Pass The Thought… Eh?

For my section of Green Grass, Running Water, the section itself focuses on Charlie Looking Bear primarily. In my section, the novel, explores the character of Charlie Looking Bear and Eli Stand Alone. To begin with, I would like to focus on the Blackfoot native, Charlie Looking Bear, who is a lawyer for the company called Duplessis International Associates. Charlie Looking Bear, in my opinion is dealing with an identity crisis, as though being a successful lawyer; it comes at the cost of his heritage. The only reason that Duplessis International Associates use him is because he is of First Nation origin, and hope to use his background to approach the judge with more humility. His opponent, in the case in which the Duplessis International Associates employs Charlie Looking Bear, to build a dam, is Eli Stands Alone. An English professor at the University of Toronto, Eli wants to stop the dam from being built, as it would destroy him homeland. With my section, Charlie Looking Bear and Eli Stand Alone have a confrontation at the coffee shop. This confrontation represents the classic the ever powerful corporate juggernaut versus the little man. While it was difficult to find allusions, the one I would like to primarily focus on is the allusion of Eli Stand Alone and Charlie Looking Bear. These characters left their reserve to follow their dreams, and to me, both are an allusion to the yin and yang.

They are almost one circle to each other, as they stem from the same area and followed a relatively same path in life. Though, now completely different people now, as they’ve grown up in life, but still completely each other lives. Both the light and dark, battle against each other, but never overpower one or another; instead they work each other balancing each other out. On one hand, Charlie Looking Bear represents the dark side of the yin and yang as he wants to build a dam, and suddenly become part of the of a large over ruling power that once helped decimate his own people.  On the other hand, Eli Stands Alone represents, the good, or the light, as he tries to educate people, and tries to inspire people, instead of crushing other people like Charlie Looking Bear. While they are constructed the same way, they are not the same person, and ultimately have opposite agency with each other, similar to the symbol of the yin and yang.

Another allusion I had to my section was the last names of Eli Stands Alone and Charlie Looking Bear. I thought that they’re last names were allusions to their character. Stands Alone, made me feel of the First Nation groups and they’re difficulties with gaining awareness about the social issues facing them. For the first nation groups and Canada, they truly stand alone, for little people outside of first nation groups, could possibly experience the issues that face the First Nations groups. Looking Bear is a rather interesting, last name, as bear is powerful and ferocious animal, which is seen in Charlie’s personality, as he drives the Porsche and acts like a predator. However, the looking aspect of his last name, gives to a more sheepish/idle connotation to his last name. Charlie is a pawn to Duplessis International Associates, as they use him to help gain the favour of the court’s ruling. Though, Charlie Looking Bear, acts as ferocious, alpha male, type predator, Charlie, is idle and could be considered a pawn.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. April 04/2013.

Narratives assume, in Blanca Chester’s words, “a common matrix of cultural knowledge.” The Four Old Indians are perhaps the best examples of characters that belong to a matrix of cultural knowledge, which excludes many non-First Nations. What were your first questions about and impressions of these characters? How have you come to understand their place in the novel?

To begin with, I was a bit confused with the whole narrative of the story, but as I read Blanca Chester’s article “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel,” the narrative became clearer. The narrator indirectly narrates to the story to the reader, as the narrator tells the story to primarily the coyote. As the unknown narrator begins to explain the escape of four Native American elders from a mental institution who are named Lone Ranger, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe, and Hawkeye, these four characters are connected to a female of first nation origin. As Chester’s point out,  “King connects Robinson’s Okanagan Coyote with stories from the Blackfoot of Alberta, and the traditions of Thought Woman (Pueblo), First Woman (Navajo), Old Woman (Blackfoot, Dunne-za), and Changing Woman (Navajo)” (45). My first impression of these characters was to show the gender bending that the trickster’s ability is able to do. An occurrence in other texts we have read so far this semester. Another interpretation of the Indian men in the novel, or women was to show the cycle of life. As mentioned before, each of the four Indian men connects to a female of first nation origin. Each women represented a time period of life, as they represented a woman from birth, to childhood, to adult and then to elder. As Chester states “the conversation between these narratives in Green Grass, Running Water is framed with no real beginning, no middle, and no end—it is a continuous cycle that is always beginning again, as the world itself is constantly being re-created, through story” (46). These characters show the oral tradition and common matrix of cultural knowledge that first nation groups tell. As Chester states “King draws from oral tradition to incorporate aspects of Native storytelling into a highly contextualized and literate novel. A substantial source of King’s reworking of oral storytelling performance within the context of “high” literature, I suggest, originates in the stories of Harry Robinson” (47).  The place of the four Indian men in the story were to show the significance of the oral tradition and first nation tradition of storytelling.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Chester Blanca. “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. April 04/2013.

