Coyote is a popular figure throughout Native American literature and is commonly the sly trickster used in storytelling to teach lessons and morals to listeners and readers of these stories. Coyote is presented as a young spirited, playful, and free-willed. Although the intentions are not unpure or evil, they is capable of creating quite some trouble. Coyote’s character feels mythical and supernatural, not so much as other more realistic human characters in the novel. For example, at the end of the novel, Coyote’s dancing and singing creates an earthquake. I think there is more to be said that Coyote’s playful actions of fun induce horror, as well as the meaning of the flood and Coyote’s role in this.

Works Cited

https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/8380/1/One%20of%20the%20final%20versions.pdf

https://www.gradesaver.com/green-grass-running-water/study-guide/character-list

8. Everyone is on the move in this novel, road trips abound and in order to hit the road what do we need? — a road map. At the same time, Lionel, Charlie and Alberta are each seeking direction in life. As Goldman says, “mapping is a central metaphor” (24) of this novel. Maps chart territory and provide directions, they also create borders and boundaries and they help us to find our way. There is more than one way to map, and just as this novel plays with conflicting story traditions, I think King is also playing with conflicting ways to chart territory. What do you think lies at the centre of King’s mapping metaphor? Marline Goldman, “Mapping and Dreaming; Native Resistance in Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162 (1999). Web. April 04/2013.

I believe the centre of the mapping metaphor in “Green Grass Running Water” is the history Indigenous peoples have with their land and territory being taken away from them. Furthermore, I think that because these events in the novel didn’t necessarily have to be categorized into a theme of ‘mapping’. These events could’ve been represented through a metaphor of finding your path in life or travel, however, the metaphor is mapping. Likewise, the mention of maps creating borders and boundaries furthered my thinking towards the history of taking territory away from Indigenous groups. In addition, I think that because this is an Indigenous book and because of the long history Canada, and other countries, have with colonization, that this theory fits well. The conflicting ways to chart territory is a simple example of Indigenous and colonizers charting the territory of North America differently, or believing it should belong in different ways. Overall, I think mapping was an efficient metaphor at expressing meaning to readers and giving them a deeper understanding of the text.

2] In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” 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.

The Indian Act of 1876 both controlled every aspect of Indian life and provided ways of understanding Indigenous identity, however, it is an extremely controversial piece of legislation which governs matters such as Indian status, bands, and reserves as its goal was assimilation that intended to end the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of Indigenous people (Hanson). For example, one of the goals of this set of laws was to shift Indigenous culture from a system of redistribution to one of private property ownership, like western colonial society (Hanson). The act aimed to eradicate and assimilate Indigenous culture into Euro-Canadian society as a consolidation of past colonial efforts (Henderson). Another criticized aspect of the Indian Act was the gender discrimination, which completely relied on Indigenous women’s status on that of her husband (Hanson). These laws are overarching and controlling as they authorize control over band councils and the right to practice their culture and traditions, such as banning potlaches and sun dances, and although the act has gone through various changes and amendments since it was passed in 1876, it remains largely the same (Hanson). The Indian Act has “enabled trauma, human rights violations, and social and cultural disruption for generations of First Nations peoples,” (Henderson), however, it also outlines the Canadian government’s obligations to Indigenous people as well as ‘status’ and certain rights that come with Indian status (Henderson).

Beginning in 1879 and lasting for over 100 years, tens of thousands of First Nations children were forced to attend residential schools with the goal of cultural genocide and assimilation, where these children suffered abuse and neglect, with the policy to “kill the Indian in the child” (Montpetit). Without legal acts such as the Indian Act, the government would’ve had a much more difficult time in instituting such measures of assimilation.

There have been many amendments and variations to the Indian Act of 1876, including the 1951 amendments. Due to Canadians growing understanding of human rights the most oppressive sections of the Indian Act were removed, such as the ban of Indigenous people practicing their cultures and traditions like the potlach (Hanson) as well as Indigenous people able to bring about land claims against the Canadian government (Henderson). Likewise, in 1969 the White Paper Policy was proposed in hopes of greater equality for Indigenous, however, this was rejected by many Indigenous people on the grounds that assimilation into Canadian society was not a means to achieve equality (Hanson). Although the Indian Act is highly problematic, it has not been abolished because it is legally and historically important for Indigenous people, as it highlights the unique historical and constitutional relationship Indigenous peoples have with Canada and the Canadian government (Hanson). Many Indigenous people have a complex relationship with the Indian Act, as many denounce the paternalism and problematic aspects, yet are reluctant to give up its advantages, such as tax exemptions in reserves (Montpetit).

