Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW; PAGES 214-223, 2007 Edition

This section of Green Grass Running Water, looks at various characters within the same (or similar) setting of watching a Western film. In the film, we see the contrasting “soldiers vs. Indians,” we see the contrasting perceptions of the characters, and we see almost all the main characters connected reflecting and watching this scene. This is a main theme of King’s GGRW, the concept that all the stories are interlinked, that they are all going through the same scene, and they all have thoughts on it. What I found interesting about these pages is that each character watches more or less the same clip in the film, but each character sees something different. I enjoyed reading the perspectives and rereading the scene from each person’s view, it gave the story of “Indians vs. Soldiers” more depth.

ALBERTA TURNED BACK TO THE MOVIE

In this section, Alberta watches the portrayal of two ‘kinds’ of people, the soldiers and the Indians in the Western movie. She decides to turn the movie off because “teaching Western history was trial enough without having to watch what the movie makers had made out of it” (214). This shows her stance on the ways in which the Indians were colonized and portrayed (and still portrayed) by Western thinking – the Indians are wild, yelling and screaming. She concludes by comparing the film two her struggle between Lionel and Charlie. Lionel, on the Bay Horse, and Charlie on the Pinto; Alberta references Charlie’s admiration for law, and ‘western’ or ‘white’ ideals for he is a mixed horse of white and brown – Indian of the plaines.

CHRISTIAN TOOK OFF THE OTHER SOCK

Latisha watches the cavalry charge at the Indians in a threatening sense. Her son Christian asks if it is over, and Latisha turns off the film after finishing the threatening scene. Here we see the perspective of the Christian boy, waiting for the Indians to go, for all he knows is that the Indian is not good for the Christian faith.

LIONEL SETTLED INTO THE CHAIR

Lionel is conflicted, he is at odds with his job, his relationship with Alberta, and his life. What Lionel doesn’t see, because he has closed his eyes, is the four Indians waving their lances, and an Indian dancing his horse in the shallow of the river. Why did King want us to see what was happening on the screen but not Lionel? I think that the four Indians would have given him guidance, or perhaps given him a path – I find it interesting that King chooses Lionel to close his eyes on this scene.

CHARLIE LIFTED THE REMOTE CONTROL

Charlie watches as the Indians move back and forth along the riverbank, and watches the chief dazzle the camera and play up the role. He watches the chief rally his men, and is shocked to notice that the actor is his father. His father dressed as a Hollywood Indian, wears the rubber nose and makeup to portray the stereotype to ‘westeners.’ Charlie is noe connected symbolically to the film but also literally – bringing the themes of the Hollywood portrayal of Indians into focus.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Eli is reading a book, and reaches when Iron Eyes, with his stylized Indian name, attacked the soldiers. He tosses the book and goes to sleep – perhaps because its the same story he has heard over and over. And he knows the ending, he knows that Iron Eyes and the Indians do not prevail in the end.

BURSUM TOOK OFF HIS COAT

Bursum watches as John Wayne pulls his pistol and shouts “Hooray! We got ’em now, boys.” With his characters reference to hostility towards Indians, Bursum, like John Wayne, finds excitement with the men galloping with their weapons towards victory. Hooray, Hooray – the soldiers are winning. As seen in Flick’s Reading Notes, Bursum’s character is reference to the “infamous Bursum Bill of 1921, which aimed to divest Pueblos of a large portion of their lands and to give land title and water rights to non-Indians.”

BABO PUT THE PLATE ON THE TABLE

Babo watches just as the attack is about to commence. She notices the four Indians standing off to the side laughing and smiling as the Indians cross the river to face the soldiers “cowering behind some logs” (221). We see Babo’s perspective of the film clip, the Indians as fearless in comparison to the hiding soldiers. But what she finds interesting is that the four Indians to the side are Hawkeye, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe, and the Lone Ranger – the men that had been in the asylum and who had escaped. “Isn’t that the trick”  Babo is reference to the black slave in Melville’s Story “Benito Cereno,” perhaps the leader of the Indian slaves in Kings depiction?

DR. HOVAUGH SAT IN THE WINGBACK CHAIR

Dr. Hovaugh watches the clip, “moved by the plight of the Indians, caught between the past and western expansion just as the soldiers were caught between the Indians and the sheer rock wall” (222). He notes Hollywoods portrayal of the Indian, and watches the Indians charge across the river at the soldiers. Noticing at the last second, that there are four Indians cheering them on – the four that had escaped.

