Assignment 1:3 – Question 6
I really enjoyed Chamberlain’s If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. I really appreciated the metaphors he used and the language he used to discuss his stance on the topic of oral cultures vs. literate cultures. In the last chapter specifically, there were many points and analogies made by Chamberlain that really resonated with me and got me thinking.
The first thing that I really enjoyed was when he was talking about the Gitksan story about the Grizzly Bear and the Scientific tests that both served as evidence or proof of the same story. With the story of the Grizzly Bear, it was the story itself that the people believed in. For others who were sceptical of the story, science added another layer, showing geological and scientific indicators that an event similar to that described by the story had indeed happened. For me, perspective is everything. This example reminds me of an analogy a previous professor of mine used throughout his course of his course being like a journey on a train; although we are all going to the same place and seeing the same things, everyone is looking out a different window and therefore see’s different parts of the same picture. He also stressed the importance of sharing what we see out of our imaginary windows so the group can see the picture more fully than if they only focused on what they themselves had seen. I see great value in looking at anything with more than one perspective and I really enjoyed seeing this practice used in reality with this story.
The second thing I liked about the last chapter is the quote (among others): “Instead of two truths we might say two stories, which together help us chart the convergence of imagination and reality.” (Chamberlain, 222) I thought this was a beautiful way to get people to understand how to look at perspectives. The word truth for me implies a singularity, whereas stories may be told and retold, shaped and reshaped. When we think of perspectives as stories rather than truths, it opens up the door to looking at things from multiple angles and accepting that there is no one true story, but an infinite library of perspectives. I thought Chamberlain worded it so beautifully and so accurately, making it stand out in my mind as I was reading and making me think about stories and perspectives on a deeper level than just “he said-she said”.
The third thing I found interesting in the final chapter was yet another quote. Chamberlain says “We may not agree to eat together at the end of the day, but at least we can show some respect for each others table manners, and perhaps even understand that they were not specifically designed to exclude us.” (Chamberlain, 227) This passage made me think of two things. The first is the two row wampum belt, which signifies two vessels going parallel along a path with a mutually respecting relationship, neither interfering or harming the other. This was meant to symbolize the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Colonial settlers, and Chamberlains words about not agreeing to eat together yet respecting the other reminded me of that idea of parallelism and mutual respect. The second made me think about the disconnect people see between orality and literacy, and how they see them as opposites- barbaric and civilized even. Yet when Chamberlain says “not specifically designed to exclude us”, it speaks to how neither tradition is more advanced than the other, they are just different yet very much the same.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2004. Print.
Keefer, Tom. “A Short Introduction to the Two Row Wampum.” – Briarpatch Magazine. N.p., 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 19 May 2016.
York, Fiona. “Land Rights Case of the Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en: “A Gross and Arrogant Miscarriage of Justice”” Peace and Environment News, June 1991. Web. 19 May 2016.
This is a refreshing take on Chamberlin’s book. As a scholar who spends much of time my time looking for the middle ground, his opinions and metaphors that illustrate the grey area in story telling, and ultimately inter-group relations in Canada, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Responding specifically to your third paragraph about “table manners”, I am wondering if there is a way in which his idealism can be implemented. I would be curious what an action plan on how to bridge the gap between literature and orality. This particular topic is very interesting to me. How does one build credibility, when the fundamental practices and beliefs, are at least in practice, so far apart? When arrogance and pride, in particular from the European side, is so prevalent that the social stratification seems insurmountable, I cheer on the idealism of Chamberlin’s approach, but am left puzzling over how the conflicting mindsets are to be overcome.
Great comment Sean. I think the most important and fundamental thing with regards to implement this optimism is respect. Once the two parties share a mutual respect for one another, they may come up with a solution that does not discredit the other. I think before any concrete plans can be made to take steps towards creating some sort of system that works for both parties is both parties fully understanding each other and acknowledging the others’ system as equal and legitimate.
When you say “perspective is everything,” you seem to be emphasizing a moral relativism whereby a person’s moral/ethical positions are justifiable in and of themselves. Because “everyone is looking out of a different window” into the same world and simply applying their learned ideas and perceptions, no one is right and no one is wrong. There is power in that, and you’re right that using such an idea can enhance our understandings of “others” and grant us with a fuller picture of whatever we intend to analyse.
However, moral relativism runs up against a major issue, as does everything. With it, any action is justifiable. I was unable to find it, but I once saw a cartoon that went something like this: under the heading “ETHICAL RELATIVISM,” one person is killing another, and a third says, “What are you doing?!” The first answers, “I’m a Nazi,” and the third replies, “Oh. Never mind then.” The idea here is that it is the first person’s belief that systematically removing an entire race is justified. When you take the position of ethical relativism, you have to accept their belief and render it justified, or good. The same kind of logic could be applied to the Canadian colonial context and the residential school system.
Given the hazards of moral relativism, of “perspective is everything,” how far do you think such a theory should be taken? Are there universal ethics that should limit all perspectives? And if so, who gets to create those universal ethics?
Big questions, I know. But they’re always the most important ones.
Interesting point. I guess I never considered the extreme that this mindset could be taken to. I guess what I was trying to say was not so much that perspective is everything and anything is okay as long as you look at it from the perspective in which it was done. But that in order to understand the full picture of something, you need to take more than one (if possible, all) perspectives into account in order to fully understand what is happening and why it is happening.