The Immigration Act of 1910, I argue, gave power to the people who followed Coleman’s notion of “white civility” as it further enhanced the discretionary powers of the government to control the incoming immigrants into Canada, as it reinforced and expanded the exclusionary provisions outlined in the Immigration Act of 1906. Why I argue that, the Immigration Act of 1910, follows Coleman’s notion of “white civility” is because of the cruelty and unjust power that the government had over immigrants. In the Immigration Act of 1910, a new provision specified that the governor-in-council could arbitrarily prohibit the landing of any immigrant deemed “unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada.” This discrimination was unjust, and gave power, to people who had no reason to have it. To exclude people, who weren’t perceived to handle the cold climate, is absurd and ignorant, as to reject people who couldn’t possibly conform to a “Canadian” expectation, follows Coleman’s notion of “white civility.”

The act also introduced the concept of domicile, or permanent residency, which an immigrant could obtain after residing in Canada for three years. Until domicile was granted, an immigrant could be deported if they became classified as “undesirable.” Under the new act, political dissidents advocating for the forceful overthrow of government and those attempting to create public disorder were also subject to deportation. This notion of superiority gives way to Coleman’s white civility as to deport people who didn’t follow the notion of “white civility” were deported, as cruelty was ensued if the person, didn’t  embrace “Canadian” values or wasn’t the “ideal” Canadian. Coleman’s notion of “white civility” is supported in the Immigration Act of 1910, as immigrants could be rejected citizenship if they were undesirable to the notion of “white civility” or couldn’t embrace “white civility”, in the eyes of people who did embrace “white civility.”

Works Cited

Sugars, Cynthia. Civility at the Gates. canlit.ca. Canadian Literature, 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 26 June 2015.

“CMIP 21 Pier 21.” CMIP 21  Pier 21. Web. 26 June 2015.

In an article called “A Map That Roared”, Sparke’s analyzes a statement made by Judge McEachern when examining a map that was proposed by the Gitxsan and Wet’swuet’en’s first nation groups. The map detailed their former land that had been taken away from them during Canada’s colonization of their land. Sparke’s analysis of Chief Judge McEachern’s, statement “We’ll call this the map that roared” referring to the new map proposed by Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’e nations, has two different interpretations. Sparke first interprets McEachern’s quote as McEachern giving strength and significance to the proposal. The second interpretation, though, is that the Chief Justice’s referenced Peter Seller’s 1959 movie satirizing Cold War geopolitics, The Mouse that Roared. This second interpretation is more accurate as McEachern added restructured colonial fixtures to the proposed map, which upset both first nation groups. Sparke’s analysis of Judge McEachern’s statement is that while the map should have depicted a bigger voice to the first nation people, it didn’t, and instead belittles them. This incident gives insight to the ever ongoing battle of giving voice to the less privileged.

Also please mark for assessment: The two short stories and this post as well.

Thank you very much.

Discussion post#5

When I read the “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” by John Sutton Lutz, I do assume that he speaks of a Western society context. When the assumption of Lutz, of which it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around, I find the statement to be attacking the notion of imperialism of Europeans during colonial times. Lutz states that Europeans don’t have” insufficient distance from our own and our ancestors’ world view.” (32) To me, our views of Western society, do not allow us to experience different cultures and spiritual performances. With western culture, we do not experience other cultures; instead we try to make other cultures conform to our ways and beliefs. So for Lutz to state that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around is a fair statement to make, as it shows the lack of compassion and willingness for Westerns to explore other cultures.

Every year, after the winter semester ends, I typically ride home in my grey Nissan Sentra, from Kelowna to Coquitlam. It takes around four and half hours to get from Kelowna to Coquitlam on the almost deserted highway, and along the trip, as I approach closer to home, memories flood the mind. I see signs of the amount of distance it takes to get to a city, and every time I see Coquitlam and the amount of kilometers it takes to get there, becoming fewer and fewer, I think about the excitement and thrill of seeing family and friends once again. I think about the concrete plans me and my family and friends have already planned out, and to build on the relationships, I’ve lost strength on.

Kilometer by kilometer, landmark by landmark, town by town, I think about how to make my visit back to Coquitlam, even better then it will already be; and as the years go by, and as I grow older, I think about the dwindling of opportunities for visits like this in the future. Seize the opportunity, I’ve been told, and I fear, when I look back on my visits to Coquitlam, that I did not seize enough of the opportunity. I want a lifetime of memories and experiences that when I grow old, and unable to live life to the fullest, I want to look back on the days in which I was younger with a life ahead of me, and not have regrets. I don’t want a few good memories; I want amazing stories, for almost every day for when I was in Coquitlam. It’s unrealistic to think that the next day, will better than the last one, but I can still aspire for this.

