Question 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 the story.

Until this point I had not given much thought to the different experiences one encounters when reading, reading aloud and being read to.  In fact I don’t think I had ever tried reading aloud for the sake of personal intake prior to this experiment.  As someone who does not enjoy reading I have always found it difficult to retain information and to not daydream.  As a child i enjoyed being read to but have not had the pleasure as of late.  Below are my findings from this interesting literary experiment.

Reading (silently):

Again I will point out that I do not enjoy reading documents that I have not chosen to read myself.  I find it quite tedious actually.  As was the case when reading “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”.  I found my mind wandering to the vast stresses of life would frequently have to stop and backtrack.  I found it difficult to absorb.  My brain resisted.  Pleasure was not a result.

Reading aloud to self:

This I found to be a difficult task. Not the reading part but the listening to self part.  It seems I am incapable of doing both at the same time.  I knew the story already but feel as if I would have had more difficulty understanding had that been my first encounter with the literature.

Reading to another:

Much the same experience of reading aloud to myself.  I was more focused on the words than the meaning.

Having it read to me:

This is the winning method when it comes to retention, understanding, and enjoyment.  I was able to extract some level of pleasure from listening to rather than reading the story.

When I read to myself it feels more like a scientific practice in which I am looking for factual data.  Come to think of it I do enjoy reading nonfiction but not fiction.  However I enjoy listening to fictional stories it would seem.  Carlson speaks of a level of historical accuracy in western literature, that factual data that perhaps I was subconsciously seeking (57).  Admittedly history is far from being one hundred percent accurate but still the grade eleven textbooks I read about war and colonialism and such provided what were presented as concrete facts and concepts that my young brain was able to connect with.  Coyote was far too abstract for my liking and thus proved challenging at least when considering it a historical representation.

As I listened to the story I began to make sense of the symbolism embedded in Coyote’s tale.  Only as a listening activity was I able to dissect any historical context and make sense of it.  This could very much be a personal experience unique to me but somehow I feel that, even if not to the same degree, others would get the most out of listening.  This “association literature” that King discusses in “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial” began to make sense.

For those of you who did not choose to write about this topic I recommend trying out the read-to-self versus listening exercise.

Which method was most enjoyable/productive for you?

Works Cited:

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: University of Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.

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.

 

 

 

Question 2:

In this lesson I say that our capacity for understanding or making meaningfulness from the first stories is seriously limited for numerous reasons and I briefly offer two reasons why this is so: 1) the social process of the telling is disconnected from the story and this creates obvious problems for ascribing meaningfulness, and 2) the extended time of criminal prohibitions against Indigenous peoples telling stories combined with the act of taking all the children between 5 – 15 away from their families and communities. In Wickwire’s introduction to Living Stories, find a third reason why, according to Robinson, our abilities to make meaning from first stories and encounters is so seriously limited. To be complete, your answer should begin with a brief discussion on the two reasons I present and then proceed to introduce and explain your third reason from Wickwire’s introduction.

Before I begin responding to the above question I would like to make a quick point.  You’ll see that the title I have given this assignment includes the word ‘our’ along with a question mark.  This is because I am confused as to whether or not it is appropriate for me to call the history of  those who inhabited this land long before i did MY history.  As mentioned in my previous post my definition of a Canadian is someone who holds Canadian citizenship.  I was born in Canada and I am Canadian but is the history of this land mine.  My ancestors originate in Britain but I know little more than that.  I know more about Canada’s history and the history of this land before it was known as Canada but I am not considered to be a native person by many.  If I am not of First Nations origin is it okay to call their history my own?

Speaking first to the two points mentioned in the question about why is is difficult to make meaningfulness of the first stories today.  First we have the disruption of the modern storytelling process in contrast to how the stories were meant to have been told, orally and in public.  We now know, having read the required readings for this assignment, that these “stories” were far from being meaningless and that they were in fact a political act (Thom, 9).  Just as we would discuss (and document) land ownership is a court of law today, the First Nations peoples of the time would assert their ownership by way of storytelling.  Ownership not in the sense we may think of today but in a way that expressed the culture and land uses of the day.  A story for those who knew the importance the land played in terms of survival.  For a person to make sense of such a story today would require extensive knowledge of the lives and culture of the First Nations people who were doing the telling.  And as each village had its own tradition concerning the origin of the world this would likely prove an impossible task, even for anthropologists (Thom, 7).

The second point mentioned was the extended period of time for which such storytelling was disallowed by the non-indigenous people of Canada.  Story-telling is such an integral component to the history of First Nations peoples that to forcibly eliminate it was akin to cultural genocide.  It would be equivalent to destroying all of the knowledge a given society had accumulated over time.  And it not only eliminated the past but the present and future as such story-telling practices were not allowed to continue for such a long time that the process itself has been largely forgotten.

