Intersections & Departures

Or in this case, every woman.

Water flows between the different sections, setting and characters of the text. King uses the story of the flood to weave together a narrative that subverts classic Western traditions and decolonizes them. Here is a closer look at some of the allusions he uses to do this:

Changing Woman

Changing Woman makes her appearance on page 104 and she happens to be a figure from Navajo mythology. The Navajo are the largest federally recognized tribe of the United States. This autonomy is replicated in the character of Changing Woman in King’s novel.

Witherspoon describes how the Navajo way of knowing is gendered, with male energy distinguished by a “static reality,” and female energy by an “active reality” (141).

According to Myth Encyclopedia, a crucial element of Changing Woman’s character is that she is constantly changing, but she never dies. In fact, the cyclical nature of her existence mimics the circle of life and the structure of King’s novel. In the winter she ages and in the spring she is renewed once more into a young woman. “In this way, she represents the power of life, fertility, and changing seasons.”

It is easy to see that Changing Woman fits into this “active reality,” with even her name being directly opposed to stasis. Witherspoon describes how, “The earth and its life-giving, life sustaining, and life-producing qualities are associated with and derived from Changing Woman. It is not surprising, therefore, that women tend to dominate in social and economic affairs… [and] the clans are matrilineal” (141).

Though historically Changing Woman represents fertility, there are elements of the homoerotic in King’s novel (moreso a little later than my pages, but I will draw on it here). King highlights the feminine power that Changing Woman holds, completely independent from men, or classic reproduction.  He also places her as the hero of Western myths and stories. On page 105, I was stricken by the resemblance of her actions to those of Narcissus from mythology.

Narcissus, enraptured by his own reflection.

She could see herself reflected in that beautiful Water World.

Hmmmm, she says, not bad.

Everyday, Changing Woman goes to the edge of the world and looks down at the water and when she does this, she sees herself. Hello, she says.

And each day, Changing Woman leans a little farther to get a better look at herself.

I love this passage. I love that she is not punished like Narcissus is. She looks into the water and she sees herself and she likes what she sees. A very empowering image, perhaps highlighting sexual awakening or simply, awakening. Yes she falls in, but that is her nature: change. Narcissus is cursed to stare at himself for eternity or in some version he falls into the water and dies, both are are states of stasis. This passage also reminds me of the title quote of this blog from Moby Dick: “The sea, where each man as in a mirror finds himself.” Such a gendered statement, but here King inverts it, Changing Woman finds herself in that same mirror that in the Western world is/was reserved only for men. These are simply a couple of examples of how King subverts Western hierarchies. Here Native femininity is powerful beyond and separate from white masculinity.

Ishmael

Ishmael is the name that Changing Woman chooses to take later in the novel (despite being told she shouldn’t). The name is both a biblical reference and an allusion to the narrator of the classic American novel Moby Dick.

Both men are wanderers and “outcasts in a barren landscape” (Schmoop). Ishmael from Genesis, is banished by his father and wanders the desert, Ishmael from Moby Dick wanders the vast ocean. Both are rescued. King’s Ishmael, besides being a woman, is different because, though she is a wanderer and she does get in some trouble (prison), she is not rescued. She rescues herself. Also she does not need rescuing from wandering, she wants to escape from captivity so that she can wander.

Eli Stands Alone

Eli is tied to Ishmael and Changing Woman. (Both Ishmael and Eli, which are biblical names have the word “el” in their names, which mean God.)

Eli can be interpreted as King’s version of Noah. While the Christian Noah is a disgusting character in this novel, Eli embodies the hero that the Christian Noah is supposed to be. He is on a mission to save his people from a terrifying flood.

Why “Stands Alone”? One reason is that Eli’s character refers to the First Nation’s Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper. Harper rose to fame after being a crucial player in the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord, an attempt at Canadian constitutional reform (specially designed to get Quebec to accept the Constitution Act) and that had been negotiated in 1987 without the input of Canada’s First Nations. By opposing this Accord, Harper drew attention to the government’s failure to give adequate attention to negotiating issues of self-governance (Flick 150).

