Category Archives: Unit 3

Lesson 3:3 – Connections & Interconnections

Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water blends Western literary fiction with the oral stories of Indigenous people. For this week’s assignment, each student was given a specific set of pages from the novel with the intent of discovering as many of King’s subtle (and not-so-subtle) allusions and cultural crossovers as possible. I have been given pages 12-24, which has a plethora of names and references. As I break down the significance of these various names, I will be relying heavily on Jane Flick’s “Reading Notes” for King’s novel.

Ishmael, Lone Ranger, Hawkeye, and Robinson Crusoe (p. 12-15)

Each of these four names holds a rather significant place in Western literature and entertainment. Unlike their Western namesakes though, in Green Grass, these are the names of four Aboriginal men – a clear fusion on King’s part of Western and Indigenous fictional characters.  “Ishmael is a character from Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, who begins the story with one of the most famous opening lines in American fiction: ‘Call me Ishmael'” (Flick 143). “Ishmael” is also a Biblical character: he is Abraham’s first son. 

Lone Ranger is a famous Texas Ranger character from American historical folklore. At the time, he represented the American fantasy of what the American frontier was like. In taking the name of this famous American character, King is telling the story of Lone Ranger from an Indigenous perspective. In doing so, he addresses some of the issues that are inherent in the original literature, which Chadwick Allen outlines in “Hero with Two Faces: The Lone Ranger as Treaty Discourse”:

In the popular White American imagination, treaty discourse inscribes a brief moment of balance in the citizenry’s and the government’s history of Indian-White relations (only vaguely known or understood by most White Americans), a pause between what is seen as the ignoble past of conquest and the present disaster of Indian policy…Essentially mythic, treaty discourse sanctions White American fantasies of an idealized treaty moment. Central to these fantasies is an available and thus knowable Indianness: an Indianness defined as racially “pure” but organized in non-Indian terms. In the classic Lone Ranger-Tonto pairing, the idealized Indian Tonto operates as an “island of tribalism” in a frontier imagined as overwhelmingly White, supervised and supported by the “governmental” authority of the idealized White Ranger. (Allen 612)

Hawkeye, or Natty Bumppo, also a famous Caucasian character from the American frontier, is another instance of King trying to rectify the issues in past American stories. In his paper on the significance of able-bodied Natty Bumppo as symbolic of American notions of ability and superiority, Thomas Jordan writes:

…[there is] a binary opposition between the disabled and the able-bodied in order to mark a point of separation between Natty Bumppo and his Native American friend and counterpart, Chingachgook. Here, Chingachgook occupies a disabled identity in order to facilitate his ultimate removal from the novel. Chingachgook’s physical frailty is a narrative device that foreshadows his eventual suicide and symbolically positions the end of the Native American race as the result of a process of natural selection rather than violent British and US imperialism.

Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe is an important character in English literature, with his story marking the rising popularity of realistic fiction. Once again, however, Western superiority takes precedent over Indigenous people in Defoe’s narrative as Flick writes: “[Crusoe] is aided by his Man Friday, the “savage” he rescues from cannibals, and then Christianizes.” Crusoe enacts what colonizers assumed was the best course of action for people they viewed as “savage”. Again, there is an issue to be redressed here and King does so through his Indigenous Robinson Crusoe.

Dr. Joseph Hovaugh (p. 16-17)

One of the few references I actually caught on my own without Flick’s help, Dr. Joseph Hovaugh’s name is actually a homophone for “Jehovah“. On these two pages, the doctor spends his first appearance in the novel contemplating his garden, a garden that most likely refers to the Garden of Eden. (Flick writes on page 143: ” Note also that Joe Hovaugh’s garden is in the east, in Florida: “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden” (Gen.2:8).”) The escape of the four “Indians” from Dr. Hovaugh’s institution can be interpreted as the escape of Indigenous people from the imposed Western dominance, which the doctor represents.

Alberta Frank, Henry Dawes, John Collier, Mary Rowlandson (p. 18-21)

In her “Reading Notes,” Flick succinctly describes the significance of Alberta’s name along with the importance of her students’ names, all of whom hold a place in history, and whose behaviour in the novel reflect their real-life counterparts. Flick writes that not only is Alberta’s name a reference to the Canadian province where King has lived and taught for a decade, but Alberta’s last name is also indicative of her honest and direct character. Flick posits on page 144 that “King may also have drawn her name from Frank, Alberta, on the Turtle River. This town was a major disaster site, buried by the famous Frank Slide of 1993.”

