2) I’m going to answer this question in a way that (I pray) isn’t too tangential. After reading Linda Hutcheon’s “Introduction”, Northrop Frye’s “Preface” and his “Conclusion to a Literary History of Canada” I have taken away the thematic significance of Canadian identity, particularly the significance of the concepts “unity” and “identity” in the young Canada of Frye’s time. For me, Frye makes Canada out to be a country lacking wholeness and nationalism as a consequence of its largely unexplored, uninhabited terrain. This intimidating setting works along with a cultural incontinuity displayed through a battle for language dominance with the French and the English.

I remember watching the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and feeling annoyed at how Canadian culture was presented to the world. Literally every present-day stereotypical aspect of Canadian culture was included in the internationally-viewed performance including (but not limited to) beavers, moose, lumberjacks, maple syrup, a hell of a lot of ice, the mounties, and oversized winter coats.

https://youtu.be/0LZz5YQr-pg

The opening ceremonies depicted a country that is made up of harsh, cold weather, and landscapes of vast emptiness. While not every aspect of the ceremony was awful (some of the ceremony was very touching), it still missed so much of what it means to be a Canadian (at least what it means today). This ceremony looks toward stereotypes for some sort of inherent Canadian-ness. For me, it looks pretty stricken of (and desperate for) some sort of true Canadian identity. This ceremony depicts for me what Northrop Frye seems to be directing us toward: his understanding of a past Canada’s search for identity.

Canadian identity seems to have its roots in more modern cultural depictions. This video above touches on the humorous aspect of Canadian identity. In this video Jeremy Hotz (1997) compares us to the US stating “we’re very similar to the United States. We both have armies… we just didn’t give ours guns or anything.. Here comes the Canadian army with plastic knives and forks” (Hotz, 1997). While this statement is certainly funny, it isn’t necessarily wrong. Hotz is touching on a lack of individuality that exists for Canada as almost the “naïve little brother” of the US: loyal enough to be included, but too underdeveloped to be given any real sovereignty.

After reading the assigned parts of Northrop Frye’s “The Bush Garden”, I feel like Frye is pinpointing the similar colonial issues of identity and unity that burdened young Canada. Frye describes Canada as “full of wilderness”(222) and “to enter Canada [as] a matter of being silently swallowed by an alien continent” (219).

Frye defines identity as “local and regional, rooted in the imagination and in works of culture” and unity as “national in reference, international in perspective, and rooted in political feeling” (xxii). Frye states “The tension between this political sense of unity and the imaginative sense of locality is the essence of whatever the word ‘Canadian’ means” (xxiii) therefore identifying (what he deems as) the inherent issue with Canadian-ness. Frye later identifies the heterogeneous language tension that governs Canada. Frye touches on the issues of the French versus the English in crises like the FLQ and states “Assimilating unity to identity produces the kind of provincial isolation which is now called separatism” (xxiii).

Because Frye focuses so distinctly on (what he considers to be) the issues of identity and unity in this “wilderness”, I believe that this heavily influences his observations regarding Scott’s work. Indigenous peoples, being peoples of the vast, unexplored, frightening Canadian lands are those who already identify themselves with Canadian territory. In addition, as a culture consisting primarily of orality, I feel Frye ignores Aboriginal cultures and Scott’s attempt at their historical destruction because Frye is more focused on the literary aspect of Canadian culture. Seeing as this literary aspect is more heavily demonstrated through immigrant colonials, the tensions between Scott and Aboriginal culture are tangential to Frye’s focus.

——-

Works Cited

Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden; Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Toronto: Anansi, 1995. Print.
“Just for Laughs – What Does It Mean to Be Canadian?” YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 24 June 2015.

“Opening Ceremony – Highlights – Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games.” YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 24 June 2015.

Alright. This question might be hard, but I think it’s an awesome question so I’m going to give it a go.

Carlson’s publication makes a few thought-provoking points that challenge my pre-existing ideas about orality, literacy, Aboriginal culture and its relationship with Western culture. In particular, Carlson discusses the binary of “orality” versus “literacy” that has characterized Aboriginal and Western cultures since, well, Canadian colonization. Carlson begins by explaining the two different Aboriginal stories: Bertha Peters’ story and Harry Robinson’s story. Both of these stories, while they are inherently different, demonstrate the importance of literacy in Aboriginal culture and history.

Bertha Peters’ story is centralized around three chiefs that were taught to read and write by a Great Spirit. It was the three chiefs’ task to share this knowledge with the rest of their people, however they failed. As punishment these chiefs were transformed into stone. Peters states that because the chiefs’ people could not write down what they knew about themselves, their history, or their lives in general, the people of the three chiefs lost all of their knowledge (Carlson 43).

