3] In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: “Contrapuntal Cartographies” (468 – 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke’s analysis of what Judge McEachern might have meant by this statement: “We’ll call this the map that roared.”

In his article section regarding Contrapuntal Cartographies, Sparke addresses the tense differences and disagreement in court between federal and BC government, and the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people. In the debate, the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people “attempted to outline their sovereignty in a way that the Canadian court might understand.” (Sparke 468). This is significant in that it leveled the playing field, in a way, between the two sides: the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people were viewed as less literate, and less knowledgeable – and everyone in the courts, including Chief Justice Allan McEachern himself, knew this. By providing a map that served to outline in detail the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people’s “roaring refusal of the orientation systems, the trap lines, the property lines, the electricity lines, the pipelines, the logging roads, the clear-cuts, and all other accouterments of Canadian colonialism on native land” (Sparke 468).

McEachern’s referring to the map as a “map that roared” was something that illustrated his own perception of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people changing in light of this genre of cartography in which he, himself, was illiterate. Because of this, Judge McEachern, perhaps feeling slightly threatened, would eventually rule against the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people in the court. In Sparke’s analysis of what McEachern alluded to, he drew a connection to a satirical movie about the Cold War era, called “The Mouse that Roared.” This reference drawn toward a “Map that Roared” essentially outlined an unexpectedly loud, defiant voice that came from an unexpected source: the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people. McEachern ultimately acknowledged the map’s power and the people taking action to stand up for their land by calling it as such.

Although Judge McEachern ended up ruling in favor of the defense, against the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people, the Supreme Court would eventually overturn his decision and call for a new trial. This was especially significant in that this served as a turning point, of sorts, for First Nations in Canada fighting for – and winning – some of their rights back. What was most impressive was the fact that map that was presented was the product of the oral stories of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people, passed down from countless generations. The significance in this cannot be overlooked: contrary to popular belief, oral histories and stories do, indeed, hold a significant weight in influencing the decisions made in the courts of law.

Works Cited

“Office of the Wet’suwet’en.” Office of the Wet’suwet’en. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2016.

“Our History.” Recent History. Gitxsan Development Corp, n.d. Web. 29 June 2016.

Sparke, Mathew. “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88.3 (1998): 468-470. Web. 29 June 2016.

“If Europeans were not from the land of the dead, or the sky, alternative explanations which were consistent with indigenous cosmologies quickly developed” (“First Contact”43). Robinson gives us one of those alternative explanations in his stories about how Coyote’s twin brother stole the “written document” and when he denied stealing the paper, he was “banished to a distant land across a large body of water” (9). We are going to return to this story, but for now – what is your first response to this story? In context with our course theme of investigating intersections where story and literature meet, what do you make of this stolen piece of paper? This is an open-ended question and you should feel free to explore your first thoughts.

In reading the story about how Coyote’s twin brother was banished from the land he called home because of his wrongdoing, my first reaction was that that the punishment seemed too extreme for for a crime as small as stealing. It also struck me that the two forefathers, one of the Indians and one of the Europeans, started out in the same place, as brothers. Then, because of a poor choice, the “white twin,” who was the forefather of the Europeans, was banished – while the “black twin”, forefather of the Indians, would stay to take care of and cultivate the land.

I found this particularly interesting, as this paints a picture of unity in the beginning between the two brothers. I find the fact that they were twins particularly meaningful, as it showed me how closely the two were related – and thus it had a more significant impact when Coyote’s brother was banished from the land because he first sinned.

It seemed to me like the only person in the wrong in the beginning was Coyote’s brother, which suggests to me that the story is partially biased toward Coyote. Then, when Coyote’s brother, the forefather of the Europeans, was to come back to “reveal the contents of the written document,” it suggested to me that he was now forgiven, and was able to return to his original home with his newfound knowledge and all of his European descendents. Meanwhile, Coyote would have cultivated the land they both called home, and he and his descendents, the Indians, would understandably lay claim to the land.

Regarding the stolen piece of paper specifically, it suggests to me that the Europeans first took something that did not belong to them, left with it to a ‘distant land,’ and then, using the information within the paper, took it and built upon it newfound knowledge that they would acquire in the new lands. A question also came to mind upon reading this story: why would Coyote’s brother return home? Once banished, he would be able to start a new life and experience new things – and yet, he chose to return. Regarding this, I believe it emphasizes the basic human desire to maintain bonds to things that we find familiar: we are essentially curious about the unknown, but regardless of what we look like or where we are from, all humans seek to return to a place to call their home.

I remember the first time I learnt what the word “home” meant, and how that differed from the word “house.” When I was in the fifth grade, I was quizzed on the difference and at that time, I was unable to answer the question. Looking back, however, this should have been my answer:

A “house” is something concrete – something that may be built from bricks and cement, and something whose value can be measured quantitatively in terms of square footage and the location in which it was built. A “home,” however, is something quite different. It has less to do with quantitative value, but rather, the feelings that are associated with it. After reading the blogs of Lorraine, John and Sandra, I noticed that they, too, associated the word “home” with feelings and emotions of rest and comfort, along with family ties.

