“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.
Although it’s never stated as such by Robinson, I would assume that this story is one that popped up after European contact to explain their existence. What I find interesting about the story is that it both demonizes Europeans and, I think unintentionally, expresses the insecurity of the Indigenous people who created it.
I can’t speak to the intentionality of either Robinson or the original storytellers, but this story struck me as similar to the propaganda used in World War I and other wars, that was intended to both endorse the propagandist’s home army and vilify the enemy. What Robinson’s story establishes is that a) the Indigenous people of North America are descendants of the good twin, Coyote (an endorsement), and b) that Europeans are descendants of the bad twin who was banished (a vilification). While Coyote is usually portrayed as a “trickster/seducer/pest” in other stories, this particular story shows him as “the obedient twin who dutifully followed the orders of his superiors” and “he represented goodness” (Wickshire 11). Here, Coyote’s character has been adapted to create a dichotomy between him as the good twin and his younger brother as the bad twin. While the younger twin is not directly referred to as bad, he is a liar and a thief, both qualities that the story implies are negative. With this story, the storyteller is able to give a historical reason as to why Indigenous people deserve to live in North America, and white people – the banished – do not deserve to live there.
What I found to be the most interesting detail of the story is that the younger twin was banished because he stole a piece of paper he was not supposed to touch. First, this is reminiscent of Eve eating the apple in the Bible’s Genesis story, which may indicate the influence that Europeans had on Indigenous storytellers. Second, this suggests to me that Indigenous tellers of this story felt they needed to justify the fact that Europeans had developed a complex written system before they did. For all the talk of oral and written cultures being on the same playing field – that is, one not more advanced than the other – this story suggests to me a feeling of inadequacy from Indigenous people in this regard. I’m not trying to suggest that they had any disdain for their oral culture, but simply that the Europeans believing themselves to be more advanced because of their written culture may have gotten into the heads of Indigenous people, leaving them feeling defensive. So a historical reason for this difference was created, one that painted the ancestor of Europeans as a thief and then a liar – clearly a less desirable person despite his paper – and Indigenous people as the rightful inhabitants of North America.
I believe that the stories we listen to affect our worldview, particularly ones we grow up with as children. However, what Wendy Wickshire’s introduction and Robinson’s story of the twins has shown me is that it is just as true that our worldview affects the stories we tell.
–
Works Cited
“Canadian Wartime Propaganda: First World War.” WarMuseum.ca. Canadian War Museum, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
Wickshire, Wendy. Introduction. Living By Stories. By Harry Robinson. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2009. 1-30. Print.
“Wordlviews and Science: the effects of presuppositions.” Truthnet.org. Truth Net, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
Hi Caitlin,
I found your take on this story (and subject in general) quite fascinating. Until you mentioned it I had not made a connection to the whole, potential, Bible/religious undertone but that very well could be the case. That got me thinking about other “European” influences on indigenous storytelling as I always have considered such stories as somehow being pure and void of any “European” influences. Now that I think about it, it would make sense for stories to adapt or new stories to emerge relating to the interactions indigenous people would have had with “Europeans”.
You also bring up a point I had not picked up on, that of the inadequacy felt by indigenous peoples after contact with “Europeans”. I don’t know that I entirely agree but it certainly a very real possibility and an interesting take. That leads into questions about whether the indigenous people of this land saw “European” culture as somehow being superior. I have absolutely no idea. Of course “Europeans”, at least the vast majority, felt that their culture was superior but until reading your comments had never thought about how indigenous people would have viewed it early on.
-Alex
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your comment! My deduction about inadequacy came mostly from my own interpersonal life experience which has led me to believe that most people who are truly confident about something don’t bother talking about it at all. So the fact that Robinson and whoever told him this story felt the need to make that justification about the paper seemed to me a sign of insecurity. But alas, I have not found any scholarly material or personal accounts that suggest this is the case, so it is still just a possibility, as you said!
Cheers,
Caitlin
Hello Bennett. Thanks for the wonderful analysis. You raise a very interesting issue on propaganda: “…this story struck me as similar to the propaganda used in World War I and other wars, that was intended to both endorse the propagandist’s home army and vilify the enemy.” As a matter of fact, many wars were won based purely on propaganda. The Nazi German’s, for instance, used propaganda to raise a huge army and to instill fear among their opponents. It is evident that propaganda shaped the history of the world in a significant way. My question is, did it also influence literature?
Caitlin,
Like Alex, I also found your take on this story interesting and much different from my own. I love how two people can read the same story and come away from it with completely different impressions. When I first read this story, the dominant feeling I had was one of hope. The idea that both of these groups of people could have belonged to this land in the beginning, as brothers, creates the existence of a long held bond. For me this story offers an opportunity, to see this land as a place that belongs to all of us as descendants of these brothers, instead of two divided groups: those native to the land and those who came later as strangers.
The funny thing is, I can’t say I agree or disagree with the aspects of your observations that oppose mine. Interpretations of stories like these are all unique to their owners, and very difficult, if not impossible, to argue against. For me, I keep returning to Chamberlin and his idea that more than one story or truth can exist, even if they appear to be different interpretations of the same event or experience. It’s a challenge to come to terms with that idea, to wrap one’s head around it. I’m so used to believing only one truth can exist, and trying to argue that the real truth is my own. I think our two interpretations of this same story offer a great opportunity to practice fighting this conditioning.
Thanks so much for your thoughts!
Sierra
Hi Sierra!
I find your interpretation extremely interesting as it obviously opposes my own thoughts, but it feels just as likely to be true. Thanks for commenting!
Caitlin
Hi Caitlin,
I like how you made the connection with World War I propaganda; it is certainly an interesting way to view the story. However, it makes complete sense in that the story clearly makes the Europeans appear bad and the Indigenous people appear good.
I like your thought process in terms of sensing a slight insecurity on the part of the original storyteller or the Indigenous people. It certainly raises some questions. I wonder if it’s not so much an insecurity or feeling of inadequacy but rather the storyteller kind of pointing out that the Europeans think they are superior because of their written culture?
I also think that our worldview is formed by the stories we listen to and in turn affect the stories we tell. Your hyperlink that discussed worldview was very interesting. The section on the basis of worldview touches on religion and I believe it is through religion, or the lack of religion, that we are told a number of stories that shape how we see the world. This is closely tied to family, friends, and culture. It is through the other basis of worldview that we begin to question some of these stories we are told. Experience and education can allow an individual to start thinking more critically about what we read and what we are told.
Thanks for a great post,
Danielle
Hi Danielle,
I really like your comments on worldview. I think it’s true that what we grow up with in terms of religion or lack there of shapes our worldview in many ways. It’s interesting how often people will change their religious views once they become an adult, whether it be finding a religion that speaks to them or ridding themselves of their parent’s religion. I’ve personally found that post-secondary education has helped me think more critically and I’ve seen the same change in my friends of the same age group. Even when it comes to something as simple as a viral Facebook post or activist meme, I’m always thinking about where there could be bias, what information might be missing, or what effects it might have beyond the obvious intention.
Thanks for your comment!
Caitlin