Robinson’s story talks about how literacy is stolen from Coyote. In Robinson’s story Coyote’s twin steals the piece of paper that enables the twins to become literate. Coyote eventually chases down his twin in London, and there they write the “black and white law”. Robinson states that literacy is “the key to accountability and the means of restoring interracial balance” and “is shown to be a powerful force, capable of precipitating transformations in people’s lives not unlike the transformative power associated with Coyote” (51 [emphasis added]). Robinson says that withheld Aboriginal literacy resulted in alienation, lost lands and lost culture.

Peters and Robinson argue the significance of literacy as a vital element of transformative life that was literally stolen (or withheld) from these Aboriginal cultures. For Peters’ story, literacy (or greed by literacy) is literally the reason the three chiefs are transformed into stone. In addition, the illiteracy of the chiefs’ people hinders their progression/transformation as a society. In this case, literacy both causes transformation and inhibits transformation.

The transformative stagnation of illiteracy that Peters describes is actually really interesting. Not only does this story address the reason Aboriginal cultures were left “illiterate”, but it also addresses the historical significance of literacy in Aboriginal culture. Peters and Robinson’s stories bridge the binary between orality and literacy that has forever distinguished my understanding of Aboriginal and Western culture. Carlson further conjoins these Aboriginal stories with the significance of literacy when he writes about the Stölo history of the Fraser River. This Stölo history tells the story of xe:xal:s, the transformers, who developed great transformative powers and punished three chiefs who “refused, or failed, to share their knowledge of literacy” (47). All of this helps explain how transformation relates to literacy itself, but how is transformation an “act of literacy”?

Carlson states earlier on that in the eyes of Western Culture, a culture without literacy is a culture without history. He moves on to the issue of validity in both Western and Aboriginal cultures. Carlson states that Western cultures use footnotes and references to validate their claims, and in the case of poor interpretation or inaccuracy, the Western scholar is seen as either a sloppy or a dishonest academic (57). In contrast, the Salish world relies upon memory, renditions of the narrative told, as well as the teller’s status and reputation to rate historical accuracy and validity of the speaker/their story. Similar to Western culture, inaccurate retellings of stories are also deemed sloppy and unreliable by Salish conveyors. In Aboriginal cultures there are frightening consequences for unreliable retellings and pose dangers to both the storyteller and the audience. Carlson discusses similar dangerous situations in Western culture with Nazism, where inaccurate historical retellings resulted in horrible disaster. By conveying the importance of validity in both Western society and Aboriginal society, Carlson is able to refute the Western claim that a society without literacy is a society without history, as he clearly conveys the existence of historical retellings and the significance of their accuracy/validity in Aboriginal society. Carlson goes on to then say that “transformation stories are as much, if not more, about permanency or stability as they are about the change from one state to another”. Why is this historical validity so important?

According to Carlson, just like Aboriginal stories are passed down from generation to generation, family names are also passed down. According to Carlson, pieces of the person(s) soul are attached to the name when it is passed down. Carlson writes “transformation stories are as much, if not more, about creating permanency or stability as they are about documenting the change from one state to another” (61). The name of the Transformers (Aboriginal peoples of the Fraser River) as well as the verb that is used to describe their transformative powers come from the same root work that describes the process of “marking” (61). Carlson writes “the Transformers leave their mark on the world through transformations… [they] are then understood and known through stories describing that act. Considered in this light, the ‘root word refers to inscription in the widest sense’” (61). Marking is therefore associated with the transformer, and according to Carlson “transforming [the chiefs] to stone was an act of literacy” (62). Robinson himself says before that literacy was powerful and could cause transformations in people’s lives, not unlike the power of the Transformers of the Stölo. Therefore, the act of transforming in its historical foundation is also the act of literacy.

I can’t help but draw connections between the bridged binary that Carlson builds between the worlds of orality and literacy with the creation story binary of Thomas King: The Aboriginal creation Story versus Genesis (the Western Creation Story). I’ll leave you all with this question: How do you think Thomas King bridges a similar binary? Maybe we’ll look at one of our questions from last week: why does Thomas King create this binary, and how does this relate to Carlson and the relationship between transformation and literacy as it relates to orality and literacy?

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: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” The Indian Act. The University of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 18 June 2015.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. Toronto: House of Anansi, 2003. Print.
Miller, J.R. “Residential Schools.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 June 2015.

