Question 1: First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?
King’s presentation of the story “The Earth Diver” paired with “Genesis” points out that stories are a construction yet they are powerful and have material impacts. Binaries, he suggests, are problematic because they assume these are the only two options and that one of these must be true. The effect of King’s storytelling in these different ways emphasizes the way history often is believed as the truth. Using an authoritative voice for the telling of “Genesis” reflects the ways Western religions have been a means of assimilation and justification of violence. King tells us he will use an authoritative voice when retelling “Genesis” to establishes a sense of veracity (23). He is pointing at a loaded history around Christian storytelling and how it is told as the truth. Stories, as Lutz reminds us, have currency when people believe them (4). King’s commenting on the authority of “Genesis” works to undermine it. Now that we are aware of the intended authoritative voice, we are more likely to question it. In opposition to this storytelling strategy of “Genesis” King shares that Basil Johnston, an Anishnabe storyteller highlights the importance of laughter and not taking stories too seriously (23). Whether a story is told in a comical or serious way, however, does not according to King have an impact on the sophistication of the story. King is trying to tell us that the ‘seriousness’ associated with Christian stories in opposition to the more casual nature of certain Indigenous tribal stories does not make Christian stories anymore true. It is important, therefore, to be critical of stories and whether they need us to believe something.
America’s creation story, this article examines, covers up the genocide associated with the construction of America as a settler nation. It is also these Christian stories that justified Canadian Residential Schools. King thus wants to remind us that stories are not always just stories, they have real impacts on policies, practices, and lives.
Another important point King brings up with the presentation of “The Earth Diver” and “Genesis” is that one story depicts creation as a shared activity while the latter depicts creation as solitary. The problem with “Genesis” is that it establishes a hierarchy of beings. As we understand now, it is this superiority humans feel that is destroying the earth. If humans see themselves as above animals and plants and land, it is no wonder we are okay with depleting the earth. Dichotomies, King reminds us, are a beloved part of Western society (25). This reflects the greater us vs. them dichotomy of settlers and Indigenous peoples first encounter stories from Western perspectives rely on. King is urging us to be cautious of dichotomies and to understand that nothing is simple.
Works Cited
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. “America’s Founding Myths.” Jacobin, 24 Nov. 2014, www.jacobinmag.com/2014/11/americas-founding-myths/.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: a Native Narrative. House of Anansi Press Inc., 2003.
Lutz, John. “Myth Understandings: First Contact, Over and Over Again.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous-European Contact, University of British Columbia Press, 2007, pp. 1–15.
“The Role of the Churches.” Facing History and Ourselves, www.facinghistory.org/stolen-lives-indigenous-peoples-canada-and-indian-residential-schools/chapter-3/role-churches.
Hi Jade, thanks for your post! I’d love to give some feedback! I did the same question so It’s interesting to see someone else’s take on it. You seem to be saying that King uses the choice of dichotomy to demonstrate and to worn us of the problem of them. King asking us to choose is an ironic action for you, or this is what I gained from your post. Your idea is really interesting but I find that you need to make a stronger introduction of your point, maybe the first or second sentence or summarize it in the final points.
For my post I talked about the fact that King actually wants us to choose. Mainly because he talks about how he realizes his hypocrisy and says that he isn’t trying to make us abandon all our stories and myths, but we should think carefully what stories we choose to believe. We both found his caution message but we took it a different way. I find that interesting because even with an academic work, stories can still be interpreted in different ways.
An interesting point that you made was when you talked about being critical if a story needs us to believe in something. I’d love if you’d expand on this, as I found it super interesting. What do you think of the agenda of origin stories themselves and what they want from us? For me it relates to the idea that stories are lies that we use to justify, distract or aggravate/relieve ourselves. Such as the stories of progress in what we buy, every new version of a shaver is ‘progress’ on the product. And this story of consumption and progress is used to fuel our need to consume products in a capitalistic system. The story survives as the producer and re-producer of common ideals and view on the world. And, if we use your idea, King cautions us to believe stories like this, that try to convince us of the intrinsic value of a social norm or expectation. I found your idea really interesting and would now like to pose the question: have you made a choice on which of the two creation stories you believe in or have you condone all stories?
Hi Nargiza,
Thank you for reading my blog and for your comment.
To expand on what I meant by stories needing us to believe in something is that stories have material consequences. Glorified colonization stories want us to believe that their story is the correct story in order for us to participate in the system of colonialism. The Christian creation story, as another example, wants us to believe in the figure of God and the hierarchy of beings, thus marking some beings as better and more powerful than others. Us buying into this story plays into the destruction of the earth because humans see themselves as better than animals and plants. On that note, I completely agree with what you say about stories having alternative agendas. This is not to say that all stories have negative agendas, and I think that is something King wants us to know.
I do not believe or not believe in either of the stories, rather I recognize them both as fiction that tells us about our own cultures and societies.
-Jade
Hello Jade!
I chose to write on this topi as well. As someone who is not religious in any way I found the “Earth Diver” story to be more believable because of the way creation was done collectively. Because I take a more scientific approach to the creation of Earth I found it interesting how the way the stories were told can very much impact an opinion/view completely based on the words and story telling “voice”.
Hi Megan,
Thank you for your comment. It is interesting to think about the scientific approach, as from that perspective there is only one correct answer. Stories as well can be told as the ‘truth’ though it is clear they are subjective.
-jade
Hi Jade! Thank you so much for your post. I really enjoyed reading your perspective on this question because I have read a few others and their takes were quite different.
I enjoyed reading about how you felt that King was trying to prove that regardless of the authoritative tone, hierarchy, and layout of each story, this does not affect the truth to the story. It was an interesting analysis. I do have to pose an issue with your analysis of King because I do feel like he wanted people to choose which story to pick. However, I did not analyze it as well as you did. In general what i have noticed is that the casual tone and co-operation of storytelling is not as believable to the general public as an authoritative tone with hierarchy and force. If you had to choose one of King’s stories to believe, which one would you choose?
I found this interesting link about Indigenous oral tellings and how authority in storytelling doesn’t have to derive from Western precedents. I think you would enjoy this! https://blogs.ubc.ca/harnoorsidhu/2015/09/23/authority-in-story-telling/
Thanks! Maya 🙂
Hi Maya,
Thank you for reading and responding to my blog!
I think as a literature major it is hard for me to believe any story as the truth because they are all constructed. I see both stories as different reflections of the beliefs of different cultures thus I can’t seem to choose one over the other.
I enjoyed this link you have posted, it is interesting how different ways of telling stories influence the ways they are perceived. Non-western modes of storytelling, as this article discusses, have very fascinating and effective ways of sharing that rely on context.
-Jade 🙂