THE LONE RANGER AND ISHMAEL

The four Indians watch the Western, the one that they believed that they fixed. But it turns out that they did not fix the entire story, and that the Indians were in trouble again – the four understand that they must fix this one again.

Works cited:

“All Indian Pueblo Council and the Bursum Bill.” History.org. New Mexico History.org, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

“Bay (horse).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Sept. 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Flick Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. November 18, 2016. 

“Hollywood Indian.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

“Iron Eyes Cody.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Nov. 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

“Pinto Horse.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 2 July 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Describe how King uses the cyclical paradigm of the Medicine Wheel (and a little help from Coyote) to teach us to understand, or at least to try to understand the power behind the stories we tell ourselves.

The Medicine Wheel represents connection and reconnection, it’s cyclical paradigm aims to teach it’s viewer about the inter-connectivity of life and the balance and harmony that the symbol of a circle brings. King uses the Medicine Wheel to demonstrate the the power of a story by showing the reader that they must be a willing participant. King is showing that stories offer connections, and that it is important for the understanding of the reader, that they must watch for the symbols and references within stories. I think King is trying to convey that stories offer an opportunity to gain understanding, moreover that stories can work as lessons in the art of story making. Stories are formed through various events and understandings, but King is explaining that stories are transformative. Much like the Medicine Wheel, stories can change, and they are not stagnant on a line, but rather work in a cyclical motion, always connecting themselves to their beginnings. I really enjoyed this idea of connecting and reconnecting, and the way in which King uses symbols to bring the reader back. I think that it is a common ideology within the First Nations peoples that the world is inter-connected, that there are cause and effects, and that in oder to live in balance, one must understand the importance of relationships. I think that the idea of the Medicine Wheel has taught me more about inter-connectivity and that ways in which we overthink when listening to stories. I have learned to understand stories how they are being told, rather than using similar stories and influence to my understanding. I believe what King has done is demonstrated to his readers that the Medicine Wheel can be used as a symbol of our own life stories, and that the linkage of life shows that in order to live harmoniously we must respect all that is interwoven.

I found it really interesting that the teachings of the Medicine Wheel are still used in todays classrooms, and I think that it is an important symbol to be teaching to not only our aboriginal students, but all our students in Canada. I personally think that many classrooms would benefit from the teachings. “Moving from linear models to the interconnectedness of the circle can guide the development of pedagogy and vision for the future” (Teaching by the Medicine Wheel).

The Medicine Wheel

Works Cited:

“Native American Medicine Wheel.” Medicinewheel.com. Discover Native American Spirituality, Healing and Travel, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

“Teaching by the Medicine Wheel | Canadian Education Association (CEA).” Canadian Education Association (CEA). Education Canada, June 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

“Fictive ethnicity” describes, “how nations of diverse peoples are represented, both in the past and future, as if they are a “natural community” (Paterson, Lesson 3:1)

The Indian Act is the Canadian federal law that defines and administers Indian status, deals with First Nations governments/bands, and orders the management of reserve lands. The act was first passed in 1867 and served as a “consolidation of previous colonial ordinances that aimed to eradicate First Nations culture in favour of assimilation into Euro-Canadian society” (Henderson). This paternalistic-like Act grants the Canadian government authority to regulate and administer in the affairs and day-to-day lives of registered Indians and reserve communities. This Act not only represents the political control that the government hand over the First Nations of Canada, but it also represents the common idea that the ‘Indian’ is in need of civilizing, and that they should be grateful for this gift that the ‘white-man’ is bestowing. Even John A. MacDonald proclaimed in 1887, that “the great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change” (Hanson). The ultimate aim was elimination of ‘Indian-ness’ and a complete assimilation into the western European societal norms.

A particular policy that I found quite interesting within the Indian Act is the “Potlatch Law.” In 1884, under the Indian Act, the Canadian federal government banned potlatches and other ceremonies; Coastal First Nations and the those of the west believed that potlatch ceremonies were one of the most important ritual for their bands. These ceremonies marked important occasions as well as served a crucial role in distribution of wealth. Colonial leaders felt that these rituals impeded the full assimilation, and they wanted the First Nations peoples to practice private property ownership, rather than economic redistribution. This Potlatch Law “prevented the passing down of our oral history. It prevented the passing down of our values. [And] it meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have” (Hanson). The impact of this law to the First Nations communities was so damaging to their culture and the affects of this can still be seen today.

Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility notes that “beginning with the colonials and early nation-builders, there has been a “literary endeavor” to “formulate and elaborate a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” (Paterson, Lesson 3:1). It can be said that the idea of nationality in Canada is defined by ‘fictive ethnicity,’ where Canada is representative of the ‘white-washing’ of our culture. Our nation is, and has been, made up of numerous cultural identities, but it is perhaps our state systems and legislations that have historically excluded some cultures in an attempt for white assimilation. I think whats important to note with his argument is that regardless of our current day attempts to become more inclusive in our Canadian nationality as very multicultural, our country still represents the historical assimilation and extermination of cultures through legislation. I found this short reading interesting on the meaning of multiculturalism in Canada, and the relationship with the First Nations and the government.

Works Cited:

“Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship.” Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Communications Branch. Government of Canada, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous.foundations.arts.ubc.ca. University of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

Henderson, William B. “Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

“Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, C. I-5).” Legislative Services Branch. Government of Canada, 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

Sebastian, Troy. “IMMIGRANTS IN OUR OWN LAND.” Voices. VICTORIA IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE CENTRE SOCIETY, 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

‘It was one such map of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory (Exhibit 102) that Chief Justice Allan McEachern was beginning to unfold when he declared, “We’ll call it the map that roared”‘ (Sparke, 468).

In the article, Sparke discusses the themes of property and colonialism; we see the histories of disputes over land claims, and the repression of the First Nations with regards to their rights. But what we also see is the beginning of Canadian Native rights with the turnaround of a cartographic based trial of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory.

Sparke analyses this quote by Judge McEachern as evoking the resistance in the First Nations’ remapping of the land. We moreover see this association of a “roaring map” with that of a roaring tiger, who is battling these outside forces in hopes of maintaining its property and placement. This statement by Judge McEachern gives a lot of imagery into the though process of the colonizers. In their eyes, they are attempting to fix, maintain, and essentially westernize this land that has been ruled and organized by ‘animals’. The reader sees this idea of a roaring animal that is attempting to breaking out of its cage. It is the First Nations who are demonstrating their “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 the other accoutrements of Canadian colonialism on native land” (Sparke, 468). The image by cartoonist Don Monet, “A Map that Roared,” really explains this idea of breaking away from the imposition of the Western idea of mapping and colonization.

I think that there are separate ways of looking into this statement by McEachern. From his perspective, the roar is seen as just complaints and changes of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en with regards to their version in mapping the territory. It is merely a complaint but nothing that he is worried about, whereas Don Monet’s illustration gives the idea of powerful First Nations peoples that are willing to stand up to the colonial order. This roaring tiger is breaking apart from the map it was placed onto and is roaring for a return to its original order.

What is so interesting to me is that land claims are still occurring throughout Canada. In BC, there are some final agreements that have only just come to a end within the past couple years. I wonder if the trials and discussions today are similar to that of Canada’s beginning? Are the First Nations still oppressed by the government with regards to their territories, and their claim to ownership? I would be interested to look into this further.

Works Cited:

Government of Canada. “British Columbia – Final Agreements and Related Implementation Matters.” Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications Branch. N.p., 05 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

Sparke, Matthew. “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): 468-70. JSTOR. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

“That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories.”

I think that King has created these dichotomies for us to examine the two creation stories because he wants to emphasize the importance of telling and the importance of the audience. He gives us this option of the more story-like creation story with Charm, or the story of Genesis which is told with authority. He is asking us to contrast the ways in which these particular stories are told, in an effort to help the reader understand how stories can vary depending on several factors. This analysis that he gives us pairs up these two opposing believes and asks the reader to think about ‘what makes them different?’ and ‘how are they similar?’ maybe even ‘why are they different?’ Are they different because they are told differently or are we listening to them differently? Are we understanding these stories in a particular light because of our own upbringing and understanding? I believe that King is trying to show us the possibilities of change within a story – and in the telling of it.

In the lesson, we learn that stories give us a way to connect, and the stories which the Indigenous and First Nations tell, or ones of possession and ownership. Their stories reflect the histories and agreements that they have made with each other as peoples, and they represent how they all connect with each other. I think that King’s use of dichotomies helps the reader to understand why the two creations stories are different; the two creation stories represent two different values and connections. The story of Genesis is authoritative and allows there to be only one high being, whereas the story with Charm shows the values of togetherness and understanding. King has provided these oppositions to demonstrate the differing ways in which stories are told, based on their teller’s value system.

