culture.

Another key note is the differences between oratory and story. Oratory is aimed to shape the understanding of the listener, carrying wisdom, theories and knowledge in the form of stories and myths. One particularly important and interesting point is the process of healthy doubt. In our culture, doubt is common, but it can be very toxic to how we interact with our own culture and cultures outside of us. In the Salish community, people are able to extrapolate on the old stories to judge and examine the stories that exist today. In this form, they birth new myths that allow them to change their own narratives that are not bound to time. I feel that this is very interesting compared to Western culture where we often look back on old texts and judge their inadequacies compared to modern theories.

Maracle’s writings can also be seen in Northrop Frye’s writing in regard to the role of myths in nation building. Unity is one aspect of the role that myths play in a nation. It becomes integral to the culture that surrounds it, by defining the common belief among the people and creating a sense of familiarity among the community members. This proves to be stark difference when Frye describes the position of Canada, with its barren and disconnected lands. Frye presents the large spaces between Canada as physical boundaries that show the disunity among the country, and it becomes metaphorically representative of our lack of  respect for the other inhabitants who occupy its space. Canada is not a land of myths, but rather a land that just so happens to have people. There exists history, but there does not exist a unity in the sense of creating an environment where all communities are shared and equally expressed. Frye claims that this is the consequence of constant revolutions. There is no time for a foundation to develop a refined myth for the nation and thus no unity can become of it.

At the end of the day, both writers recognize the importance that stories play in information a collective identity and the importance of unity that draws on proper a national literary foundation. I believe that this notion is something profound that I had never thought about. I often read about stories and myths of other cultures, but never stopped to ponder on the cultural myths that surrounds Canada. I believe that both writers realize this and ultimately advocate that stories are powerful constructs. Stories can bring upon happiness, hearth, but I can also bring madness and chaos, as is seen by the unit on stories. Thus, stories are important, and there is strength to the nationalism that is associated with a proper literary foundation that both writers agree upon.

Works Cited

“Nationalism as a Cause of World War I.” Alpha History. Alpha History, n.d, https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nationalism/, Accessed February 25, 2020

Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Introduction by Linda Hutcheon. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press, 1995. Print.

Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: ‘A Body of Writing.’” Across Cultures, Across Borders: Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literature. Ed. Paul DePasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, and Emma LaRoque. Toronto, ON: Broadview Press, 2010. 77-96. Print.

Von Heyking, John. (2010) ‘Multiculturalism and problems of Canadian unity’ University of Lethbridge Research Repository

Hello readers!

For my midterm evaluation, I will be submitting the following three entries.

Assignment 1:3 – Question Response
In this post, I had summarized the main points I had found in the final chapter of If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? by J. Edward Chamberlin. Focusing on the significance of storytelling, I recounted the points Chamberlin makes regarding dichotomous cultures and the reasons we may tell stories. I also mention the truth of contradictions and reasons why some contradictions may exist, focusing on the notion that contradictions within stories are simply two sides of the same coin.

Assignment 1:5 – Stories
The origin of evil was the topic of this post, and it was instructed that we create our own stories based on King’s story on the origin of evil. In this story, we follow a tribe of storytellers, focusing on Leema, a young boy who ascribed to be the most unique storyteller among the tribe-members. However, in his pursuit for the best story, he had found one filled with horror and despair, changing the tribe forever. In my analysis, I had focused on the troubles I encountered while writing, rewriting, performing, and re-performing the story, emphasizing the problem of Western influence in regard to how I tell my story.

Assignment 2:4 – The Truth Behind Dichotomies
King is a writer who creates many lenses for us to see through, and that includes the dichotomous society that we live in. In the story of “The Earth Diver”, King focuses on the presence of dichotomy within the culture of stories and urges us to see through those dichotomies as different tellings of the same story. However, he also outlines the presence of dichotomy in particular to the Diver story and “Genesis,” emphasizing the tones of each. In my analysis, I highlight that he may be contradicting himself because he wishes to explore the reasons behind Western and First Nations stories and how they may differ. I also briefly mention that King may refer to these dichotomies as a means to highlight the parallels between stories rather than separate the cultures.

Question: “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 to recognize this point.

