Monthly Archives: March 2015

I was assigned pages 131-145 which I believe correspond to pages 130 (which begins with “I’ve been elected spokesperson for our table …”) to 143 (the last sentence being “Eli could see the man’s mouth open and close in a shout …” .

The first section is from pages 130-135. The Dead Dog Café is visited by four Americans: Jeanette, Nelson, Rosemarie De Flor and her husband, Bruce. According to the Canadian Literature Guide 161/162, Jeanette refers to singer/actress Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson refers to singer/actor Nelson Eddy. The two of them starred in Rose Marie, a film set in the Canadian wilderness, where MacDonald played Rosemarie and Eddy played Bruce, an RCMP officer. Nelson comes off as a stereotypical womanizer and Bruce is equally annoying with his anecdotes of working in the RCMP. Nelson is also incredulous with the idea that the Dead Dog Café is serving dog meat. However, this is just the kind of stuff with which tourists associate ‘Indians’. In Schwarz’s book, Fighting Colonialism with Hegemonic Culture: Native American Appropriation of Indian Stereotypes, she gives examples of how Native Americans have appropriated stereotypes of Indians, on their own terms and for their own benefit. “The same banalities that have for centuries been used by colonizers to fetishize Indians, thereby inscribing them in a certain disenfranchised societal position in order to keep American Indians powerless, are now being used by Native American nations to empower themselves; by selling product and other means” (Schwarz 4). Although Schwarz’s focus is on Native Americans, in the book, Latisha is able to “[fight] colonialism at home” (Schwarz 5) as the owner of the Dead Dog Café and skillfully knowing what types of stereotypes to play on in order to attract customers.

On page 136, Eli Stands Alone has his typical conversation with Clifford Sifton about getting Eli to give up the land to allow the dam to be used. According to the CanLit guide, Sifton was deaf (150). Therefore, even though Eli may say “no”, Sifton never really listens to the reasons behind Eli’s answers. Sifton believes Eli is stubborn, but Eli has a very good reason through Aboriginal treaty rights not to concede to Sifton. Sifton posesses “the federal government’s understanding of Aboriginal rights and title” which is “based on the assumption that the Canadian state holds underlying title to all of Canada” (Asch 211) when Aboriginal title precedes any claim of Canadian title. Sifton may believe that “those treaties aren’t worth a damn” (King 141), but through the connection of the dam with a sense of home, it is clear that the land itself has more value than a legal contract.

I found an interesting connection between Eli Stands Alone and George Morningstar/George Armstrong Custer and his “Last Stand”. George Morningstar refers to George Armstrong Custer, a general and famous Indian fighter (Flick 149). Custer supposedly had children with a Cheyenne woman named Mo-nah-se-tah and Custer was well known for his buckskins. George Morningstar is similar to Custer in that he tries to immerse himself in the tradition of the Indians but really believes he is superior. Custer’s “Last Stand” is portrayed as a heroic effort, albeit futile, to withstand the forces of some Plains Indians Tribes. One textbook mentions that when Custer and his men crossed the Little Big Horn, “this was the last sight any white man had of Custer’s men” (387). The racist attitudes of the time are unfortunately well reflected in this textbook as seen in the quotation I have included. Custer’s death is the subject of much controversy in terms of who claims to have killed Custer and how. In fact, Custer’s death made him famous and is the subject of many projects of history telling. In contrast, Eli’s “last stand” is a nuisance to those who just want Eli to leave so they can live on the land. Just by reading what Sifton says, it is obvious that Sifton carries the racist thinking of the Canadian government and would prefer to erase treaty history in order to profit from the dam and make a name for himself. Although Eli dies when the dam breaks, those who want the land are still not able to get what they want. Eli’s last stand is successful and allows his family members to get a chance to live in the cabin while maintaining the treaty rights.

The Sun Dance is an important ceremony for the Blackfoot nation (please see the discussion I have with Heather below). King gives the reader a glimpse into the Sun Dance when Eli recounts his childhood memory of watching the men dance (137). However, only two pages later, the story of the man taking pictures of the Sun Dance signals to the reader that we are not to know what takes place in the Sun Dance. In King’s “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial” essay, he describes how associational literature “avoids centering the story on the non-Native community … concentrating instead on the daily activities and intricacies of Native life” (187). In this lesson, we are asked to be willing “to not know” in our initial reading of the book. However, Green Grass, Running Water is a form of associational literature where “For the non-Native reader, this literature provides a limited and particular access to a Native world” (187). Therefore, we are not given access to fully know in the case of the Sun Dance. However, we are still able to witness its significance in the lives of the characters. King’s use of narrative decolonization avoids a “them versus us” dichotomy by showing us that it is okay to not know. At the same time, his story reassures us that we will start to know what we should.