Another reason he may be called “Stands Alone,” is that Eli was isolated from his First Nation’s heritage for much of his life, living instead as a university professor of literature. In this way, he stands alone or apart from the rest of his people. I found it interesting that Eli is referred to as having “wanted to be a white man,” simply because he decided to be university professor (King 80). To me this illustrates the idea discussed in this class, of Westerners having ownership over literature. It is interesting that it is the First Nations people in this book that embrace this attitude, which may illustrate the effect years of repression can have on a culture, but also demonstrates the catch twenty-two that modern-day First Nation’s people may have; having to decide between Western culture and Aboriginal culture. I would argue that King fights against this attitude (held by both parties) and is trying to illustrate the complexity of “the Indian” and really of all people. In this section Eli subconsciously makes the decision to stay and embrace his First Nation’s identity, thus leaving behind his “white man” life.

The Dam

The dam is obviously tied to Eli.

The dam represents Westerners imposing on First Nation’s culture and land and emphasizes that this is still an issue in modern times. This mimics how Noah later imposes on Changing Woman and I believe ties Eli to the feminine.

I also read the dam as being an allusion to Adam (and Ahdamn). The phrase “Ah damn” is something someone would say when they realize they’ve made a mistake. In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, everyone is obsessing over original sin, as if this is the ultimate mistake. This may be far fetched, but perhaps King is drawing our attention to the irony that we still obsess over a mistake made in a story, when we continue to commit horrible injustices on our fellow human beings. The real mistake then, could be seen as white repression and intrusion on First Nation’s cultures and land, signified in King’s story by on huge mistake, a dam. We have mistaken what sin really is.

…and it is a mistake, that the Western world is constantly justifying:

[Eli] “So how come so many of them are built on Indian land?”

[Sifton] “Only so many places you can build a dam.”

[Eli] “Provincial report recommended three possible sites.”

[Sifton] “Geography. That’s what decides where dams get built.”

[Eli] “This site wasn’t one of them… None of the recommended sites was on Indian land.”

[Sifton] “I just build them, Eli. I just build them.” (King 111)

In this passage King shows us that the choice to build the dam on Aboriginal land was very much intentional and avoidable. This decision underscores the colonialist dynamics that still exist in Canada (and the world) to this day. When Sifton—the real Clifford Sifton was an “aggressive promoter of settlement in the West and a champion of the settlers who displaced the Native population” (Flick 150)—says that he “just builds them,” he uses language that lies beneath an attitude that has justified and made excuses for the mistreatment of First Nations people and their cultures for years. This particular passage seems to be call to action. King is asking us all to evaluate our own role in these injustices.

There are oh so many more, but one can only do so much in so few words!

* * *

“Changing Woman.” Myths and Legends of the World. Myth Encyclopedia, 2014. Web. 18 Jul. 2014.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” CanLit 161-162 (1999): 140-172. Web. 17 Jul. 2014.

“Ishmael.” Moby Dick. Schmoop University, 2014. Web. 18 Jul. 2014.

jgordon52. “Call me Ishmael.” Online video clip. Youtube, n.d. Web. 18 Jul. 2014.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

King, Thomas. “I’m not the Indian You had in Mind.” Video. Producer Laura J. Milliken. National Screen Institute. 2007. Web. 17 Jul. 2014.

Witherspoon, Gary.  Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. University of Michigan Press. 1997.

 

 

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.”

The term “Coyote Pedagogy” offers great insight into the figure of Coyote in Green Grass Running Water, as a teacher.

What struck me the most when I did some research into the Coyote figure in First Nation’s mythology was the diversity in which s/he can be portrayed. Coyote is hard to pin down or define because s/he can be/is so many different things, depending on the story.

