Monthly Archives: March 2014

3.3: Names

Posted on by
2

I was assigned pages 69-81 in Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water. I chose specifically to focus on three characters from those pages: Ahdamn, First Woman, and Cereno. They share a similar story that goes beyond time and space and seem to parallel and push at each other.

 

Ahdamn
Ahdamn is one of those names that must be said orally in order to understand its reference. It is here that Thomas King merges orality and literacy together. I had initially, before understanding the reference, pronounced Ahdamn’s name in my head as “Ah, dam”. Ahdamn is the biblical Adam and King’s choice to rename Adam helps in “signifying his literal damnation” (Davidson et al. 45).

However, in the excerpt I was assigned, Ahdamn takes up another name: Tonto. Tonto is an American-imagined Indian and sidekick to the Lone Ranger. He was introduced on the radio waves in 1933, a month after The Lone Ranger aired. He was portrayed as a wise and fiercely loyal Indian with broken English, but stereotypical of Indian portrayals of the time.

The rangers in King’s story do not share the same fondness of Tonto as audiences of The Lone Ranger did. “That’s a stupid name, says those rangers. Maybe we should call him Little Beaver or Chingachgook or Blue Duck” (King 71). Again, Ahdamn is given more names, each more and more stereotypically Indian, or at least what is perceived as Indian in the to the white rangers. 

In the end, Ahdamn questions First Woman. He asks, “But who is Tonto?” He never gets his answer as soldiers capture them. Perhaps by having Ahdamn ask who Tonto is, King is implying that Tonto’s existence is unknown to First Nations culture. It further proves the notion that Tonto is a white man’s creation.

 

First Woman
First Woman takes up many identities and can also be assumed to be many as well. From a Christian point of view, First Woman is Eve. She is the one to offer food to GOD and she and Ahdamn eat “those apples and that pizza and that fry bread” (King 69). They live in the garden and ultimately; it is First Woman’s decision to leave it.

Almost in every possible, First Woman is Eve – but only if you view it in the Christian lens. She disobeys GOD and eats the food. She leads Ahdamn out of the garden, in the same way that some Christians view Eve as the reason and the fall of mankind. However, First Woman rejects this identity.

First Woman is able to fluidly assume other identities. In my excerpt, First Woman becomes the Lone Ranger while donning the mask. In this way, she is able to hide her “racial and sexual otherness” (David et al. 106). She becomes both man and white, going from the lowest power of position (Indian and woman) to the highest (white and man).

 

Sergeant Cereno (and the Rangers)
I will not divulge too much into Cereno and the allusions made from King’s choice of name, but rather, I will focus on the connection between the rangers and Cereno. I believe they parallel each other in this excerpt: Cereno and the rangers are both people of the law and have a tendency of projecting their own assumptions, beliefs, and ideas upon the subjects in which they are interacting with.

In Dr. Hovaugh’s office, Sergeant Cereno’s first series of actions is to introduce himself and present his police badge to the doctor. By doing this, he has asserted his position over Dr. Hovaugh even as Cereno is the one entering a place in which he does not belong. In the same way, it is possible to extrapolate this point towards the colonization of Indigenous land. The rangers in the story of First Woman and Ahdamn are the colonizers, killing Indians and taking the land. Cereno’s power is further exemplified when Dr. Hovaugh and Cereno talk about his thirty-eight caliber gun.

Throughout Cereno’s interactions with Babo and Dr. Hovaugh, he is insistent on being called “Sergeant”. He refuses to take up any other name given to him. This is interesting to connect to Ahdamn and First Woman, who easily take up names given to them by the rangers and others alike.

The interaction between Cereno and Dr. Hovaugh can hardly be called an interaction – if you call two people talking and neither listening to the other an interaction. Cereno continues to fire questions at the doctor, while Dr. Hovaugh is lost in his world. Cereno does not care to listen, but rather tries his hardest to get the answers to the questions he is asking. He makes no effort to listen to anything else.

“So, what exactly were they being treated for?”

“Depression,” said Dr. Hovaugh.

“Are they sociopaths?”

“Good heavens, no.”

“But you said they might be dangerous.” (King 76)

The rangers are similar in the way they immediately assume First Woman to be the Lone Ranger and Ahdamn as a dangerous (and stupid) Indian. They do not ask who First Woman or Ahdamn is, but rather forces their assumptions onto them.

 

Names and Assumptions
As someone whom enjoys writing fiction, names are really important to me. Before I can even begin writing any type of original fiction, I spend (way too much of) my time scouring the web for the perfect name with the perfect meaning.