I personally enjoy the ways in which our First Nations and Indigenous peoples tell their stories – their stories evoke emotion and connection. I watched this video on Youtube of the Kaha:wi Dance Theatre’s interpretation of the age-old Iroquoian Creation Story by Santee Smith. I found this excerpt of the full dance performance so wonderful. I fully enjoyed watching it and really connected to the themes and values that it was trying to convey. I actually also found this video while on Youtube, another very interesting video about storytelling of the First Nations people and The Real Story of the Quileute Wolves. These stories give a history of the natural orders within the world, and the importance of working together with all inhabitants of this worlds – something that I find more within the First Nations story-telling then in the stories by the Europeans.

Works Cited:

Kahawidance. “A Story Before Time.” YouTube. YouTube, 16 May 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

SmithsonianNMAI. “Native Storytelling Festival: The Real Story of the Quileute Wolves.” YouTube. YouTube, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

Reading through my peers blog postings on their own personal feelings about home, I have come to understand that many of us feel the same way. For many here, home is more than just the four walls that keep us warm, and that home is more of a feeling than a physicality. Like others, I have found that home hold the potential to physically change, and yet remain the same; in essence, home can have multiple forms because it is the emotions that spaces bring, rather than the physical locations, that constitute home for many people. I have come to understand that I am fortunate in feeling that I have multiple homes, and that I have felt at home in the many spaces in which I have lived throughout my life. I now understand that although many of us feel a similar way about what constitutes a home, my peers and I have all taken various routes to arrive at this understanding. We have all had different influences, and hold differing values, and yet a majority of us hold true that a home is a space which brings comfort and the feeling of being content.

The differences that I did see, were things that come from individual upbringing, and ones own history. I feel as though our differences are not that stark but rather a variation of opinion. I think that although many of us found the sense of home outside of the four walls in which we lived, it was specifically what brought us home that was often different. It just goes to show that the definition of home to various people is often a spectrum different meanings.

Commonalities:

• home is represented through feelings and memories
• home has the potential to change and evolve, and thus is not necessarily one specific place
• home is a feeling of belonging somewhere
• home is where one can feel culturally connected
• country of origin
• a place unknown

Differences:

• the idea of home as associated with music and art
• home as being frightening or sad
• trying to find the meaning of home, and teaching oneself what home could be
• pursuit of reality

I fully enjoyed reading everyones blog postings this week, and I really appreciated everyones ability to display personal emotions and experiences – something that isn’t always easy to do. This assignment was really thought provoking and eye opening for me, as I had not really thought about how I personally would define home. This is a very interesting Ted Talk, which I believe a Chloe Lee posted on her blog. I’m glad I got to watch this! I liked this idea of being able to choose ones sense of home, and that we are no longer limited to only one definition.

Works Cited:

Pico Iyer: Where is home?. TED Global. TED, 2013. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.

Lee, Chloe. “2.2 Home,” My Exploration of Canadian Literature, https://blogs.ubc.ca/470chloe/2016/09/28/2-2-home/. Accessed 3 Oct 2016. 

Home. For me, it is difficult to describe. Is home where we sleep at night? Is home where we feel safe? Or is home a concept of identity? Can home change? An we have more than one home?

I have lived in many houses throughout my life; I was born in England and after living there for 5 years, we moved to Ireland. We moved to Canada when I was about 9 or 10 years old. Since being in Canada I have lived in 3 different houses before turning 18. I never thought of the physical house as my home, of course it was my home at the time, but for me, home has always had the ability to change. When I was younger I believed that home was where I lived with my parents, and yet I still would call England my home. I have only lived there as a very young girl, so I have been curious as to whether I see England as a place where I identify. My parents are British, and regardless of what country I was living in, I grew up in a “British home.” Perhaps it is the influence of my parents, or the small things like there is always a pot of tea on in the house, or that we still watch the BBC News and British Comedies on TV. I think that maybe England was home because of the culture and memories that I carry from living there. Home was also just the place that I went after school was over, it was where I had my bedroom, and where ate my meals. Home was the physical house in which my family lived at the time.

It wasn’t until I grew older that I changed my perspective. Home became so much more than a house, and I also found that Britain did not feel like home in the way that it used to as a child. Britain is theoretically my “home;” it is listed as my country of origin on my passport, and although I still hold some of the same cultural links to Britain, it is no longer home. I often question whether I should continue calling Britain my home, it was my past home, and it is culturally my home but I somehow feel that Canada is more of my home in a cultural sense. Britain is a distant memory of what home used to look like. Now I identify culturally much more with Canada.