The first common theme that I noticed was the theme of family. As Lorraine put it simply, “home is where my family is.” Sandra continues on to mention that home, to her, was where she could be with her mother, sitting together with her at a dining table eating dinner. John, too, speaks of his stories that he associates his home with: from his dog, whom he watched grow from a little puppy to an old dog, to his dad teaching him how to drive a car.

The second common theme was the feeling of rest and comfort. All three students associated home as not only being with family, but alongside them experiencing a sense of belonging and comfort that cannot be found anywhere else. Sandra wrote about moving away from her home in Vancouver for four months in the summer, and of how she missed her home and the feeling of security that she had when within the familiar walls of the home that she grew up in, at ease in the company of her mother.

Finally, it would be impossible to miss the largest theme of all: to Lorraine, John and Sandra, “home” is an emotion, not an inanimate object. In each of their posts describing what home meant to them, there was an unmistakeable emphasis on the way that they felt. Any references to specific physical features of a house were neglected, for the meaning of “home” to all three of them is entirely based on their own emotions, feelings and things that they experienced growing up, rather than on a specific location or description of a place that could be measured subjectively and quantitatively by any stranger.

I was 10 years old when I flew over in a plane with my family from Singapore to Canada. The initial plan was for us to stay in Vancouver for a maximum of 3 years as my father studied for his Master’s degree, before returning to Singapore – the place where my family called home, at that time.

Time flew quickly, and before we knew it, it had been 3 years. During the course of those 3 years, I had made several friends in the elementary school I’d attended, and had graduated from elementary school. I was prepared – well, as prepared as a 7th grader can possibly be – to begin the scary world of high school alongside the close friends I’d made. Because of this, I was reluctant to move back to Singapore, where I had lost touch with many of my friends there, as well as the extremely different culture. I had become so used to the Canadian culture, especially in school, where teachers took very different approaches to teaching me material, encouraging me to “have fun” and have a more balanced lifestyle, instead of studying all the time. This was quite different to the culture in Singapore, where good grades and studying are valued so highly that it would not be surprising to find students as young as I was, studying for hours after school ended, in addition to attending tuition classes on Saturdays.

I say all this not to raise one culture’s teaching techniques over the other, but rather to highlight the massive differences between the two cultures and how it would have been extremely hard for me to integrate back into Singapore after having gotten used to the culture here. In addition to these, leaving my friends that I’d made here was something I was quite opposed to, as I wanted very much to experience high school with them.

Eventually, after many days of contemplation, arguments and discussion between myself, my siblings, and my parents, we made the ultimate decision to stay in Canada and let me and my siblings finish our education here. My siblings and I were overjoyed!

Throughout the next 5 years, I grew and matured a lot, made new friends, lost touch with some old friends. However, through all these, one things remained constant: at the end of each day, I would return home to share about my day with my family. It felt nice; it felt comfortable. Some things, I must admit, I did take for granted – such as the fact that my mom would cook me dinner every night.

This would soon change when I started university. I moved out of my house for the first time and moved into first year residence at Totem Park in UBC. Admittedly, at least for the first month of living there, I was excited and barely missed home. I started feeling more comfortable living away from home and slowly got to know my roommate and others living in my house. At a certain point, I realised that I now, in fact, had two places that I called home: the house where my parents and siblings lived, and the new first year residences that I was now living in.

After the first month, I started missing several aspects of home – such as having homecooked meals, and the comfort that only living with one’s parents can bring. I started visiting home at least once every month, which was a refreshing and welcome change from living on campus.

All of these experiences have taught me the very valuable lesson that my idea of home is not necessarily based on location – but rather, the people that I am around. Should my family move out of our house and return to Singapore, I would not find our house as welcoming anymore. I would probably even be unable to call it a “home.” After moving out of Totem Park in first year, it no longer felt like home to me – despite me having spent a whole 8 months there. This, I realised, was because the friends that I’d made in my first year had also moved out. To me, home is somewhere that I can return to where the people that I love are. It is somewhere that I can feel like I belong, where I can be around the people that I’m closest to, where we can share our lives with; where I can return to and share about how my day was – and, in turn, listen to how their day went as well.

I feel blessed to have lived in places that I can call home. Despite having moved around so much, and having to get used to a completely new culture, I am convinced that the difference between a “house” and a “home” is that a house is simply a place to live in, while a home is not about a specific physical location, but rather, the people that I surround myself with.

Works Cited

Brent Larkin, Northeast Ohio Media Group. “Education Dominates Singapore’s ‘different’ Culture: Brent Larkin.” Cleveland.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2016.

“Singapore – Lonely Planet.” Lonely Planet. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2016.