Coleman’s ideas on white civility state that it is a project that began with colonialism and still continues today to create a Canadian identity that is ‘white and civil’ (Coleman). In my opinion, my findings do support Coleman’s idea of a project of ‘white civility,’ as his ideals of a project are exemplified in the events with Indigenous peoples relationship with the Canadian government. Coleman states that the project began with colonization, so the Indian Act of 1876 would be another step or success in the project as it dismantled the rights of Indigenous people and idealized westernized, white colonialists. Although some of the act has been amended and removed, it is still a highly problematic set of laws that encourage Coleman’s ideas of ‘white civility’. A specific example of this would be residential schools, as the goal was to completely assimilate the Indigenous children into mainstream, white, and westernized society, to take the Indian out of the child, creating the perfect system for creating a white and civil Canadian identity. Today, an example would be the pipeline protests and Canadian government’s methods of devaluing Indigenous hereditary leader’s opinions on the pipeline project.

Works Cited

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenousfoundations, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_indian_act/.

Henderson, William. “Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2006, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act.

Montpetit, Isabelle. “Background: The Indian Act | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 14 July 2011, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988.

In light of midterm evaluations, I had to choose my three favourite blogs for evaluation. The first blog post I selected can be found here, and was a rewrite of a creation story to involve wild animals and humans instead of witches in how evil was created. This topic was so interesting to me because I had never heard any creation story of evil other than that from the Bible, and it was interesting to put my own spin on the story. The second blog I chose was a short story of my perception of home, which I thought was a very interesting and thought-provoking topic, and something I had been considering a lot lately as my family moved for the first time in 15 years. The third blog post I chose was on interfusional literature, a combination of oral and written stories. This prompt intrigued me, as it is a subject I hadn’t thought much about before this course, but have since realized the important differences and diversities in each form and fusion.

1] In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to both King’s article and Robinson’s  story.

In King’s “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King states that Robinson uses a unique form of literature called ‘interfusional’ in Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England”. King defines interfusional literature as “that part of Native literature which is a blending of oral literature and written language” (p. 186).

Upon reading Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England,” it was immediately clear that the style of literature he chose to use was one I was not used to. He used short sentences, often with improper grammar, and repetition to encourage readers to read aloud instead of in their heads, thus, creating written oral literature. This is discussed in King’s article by stating that Robinson “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax, that defeats the readers’ efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read the stories out loud” (p. 186). In fact, while reading this story silently for the first time, I wondered if it would be easier and more fluid to read the story aloud. Robinson is efficient in overpowering the written literature with the feel and voice of oral literature, which is primarily why the story reads so differently than most of my previous literature experience.

King states this idea clearly in his article discussing interfusional literature, stating that “the stories in Robinson’s collection are told in English and written in English, but the patterns, metaphors, structures, as well as the themes and characters, come primarily from oral literature” (p. 186). I agree completely. From the experience of reading Robinson’s story both silently and aloud, I agree that this story feels oral, and although it is written, it doesn’t sound like written literature, even when reading silently. The story is written more conversationally than most literature, as it repeats ideas in different wording and sentences to emphasize impactful moments or words. The story’s voice is undeniable. Robinson has managed to have his voice heard clearly through pages of written work, which is a rare achievement, through his use of diction, grammar, and syntax.

King states that although Robinson’s story is written literature, it avoids the common losses of written literature that oral stories contain such as voice, gestures, music, and the interaction between storyteller and listener (p. 186). In my opinion, this is very much true, as written literature can lose a sense of the author or teller’s voice or version of the story and become lost in the interpretation of the reader. For certain stories, this is a costly loss, but for others, a gift. Some stories are written to be interpreted in a variety of ways, and this adds to the story’s meaning. However, some stories are told to convey a particular meaning, and the loss of voice and interaction between storyteller and listener could be detrimental to this particular meaning.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Mississauga, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

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.