The Coyote mythlore is one of the most popular among the Native Americans. Coyote is a ubiquitous being and can be categorized in many types. In creation myths, Coyote appears as the Creator himself; but he may at the same time be the messenger, the culture hero, the trickster, the fool. He has also the ability of the transformer: in some stories he is a handsome young man; in others he is an animal; yet others present him as just a power, a sacred one (Kazakova 1997).

In this novel, Coyote can be seen to act as all of the aforementioned “types” in some way or another. Blanca Chester describes how, “Coyote’s essential nature, it could be said, is a storied one that contains multiple realities” (56). This understanding of Coyote as multifaceted really guided my reading of him/her in the novel and I think exists at the core of King’s narrative. All things/beings contain multiple realities.

My very first impression of Coyote’s function in the novel is that s/he seems to be able to move through time, bridging the gap between the past and the present. This, in conjunction with the structure of the novel (which does not follow a classic linear structure), demonstrates a way of knowing time that is cyclical in nature (as demonstrated by the Medicine Wheel). The ending is the beginning, the past and the present collide and myth and reality cannot be teased apart easily.

Here is a wonderful quote from Chester that really helps to understand the importance of blending and bridging gaps in King’s novel:

The inclusion of newer, European elements into fresh versions of traditional stories ensures their vitality. When King uses traditional stories in the context of the novel form, the stories themselves are re-created and they simultaneously re-create the world—again and again. The stories continue to theorize, and thus to create, Native reality. Not to blend the new into the old would suggest stasis, the stories frozen through a (printed) moment in time. It would suggest stories as word museums rather than as vital and living, like language and culture themselves (59).

This useful passage really highlights King’s advocacy for the fluid nature of stories and I believe, of the people telling those stories.

Coyote crosses boundaries in other ways as well. For example, he transgresses the bridge between Indian and Western culture, between animal and human and between the reader and the novel. This idea of Coyote being able to cross borders is discussed in Margery Fee and Jane Flick’s article, “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” They explain that, “Coyote pedagogy requires training in illegal border-crossing,” highlighting the fact that Coyote is not only a teacher, but also a trickster (131). Indeed, I believe it is because Coyote crosses these so called “illegal borders” and is constantly in opposition to figures of authority, that we are able to learn from him. Through Coyote, King may be teaching us to question our preconceived ideas and stories about the world and the authority from which they stem.

In some ways, Coyote can also be seen as an everyman figure. S/he connects the audience to the novel, acting as a sort of guide between the different settings and worlds. Furthermore, the lessons s/he learns, we learn right along with him/her. When s/he is told to “pay attention,” we are simultaneouslybeing told to pay attention (King 38,100, 104 etc.). Coyote, like the reader, makes mistakes and misinterprets things often. For example, when he thinks there can only be one Coyote:

“And there is only one Coyote,” says Coyote.

“No,” I says. “This world is full of Coyotes.”

“Well,” says Coyote, “that’s frightening.”

“Yes it is,” I says. “Yes it is.” (King 272)

In this novel we (and Coyote) have already met old Coyote, so we know that Coyote is wrong in assuming there is only one Coyote. And if the reader knows anything about this figure in First Nation’s mythology, they will know that there are many, many versions. Therefore, perhaps King is using this as an exemplifier to show our tendency to reduce ideas, peoples or cultures, when really it is impossible to do so.

Through his portrayal of Coyote, Kings helps us understand the complexity of every story and the importance of truly listening, rather than attempting to understand. The chaotic form of the text is puzzling to the reader and King knows this. With the help of Coyote he is encouraging the reader to look deeper, to listen louder and to challenge our own assumptions about the nature of the world. By engaging in these behaviours, we become one step closer—not necessarily to understanding the other—but to finding common ground.

* * *

bisbeejim. “The Medicine Wheel – 1 of 3.” Online video clip. Youtube, Sep. 18 2007. Web. 10 Jul. 2014.

Chester, Blanca. “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel”. Canlit.ca: Canadian Literature, 9 Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Jul. 2014.

