Month: July 2016

Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW according to the pages assigned to you. Be sure to make use of Jane Flick’s reference guide on your reading list.

As a preface to this blog post, I will say that Green Grass Running Water was not an easy read for me. In researching about the connotations of the Four Old Indians, though, I hope to have gained at least a bit of a better understanding of King’s allusions and of his story in general. I strongly welcome feedback or additional insights from anyone reading!

Please note that the page numbers I’m drawing from, in the Kindle version of GGRW, will not coincide with print versions. The section I am covering, though, is the roughly 20 pages (pgs 100-126 in my Kindle) that detail aftermaths of the escape of the four Indians from Dr. Hovaugh’s institution.

The Four Old Indians

The names of the Four Old Indians (Hawkeye, Lone Ranger, Ishmael, and Robinson Crusoe) may initially strike readers (who are familiar with these allusions) as strange— strange because these names typically connotate White men rather than Indian men. From my own understanding, though, King chose these rather ironic names on purpose. In the book, the Four Old Indians are portrayed as clever; they “just disappear,” and their mystical escape from Dr. Joseph Hovaugh’s hospital coupled with their intent to fix the world places them into a heroic light (King, 100). Rather than being the forgotten sidekick, the Four Old Indians are in fact, the heroes. As you will see in my research that follows, the White man is usually depicted as the hero/saviour in literature and pop culture, while the Indian man is relegated to sidekick. In naming the Four Old Indians after these traditionally White heroic figures, King ultimately subverts and reclaims stereotypes and misconceptions about Indians, and in a way, effectively rewrites the original stories too.

Hawkeye
Nathaniel “Natty” Bumppo, aka Hawkeye, is the White frontiersman and protagonist/hero of James Fenimoore Cooper’s collection of novels called The Leatherstocking Tales. Although he has an Indian sidekick known as Chingachgook aka Indian John, depicted as a “noble savage” and the last of his tribe, Hawkeye himself has “knowledge of the ‘Indian ways'” (Flick,142).

Lone Ranger
Perhaps one of the most easily recognized allusions in GGRW and elsewhere, Lone Ranger is the hero of Western books, television series, and of numerous movies (Flick,141). He is portrayed as a masked and heroic man whose true identity is known only by his Indian companion, Tonto. Although Tonto is depicted as a virtuous sidekick to Lone Ranger, critics and scholars suggest that in rendering him unable to master the English language, his portrayal is ultimately one of intellectual inferiority.

Robinson Crusoe
Also a highly popular literary character, Robinson Crusoe is portrayed as the quintessential self-reliant man, stuck on an island for twenty-eight years. His Indian sidekick, Friday, however, is depicted as a cannibalistic and primitive man. Friday is also portrayed as being “saved” by Crusoe, who later teaches him English and converts him to Christianity. This is again a prime example of the noble savage being “redeemed” by Western/Eurocentric qualities, and clearly supports the notion that white = advanced while Indian = primitive.

Ishmael
A literary figure popularized by Moby Dick, Ishmael is the last standing character and the only survivor in the novel (Flick, 143). Though his sidekick, Queenqueg, is of South Pacific Islander descent, he is still representative of the non-White sidekick trope. Portrayed as a primitive cannibal, he is also a great friend of Ishmael’s. However it is Queenqueg who ultimately sinks and dies with the Pequod ship (which is named after the Pequot people, a Native American tribe) thus symbolizing the fall of the non-White character. Ishmael survives by staying afloat on the coffin Queenqueg preemptively asked to be made (he thought he was going to die of a fever), perhaps suggesting that Queenqueg was ultimately just a crutch for Ishmael, a means to his own (apparently more important) survival. This is consistent with all the sidekicks’ I’ve outlined- their survival or importance is always second to the White characters’. The figure of Ishmael could also be a reference to Abraham’s disavowed and first son, as depicted in religious texts, though, I am less certain as to how this may be connected to the larger context of GGRW. Thoughts, anyone?

Works Cited

“Chingachgook: Fictional Character.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2014. Web. 30 July 2016.

Flick, Jane “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water“. Toronto, Harper Collins, 1994. Web. 30 July 2016.

Kim, Wook. “Friday, Robinson Crusoe.” Time Magazine. Time Inc, 2016. 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 30 July 2016.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. HarperCollins Publishers E-Books. 2010. Kindle file.

“Noble Savage: Literary Concept.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2014. Web. 30 July 2016.

Schilling, Vincent. “7 Things You Should Know About the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.” Indian Country Today. Indian Country Today Media Network, LLC. 3 Sept. 2015. Web. 30 July 2016.

“Tonto: Fictional Character.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2014. Web. 30 July 2016.

Question 3

What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story or stories you are familiar with and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories ?

Growing up, I wasn’t knowledgeable about any one creation story in particular; perhaps I can partly attribute this to not being raised religiously, since most religions do contain some kind of narrative about the beginning of the world/mankind. Like many others, though, I did know bits and pieces of the biblical Genesis creation story (it’s hard not to living in the Western world).

Regardless of which specific creation story one is familiar with, to really understand the story one must carefully consider its ethos, “the characteristic spirit… as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations” (dictionary.com). In this blog post, I will attempt to compare the differences and similarities between the ethos of the bible’s Genesis creation story and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories. 

