Monthly Archives: July 2014

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.