“Cyclical Worldview: Understanding Environmental Health from a First Nations Perspective.” First Nations Environmental Health Innovation Network, n.d. Web. 10 Jul. 2014.

Fee, Margery and Flick, Jane. “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canlit.ca: Canadian Literature, 2012. Web. 10 Jul. 2014.

Kazakova, Tamara. “Coyote.” MMIX Encyclopedia Mythica™, 6 Jul. 1997. Web. 10 Jul. 2014.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

 

2] For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.

I have chosen to write about the Multiculturalism Act because it is so contemporary and relevant today. In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to implement multiculturalism as a policy, but it was not until 1988 that it became an official law. The goal of this policy/law was to preserve and further the development of multiculturalism in Canada. The Government of Canada’s official immigration website (CIC) states that by adopting this policy, “Canada affirmed the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation… [and] also confirmed the rights of Aboriginal peoples and the status of Canada’s two official languages.” Essentially this policy gave all citizens the right to practice their own religions, languages and cultures without having to fear punishment or discrimination and hence it attempted to promote acceptance of different cultures within all Canadians.

What I noticed most while researching this act was not what was said, so much as what was not said. There is not a single mention of why the act needed to be created in the first place. No discussion of Canada’s racist, discriminating and violent history and no expression of a desire to learn from past mistakes. What is emphasized is that Canadian identity is defined by acceptance. The CIC claims that, “Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding.” This would be wonderful were it true, but as we know, discrimination, especially towards First Nations cultures, not to mention the legacy left behind by residential schools, still exists today. This made me think about the discussion of Coleman and his argument about “white civility.” Coleman emphasizes, “the fictive element of nation building, and the necessary forgetfulness required to hold that fiction together” and “how the normative concept of English Canadianness as white and civil came to be constructed in the first place, how this fictive ethnicity requires a forgetting of the very uncivil acts of colonialism and nation-building, and finally a recognition that creating a Canadian identity that is white and civil is a project that began with colonialism and continues in the present” (Patterson). And indeed, this forgetfulness is transparent in the Multiculturalism Act.

Another thing that I noticed during my research was the way that language is used. First of all, the official document that I found online was in English and French only. The document also makes statements such as:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

So while the act does claim to promote multiculturalism in terms of language, it also makes it clear that English and French are privileged above all the others. The fact that there is a “national commitment” to these languages implies that they are relevant to all Canadians and stems from, what I might call, a colonial heritage.

Furthermore, the CIC explains that, “Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes,” and “Through multiculturalism, Canada recognizes the potential of all Canadians, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs.” It is interesting how the language used by these two documents warps the very idea of multiculturalism, which emphasizes diversity, and instead uses it to actually promote a form of assimilation to the Canadian identity.

So, while I do believe that the intention of the Multiculturalism Act may have been for the most part, good, I feel like it may also have come from a place of ignorance and privilege, which fails to acknowledge historical injustices that contributed to the Canadian identity or realize the implications of the very words and languages it uses.

* * *

Beaton, Kate. “Mountie Comics.” Hark! A Vagrant. Kate Beaton, 2006-2009. Web. 05 July 2014.

“Canadian Multiculturalism Act.” Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada, last amended on 4 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 July 2014.

“Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship.” Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Government of Canada, 19 Nov. 2012.Web. 04 July 2014.

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3:1.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre 98A. UBC Blogs. n.d. Web. 4 July 2014.

Question 5: “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. 

In his article “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History,” Carlson once again draws our attention to the familiar dichotomy of orality and literacy that has been so prominent throughout our discussions during this class. He offers us a new perspective, one that steps away from looking at literacy’s effect on orality or visa versa, but instead looks at “orality about literacy” in the Salish tradition. He presents us with a number of Salish stories that incorporate notions of literacy, whose storytellers believe that knowledge of literacy existed before contact. However these stories are often dismissed by historians, as it is difficult for people to fathom that knowledge of literacy could have been possible before first contact.Thus stems the question of authenticity.Carlson decides to look at these stories through a lens of truth in order to give a new perspective to debate of literacy and first -contact.