At first, I was surprised that this origin story painted white people in such a negative light. However, upon reflection it makes sense because of how much prejudice and racism white people held (and some still hold) against Indigenous populations. However, in history I am not aware of a situation where white people lied to Indigenous, and I may be very ignorant, but it encouraged me to question why lying was the act that had the white wolf banished instead of the stealing.

In addition, I found it interesting that this origin story had a single population that banished a member, and the two on different continents became the ancestors, who’s descendants would eventually meet again. I find it interesting that the writer or storyteller would choose this path, as it could explain (not justify) why white people later came to North America and took land, because they were once living there too. This could explain why white people thought they deserved North American land as well. However, it’s also a parallel to the history of Indigenous people, who were forced off of their land for colonialists to take over, while in the story, the white wolf was forced off his land. Although, in the story, the wolf had stolen and lied, whereas in history, there isn’t evidence of Indigenous people being forced off their land and stolen from because they had committed crimes.

Regarding the stolen piece of paper, could it represent the thieving of Indigenous culture? I feel as though, since the wolf that stole the piece of paper represents the ancestor of white people, the piece of paper could symbolize the history, culture, and language that was taken from Indigenous people through the hands of the white man through residential schools and many other racialized institutions. However, the stealing of the paper could also represent land deeds, as during colonization white people stole Indigenous land and claimed it as their own very aggressively.

As I was reading through our short stories about what ‘home’ is to us, I found many common themes and shared values. Although all the stories were different and unique in their own ways, many of us had the general sense of ‘home’ in common and agreed that it was not a place, but a feeling and loved ones.

Firstly, home is family. It is our loved ones who will care for us and support us unconditionally. Home is wherever they are. In all six stories I read, family was a major theme in all of them. For some, family and/or loved ones was the definition of home. For others, family is what made a place feel like home.

Second, home is comfort and familiarity. Home is somewhere we know. It’s somewhere we feel safe in. This overlaps with family, as many of us seemed to find comfort and familiarity anywhere with our families.

Third, home is nature. The kind of nature we find beautiful, like the sound of birds chirping or waves lapping at the shore. Nature could bring us a sense of peace and calm, which feeds into our sense of home.

Lastly, home is memories. It’s our childhood, our firsts, and our happiest of times. In all six stories I read, they related to either a general sense of their childhood or a specific story that could generalize their childhood. In these cases that I read, childhood also included the comfort of our loved ones.

Through reading these stories, I have tweaked my definition of home. I now believe home is where you feel safe and at ease, and where your memories have been and/or will be created.

I was born in Langley, BC.

My parents had a little house on an acreage for us to run and play. Our backyard was full of adventures. There was a sandbox and swing-set for us to play on, a big hill for us to create a giant waterslide in the summertime, a pond with frogs that we could listen to, and a section of our yard that the grass was let to grow long, with the exception of small trails my dad would mow for us to walk in and explore.

Our house was a cozy haven; a place of safety and comfort. The living areas were filled with wood tones and a tall fireplace that my sisters and I would dance around with music, in little pink tutus that were stained from the blackberries we could pick in our backyard. My parents’ bedroom had a bay window overlooking our yard. Perched on the bay window’s sill was the basinet, woven cords covered in white silk and flowers, of our newest sibling. Their room was filled with light and happiness. The playroom was a place of endless possibilities. It had a piano to make music, a couch to jump on, and many, many toys to play with.

When we moved, I don’t remember being too sad about it. I was five at the time, and remember the anxious excitement as we ran around our new house in Kelowna, BC. As a child, I didn’t see it as a chapter closing, only as a new one beginning.

Our home in Kelowna was slightly larger, with a better layout for a growing family, and less yard space to care for. There was still lots of room to run and play in the yard, but it didn’t have the same adventurous spirit the acreage did. We didn’t stay in that house long before my parents decided it needed to be renovated, which caused us to move two different times in the process, but those places never really felt like home.

The house grew much bigger during the renovation, and much fancier; every doorway now had a small glass window above it and wooden details were placed everywhere your eyes glanced. Each of my siblings and I had our own rooms, as well as a shared play space downstairs. This is where I grew up. This is where we got both our dogs, and our first one spent her last days. This is where my family would run to the beach in the summers, and have family game nights growing up. This is where my sisters and I would put on dance shows in the backyard. This is where I learned to ride a bike without training wheels, and where I had my first kiss. This is where I cried when my first boyfriend broke up with me. This is the house I said goodbye to when I moved to Vancouver to go to school.