To begin with, there are some general similarities and differences between these two stories which, in turn, inform the ethos of either one. Perhaps the most obvious similarity is that both Genesis and King’s story depend on interactions between humans and animals. In the bible, Eve interacts solely with the serpent (Satan), while in King’s creation story, Charm interacts with many different animals. A notable difference between the two stories, though, is the implications of these interactions between human and animal— specifically, between woman and animal. In Genesis, the interaction between Eve and the serpent quite clearly has negative implications; her curiosity (and subsequent temptation) to eat from the tree of knowledge leads to the destruction of the world God has created. In King’s story, however, Charm’s curiosity or her “nosiness” (first exemplified when she wonders why she has five toes), eventually leads to her and the many animals’ joint creation of the world. While both Eve and Charm do have agency and do derive some kind of power from said agency, only Eve’s is portrayed in a negative light— one can ultimately see how there is misogyny rooted in Genesis.

Both Genesis and King’s story also highlight potential differences between Western and Indigenous thought. For example, in King’s story, we can clearly see how interconnected and shared the creation process is; the world is created and livened via the dedicated teamwork of Charm, her twins, and all the animals combined. As King eloquently puts it, the universe in his story “is governed by a series of co-operations” (23). The story of Genesis, in contrast, consists of a solitary creation effort— God creates the entire world himself and only relies on Adam and Eve to propagate it further. This is not to suggest that Western thought lacks complexity, though; rather, this simply suggests that the nature of Indigenous thought is very much holistic and harmonious. In reading King’s other book, Green Grass Running Water, one can also sense this type of harmony and interconnection, particularly through the metaphor of the Medicine Wheel.

Although attending a Western university means that I have studied the likes of Genesis in works such as Paradise Lost, I find great value and appreciation in being exposed to the Indigenous storytelling approach that can be seen in both The Truth About Stories and Green Grass Running Water. Rather than “believ[ing] one story to be sacred… [and] see[ing] the other as secular,” perhaps we should all instead be receptive to the unique teachings that each story may have to offer (King, 25).

Works Cited

“Ethos.” Dictionary. LLC. N.d. Web. 19 Jul. 2016.

“Genesis 1-3:24 – New International Version.” Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jul. 2016.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2003. Print.

“Medicine Ways: Traditional Healers and Healing.” Native Peoples Concepts of Health and Illness. N.d. Web. 19 Jul. 2016.

Question 2

In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.

Nationalism, or as Benedict Anderson calls it, the belief in an imagined community, has had severe consequences throughout history— particularly for racial minorities. Despite state legislation/policies to rectify said consequences, many of them have ironically perpetuated racial discrimination and exclusion further. The Indian Act, which I will discuss in this blog post, is just one of the many pieces of legislation which has perpetuated these ideas. 

The Indian Act is something many of us may be only vaguely familiar with (as I mentioned in my very first blog post, many of the atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples have been and continue to be swept under the rug). While it is widely regarded as an abominable piece of legislation, I had not actually read the official document up until now. To my surprise, its contents are even more horrific than I imagined.

Perhaps one of the most shocking things about The Indian Act (and there are many), is the fact that it claims to be “an act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians” (The Indian Act, 1). Respecting Indians. I couldn’t help but notice the sheer lack of self-awareness in this very declaration. It is virtually impossible to suppose that such an act could be considered respectful of Indians, especially when its terms and conditions include the following (not exhaustive):

• Denial of women status
• Residential schools
• Creation of reserves
• Restriction of First Nations from leaving reserves without permission
• Deeming of the potlatch and other cultural ceremonies as illegal

Equally shocking is the language with which The Indian Act uses to dehumanize Indigenous peoples. For example, the act states that “half-breeds” are not considered Indians unless “under very special circumstances” and are “not entitled to be admitted into any Indian treaty” (The Indian Act, 2). Even more blatantly, the act asserts that “the term person means an individual other than an Indian,” quite literally denying the personhood of Indigenous peoples (The Indian Act, 3). The possible implications of this are unnerving— if the act doesn’t consider Indians persons, what do they consider them to be? Less than human? The act also states that it itself was formed out of expediency… “whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians” (The Indian Act, 1). It is baffling and demoralizing to consider that each of the conditions in this act were put forth simply because it was convenient to do so.

The Indian Act ultimately exists and hides behind the pretense of helping Indigenous peoples adapt and assimilate, but it actually serves to sort them into what Coleman would call “White Civility.” In blatantly disregarding customs such as the potlatch and imposing Eurocentric and patriarchal notions of family on Indigenous populations, the act actually functions as a segregating and discriminatory piece of legislation under the guise of “respecting Indians.” It is important to note that this document does not mark the first (or the last, for that matter) instance of discrimination against Indigenous peoples. It is also worthy to note the very real and pervasive effects these acts of discrimination can and do have on Indigenous populations.

Works Cited

Boyden, Joseph. “The hurting: What can even begin to stem the tide of brutal loss?” Macleans. Rogers Media. 1 July 2010. Web. 7 July 2016.

 Jacobs, Beverley. “Marginalization of Aboriginal Women: A Brief History of the Marginalization of Aboriginal Women in Canada.” Indigenous Foundations UBC. First Nations and Indigenous Studies. n.d. Web. 7 July 2016.