For my third point I will elaborate more on the forced cultural changes that occurred when First Nations children were forbidden from being exposed to the oral history culture.  Children are sponges.  Young people have the ability to absorb knowledge at an astonishing rate even if that knowledge is not related to their own culture.  My point is that by teaching these children that their way or story-telling is wrong and that written history is the way to go, they not only missed out on hearing stories while away at residential schools but also any chance of being able to acquire knowledge this way in the future.  And they would continue to pass on what they learned to their children, and their children to the next generation and so on, essentially destroying the oral historical component of the First Nations peoples.

 

References:

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2.2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2013. Web. Feb. 18, 2016.

Thom, Brian. “The Anthropology of Northwest Coast Oral Traditions.” Arctic Anthropology 40.1 (2003): 1-28. Web. Feb. 18, 2016.

Wickwire, Wendy. “The Grizzly Gave Them the Song: James Teit and Franz Boas Interpret Twin Ritual in Aboriginal British Columbia, 1897-1920”. American Indian Quarterly 25.3 (2001): 431–452. Web. Feb 18, 2016.

 

It was fascinating to read what everyone had to say about this abstract concept of home.  I have narrowed my observations down to three categories, ones which I found most interesting.

1. Home as an emotion.

Ask the average person where their home is and they will likely give you some kind of location or direction to a physical place or structure.  I was surprised to find that many of us had some greater definition of home, one which included not just the house but was very inclusive.

2. People define home.

A common factor in determining where home is was the connection with people who were important in our lives.  Home is where parents or siblings or children or neighbors are.  Many of us left the familiarity of home behind when we relocated to Canada and left family and friends behind.

3. Home and culture go hand in hand.

From what I read, one must feel a social and cultural connection with the place in which their home is.  For example, if an entire family moved from Canada to Peru, they may not feel at home just because their family is intact.  Home may change location but it often takes time, a long time, for the feeling of home to catch up to the person or people who have relocated.

For me, it took relocating to from Vancouver to find my home.  The opposite of what many had encountered.  So what I have come to realize is that home is a very individual concept and means different things to different people.

 

 

 

Home is a word without a definite meaning.  An individual may be able to define what it means to them but as I have found out the concept of home is not necessarily an easy one to grasp.  In the twenty-seven years I have been alive, there have been many places I referred to as my home.  Home in a physical sense could be a building, a location, a place, even the womb in a way could be defined as a home.  There is also home as a feeling.  This feeling could be comfort or serenity but could also be emotions with negative connections.  Home can also be a combination of physical and psychological.  It is also important to differentiate between house and home.  Many would argue that the physicality of home is the house but in my experience this is not always the case.

Having grown up and having stayed put in the same place for the first decade or so of my life, my concept of home was quite strong and unchanging.  It was the only home I had ever had and it represented comfort as well as a base for which to always return.  I grew up on the outskirts of a village, Naramata, in British Columbia’s interior.  Free time was spent exploring the orchards and gullies that surrounded my home.  I was comfortable there.  At the age of twelve I left that comfort for suburban Metro Vancouver, a landscape foreign to me at that time.  Despite the sudden change I was quite happy to move to the city yet I don’t know, looking back now, that I ever came to think of it as home.  Over the next few years I would change houses a number of times, sometimes living in cramped condos, and never really feeling connected to the places, physical places, I was living.

Over time I began to feel disconnected with the culture and society that surrounded me.  I had friends and family and I did have some connections but as a whole I did not feel like Metro Vancouver was my home.  Realizing that something needed to be done I upped and left and moved to Japan.

Things of course were very different there and I never would have expected to feel more comfortable in this foreign nation than in the one I was born in but I did.  Whatever feeling of home I had abandoned in my first home, the village in rural British Columbia, had returned.  I was happy again and felt a connection not felt for more than a decade.  So how do I explain this?

As I mentioned before, home is not just a place but a combination of the physical and psychological that surrounds an individual and makes them feel comfort and security and safety.  Home is a state of mind.  Home does not have to be the place you live and home for many people may cease to exist for periods of time.  Natania Rosenfeld, in her story, What is Home?, talks about this search for a place to call home (Rosenfeld, 3).  Rosenfeld goes on to say that home is a place of internal and external comfort and acceptance, a theory I connected with.

For me, I believe that my disconnection with society resulted in my feeling of psychological homelessness, if you will.  It took a drastic change of scene for me to revive that feeling of being home.  And it really was a relief to have that feeling again.  Being back in Metro Vancouver I feel a sense of homesickness. The only other time I have felt such a feeling is when I reminisce about my time spent growing up in Naramata.  I am not sure if the feeling of home I encounter in Japan is the same feeling as the one I felt living in rural BC but it is as close a feeling as I have felt since.

I wonder, for those of you who have lived in multiple countries, if you can relate to any of the abstract things I have stated above.  Please leave your comments!

