- “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.
Hi Claire!
I found your interpretation of Robinson’s origin story very interesting. I personally felt that the white twins banishment for lying was because he had been given a second chance to do good and fix his error and he didn’t take it i.e. it was bad of him to take the paper but not admitting that he did it made it worse. This has a modern parallel in the process of Truth and Reconciliation wherein one of the first goals is the acknowledgement of residential school experiences and their impact (http://www.trc.ca/about-us/our-mandate.html). Acknowledging or admitting to wrongs has a large impact as does lying about committing wrongs. Acknowledging wrongs can be the first step to fixing them, a step which the white twin refused to take. He therefore didn’t fix his wrong which made him deserving of his banishment.
While reading through your post I wondered about different conceptions and definitions of lying. I can see why you say that the Europeans didn’t lie to the Indigenous people in order to take their land. It wasn’t an outright lie, it isn’t as though they said they were just borrowing it and would return it but never did. However, I wonder if it is fair to say that that Europeans lied to themselves as well as the Indigenous people when they imposed their own philosophical and religious beliefs on an already occupied land? Do you think that it is a lie to claim that only the European method of settlement constituted true ownership of land, even land previously under the jurisdiction of a different ideology? The European seizure of Indigenous land and territory was, in European eyes, justified because the land was not claimed by christianity, the land was not settled, the Indigenous people were not sophisticated enough to own land, etc. In my opinion, that was a lie because the land was very obviously occupied. But, to be very honest, I don’t know if I can call that a lie if they truly believed it was true. History is complicated!
Thanks,
Emily
Work Cited:
“Our Mandate” Truth and Reconciliation Comsission of Canada, http://www.trc.ca/about-us/our-mandate.html. Accessed 11 Feb. 2020.