As the turn off approaches, and I reach the end of my trip on the highway, and onto to familiar neighbourhoods streets, a sense of home sets to kick in. My journey, to travel back home approaches its end, and now a new chapter in my life begins. While it is a brief chapter, that has next chapter on the horizon, it still however, is the most anticipated chapter. It’s the chapter that hits the reader home, and connects the reader with a sense of identification. I begin to remember familiar streets, just like I was a child again, riding in the back of my mother’s car. I remember visiting familiar shops and stores with my friends and family and seeing the houses that almost look untouched since last time I visited. The memories and experiences of being home and seeing where I grew up, rush to the mind. Every turn, every light and every road, is one filled with familiarity and comfort. I’m not in a town, away from my family and friends, as I start a new life, a new chapter, but instead I’m home again, a place where as long as my family and friends still live there, I’ll be sure to come back to.

As I approach my parent’s driveway, and ease the car behind my parent’s car, I finally reach home. I see the short cubic like front yard, the brick-layered walkway, and the tall hedges that gives privacy to around the house. Sights and familiar cars pass by the house, and it feels like I’ve never even left. When I finally walk in with my suitcase and greet my family and cat, and say my greeting and receive my welcoming does the embracement of home overcomes me.  Jubilant celebration and inclusion overwhelm me. As I walk up stairs and put my suitcase away in my un touched room and with all my childhood memories still kept in my room, does the feeling of love, family and home touches me.

When I wrote this story, I felt a bit motivated to personalize it; after all, I am a fourth year English major. My story focuses, on gossiping, and the consequences of it by spreading false rumors. Why I think this story pertains to the course is because of the issue of trust in today’s society. In a capitalist society, exploitation, for personal gain, is still too common, and this story reflects, an ongoing problem in today’s world.

I have a great story to tell you

Once upon a time, in which the Earth was still young, there was once lived a frog, a raven, a fox and a bear. The four of them were the greatest of friends, they go through the woods, hunting, playing, living and laughing together every day, since they had been born. They had seemed inseparable, truly connected with each other, bonded by the preciousness of friendship and of the world around them. Upon one day, all of that changed.

On a mid-summer day, out in the forest, Bear came to the Raven, Fox and Frog, of splendid news.

“Gather round” he said to his friends “I have the most prosperous news, I would like to share.” Circling around the bear they eagerly anticipated, of the good fortune, that Bear was about to tell.

“I have found the most delicious of berries, behind the oak trees, and across the rapid river. They were red and supple, tasted of sweetness and were so filling in the body and soul. It was a wonderful sight to behold, for; I believe this place was untouched by anyone, ever. I found them yesterday, and stayed until my heart was ever delighted. I wish could bring back all the berries for you my friends, but I can’t. Tomorrow, after we rest for the night, we shall go to this paradise, and we eat, until we can’t no more.”

The news that Bear had brought them excited the three of them. They could already taste the berries. They envisioned the berries in their dreams, with its soft text texture, and sweet taste, and tomorrow they would be eating them, with their closest friends.

The sun was rising, on the next day, and the four of them sat out and went behind the oak trees and across the rapid river. When they finally reached to the land of berries, they found to their astonishment, that all the berries had been picked. They found the snakes, lizards, squirrels and crows had eaten them all. They had their bellies full, and their lips red, with a look of content on their faces. “The best thing, my tongue has ever tasted,” they all said.

“How could this be?” said Bear. “Surely no one knew, of this place!” He exclaimed. In searching for any berries, they came empty handed in which in disappointment and glum, they returned home, with their stomachs growling and their hearts broken. They had wanted to taste the berries that Bear described, but were unfortunate, to have the rest of animals in the forest to discover the berries as well.

Days had passed in the forest, and with the Fox, Raven and Frog, laughing and playing, Bear came to them with great news to share.

“Gather round” he said to his friends “I have the most prosperous news, I would like to share.” Circling around bear, again they eagerly anticipated, of the good fortune, that Bear was about to tell.

“I have discovered the most beautiful waterfall. The water flows so fluidly and is ever so secluded from anywhere else. It is the perfect place to play and laugh and share our food, for the rest of our lives. In a couple days’ time, I will take you up the Gray Mountain and through the bristly bushes to the secret waterfall.”

Excited for their new place to play, the four of them went up the Gray Mountain and through the bristly bushes to find the most beautiful of waterfalls. As they approached the waterfall, they could hear sounds of laughter and joy, and as they looked upon the waterfall, the rest of forest, had already reached the waterfall, and made homes near it.

“NO!” yelled Bear. “Impossible, no one could have known about this place, except for me.”

“Its alright, it is the most beautiful waterfall I have ever seen” said Raven.