Authenticity is a problem we deal with on a daily basis, as beings who survive off of the information provided to us on the internet. It comes to no exception that literature and even stories may also fall into the same pit hole. Countless times, we are told to question authenticity and analyse the context and purposes of text we read. However, this practise may, at some times, become too habitual to us, and we may end up questioning everything we see, hear, or read. Such as in the case of challenging the authenticity of Salish narratives and their ‘truths’. Carson highlights the notion of First Nations history and how they are often influenced by Western perspective as they mature and this may lead many First Nations individuals to question the authenticity of their own cultures or narratives. It becomes blatantly apparent when compared to how Westerners internalize their own culture. We rarely often question the narratives we grow up with or the stories or even truths behind them.

First Nations people are very important to the culture of Canada and we should strive to protect their culture and history as much as we can. Carlson explains that the above notion regarding challenging authenticity is extremely significant because Salish people, and many First Nations people, were mistreated due to their differences of culture, history and narratives. It becomes vital when we discuss the importance of Westerners understanding the culture and history, behind the story and narrative.

Another problematic pattern with our internalization of First Nations culture, and literature is how their differences are understood as challenges to our history. Conflicts arise because Western and First Nations traditions, cultures and stories differ, and we often question the opposing party in this situation. Thus, it ends up with the First Nations losing their sense of culture and history in order to assimilate with the cultures of Western society. Often, Western society puts a heavy focus on the accuracy of information, so far to the extent that there exist many forms of citation methods. In a sense, we put ourselves on a pedestal as the ultimate fact keepers, and this gets reflected in the ways we interact with other cultures. Histories are kept to the upmost detail with, acknowledging the victories of Canada, but we mention none of the people we had to step over to get thus far.

Carlson discusses the consequences of these actions with regard to Salish history and mentions that the Salish people are meticulous keepers of knowledge as well. The Salish people had their own methods of monitoring the authenticity and accuracy of their stories in their oral culture, the same we Westerners fact check the information written down. In their culture, oral footnotes were used to reference other forms of authority so that they could establish themselves as reliable and good storytellers. In this regard, it would seem that the Salish oral culture shares many similarities with the written culture of the citations we use in our written culture.

The purpose of mentioning these similarities is to show that Salish people do not value authenticity any less than Westerners. If there is a concern regarding the authenticity of their stories, then presence of the oral footnotes should alleviate this concern. But, by questioning the authenticity of their stories, we also question and harm the truth of their culture and their practices as Salish people. Their culture is no less concerned with the authenticity of their stories than Canadian historians are with the history of Canada, and by questioning the reliability or truth of their stories, we end up insulting and hurting them. And more times than not, we end up creating situations where we marginalize the culture and society of First Nations people because we misunderstand or even disregard their culture in order to maintain our own. In reality, both cultures are version of the same story that we should respect and take into account for the better future.

Joseph, Bob. “Indigenous Peoples Worldviews vs Western Worldviews.” Indigenous Peoples Worldviews vs Western Worldviews, www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-worldviews-vs-western-worldviews. Accessed February 17, 2020.

Sellnow. Deanna. “Oral Footnotes,” The Process of Publics Speaking, https://www2.bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/spch/Oleson/Fall2005/100/DocumentingSourcesOrallyDuringSpeech.htm, Accessed February 17, 2020

Question: First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?

King creates a genuine tone in his telling of the earth diver story while he uses a sober voice to recite the sense of veracity in the case of Genesis. In his first line, he already gives the reader a hint to the reason behind these styles of telling. In the Diver story, King uses a tone that highlights the story’s exuberance, but diminishes its authority, while, in Genesis, he uses a tone that creates a sense of authority. Examining the purposes of these stories, we see that the main aspect that both stories coincide with is the creation of the world and the origin of humans, but their purposes strike deeper than what meets the eye. The church of the medieval era was a position of great power and influence over the people at the time. “Genesis” was one of their holy scripture, which was a method to inform and pass knowledge to the masses. It would become less genuine if the Pope or the priests decided to recite the Genesis in the same manner that King had done with the “Diver” story.

Whether ancient or modern Western culture, it is a product of monotheism and hierarchies. A system of power that puts heavy emphasis on control, law, and order. The story of Genesis is a clear representation of this mode of culture with having a single creator who knows everything. The order is kept by spreading the belief if a single being, a creator of everything that rules and governs the world. Meanwhile, we see that the Diver story is quite the opposite. There isn’t a single creator, and Charm isn’t even the power that created the world. The world existed before Charm, and it is her two children that built the world up through the help of the other water creatures.

