After reading chapter 11 of Edward Chamberlin’s book, I found the three key elements of this chapter including the concept of unity, critically challenging the notion of authenticity of the contradictory truths, and the importance of ceremonies.

I was intrigued by the importance placed on the key concept of unity which is described as a remedy in efforts to abolish the dichotomous ideology of the “us vs. them” phenomena. The concept of unity in Chamberlin’s final chapter is embedded with the powerful message that we need to increase our range of acceptance and tolerance for members of society who don’t all share the same religious/cultural/social values. The “us vs. them” concept is portrayed as an ideological barrier in the process of achieving societal unification, an argument that is reinforced in the text when Chamberlin cites the contracts between colonial settlers and the First Nations people to engage in the argument by stating that “nothing would change if underlying title were Aboriginal title. It would be a fiction. The facts of life would remain the same.” (Chamberlain 231). This quote exemplifies the notion that contemporary laws would not allow for any significant change in order to reverse historical tensions, Chamberlin also reinforces this argument by stating how a contemporary change to an underlying Aboriginal land title would not result in an Indian Chief sitting on his doorstep or walking into his home (231). The concept of unification is evident in Chamberlin’s example; the ability to adjust to the different elements of modern day society, opposed to living on the basis of historical tensions from the past which will further create an “us vs. them” ideology and potentially fuelling the cycle of conflicts on the basis of historical tensions.

The second key element in this chapter is the idea of the ‘contradictory truths’. The contradiction in the idea of what is believed to be ‘true’ is argued when Chamberlin analyzes the story about the grizzly bear ‘Mediik’ who destroyed the Stekyooden mountain after ignored warnings of his sign of anger towards the Gitskan people (219). The notion of the contradictory truths is applied when the courts seek scientific evidence as a form ‘authenticity’ that could reinforce the seven-thousand-year-old story that is considered ‘true’ to the Gitskan people (220). The problem associated with the ‘contradictory truth’ is shown when people ‘compare’ stories in efforts to find which one is actually true, which leads people to believe that one must be wrong. This was important to me because it shows the dangers of falsifying facts through comparisons, and leads me to question what I may believe to be considered ‘wrong’ in my life could actually be true. The notion of contradictory truths was also evident in Chamberlin’s point about his method for teaching through telling stories, yet citing the questions that arise associated to storytelling such as “What about the work of the real world?” (Chamberlin 235). I believe that a person’s ability to constructively apply the ‘story-telling’ method can create a sense of authenticity as it pertains to its association to what is considered ‘applicable to the real working world’.

The third significant point that I found in this chapter was the importance placed on ceremonies. I was interested by the importance of abolishing the differences that are embedded in ceremonial rituals, because I believe that Chamberlin argues the importance of practicing one’s own ritual and also maintaining a sense of unity are key components which help create the answer to his question “If this is your land, where are your stories?”, which is common ground (Chamberlin 240).

 

Works Cited

Clarke, Jeff K. “There Is No Us or Them, There’s Just Us.” Www.christianweek.org. Christian Week, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 20 May 2016.

Rutledge, Pamela B. “The Psychological Power of Storytelling.” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 16 Jan. 2011. Web. 20 May 2016.

PRSA Chicago Breakfast Workshop: ‘Unleash the Power of Storytelling to Build Trust and Influence Audiences’ | May 2014. 2014. Chicago. PRSA Chicago. Web. 20 May 2016.