Henry Dawes created the Dawes Act of 1887, “which privatized communally held Indian land and led to the dispersal of Indian lands in the U.S., estimated at more than a million acres…much trickery and deeding away of lands followed this enactment” (Flick 144). In these pages, Henry Dawes is depicted as the worst student of the group, having fallen asleep in Alberta’s lecture and being the one she picks on to answer a question about the lecture.

John Collier became the Commissioner of Indian Affairs under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. He introduced the idea of a “New Indian Deal” in 1934, but despite his “sympathetic [view of] Indians, he still depicted them in a stereotypical manner“. In King’s text, Collier seems to be the only student engaging with Alberta’s lecture, though even still, his engagement is far from scholarly, with one of his two responses being a simplistic “Oh, bummer” (King 19).

Mary Rowlandson was a colonial American woman who was captured in 1676  by Native Americans an held for several weeks before being ransomed. A few years later, a narrative of her capture and release was published. Considered an important point of reference by colonialists at the time, the work held heavy tones of revulsion for Indigenous people and described them using words such as “ravenous beasts”, “wretches”, and “heathens”. King recreates this historical character as a student who is unconcerned with details in Alberta’s class.

Babo Jones, Sergeant Cereno (p. 23-24)

Flick notes that Babo is a reference to the character of the same name in Herman Melville’s story “Benito Cereno,” and that Sergeant Cereno is a reference to the story’s eponymous protagonist. In Melville’s tale, Babo is an African-American barber who becomes a slave revolt leader on the story’s ship. In the interaction between the Sergeant and Babo regarding the details surrounding the Indians’ disappearance, there are references to water and ship a few pages later, as Babo observes the Pinto outside the window flooding. “Pinto”, Flick observes on page 146, is a play on the name Pinta, which was the name of Columbus’ ship. The reference to flooding is not only a nod to Melville’s story, but it is also one of the many Biblical inclusions in King’s attempt to blend Western narrative with Indigenous story-telling.

Works Cited Continue reading

Lesson 3:2 (Q#2) – The Trickster

Question 2: Coyote Pedagogy is a term sometimes used to describe King’s writing strategies (Margery Fee and Jane Flick). Discuss your understanding of the role of Coyote in the novel. Throughout Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water, Coyote appears alongside the narrator, who tells and retells the story of where all the water at the beginning of the story came from. The presence of Coyote, a trickster in Indigenous fiction, “helps to communicate a particular lesson about life to listeners” (Coyote Facts). Despite his antics and seemingly clueless nature, his line of questioning not only provides comic relief, but his interjections also illuminate various issues otherwise hidden within the narrative:

“Wait, wait,” says Coyote. “When’s my turn?” “Coyotes don’t get a turn,” says Coyote. “Nonsense,” I says. “In a democracy, only people who can afford it get a turn.” “How about half a turn?” says Coyote. “Sit down,” I says. “We got to tell this story again.” “How about a quarter turn?” says Coyote. (327)

In this particular example, the narrator’s remark regarding democracy is an unfortunate aspect of our system – those who make the decisions at the top of our democratic hierarchy are often the wealthy elite who can afford the expensive campaigns often needed to win elections. To further this point, in 2008 “successfully-elected candidates in the Vancouver municipal election spent on average $36,246. In Vancouver, the average spending of elector organizations supporting candidates that were elected was $1,100,233, and the average spending of campaign organizers was $47,826” (Campaign Financing, 4). As such, though Coyote’s ignored appeals for his turn to speak feels lighthearted in this context, it highlights the important issues of silenced voices that those who are powerless or part of the minority face in our society. Apart from expanding our awareness, Coyote also serves to embody the oral culture of the Indigenous people. I found that as I was reading the novel, I had to read certain parts aloud (particularly some of the names on page 182 – well played, King). Most notably, the parts with Coyote speaking seemed to work better when I read them out loud, which was rather reminiscent of Harry Robinson’s short story, “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”. Having experienced Robinson’s story, feeling compelled to read aloud wasn’t what stood out for me; rather, it was the smooth blending of both this vocal and silent story-telling that really made the whole experience unique. This blend is not only a combination of the Western literary style with Indigenous oral story-telling, but it is also the amalgamation of Christianity and Coyote. On page 146 of the novel, when Noah states that bestiality is “against the rules,” Coyote responds with “but he doesn’t mean Coyotes.” Here, Margery Fee and Jane Flick comment on King’s blending of two cultures in one narrative:

Rules are made for coyotes to break! Apart from ignoring borders between animal and human (or divine and human, if you prefer), this subversive move makes the central story of the Christian religion into a Coyote story, and repeats the novel’s overall strategy which subsumes European culture and history into an Aboriginal framework, and counters a patriarchal religion with a matriarchal one. (136)

At the beginning of the novel, it took me a while to grasp what was happening – the significance of each character and their connections with one another were revealed bit by bit; the whole process felt like putting together a puzzle, really. Even then, the narrative would slip away from me sometimes, and I found myself flipping back a few pages to check if what I inferred was correct or to reorient myself within the context again. It may just be me, but this novel seem to have the characteristics of Coyote: tricky at times, and despite the humour, there are important lessons to be learned. Sidenote: As I was reading up on the character of Coyote, I stumbled across this term that I thought would be interesting for people to know: Heyoka, which means “trickster spirit”. There is also a discussion forum with helpful postings about what this term encapsulates.

Source: http://www.indiancanyonlife.org/ksr/

Works Cited

Continue reading

Lesson 3:1 (Q #1) – A “Problematic” Mentality

Topic for this week: “outline why colonial authorities couldn’t conceive of accepting the Métis as a third founding nation” (Paterson)

As globalization and migration became more prolific, European explorers discovered and settled in their new-found territories, exploiting the resources and the people already residing there; colonizers in what is now known as Canada were no different. Though several nations laid claim to Canada’s lands, the British soon asserted their dominance in the 1759 Battle of the Plains of Abraham over the French. Even though British superiority reigned over Canada, the victors were willing to accommodate the French in this new nation: “…success in national politics has often required the accommodation of the aspirations of the French speakers in Canada, since they have always formed the largest group of non-English speakers in the country. Other cultural and linguistic groups, including Indigenous peoples, were expected to assimilate to the notion of Canada as British” (Nationalism, 1500-1700). To the south, the outcome of the American Civil War in 1783 resulted in the migration of over 30 000 defeated Loyalists to British-ruled Canada where they “called upon colonial administrators for new lands [in return for fighting for Britain]” (A History of Treaty-Making). More and more land was being taken from the Indigenous people and being given to the foreign settlers.

After the War of 1812, relations between the British and their former colonies improved. Despite being their allies during the War, Indigenous people found themselves on the receiving end of British assimilation efforts. Indigenous people were reduced to “wards of the new Canadian state” (Nationalism, 1800s) – a result of colonial mentality and need for ownership of the land. The mentality is what Daniel Coleman calls “loyalism,” which he identifies as a “problematic and still pervasive collective concept of Canada as a white, Christian, primarily Anglophone, civil society” (Nationalism, 1800s). The AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) describes the result of this mentality: “Based upon the belief that it was Britain’s duty to bring Christianity and agriculture to the First Nations people… [the government encouraged] First Nations people to abandon their traditional ways of life and to adopt a more agricultural and sedentary, more British, life style.” Refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of people such as the Métis, the British established themselves as guardians of the state and therefore caretakers of the land, effectively taking what they justified was theirs. 

Looking specifically at the Métis Nation of Manitoba who “created a provisional government [in 1869] and attempted to negotiate directly with the new government of the confederation to establish their territories as a province under their leadership” (Paterson), this “problematic” and “pervasive” mentality of Indigenous people as lesser beings resulted in the rejection and suppression of the Métis Nation’s attempt at independence. Unlike their acceptance of the French, the British did not consider any Indigenous groups as their equal. Thus the provisional government was seen as a rebellion from those who should only be content with being governed; to allow the Métis government was to acknowledge them as equals to their European counterpart, which was unacceptable in the British mindset at the time. The Canadian forces outnumbered those fighting for the Métis cause and the provisional government’s leader, Louis Riel, was captured and subsequently executed.

Louis Riel

Works Cited

Continue reading