Thomas King asks, “If this is your land, where are your stories” for a reason. Stories are narratives, sequences, plots, or events. A significant dichotomy that defines a story is its credibility. In other words, whether a story is nonfictional or fictional; true or false. Thomas King creates this same dichotomy when he pits the Aboriginal creation story and the European creation story against one another. If only one can be true, then the other must be false..

He begins with the Aboriginal creation story; a story told with a colloquial voice that follows Charm as she falls through the sky, into the water, onto the land and onto the rest of the world. In this world, everything begins with water. All of the animals work together to create the land that Charm needs to live and to give birth to her twins. The voice of the narrator has a childish fluidity that speaks to the reader like it would if it were spoken aloud. This voice does not deviate from the Aboriginal culture that it reflects, as Aboriginal culture is heavily characterized by orality and the power of storytelling.

Charm isn’t necessarily the most likeable character. She seems selfish, makes mistakes, and acts a lot like coyote in Green Grass Running Water. However, despite her flaws, Charm literally gives birth to the world when she gives birth to her twins. These twins are basically Yin and Yang. Upon my first read, I thought that one twin would be good and one twin would be evil. However, I learned that they were just different from one another. Together, these twins meshed both big and little pieces of both of them to create a world that reflected these similar, differing (but not opposing) characteristics. These characteristics were not good and evil, but black and white, Q and U, or peanut butter and jelly. These characters used what was unique about them to create a world that reflected their differences. This creation story ends with a cohesive, functioning world that results from exhaustive teamwork. This creation story ends well, and it ends happily.

I grew up in what I call a “demi-religious household”. By this I mean we went to church approximately three times per year: Christmas, Easter, and whenever my Nan visited. I mention this because I find it hard to appreciate the Genesis story with my demi-religious background. We always pretended to be religious, but we never really were. As a result I know enough about the bible to characterize it with the same degree of truth that I would the Aboriginal story. To recap: the Aboriginal story talks about a woman that miraculously becomes pregnant, falls from the sky, somehow lands in water, and gives birth to twins that create the world.

AKA: The bible is a big, fat narrative.

Like the question states, Genesis is narrated quite differently than Charm’s story. The narrator speaks with powerful intent. The voice is masculine, and speaks with a literate voice (a voice that is created through literacy). The story ends with Eve, a woman, who eats the forbidden fruit and is shunned to earth. She is punished for her mistakes and lives with Adam in chaos. Genesis begins with paradise and ends with the world. Genesis creates the world as a punishment to the woman, the weaker one, who disobeys the almighty and all-powerful God. Unlike Charm’s story of creation and birth, Genesis is about punishment and suffering.

Just for fun let’s dissect these stories and list the oppositions that exist:

• Colloquial narration vs. formal narration
• Orality vs. literacy
• Imperfect characters and teamwork create the world vs. imperfection that destroys paradise to create the world
• Positive ending vs. negative ending
• Women create the world vs. women destroy the world

At a first glance it’s easy for me to decide a good story and a bad story, much like I initially believed one of Charm’s twins to be good and the other evil. However, this would be an oversimplification. Instead, King creates this dichotomy to reveal these two stories as stories (narratives, sequences, plots or events). King doesn’t expose the reader to these stories in an effort to persuade the reader into believing one or the other. Instead, he creates this dichotomy under the umbrella of spirituality. Stories like these don’t need to be right or wrong. They can coexist in the world as stories. That’s really all they are, and that’s all King is really trying to show us.

———-

Works Cited

“Bible Summary – Genesis.” Bible Summary – Genesis. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2015.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 13 June 2015.

“Green Grass, Running Water Summary – ENotes.com.” Enotes.com. Enotes.com, n.d. Web. 13 June 2015.

MacNeil, Courtney. “The Chicago School of Media Theory Theorizing Media since 2003.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. N.p., 2007. Web. 13 June 2015.

I’m surprised to find that so many of us feel so similar about the concept of “home”. I mentioned the ambiguity of “home” in my previous blog, and as I read the blogs of other students I began to feel that this feeling of ambiguity was more widespread than I initially thought.

Alishae Abeed talks about home “as a feeling” and describes her adventures back and forth from Lahore, to Dubai, to Oakville and to UBC. Alishae transgresses the physical space of “home” and describes it as a feeling with memories, family, friends, food, smells, and ultimately as something more than just the confinements of a property line. I share this feeling with Alishae, particularly the aspect of food, because there is nothing more “homey” to me than a piled plate of my mom’s spaghetti or her delicious salsa chicken.