My parents moved again after I had been in school for a few years. The new house is nice, it’s smaller and more modern, but it’s not home. I know home is supposed to be wherever your family is, and in a way for me that’s true, but my family is my home. The house I grew up in holds all of my childhood memories and adolescent dramas. When I think of home, that’s where I picture it.

The alpha predators of each habitat, from all over the globe, gathered together in one place to determine who was the top predator of the world. To win, and become the alpha predator of the world, the species would need to frighten off the other predators, until they were the last ones there.

The wolves surrounded the others, growling, bearing their teeth, and barking.

The tigers growled and presented their sharp teeth.

The polar bears stood on their hind legs, showing their size and claws while they growled.

The cheetahs ran through the brush and around the others in the blink of an eye.

The crocodiles snaked along the rivers and snapped their jaws shut, created splashes.

Each act was frightening. Each species shuddered along to the performances, but remained rigid in their belief that they were the superior predator.

Now, it was the humans turn. The other species glanced around at the others, trying not to erupt in laughter. There was nothing scary about the humans; they weren’t large in size, they didn’t have claws or sharp teeth, and they couldn’t run faster than the others.

One human stepped forward and began to speak. The other animals gathered closer to listen.

The story the human told was an awful thing full of fear and slaughter, disease and blood. A story of murderous mischief. And when the telling was done, the other animals quickly agreed that the humans had won.

“Okay you win,” they said, “but what you said just now – it isn’t so funny. It doesn’t sound so good. We are doing okay without it. We can get along without that kind of thing. Take it back. Call that story back.”

But, of course, it was too late. For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world.

___________________________________________________________________

I chose to change the witches to predator animal species because I think it would be very fitting if each alpha predator type were competing to see which species is the ultimate alpha. I think it relates more to childrens stories and would be an interesting change. However, I do not think that animals are evil in any sense of the matter, only humans, which is why I decided to change the story so that the humans invent and bring evil into the world. This is also a play on what humans are knowingly doing to the earth and the animal’s habitats.

Through the telling of this story, I have learned that even after writing and memorizing the story, the details change depending on who I’m telling it to. Maybe I’ll include more animals and more descriptions of their frightful presentations, maybe I’ll focus more on what the human’s story involved and how the other species reacted. I learned that as a storyteller, you cater the story’s details to the audience.

Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality”.

The notion that cultures are either written or oral is completely false, especially in the context of current day, where new media forms such as television and podcast rely completely on written language to be produced, and are permanent. The overlap of written and oral culture is particularly clear in these media forms that have both qualities of oral culture and written culture, but do not fall completely into either category. For example, an episode of a television show needs written word to produce the scripts, schedules, advertisements, and much more, while it also relies on the orality of its cast to communicate to the viewers. In addition, viewers of the program can watch the episode orally, by just listening to what the cast says, or with written language, by using subtitles. Subtitles allow television programs and movies to be more accessible to people with hearing loss or who are deaf, which is another example of how interwoven written and oral culture are. Some people in society may have disabilities or that allow them to only communicate through one form of either written or oral culture. However, as a society, we have made much of everyday life accessible for people with these disabilities by interweaving oral and written culture even further, by allowing the same program on television, for example, to be viewed with either, or both, written and oral language. Even without the example of new media forms, written culture and oral culture overlap in our everyday lives. Much of our everyday communication is orally based, such as our general greetings or getting to know a co-worker, for example. However, we tend to document information we find important, such as medical records, birth certificates, much of history, and maybe even our own feelings or experiences in a journal entry. In cultures that were considered written cultures throughout history, all did not completely rely on written word alone, they also used oral communication. The use of the terms primary orality and secondary orality seem to illustrate the interlinked complexities of the discussion, highlighting that different cultures may use written and oral word in different ways, but that they use both. The term ‘oraliture’ describes the need for both oral and written word in Haiti, observed by Edouard Glissant. The use of new media such as television shows, social media, and podcasts combines oral culture and written culture even further, complicating the discussion even further.

Work Cited

Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/