Though the historical accuracy of these stories is seldom called into question (simply because non-native people tend to see them as fictitious), the authenticity of such stories is often interrogated; that is origin or purity of the narratives. Yet Carlson states that, “Neither reality (in the Western meaning of the term) nor authenticity is part of the indigenous criteria for assessing them [stories]. There is no authentic or inauthentic swoxwiyam, only better remembered/conveyed or less well remembered/conveyed swoxwiyam… Only more or less reliable sources of historical information” (Carlson 56, 57). Carlson argues [that] “To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing “(Carlson 59).

Carlson suggests that First Nations and Westerners hold very different “ways of knowing” (Carlson 45). He explains that Salish people value historical accuracy as much as Westerners, but they simply have a different way of assessing this accuracy. He states that for Westerners, historical accuracy is “measured in relation to verifiable evidence” and that “Within the Salish world, by way of contrast, historical accuracy is largely assessed in relation to people’s memories of previous renditions or versions of a narrative and in relation to the teller’s status and reputation as an authority” (Carlson 57). So it is not so much that the story is authentic that matters, but rather, that the integrity of the story is preserved from telling to telling. In both Western and Salish cultures, inaccurate historical narratives are dangerous. Indeed, in Salish culture the consequences of a poorly told story can be deadly.

For this reason, Carlson argues that Salish culture had measures in place to ensure that a story’s integrity and truth remained in place. Specifically the storyteller was evaluated by its audience and held to very high standards. Anything that was changed too much made the storyteller less respectable and they were no longer allowed to tell the story—in this way only the “better conveyed” stories were preserved and passed on. This is not to say that the stories never changed. Of course they must have over time, but the gist of the story remained the same. Essentially a story evolves in order to suit the needs of the listeners. This is accuracy to the Salish people. Yet, it is not pure by Western standards. Carlson states that “[W]e have grown so accustomed to associating authentic Aboriginal culture with pre-contact temporal dimensions that we have dismissed or ignored Native stories that do not meet our criteria for historical purity” (56). This perspective does not allow for change and it takes agency away from First Nations people, which ties into question 6 and the idea that post contact stories cannot be authentic.

Carlson does not mean to “suggest that outsiders should not ask about authenticity, just that they should be alert to the significance and implications of their questions” (Carlson 59). I believe that understanding the implications of one’s actions is a crucial element here, as people need to realize the consequences of judging things they do not fully understand. I believe the argument that Carlson is making about authenticity is important to recognize because it reminds us that there are unique ways of knowing. It has definitely made me question what it means for something to be “authentic” and how, by questioning the authenticity of something we do not understand we can actually do harm. Westerners have inserted their own values of what it means for into something to be “authentic” into the stories of Salish peoples. This is not only a limiting perspective, but it also undermines their way of knowing. By interjecting into the story and questioning its authenticity the questioner actually inserts him or herself into the story, thus changing it without the consent of the Salish people and in turn damaging its truth. I believe that by looking at these stories of pre-contact literacy amongst the Salish people as true, Carlson acknowledges the agency of the Salish people to create their own stories that cannot (or should not) be touched by Western ways of knowing. He also reminds us of the fact that written and oral culture are not so distinctive, that they overlap and that literacy is not necessarily a gift, nor a tool of colonialism, but rather belongs to everyone.

***

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.

In The Truth About Stories, Thomas King, like Chamberlin seems to advocate for us to use caution when looking at the world through a binary system. In other words, we should avoid seeing the world as a series of dichotomies, as black and white. Paradoxically, in his retelling of two distinct creation stories, “King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview” and ultimately provides his readers with a set of rigid binaries (Paterson, lesson 2:2). Why does King employ binary systems while making an argument that they are dangerous?

