Question 5
“If Europeans were not from the land of the dead, or the sky, alternative explanations which were consistent with indigenous cosmologies quickly developed” (“First Contact” 43). Robinson gives us one of those alternative explanations in his stories about how Coyote’s twin brother stole the “written document” and when he denied stealing the paper, he was “banished to a distant land across a large body of water” (9). We are going to return to this story, but for now – what is your first response to this story? In context with our course theme of investigating intersections where story and literature meet, what do you make of this stolen piece of paper? This is an open-ended question and you should feel free to explore your first thoughts.
What was my first response? Well, I had two responses after reading this story. My first being: I really enjoyed Robinson’s inclusion of both the written and oral traditions that we have been discussing throughout this course so far. He blends these two together by creating an oral story based on a written document and this brings in the concept of the argument seen between the Westerners and First Nations concerning the reliability of their traditional way of passing on history.
The written document works then in two ways, the latter one I shall explain with my second response later on. But the first is, the written document works as the hard physical evidence displaying the differences in literature, beliefs and values between the two cultures. Coyote’s twin brother steals it from the First Nations, this creates the idea that for the Europeans the written document is lawfully there’s and cannot be in the hands of others. This demonstrates the thinking of superiority of the Europeans that is evident when they later come to North America. And thus the document is a form of foreshadowing. Maybe this document foreshadows the future laws that would be implemented against the First Nations denying them rightful access to their land and culture. This idea of the written document representing the laws that would later show the power the Europeans had and the belief in their own culture as superior to the First Nations, ultimately stomping on the First Nations traditions and values as they took control of their land. And ultimately interrupting their stories, as we have learnt that stories are created by the land we live upon.
The second response I had came to me after listening to a guest speaker in my Indigenous studies course at the University of British Columbia Okanagan this past Wednesday. That guest speaker was Dr. Hartmut Lutz, a German Professor of American and Canadian Studies with a special interest in Native American and Native Canadian Studies. He raised stereotypes of First Nations and brought up a point that I have never even considered thinking of. This point covered the concept of trans generational trauma that the First Nations are experiencing from the colonization of the European settlers, but what he brought up that surprised I was the idea of trauma being experienced by the Europeans. He discussed the idea that when the European settlers came to North America they felt trauma in the fact that they were forced to a new land where they didn’t know anything: no longer on a land filled with their language, culture, and people. They felt alone as the land that told their stories no longer stood below their feet and thus the trauma over took. This idea of trauma came up in my mind when I was thinking of Robinson’s story, in particular to the written document. The document in another way- if we look at Hartmut Lutz’s idea is a metaphor for the trauma felt by the Europeans; it isn’t the reason why the youngest brother steals it that is important but rather why he denies it.
I believe the reason he (representing the entirety of the Europeans) denies it is because he doesn’t want to admit to trauma, he doesn’t want to lose that feeling of power that is often connected to the European settlers. And therefore, he would rather hide the trauma he feels than admit to it, take it in and then feel weakened by it. In addition, as he is banished from the land and forced back to Europe, the written document goes along with him. The trauma follows him back to his home and I raise the question and idea of whether this banishment developed the idea of colonizing North America? Was the act of colonization a form of retaliation? Retaliation to the forced banishment, the unwanted emotion of trauma? Did this trauma in fact die as they went back to their own land and was replaced with the revenge of wanting power and to place trauma on those that had made them feel it?
I ask these last questions, not because they are ones that I believe explain what actually happened, but rather to have you thinking of Robinson’s story of the twins and the act of colonization in a different way, maybe in a way you have never thought would be considered in your mind. Isn’t learning all about new perspectives?
Works Cited
Gerson, Jen. “‘Indianthusiasm’: Romanticized Ideas about First Nations Life Offer Escapism for Germans.” National Post Indianthusiasm Romanticized Ideas about First Nations Life Offer Escapism ForGermans Comments. N.p., 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.
“Noelle Munoz Jewelry – Blog – Beautiful miracles.” Noelle Munoz Jewelry – Blog – Beautiful miracles. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books2005. (1-30)
Hi Bryony Rose,
I never thought about the document as a metaphor of trauma, and how what might be more important is the fact that the younger twin denies that he has stolen the document in the first place. It makes me think about how this document can signify how the Europeans further failed to see or acknowledge their own weaknesses, and persisted in being the “superior” twin / side, or really how much our words and actions affect one another on top of how we perceive one another. As you put it, retaliation as a form of colonization is a new perspective, and I’d like to suggest the reversal — perhaps understanding or common ground, as decolonization? In some sense, the common ground is through the written document because they both share and have experienced it in different ways.
A sidenote, but from your article, I remember reading a bit of John Donne where some of his poems could be considered misogynistic, as the more often male speaker views the female’s body as this “new found land” — the entire concept of finding land was definitely romanticized in more ways than one.