“Truly unlucky, how could we be so unfortunate twice in the most recent days?” said Fox.

“Maybe one day, we have a beautiful place like this to call home.” said Frog.

Bear then asked, the rest of the animals, how did they find the waterfall, but the animals kept shut who about had led them to magical place. The animals said “if we tell you who helped us find this place, then you might never share your secrets again with them, and therefore, we will never be informed of where such magnificent places exist.”

So again, in disappointment and glum, they returned home, with their hearts broken, but this time, bear thought back, and to his knowing, he had only told, Fox, Raven and Frog where, the waterfall was. Bear had realized that one of his closest of friends had betrayed him and told the rest of the animals of the forest where the waterfall was and possibly as well as where the berries were. In thought, Bear thought hard who could have done this, but could not make, any claims as to who it was.  Having no idea who it was, bear created a plan to expose who the secret teller was.

The next day, he pulled Frog, Raven and Fox aside, privately to share a secret. He had told them, separately of the longest and darkest cave, however, the bear had told of three different places where the cave was located. He told Frog that the cave was located near the rapid river. Raven was told that the cave was located on top of Red Mountain, and Fox was told that the cave was over the grassy hill.

Bear had told all three of them, “do not tell anyone though, it’s a secret between you and I for now.”

“I can keep a secret” said Frog

“I won’t tell anyone” said Raven

“I am the best at keeping secrets” said Fox

When the next day had risen, the whole animal kingdom including Fox, Raven and Frog had gathered around Bear, in anger and frustration. “Where is the cave?” said the animals. “The cave is not there!”

“Where did you go look?” asked Bear.

“We looked over the grassy hill but there is no cave there, only shrubs. So where is the cave?”

“I’m sorry to say this, but there is no cave.” said Bear. “There was never a cave over the grassy hill. Instead, I fabricated a lie, to see who informs you of my secrets.”

“It appears Fox, is the secret teller between us four” he said to only his friends.

“I am not, it wasn’t me” proclaimed Fox.

“But it is you,” said Bear, “I had only told you three of this cave, but only you that the cave was located over the grassy hill, I had told frog that the cave was near the rapid river and raven that the cave was located near Red Mountain.”

“No this cannot be” said fox.

“But it is” said the bear. “Why did you tell everyone my secrets?”

“I wanted the rest of the animal kingdom to be envious of us. I boasted to the rest of the animals of our fun and discoveries to create jealousy and to prove how great we are. I am sorry Bear, I never meant for our places to be taken away from us or take you for granted.”

In disappointment and shame, the fox had learned a lesson.

Be careful about the stories you tell and the stories you listen to — because once a story is told it can never be taken back.

While Chamberlain brings the notion of the “imaginary” and “reality” to discussion, in regards to the history of settlement in the lives of the Indigenous, I would like to discuss, in my post, the importance and differences of both “ways.” To begin with, I would like to discuss the “imaginary.” As Chamberlain puts it, the stories and storytelling of indigenous’ homes, or the “imaginary” “tells different truths about religions, sciences, histories, and the arts; these truths are the answers to our questions about where we came from and why we are here.”(par.2) As to summarize, these “beliefs” or “truths” gave indigenous people a sense of national pride, as their “beliefs” helped define their identity, history and culture, in regards to the formation of their home. These stories gave reality to who the indigenous people, shaped by their land, to which what they consider to be their “home.”

The “reality” portion does not focus on these “beliefs”, as a part of the history of settlement in the lives of Indigenous. Instead they focus and documented the supposed “truth” as “the peoples who arrived to make this land their home… they had left their homes behind. The peoples that these “settlers” encountered were at home on their land. The settlers did indeed make their home, and the Indigenous peoples became homeless in their own land.” (par.7) The reality, was that the land that the Indigenous people built their home on, was now being taken over by European settlers, so they can build their own home.

One of the key differences in the “imaginary” and the “reality” is how the “home” for the Indigenous people and European settlement was created. The stories, about the formation of their home, for the Indigenous people, was created by stories, and passed on through generations, by means of storytelling. The invasion of European settlement meant that the Indigenous people lost their culture, and history upon the land, they created their home on. The European invasion into the lands of the Indigenous people, made the Indigenous people lose their homes, and became “homeless.” At no fault of their own, the Indigenous people’s culture, history were forgotten, and their “beliefs” were forgotten for the “reality” of the European settlement. The European settlement pushed the boundaries of the Indigenous peoples’ homes and saw the land that they built their home on, being taken away from them, which, I argue is a possible consequence of understanding the history of settlement in Canada, in regards to using the “imaginary” and the “reality.”

Works Cited

Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.

Chamberlin, Edward. “Interview with J. Edward Chamberlin”. Writer’s Café.  Web April 04 2013.