I will admit that when I read The Truth About Stories (or rather listened to it), I found this contradiction to be somewhat problematic. Indeed, it seems quite clear which creation story (and hence, the values that come along with it) King prefers. It was hard to listen to King tell the stories and not be smitten by the story of Charm, and slightly bored by the story of Adam and Eve. King argues against the fact that “to believe one story to be sacred, we must see the other as secular” and therefore, it seems that he is trying to tell us that they are both equally legitimate (King 25). Perhaps King is using binaries in his argument to highlight the impossibility, or at least, the difficulty, we face when trying to eliminate dichotomies from our way of processing the world. Whether we leave feeling more compelled by the Native creation story or the Christian creation story isn’t so much important as the fact that we tend to create dichotomies and thus, hierarchies naturally. By drawing our awareness to the problematic nature of this kind of thinking, King encourages us to resist it and look at things from a more complex perspective.

Yet, King claims that dichotomies are an “elemental structure of Western society” (King 25). Might it not be dangerous to claim that Western society endorsed/endorse such dichotomies while natives did/do not? In Wickwire’s retelling of one of Harry Robinson’s story, we are introduced to a set of twins: one obedient and good and black, the other disobedient and bad and white; a story that much resembles those seen in genesis and is filled with binaries and hierarchies of it’s own (Robinson 9, 10). Does this not suggest that this type of black and white thinking is part of human nature, rather than a characteristic of a certain society? And in realizing that this form of thought is human nature could it not promote a more unified perspective of existence rather than an “us vs. them” dichotomy? In other words, could acknowledging that we are all prone to believe in “us vs. them” somehow unify us and in turn avoid such reductive thinking? Here is a compelling psychological theory called “Terror management theory”, explained by one of it’s creators Sheldon Solomon. It offers a unique perspective on why human beings tend to react with hostility to “the others” stories. This article looks at cultural differences in cognitive dissonance (that is the discomfort one feels from holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously) and found that “both Easterners and Westerners can experience dissonance, but culture shapes the situations in which dissonance is aroused and reduced” (Hoshino-Browne 294). This study is interesting, for while it finds that the tendency for black and white thinking may be universal, it also highlights some key differences stemming from individualism and collectivism.

All in all, I think that King is asking us to question the story that we believe in, regardless of which one it is and I believe this to be a noble goal. However, King does seem to be saying one is better than the other. He asks the question: if these creation stories are both simply “stories” maybe we should believe in a creation story that promotes co-operation over competition. I do agree with King that the Christian creation story may be the source of many of the negative values that have plagued our society (such as racism and sexism), I’d even go as far as to say that maybe Western society (and a lot of other people for that matter) could have been happier or more fulfilled with a different story. Regardless, I do find it problematic that King uses the very dichotomies he criticizes to make this point. Dichotomies are dangerous and reductive and promote an ideology of “us vs. them,” which I believe King may be doing, though perhaps unknowingly.

***

Hoshino-Browne, Etsuko., et al. “On the Cultural Guises of Cognitive Dissonance: The Case of Easterners and Westerners.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89.3 (2005): 294 –310. Web 27 June 2014.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2003. Print.

Pangeaprogressredux. “Terror Management Theory (Sheldon Solomon – Ernest Becker).” Online video clip. Youtube, 2 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 June. 2014. 

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2:2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre. UBC, n.d. Web. 21 June 2014.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books, 2005.

 

Hello everyone! I’ve spent the evening reading through your stories about home and they are lovely, each and every one of them. The more I read, the more I came to realize how heterogeneous peoples’ concepts of home are, and essentially, how hard a construct it is to rigidly define.

Some of my peers spoke of having found home, perhaps a place from their childhood, or a new world where they have started a new life, while others have yet to find it, maybe even doubting if they ever will. Some tie home to a physical place, others to loved ones and others still describe it as intangible and changing.