Works Cited

Asch, Michael, ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 16 March 2015.

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

King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Mississauga, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190.

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

Schwarz, Maureen Trudelle. Fighting Colonialism with Hegemonic Culture : Native American Appropriation of Indian Stereotypes. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press, 2013. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 15 March 2015.

Wikipedia contributors. “George Armstrong Custer.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 Mar. 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

Identify and discuss two of King’s “acts of narrative decolonization.” Please read the following quote to assist you with your answer. The lives of King’s characters are entangled in and informed by both the colonial legacy in the Americas and the narratives that enact and enable colonial domination. King begins to extricate his characters’ lives from the domination of the invader’s discourses by weaving their stories into both Native American oral traditions and into revisions of some of the most damaging narratives of domination and conquest: European American origin stories and national myths, canonical literary texts, and popular culture texts such as John Wayne films. These revisions are acts of narrative decolonization. James Cox. “All This Water Imagery Must Mean Something.”

Throughout King’s story, the Blackfoot characters and their stories are often silenced/ignored by those who belong to a colonial legacy. By intertwining stories from Native American oral traditions with narratives that come from colonizers, King subverts the colonial domination and (re-)introduces readers to stories that have existed long before colonization. This act of narrative decolonization allows the Aboriginal voice to be audibly heard when the ‘oral syntax’ of the book makes the reader read out loud, but it also creatively changes the dominant colonial narratives so that the dichotomous nature of colonialism and othering gives way to stories that reconnect and heal.

Page 41. Out of the Christian story of the Garden of Eden, the character of First Woman subverts the notion that males are superior to females. When Adam is called to name creation, he gets it all wrong. Furthermore, the character of GOD, who is just a dog, is portrayed to be a very stingy dog. In contrast to the typical colonial creation story, the Aboriginal creation story of First Woman shows that she has agency, unlike Eve who many feel is a justification to treat women as inferior to men. Although I am a Christian, I recognize that a lot of damage has been done by the use of the Biblical creation story in order to colonize and subjugate those who do not believe in it, as well as disparage women because Eve supposedly brought sin into the world. King’s version instead shows First Woman doing as she pleases because she is part of who created the garden. It is her creation, not GOD’s, and certainly not that of the colonizers.

Page 270. First, we meet A.A. Gabriel who is the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel tries to impose the Biblical story of the Virgin Mary on Thought Woman, but ultimately fails. Instead of having no say, Thought Woman can simply just refuse and walk away. Moreover, King takes the Canadian National Anthem and changes that one line so that it highlights the problem of colonialism that is embedded in nationalism. Indeed, Canada is “our home on Natives’ land”. Perhaps this is an uncomfortable truth, but even this small sentence is a start to changing the way we think about where we live and who we live with. The fact is, colonization was not a one time thing. It was a deliberate process that wanted to dispossess Aboriginal peoples of their rights and their lands. It is also ongoing. But King cleverly shows us that narrative decolonization is more powerful because it can unite perspectives that may once have been at odds with one another.

I recall when I read Green Grass, Running Water for ENGL 222, the professor asked if we thought Christians would be offended with this book. Personally, I do not believe King purposely intended to offend Christians. Instead, through the act of narrative decolonization, he has actually removed the “them versus us” mentality by making the readers evaluate how they perceive and tell stories. In this interview, King explains that he began writing this novel with “the assumption that Christian myth was the one that informed the world that [he] was working with”. However, this did not give him ample creative freedom. King thus weaves Native stories and Western stories together and pushes it through a “grinder … as Native culture’s been pushed through that sort of North American grinder” (68). It may be uncomfortable for some, but I believe that part of healing and coming together requires us to acknowledge problems first and work to find ways for coexistence and cooperation.

This TedxTalk focuses on decolonization by learning to really listen to each others’ stories. Olivia Rutazibwa explains that: “Decolonization is about what type of information is available for our mainstream societies. Secondly, it’s also not about political correctness. It’s not about silencing yourself … it’s the opposite. It’s the call to dig deeper … Whenever you feel silenced yourself, you or your group, or whoever you’re part of, that you step up and take it upon yourself to tell your story.” I think King has taken that step and allowed us to experience these great stories because of narrative decolonization.

Works Cited

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

King, Thomas. Interview with Peter Gzowski. Canadian Literature. n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.

Tedx Talks. “TedxFlanders – Olivia U. Rutazibwa – Decoloniser.” Online video clip. YouTube. Youtube. 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.