Thanks for reading 🙂

Sources:

Rosenfeld, Natania. “What is Home?” Southwest Review98.1 (2013): 45. Web.

 

 

The following is an adaptation of Leslie Silko‘s tale telling of how evil first came to be.

A22 entered the world at dawn on a cold winter’s day.  The third child of proud parents A7 and A940.  Relatives from far and wide had come to be present for the birth and after the excitement of the delivery, focus soon turned to the upcoming feast which was to commemorate A22’s birth.  Everyone pitched in except of course for A22, A7, and A940 who, after 17 hours in labor, retired to bed so that they would be well rested come dinner time.  Not even the clanging of pots and pans would wake this child.  The family awoke hours later to find a feast fit for a king (if kings were still a thing).  There were plates heaping with all sorts of delicious fruits and fruit dishes, all freshly and lovingly prepared.  A22 and A940 graciously thanked their family and friends for putting in so much work to make this special day all the more special.

A22’s siblings, A20 and A21, were thrilled to have a new baby in the family.  They took on many of the responsibilities involved in child raising and did so happily.  Neighbors and strangers alike helped one another in all sorts of ways too.  Those who faced challenges with their mobility, those who had a bad crop, anyone who needed help received it without even asking. That is just how things were.

A few days later, while collecting seashells on the beach, A20 came across a body that appeared to have washed ashore.  A20 called out for help and everyone who heard came to help.  This person was alive but barely.  They were dressed in tattered clothes and thin, very thin.  After a warm bath, a hot meal, and some new clothes, this person was well enough to talk.  My name is K5, the person stated, and I have fled my homeland.  K5 went on in great detail about how a once happy existence in his homeland had turned to chaos after two neighbors had a dispute over land.  Things deteriorated quickly and one neighbor set fire to the other neighbor’s crop.  The drought-stricken, parched land went up in flame within seconds and by day’s end most of the island had been torched.  Things had been bad enough due to the drought but now, even the meager harvest had been destroyed in the fire.  Tough times, it would seem, brought out the worst in people.

This was all quite a shock to the As who could not understand how people could turn against one another so quickly.  They had known nothing but peace for their entire existence and tough times were always overcome by the community working together.  They also didn’t understand why two people would argue over land as all the land on their island was shared amongst the community.  K5 was welcomed into this community and given a place to live.  k5 was happy to have been accepted and adjusted quickly to this new found society.  But a few days later, boatloads of people from K5’s island began to arrive.  They too were in bad shape but all of the As helped out to provide food and shelter for the Ks.  Everyone was friendly to one another and get to know each other and hear the stories about the difficult life on the island they had fled.

One day A940 awoke to find K71 erecting a fence around a portion of land not far from their home. “Give me a hand, would you” K71 shouted from across the field.  “Of course” said A490. “What are you building”?  K71 proclaimed that this was to be their new property.  A940, slightly uncomfortably, stated that the land belonged to the community and that his family would be happy to feed and house K71 and K71’s family if they liked.  “No, this will be my home”, K71 stated, and that was the end of the conversation.  

More and more came to the island and more and more fences went up.  Weeks passed, and an uneasy feeling fell over the island.  All of the As, who had been so kind and helpful to the Ks in their time of need, were now suffering as a result.  

Months pass.

Resources are extracted.

Land is abused.

Selfish ways ensue.

A dispute arises.

A match is lit.

A22.

 

Evil does not exist, but selfishness may not be too far from it.  Stop.  Think.  Act with compassion.

 

The preceding story does not necessarily represent the author’s personal views/beliefs.

 

I reference Silko’s tale roughly in this adaptation of how “evil first came to be”.  This is my first attempt at writing fiction, or adapted fiction, and I had not a clear path in mind when I began to write.  I feel as if this story could have gone in many directions and also as if it was bound by the concept of what I perceive to be colonization.  I took more of a literal approach to this theme but home that my focus on peace is what stands out.  To be one hundred percent honest I find it very difficult and stressful living in Canada (Vancouver) today because many, not all, people are incredibly selfish.  To those who have faced challenges such as those of the characters in my story I feel compassion.  I face a constant internal battle about whether to let go or intensify and go after those who are “evil”.  I am still trying to figure out which has the best outcome.

I am far to ashamed of myself to share this with anyone other to the one who I am closest to. This person shared my feelings of, lets call it, outrage towards those who are selfish.  At this point in time (1:10PM, February 1, 2016) I don’t see a major difference between evil and selfishness.  They are comparable.  Any act one commits whether major or minor should first undergo a process in which the feelings of others are interpreted.  To do otherwise is ____________ (fill in the blank).

There is also a hint of current affairs thrown in to the story for no other reason to provoke conversation.

Evil, what’s up with that?

Referenced Material:

King, T. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. House of Anansi. 2003. Online.

Silko, L. M. Ceremony. Penguin Books. 1986. Print.