Charmaine talks about the house that she grew up in on UBC Campus, her memories, her family, and eventually having to move into a new home away from campus. Charmaine reveals a conflict of ownership versus attachment that rules her confusion after discovering that her family never truly owns the house at UBC. While I believe that home is a feeling, as a child I felt a similar ownership for my home. Even thought it wasn’t mine (it was my parents) it felt like it was mine. Charmaine discusses the strange issue of whether or not her house was actually hers, as the home was actually situated on Musqueam land.

Fredi Li hits the hammer on the head when she states “home is comfort, familiarity, safety, love, and most importantly, family”. She shares her memory as a child when she was traveling toward Calgary on the “Going-To-The-Sun” road. In her moment of fear, she finds home in her family. Despite not having a physical place to call home, Freda expresses the happiness and comfort that she felt in the presence of her family. I share this feeling with Freda, as I have also always found a piece of home in each of my family members.

We all seem to share these values, assumptions, and stories:

-Home is hard to encompass in a finite definition

-Home is not stagnant. Home changes over time.

-Home includes family

-Home is familiar

——–

Works Cited

Abeed, Alishae. “ENGL 470A: Canadian Studies.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies. WordPress, n.d. Web. 09 June 2015.

Li, Charmaine. “A Home With Many Advantures.” Canadian Yarns and Storytelling Threads. WordPress, n.d. Web. 09 June 2015.

Li, Freda. “Whose Canada Is It?” ENGL 470 Whose Canada Is It. WordPress, n.d. Web. 09 June 2015.

I find it really hard to talk about the concept of “home”.

This isn’t necessarily because living at home has been a bad experience for me; it’s been wonderful. However, I feel like the concept of “home” is so ambiguous. Growing up I lived in two different homes. My first home was in a friendly neighbourhood next to all of my childhood friends. It was a great home with a big backyard, a trampoline and friendly neighbours, but eventually we moved. This was frightening for me as a child; moving my entire life into an unfamiliar place with unexplored corners was absolutely devastating. Yet, like my mom explained to me, this new house would soon become my home and it would feel just as warm and welcoming as the house before. The backyard was smaller, but it was big enough to fit our trampoline. There weren’t as many children around to play with, but my brother and I became closer to the two children that lived next door than we had ever been with our many friends and neighbours before. Nothing was the same, everything was new, but eventually that house became my home too.

When I left for university after graduation I had to say goodbye to my home once again. I packed up all of my belongings, said my goodbyes to all of my friends and family, and I moved into unfamiliar territory. I didn’t have any old friends to keep me company, I didn’t have my mother to reassure me that everything would be alright, and I didn’t even have the same bed that had given me so much comfort throughout the years (which I had always had despite any move). This time, I was completely alone. I had my suitcase, my computer and a mind full of pessimism. However, over the months I somehow found a way to grow attached to this little unfamiliar space with unfamiliar people and communal bathrooms (believe me, the lack of privacy was hard to accept). While I still had my home back in Abbotsford to return to for any long weekend or term break, this little dorm became my home-away-from-home. I made new friends, explored all of the unexplored corners, made new memories and learned more about myself in this unfamiliar territory than I ever would have if I had stayed at home.

Last November my family decided to move again. This time, it wasn’t because we needed a bigger house. My Grandfather was diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreatic cancer and my Grandma couldn’t take care of him alone. My Grandparents moved into the basement suite of our new house so that we could help take care of him whenever she needed. The home that provided me with all of my familiar comfort when I returned from university was no longer ours. Despite the fact that we were moving for good reasons, I couldn’t help but feel like I was losing the only constant space that I defined as home. I had never seen the house before I helped my family move in, and I was afraid of the new, unfamiliar space that would now become by new “constant” home. However, after returning for Christmas break I settled in perfectly.

I feel like, because the term “home” is so ambiguous, it doesn’t necessarily have to relate to any physical space specifically. Instead, “home” can refer to the feeling that you get after returning from the library after a long day of studying, the memories that taught you important lessons as a child or a young adult, the people that provide you with love, support and comfort, or even the feeling of being safe from harm. The concept of “home” is so ambiguous that it’s even used to describe our Facebook news feed (even though most of us would never characterize our social media as “home”)

My mom always told me that time heals everything. Even in the most uncomfortable, unfamiliar, frightening situations and spaces eventually become familiar.

——–

Works Cited
“In My First Year of University I Wish I Had …” The Globe and Mail. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2015.

“Preparing Your Child for a Move.” KidsHealth – the Web’s Most Visited Site about Children’s Health. Ed. Jennifer Shroff Pendley. The Nemours Foundation, 01 Nov. 2014. Web. 06 June 2015.