Lara’s post really resonated with me, as she too describes home as in the mind, rather than in the heart. She links home to memory, drawing on its nostalgia. She acknowledges that home is not perfect nor without its fault, instead it is the memories we hold, both good and bad, that travel with us wherever we go. Her post made me feel like perhaps home is something in which we leave a little bit behind with the people we cross paths with (our loved ones) and a little bit stays with us forever. It is a comforting notion to think that home is both a part of us and those we love.

Milica too speaks of the imperfect nature of home. She opens up about coming to terms with her Serbian/Croatian identity and embracing that “there is an underbelly to everything, and I have to acknowledge it if I want to lay any claim to it, because I need to claim it as a whole, faults and all.” She says that for her, home is constantly changing. Her post helped me to understand that home is as complex as our own identities. Perhaps we have to accept that home will never be perfect or idealized, maybe home is something we can nurture until it resembles something of what we’d like it to be, but even then, it is not stagnant and we cannot totally contain it.

Hannia offers yet another perspective about the meaning of home. She has had many “homes,” both in Columbia and in Canada, but has yet to find a place that she can truly feel at home, a place where she can find comfort and belonging and “feel like [she’s] arrived.” She worries that she will never find such as place and I believe this may be a commonly held and relatable fear by many people, especially for those at an unstable or tenuous period in their lives.

I have learned a lot from reading these three stories, as well as many of the others on the class blog. They have challenged my own ideas of what home is and opened my mind to new perspectives about what it can be. I think that maybe we get so used to the way the ideal home is portrayed in society that it has a tendency to make us feel dissatisfied with what we have.  Yet, this assignment helps us to realize that there is not just one definition of home, but many and we are in control of what that definition is for us. Maybe we need to change our perspective of what home is for us, in order to find a sense of satisfaction in our own lives? Food for thought.

 

Works Cited

Curi, Hannia. “Lesson 2:1 Home.” Goodbye England. UBC Blogs, 11 June 2014. Web. 16 June 2014.

Deglan, Lara. “Assignment 2.1: My Sense of Home.” Canadian Literature. UBC Blogs, 12 June 2014. Web. 16 June 2014.

Komad, Milica. “2:1 Home is where you know how to use the shower dials, or, on a more educated note, ideas of home and value based on identity.” True North Strong and Free. UBC Blogs, 11 June 2014. Web. 16 June 2014.

Hush, don’t cry. Hush, your mother’s coming.

A pale memory now, that lullaby. She holds her own babe and sings gentle, slow and soft. The child whimpers in the cold and she kisses him, Samson. Soon he falls asleep and she is alone. The night sky engulfs her, wraps her in its silver silence. Her mind stills and she too sleeps, under those blistering stars and that solitary moon.

Years later and he is not the same. He is a man now. And she sees him… from time to time, but less so as every year passes. Samson the wanderer, ah and so she once was.  Her only luggage a sleeping baby, the two of them attached to that never-ending road– oh how the days had seemed so endless then. And now. She knows that they are numbered, but endless they still seem; slow and careful, long and circular and still. Yes, how still. Years ago they had moved so quickly and so they must now for Samson. Oh Samson, she whispers to herself. Come home. Weary traveler, in the light of a foreign sun and a sky that does not know you, come home.

She can see him in her mind; his beard has grown too long. He is lost. Somewhere. And the whisper of home entices him, but it is just a whisper, so he travels on.

She had caught a glimpse of him in that morning, when he left suddenly and for good. The light caught the shape, the shadow of him and she held it there. And it was still there, but it was not enough.

But it will do for now son. As you travel on.

But Samson is fading. She can see him, just barely in the far off distance of her mind. She can see him as a little babe. And in her womb. And soon she cannot see him at all. Even when he is by her side, she doesn’t know him. He is her brother, or her father maybe, or a man she once knew.

It’s Samson. But Samson was also her brother’s name and he’d died long ago.