It is clear as day to see the differences between the stories. Although King urges us to see through the dichotomies between stories, I believe it is because of the innate dichotomies between Eastern and Western styles of stories that King tries to reveal the hidden purposes of each side. The stories that we tell ourselves are often a means to explain the unexplained, but this isn’t always the case for every story out there. The stories told by the Western cultures of the world aren’t used in the same manner as the ones told by other cultures. If we look at the stories of Jesus Christ and God, we find it clear throughout history that it was a means to control and dictate order, rather than a medium to pass down knowledge. For example, if we look at the story of the “Rainbow Crow“, originating from the Lenapé people, it a story that explains how the world obtained winter, fire and why our crows are black and squawk. On the other hand, if we look at Genesis, we see that strict powers of God govern the world, and God punishes those who move out of line.

King isn’t highlighting the dichotomies to undermine his message of blurring the lines between story; rather, he is encouraging us to look at the messages behind the stories, as well as the teachers who tell them. It is clear that the world is divided by many dichotomies, and it shows in the stories as well. For example, “Genesis” speaks of night and day, man and women, and the rotation of the earth, sun, and the moon. Similarly, the “Diver” story follows in a similar suite with the twins representing light and dark, winter, summer, sun and shadow, and chaos and order. Although these dichotomies exist, it also parallels each other between stories. King may want to highlight the fact that the dichotomies are shared values or beliefs between cultures, just like the Charm and Genesis stories.

Works Cited

Hìtakonanu’laxk. Rainbow Crow (Mànàka’has). Interlink Books, New York, 1994.

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are the Stories? Vintage Canada, 2004.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Marsden, A.J. & Nesbitt, William. “Myths of Light and Dark”. Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/myth-the-mind/201805/myths-light-and-dark, Accessed Febuary 7, 2020.

In the context of home, many of my peers who wrote on the topic, depicted the idea with a particular sensation. The feeling of comfy, of warmth, and of company all string like beads through the various stories that I have read. Many depict home to be being with family, being with people who you love, and being with those who care for you while others found hearth in the security of their house. Among the plethora of stories, I had found two general categories that home falls into, among the stories that I had read among my peers.

Home is something that is found, and adapts; home changes. Many of my peers report home to be something that they struggle to define, particularly because many of them come from a place outside of Canada, or BC. As they come to UBC, they must rediscover their home, and like many people around the world, they struggle to figure out what home is. Many of my peers wrote that home isn’t a specific location, and it isn’t always the same. They change their definition of home to accommodate their new lifestyle and they find comfort in their new lives.

In another director, a few of my peers also reported home to be a place within places. Most often, they agree on the idea that home is found inside us, and that it is a state of emotions. The idea of home isn’t a place, a city, a house, a country, a continent, or even the earth; home is a feeling. For some of us, it is our connections that we have; home is with a significant other, children, our parents, our siblings and our friends. And for others we may find home when we are among a certain community. Because home is not a specific physical location, we can carry it around with us, always finding home wherever we may leave to.

The stories that I read included a focus on their family or background. For some, home is where their ancestors are from. Many of the students in the class were raised with stories of their ancestry or immediate family. Many of these stories were a great read, but it differed greatly from how I had imagined home to be. I didn’t consider my heritage or the country that I was raised in, nor did I consider the country that my family was raised in. I don’t consider home a place, or a setting. For me, my exploration of home centers on my present life and who’s in it. It’s the people, the relationships, and the communities. Perhaps I don’t need my home to be my heritage because I have spent less time with my heritage. In an age where our culture is defined so loosely, it becomes easy to blend into the background. Home is very difficult to define, and it is different for everyone. Home can be a place, a person, a state of mind, or even a set of feelings. But no matter where home is, we should all be grateful for our homes, and be mindful of the land we tread. As citizens or neighbors of the Indigenous people, we should be responsible for what our past has done to them and their home.

Works Cited

Beck, Julie. “The Psychology of Home: Why Where You Live Means So Much.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/the-psychology-of-home-why-where-you-live-means-so-much/249800/, Accessed 1 February 2020.

Deer, Jessica. “Montreal non-profit launches toolkit on how to be an Indigenous ally.” CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/montreal-indigenous-ally-toolkit-1.4988074, Accessed 1 February 2020.