I also did my blog post on this prompt, and I refer to this article which talks about the misleading implications of metaphors http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554 — I basically quote that while art can provoke questions and initiate movements, “when metaphor invades decolonization, it kills the very possibility of decolonization; it recenters whiteness, it resettles theory, it extends innocence to the settler, it entertains a settler future” (Tuck, 3). While Robinson’s metaphor does not entertain any certain future, are there dangers to character implications, and does this do more hurting than helping the situation at hand? Is it our own nature that manipulates and corrupts law to our own purposes? If there was no existence of the written document or no symbol of law, would both sides have been able to live peacefully, and come to a collective conclusion about how to live together? I wrote more about the nature of the characters portrayed as the descendants of both twins are rather black and white. However your perspective brings this in a different light, because this trauma is essentially experienced in both manners even if it could be self-inflicted later on by our own assumptions and preconceived values.
Hi Jenny,
Thanks for your comment and bringing to my attention the reversal situation of decolonization, it really brings a different perspective to thinking about the written document. Your questions to the end of the comment concerning the law brings a few ideas to my mind. This idea of us being the ones to manipulate the law is definitely something I believe is true, without humans and without our reasoning, the law wouldn’t exist, however, the concept of no written document leaves me wondering whether in time they too would discover the idea of law. I feel like the law is inevitable to escape because when people come together there is always a leader, someone to take charge because without a leader I do believe that ideas would clash and arguments would begin. Although I oppose my own comment there because leaders can also oppress these ideas in respect of their own ideas. But it is true that there is always that person who brings in these rules whether they define them as rules, but slowly being told what to do and when to do things will create ‘law’. I don’t want to sound negative but I don’t think there is any chance that any group could live peacefully because of the strong opinions, values and ideals that differ between each individual.
Hi Byrony-Rose,
I really enjoyed your post! When reading the first story about the twins, I also saw the written document as foreshadowing of some kind. I thought about the written treaties European colonizers made with the Natives, and how they were so often filled with misunderstandings. It seemed like the Natives were often taken advantage of, as they did not have the same written tradition. In European cultures, people can say a lot, but their words/promises are not as important as what a piece of paper says.
That is so cool that you got to see Dr. Lutz speak. I have never thought about the idea of Europeans settlers experiencing trauma. I can definitely how it might be a motivator for conflict. Were there any other points from his talk that stood out to you?
Hi!
Thank you for your comment. I was very glad that I got the chance to hear him speak, and something else that really was the focus of his talk is something that connects really well with this course: the connection between land, home and stories. He emphasized greatly on the fact that “land is our teacher” and that “if you learn the stories, you begin to love the land you live on”. These ideas focused on the ways of oral traditions in comparison to the written tradition of the Europeans as by connecting fully to the land and using these stories to feel part of the land through the oral stories then this made it least accessible to the colonizer. He also left us with the question- if telling stories connects us to the land, then what happens when we leave that land? This is a question that we as a group in this course have answered slightly in our ways of describing what home means to us, so I really liked the fact that his talk and this course have come together nicely. This also then introduced us to his next segment on the traumas felt by both groups and the impacts of leaving home.
Hi Bryony, great post.
I thought I would just jump right into it by looking at your final questions.
Was the act of colonization a form of retaliation?
Retaliation to the forced banishment, the unwanted emotion of trauma?
Did this trauma in fact die as they went back to their own land and was replaced
with the revenge of wanting power and to place trauma on those that had made
them feel it?
This is a very interesting perspective of Robinson’s story. Looking at the distress associated with banishment as the instigator of the pain and suffering inflicted upon return to their homeland. My only issue with this view of the story is that it places the onus of provocation on the Natives – as if they had made the settlers feel the trauma of abandonment. And while it was not directly stated in the story I had the impression that the younger twin was not banished by Coyote but by a higher power overseeing their work. But I that was just my impression, it could be totally wrong.
I really loved the idea of “trauma” that you introduced. And as I was considering your questions I kept coming back to this notion. I kept thinking about the European settlers, as you describe them, “forced to a new land where they didn’t know anything: no longer on a land filled with their language, culture, and people.” These thoughts led me to look at the European settlers in a slightly different light. Before I looked at them with complete distain; what horrible, irredeemable people they must have been to act in such a way. Their actions were unfathomable to me. But, now I realize that the trauma of leaving all they knew encouraged them to do whatever they could to rectify their shock. They would do anything they could to make this strange land seem like home. And while this explanation does not justify their horrific actions by any means, it does offer greater insight into why they may have acted in such a way.
Hi Hannah, thanks for your comment!
I would just like to point out that I do not completely agree with what Lutz said about the trauma felt by the Europeans settlers as I do agree with your point about this then placing the blame on the Natives. I just wanted to bring this idea into light and show the different ways that stories can be read and told and the various perspectives that others have that are sometimes too oppressed or scared to bring up. I also was curious as to see others’ responses. You say at the end of your comment that these actions, although horrific, give a greater insight to why they acted in such a way, but is this a reason to say okay we understand why you acted like that, its okay, I hope you feel better? Should they not be punished for their behavior just like any child would for acting out? In a certain way, if the European settlers acted this way because they were not getting what they wanted, then it is safe to safe we could connect this image of child-like manners to the settlers.