Since becoming more of an adult I began to gain multiple homes. I always had a home at my best friends house, home was where my family was, and home was in essence where I felt the most comfortable. Regardless of where my home physically is, it has always been a place of acceptance, freedom, and love. After moving out of my family house, I found another home in my new friendships which I have built during university. I’ve come to realize that, for me, the concept of home can change and evolve. I can feel at home in many places, and so long as I feel safe and content with people that I care for, then I am home. When I went on exchange to Lyon, France this past semester I found a new home with people from all over the world. Lyon is now our home, and is now a place which holds such fond memories. I think I have learned that home is somewhere that you can grow as a person, and is somewhere that you make your best memories. Home lies within my own thoughts, I can feel at home with reminders of things that make me feel “at home.” I like this quote by the American Author Tad Williams “Never make your home in a place. Make a home for yourself inside your own head. You’ll find what you need to furnish it – memory, friends you can trust, love of learning, and other such things. That way it will go with you wherever you journey.” I think what he’s saying is that home doesn’t have to be a specific place in the world, home is a feeling, home can change, and it’s ok if it does change.

An animated movie that I have watched with the kids that I work with is titled “Home,” about the adventures of two characters to complete their separate quests and come to understand the meaning of home. The main character learns the importance of family, and reflects that home doesn’t have to be a singular space, home can be where you are with your loved ones. I thought this was a good movie to demonstrate the idea that home doesn’t have to be a house or a place.

Works Cited:

IMDb. “Home (2015).” IMDb. IMDb.com, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

Williams, Tad. Tad Williams. N.d. Tad Williams. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

I have a great story to tell you about how evil came into the world, it came during the earths creation.

The story goes that there are these non-gendered, spectrum-type, beings who created the world in the same way one paints a picture. These beings first created light, and with light brought colour. Each being had a favourite colour within the spectrum. One group loved the variations of blue that could be mixed like one mixes paint on a palette. From this they created the oceans; they made the darkest of blues that colour its depths, the teal that we now find in the tropics, the lightest of blues which we find amongst the crashing of waves. Another group adored the variations of green that could be made, this group created the trees and plants which dance with the wind, displaying their many forms. Each being came with a colour and with each colour the world continued to grow and develop. These beings shared colours and created new beings, the animals, the humans. They created the elements, and the foundations for life. But it was one being who had foreseen the repercussions of what will come of the world who had a warning. This being saw the horrors that can form from what has already been made, and told the others of the world’s impending terrors. This being claimed that something must be created to stop these terrors from ruining their collective artwork. The beings looked at their painting, their masterpiece of what they call earth, and claimed that it is not possible for something so beautiful to turn ugly. And so, as a punishment to the others who would not listen, this being created the colour black. A colour that is not even classified a colour, a colour which bore disease, fear, lies, and evil. Once this colour was created, there was no way to go back and erase it- no matter how much the others wished it. The painting was infected with this evil, and the world must learn to deal with the horrors that come from it. “For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world” (10 King).

I really enjoyed this weeks blog posting assignment, although it took me a while to think of a story which I would like to create. I even took to the internet to see what I could find on how to even tell a story. After going over the story in my head and repeating it out loud I realized, much like in King’s book, each re-telling would begin and end in the same or a similar fashion. This made me think about how its not necessarily how you get the the ending, so long as you get there. So long as the moral has been told, the story remains whole. I’m interested in whether anyone else found this, when practicing their own stories. I also enjoyed this assignment because I work with kids, and am often reading stories to them – more often than not they are simply looking at the pictures and I tell the story based on how they react to the pictures instead of simply re-reading the words; this method makes it more interesting for me, especially when I’m reading the same book multiple times in a week! Even for them, as long as the moral of the story stays in-tact, they are content with the events that lead the characters to their conclusion. 

When thinking about this weeks lesson, it also reminded me of a TED talk that I watched, which talks about the dangers of story-telling in the sense that by telling only one story, you can forget to think about the other side of a story. Very interesting!

Works Cited:

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story. TED Global. TED, 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

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

Mensa Foundation. “The Art of Storytelling.” Mensa for Kids. Mensa Education & Research Foundation, 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Why do “words make us feel closer to the world we live in?”