And when she breathes her last breath, a quiet, beautiful breath, he is beside her, asleep when she goes. He feels an emptiness, not in his heart, but in his mind, as if a part of it left with her and he knows its gone for good. Quietly now and with great effort he rises from that chair and lingers in the doorway, where the room collapses in on itself and vanishes, vanishes. When he finally escapes from that crumbling hospital, with its lights and its gentle hum, he gasps.

Finally he is alone. Finally the night sky engulfs him, wraps him in its silver silence. His mind stills and he too sleeps. Under those blistering stars. That solitary moon.

* * *

Afterthoughts

I really do apologize for the obscurity of this story. You see, I am currently taking a psychology course on aging and it has really altered my perspective about a lot of things. This assignment made me wonder about home as a construct of the mind and what happens to that construct if we lose our mind, say with dementia. Though the woman in the story has lost touch with reality, she still leaves behind a sense of home for her son, as her mother did for her. I guess this story speaks to something innate within us that knows what home is even if we cannot articulate it. Home travels with us and it stays behind, it changes, it comes and goes. It is both tangible and transcendent, tiny and infinite. Home is a simple longing.

Maybe? I don’t know at all really.

Works Cited

Traditional Zulu lullaby arr. Nick Page. Thula S’thandwa. Hendon Music Inc, 1998. MP3.

“What is TEMPORAL GRADIENT?” Psychology Dictionary. n.d. Web 11 Jun. 2014.   http://psychologydictionary.org/temporal-gradient/

I have a great story to tell you.

Hi everyone!

My name is Caitlyn Harrison and I am a 5^th year English Literature and Psychology double major. This is my last semester of my undergrad and I am extremely excited (and slightly terrified) at the prospect of graduating and starting a new chapter of my life. I grew up in the small town of Campbell River on Vancouver Island and therefore find the material of this course particularly relevant and intriguing!

Although I admit that I am taking this class to fulfill a requirement for my literature degree, I am pretty thrilled to finally take a literature course that focuses on the Canadian perspective and the “intersections and departures between European and Indigenous traditions of literature and orature” (Paterson 2014). ENG 470, “Oh Canada… Our Home and Native Land?” taught by Dr. Erika Paterson, promises to be a challenging and thought-provoking course that I hope will offer me new insight into Canadian stories and what those stories mean. It appears to be a class that encourages deep and critical thinking and which may challenge our preexisting biases and expectations about the stories—both European and Aboriginal—that we encounter in Canada.

The fact that this class takes place exclusively online is both exciting and frightening and I have to say, a bit out of my comfort zone. I am sure I am not the only one with these feelings and it is reassuring to know I am facing this new experience with equally anxious peers.  I think that the progressive, high-tech nature of this course, though daunting, will help me build much needed skills for the modern world.

Personally, over the last few years of my life I have developed an interest in First Nation’s culture and the colonial history of British Columbia. This mostly evolved from two summer jobs that I encountered in my hometown of Campbell River. The first was a student internship at a lovely, local museum with a strong focus on First Nation’s history (click here for a video describing the museum’s exhibits) and the second (and most influential) was a job lifeguarding at a tiny pool on the Cape Mudge reserve of the We Wai Kai Nation on Quadra Island. If you look closely at the banner image on the link you can see the adorable, little pool. This job, in which I worked extensively with the many of the children of Cape Mudge for three summers, opened my eyes to the reality of the situation that people in these communities face and the extensive racism that still exists between our cultures, as well as the magnitude of people who dedicate their time in order to instigate change. These two jobs made me appreciate how undereducated I had been about the relationship between our two major cultures in British Columbia and ever since I have been eager for more opportunities to explore these topics.

Thanks for reading, looking forward to learning with you all!

 * * *

Kashascorner, “Campbell River Museum.wmv.” Online video clip. Youtube, 4 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 May 2014.

Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2014. Web. 15 May 2014.

Stone, Philip. Quadra Island: Cape Mudge Village. Discovery Islands Publishing, 2013. Web. 15 May 2014.