So it is very interesting to me the names King uses and the allusions that come along with it, either directly or indirectly. King doesn’t spend a lot of his time describing his characters to us. He will give us names and from there, we must build the character he wants us to know. Cereno and the rangers do the very same thing; they take the knowledge they have of Indians, of what is dangerous to them, of what needs to be known and not known, and paints what they will of what they think is true.

First Woman and Ahdamn, on the other hand, take on these assumptions and builds from them as well. They do not fight them like Cereno does. It’s an interesting sort of irony that develops between the rangers, and First Woman and Ahdamn. They are being fooled by the very people they call ‘stupid’.

In my opinion, I’m not sure whether it is a good or bad thing that First Woman and Ahdamn must disguise themselves in order to survive. On one hand, it’s clever and funny at the expense of the rangers. On the other hand, the idea of Indian-ness is so skewed for the rangers that First Woman and Ahdamn must adhere to them in order to avoid being killed. And all while First Woman and Ahdamn are Indian themselves.

Again, the theme of ‘what is what’ has surfaced yet again on my blog. There are so many ideas on what things should look like, be, or act. And sometimes these ideas move so far beyond reality that they become fictive realities.

First Woman and Ahdamn are Indian, but at times, they cannot afford to be Indian.

 

References

Davidson, Arnold E., Priscilla L. Walton, and Jennifer Courtney Elizabeth Andrews. Border Crossings: Thomas King’s Cultural Inversions. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2003.
King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 1993. Print.

3.1: Multicultural in White

Posted on by
6

In my ninth grade social studies class, we spent the majority of the year learning about medieval Europe, the Crusades, and then the renaissance. The last two weeks of school, we did express group circles where one group would do a fast-paced read on the part of the chapter that was dedicated to a small piece of a non-European country’s history. For example, for 75 minutes, I learned all about the Qing Dynasty, from the 1600s and all the way to the 1800s.

In tenth grade, we spent a month or two re-enacting the Canadian Confederation. We dressed up, acted as representatives of a Canadian province or territory and voted. We wrote mock ups and memorized the names of important Confederates. We did this until all provinces and territories agreed to become Canada.

In eleventh grade, we played World War. We acted as countries, passed notes around, made allies and attacked others. I also learned Canada has the cleanest water in the world.

In my final year of high school, I took a history course. Everyday, we learned about World War II again. We made notes from textbooks and answered the questions that were basically reiterations of our notes. Our teacher finally gave us an assignment that we could do on our own and I chose to write about the Japanese Internment camps. I got a check for “good job”. After Christmas, I dropped out of the course because I couldn’t be bothered with learning about things I had already learned about the year before. I was also irrationally angry with Archduke Franz Ferdinand (how could one guy create a whole war?!?!)

I do remember learning about the Iroquois in grade four. We studied their culture and made a mural in our classroom of a loghouse. I thought First Nations culture was so amazing. So I was even more excited to write and design a “textbook” about a First Nations culture in grade ten. I got lucky and received the Haida as my topic. The assignment was that we would have to do all the research on our own, develop chapters and categories, write out discussion questions, and design layouts. I vaguely remember talking about potlatches, not exactly understanding what it was and just knowing they were banned for some reason or another.

The point of my long rehash of my historical studies in high school and elementary is to point out that I learned a hell a lot about Europe and hardly anything about Canada (aside from the Confederation). So, imagine my surprise, when in my fourth year of university, and I finally get to learn about Canada – like really learn. As in, not just only pinpointing where Hope is on a map of British Columbia or which Great Lakes are Canadian or American – but learning about Canada during WWII when I thought I had learned it all (all I learned about Canada during the World Wars was that they fought in Passchendaele and everybody forgot they did), or about the Indian Residential Schools that pretty much happened yesterday if we put everything in context with the time frame of the history of the world.

I learned all of this – in detail – in the past few months since first semester. Of course, we dabbled on the Immigration Acts here and there, read literature about Chinese railway workers, but it was never explicit. It was always about the War of 1812, or about the HBC in canoes looking for beavers, or how the First Nations of Canada got small pox and all died.

So in my experiences, why is it that it took me so long to learn about Canada when I live in Canada? Why is it that history seems to only revolve about Europe and the World Wars, and 75 minutes is enough to cover centuries within China? Japan may have invaded Manchuria but why did they do that? What were the effects? Where have all the First Nations gone now that they had supposedly either died from disease and poverty or had “sold” all their land?

In 1988, the Progressive Conservative government passed the Multiculturalism Act that promoted the equality of all cultures and deemed English and French as the official languages of Canada. So Canada became officially multicultural and bilingual.