Chamberlin’s understanding of riddles and charms is quite quizzical; “a word is not what it is and yet it is” (160). He discusses the idea of having to change ones understanding of language in order to solve riddles, where one must make sense of the nonsense put in front of us. I always found riddles strange, but I think Chamberlin is commenting not only on the strangeness of language to trick us but also this change from strangeness to truth. In understanding that words hold the power to trick, and yet tell truths, you start to understand this idea of a “world of words.” Words influence much of the society we live in, we use language everyday, our societies are based off words, and our daily events involve words in some way. We use words to “live our lives like a tale that is told,” and recognize from a very young age that we believe the stories that are told to us (175). Nursery rhymes, tales of heroism or good fortune offer us stories to believe in, stories that hold power to influence ones way of thinking. A nursery rhyme that my father used to always say to me was “If all the world was apple pie,” it is nonsense, but what I gained from it was to think imaginatively. The rhyme didn’t mean anything but to stimulate my thinking outside the box. Chamberlin’s understanding of words reflects this idea that words are nothing, yet they are so powerful; words themselves do not hold significance, and yet it is their formulation that can be so influential. I found this idea very interesting, the world is made up of words, regardless of culture, and we live in this world of words that are nonsense but are not. It’s a perplexing idea to thing that words have so much influence for our entire lives, yet they are nonsensical, and they do not necessarily mean what we are told they mean. This idea of “a rose is a rose is a rose,” where the word itself is not a flower, and still it means that it is a flower.

I think from this reading, I found that words make us feel closer to the world we live in because they give meaning to nonsense. Words are a way to “define what is worthwhile in our lives;” we invent and discover meaning and use words to nourish our imaginations, hopes and dreams (192). We use stories to bring imaginative dreams into belief, where the reading of stories creates power. Words, in a sense, allow us to connect our imagination to our reality, and give importance to specifics in culture. I think that the general idea that I gained from this reading was the power that comes with words and stories, and how stories can carry on in our minds for years. Chamberlin explains that we must take comfort in contradiction when it comes to riddles and charms, and that they are just words to which we learn from.

Works Cited:

Chamberlin, J E. If this is your land, where are your stories? : finding common ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.

Hello everyone of English 470A!

My name is Hannah, and I am a fourth year student majoring in Art History, with a minor in History. I have taken various distance education classes in the past, and have generally found that English courses taught online are more engaging and provide more discussion. As others have already said, online classes do create a more comfortable environment for those who may be more shy to speak up within a classroom setting. This is the main reason why I enjoy taking classes such as this.

There are various reasons why I decided to take this course in particular. I enjoy taking English classes and have dabbled throughout my university career, and I was intrigued with the course description of this class. We will be taking a look at Canadian literature through a historical lens, looking at both Indigenous and European influences to literature. After looking at the reading list for this class, I have become intrigued in how literature was adapted, changed, and influenced by various historical stories and contexts. I am further intrigued into this idea of “whose stories we listen to,” and which stories have affected the way in which we see “Canadian Literature.” Moreover I am interested in the concept of literature explaining only one side of history, due to the other side of the story being only told through orature; this theme of a loss of history and the question of what really makes up modern Canadian Literature are very thought-provoking for me.

This is the first Canadian studies style course that I have taken, however I have seen some similar themes in a selection of my Art History courses. This course brings up memories of an exhibition that I had seen in the Belkin Gallery titled “Witnesses,” which discussed art and the Canadian residential schools. This exhibition talked about ideas of story-telling and the loss of historical memories for the Indigenous peoples. One of the art pieces that I had looked into was Apparition by Rebecca Belmore which reflected the understanding of a loss of her own language, and the “potential for its disappearance.” This powerful video-piece really caused me to think about the loss of culture and the ways in which Canada’s history reflects that. Here you can read more about the the exhibition and the various other artists highlighted.

I expect this course to challenge our ways of thinking about Canadian literature, and to further our understanding of the history behind our literature. I am looking forward to this semester, this reading list, and the opportunity to pick each-others brains on the various lessons through these blogs.

Apparition, Rebecca Belmore

Works Cited:

Belmore, Rebecca. Apparition. Digital image. belkin.ubc.ca/events/witnesses-traumatic-histories-artistic-practice-and-working-from-the-margins. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.

Turner, Michael. “Witnesses: Art and Canada’s Residential Schools.” Canadian Art Reviews. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.

“Witnesses: Art and Canada’s Residential Schools.” Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.