Vic Satzewich and Nikolaos Liodakis do a good job in summarizing the four principles that guided federal multiculturalism:

  1. The federal government would support all of Canada’s cultures and seek to assist the development of those cultural groups that had demonstrated a desire and effort to continue developing a capacity to grow and contribute to Canada as well as a clear need for assistance.
  2. The government would assist all cultural groups to overcome the cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society.
  3. The government would promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity.
  4. The government would continue to assist immigrants in acquiring at least one of Canada’s two official languages in order that they would become full participants in Canadian society.

At first glance, the Multiculturalism Act seems to encourage a variety of ethnicities to grow and exist. Although, Satzewich and Liodakis argue that these sentiments of multiculturalism came into policies because of economic reasons: to increase globalization by “embracing” cultures. Taking a closer look at the wording of these principles, the growth of these groups is essential only in the idea that they will eventually contribute to “Canadian society”.

This begs the question: what is Canadian society?

Daniel Coleman talks about the “fictive ethnicity” of a country and how, for Canada, British whiteness “occupies the position of normalcy and privilege” (7). So, although Canada may be multicultural, its history is mainly seen through the lens of the European. It doesn’t even see itself at all. My education of Canadian history in high school shows it.

One of the criticisms of multiculturalism is that it works in a way that ghettoizes cultures. This means cultures, other than the dominant culture, become commodified or as a piece that is only showcased when needed in certain places and certain times. Take the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics for example: in the opening ceremony, “Canadian culture” and Aboriginal culture was mainly advertised. But looking at Vancouver, you can see there is a vast variety of cultures other than the two “main” ones.

How I viewed Aboriginal culture in elementary school was similar to how I thought of Greek mythology. I was only taught its culture in terms of pre-colonialism and given the idea that it was wonderful and special, but that it was something that had ended and which is no longer relevant in modern society. I looked at Aboriginal culture with an air of nostalgia.

Aboriginal culture, to me then, seemed to exist separately, outside of the time frame and space of Canada. Coleman writes, “[…] at the same time that civility involves the creation of justice and equality, it simultaneously creates borders to the sphere in which justice and equality are maintained” (9). In other words, by encouraging multiculturalism, it also draws light to the separation or deviation from the “dominant culture”.

There is also the assumption that these cultures exist but are only allowed to exist so long as the dominant “Canadian society” exists above all else. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French sociologist, wrote about dominant ideals and how these ideals were not always the best ideals. They are only seen as the best and as the majority because the most powerful advertise them in this way. So, to many, Canada’s “fictive ethnicity” seems to be the best ethnicity and all others secular.

A good example of this, comes from a Facebook post a friend of mine sent to me:

click to enlarge

There are several different points of view in this post. The first being the idea that advertisements should all be written in the official languages of Canada. Another is the idea that, if English is not the main language, then French is the only other acceptable one to use. There is also, my favourite, the idea that if this advertisement was written in French, then nobody would be able to read it at all.

The third point of view understands the importance of context. This sign was displayed in Richmond, a city with a large Chinese demographic. So, in an advertiser’s point of view, it would make sense to cater to the major demographic than, say, the Francophone demographic.

So why did Telus not place the ad in English? I’m not sure. Does it have to? Not exactly.

It’s interesting that Canada prides itself in multiculturalism, but language seems to differ from this ideation in this situation. Perhaps it’s because English and French are called the official languages and this distinction is viewed as separate from multiculturalism. Is then multiculturalism and by extension, the freedom to use language, a privilege or a right?

This is yet another criticism of multiculturalism – that ethnic differences are contained within certain places and times. Celebrating ethnic holidays is encouraged, but once the celebration is over and things like the bus ad appear in public outside of the “appropriate” space and/or time, it is no longer welcomed. All because, Canada’s “fictive ethnicity” is essentially British whiteness and this still occupies positions of normalcy and privilege (Coleman 7).

I am not arguing that multiculturalism is “bad” or not good enough. In my opinion, it is less problematic than complete assimilation. However, multiculturalism is not perfect. There are problems such as the underlying assumption that these multiple cultures will eventually assimilate into what is supposed to be the “Canadian society”. What exactly is “Canadian society” then? I believe this definition varies from place to place and time to time. It may very well mean something different to different people.

 

References:

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2006. 14-56.

De Tocqueville, Alexis. “Tyranny of the Majority.” Classical Sociological Theory. Ed. Craig Calhoun, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and Indermohan Virk. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 122-32. Print.

Satzewich, Vic, and Nikolaos Liodakis. “Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Quebec Interculturalism.” “Race” and Ethnicity in Canada. 3rd ed. Ontario: Oxford UP Canada, 2013. 159-87. Print.