Assignment 3.2
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?
I had read this novel a couple times in my earlier course at UBC with Dr. Paterson, so I was familiar with the importance of the number 4, the Medicine Wheel, and the Old Indians when I read this novel again for this course. I paid more attention to the Old Indians and their significance and this time I thought more about the fact that the Old Indians were interchangeably male and female and that being old meant that they should be thought of as teachers. Even old Babo’s name is sometimes thought to be a man’s name, “[b]ut it’s not. It’s tradition… [f]irstborn gets named Babo” (King 24). Dr. Hovaugh believes the Indians are men and the names of Lone Ranger, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe, and Hawkeye are all male characters in Western stories. In fact, these names are determined from the start of the novel, and the reader does not see how this naming process comes about. But what the reader will notice is that each of these Western characters is a sort of stock figure who perpetuates a “noble savage” stereotype, and the fact that the Old Indians assign themselves these names and appropriate them means they undermine the solidity of the stereotypes and suggest that they can be changed. Changed even to the point that gender is non-specific.
We first encounter these four characters in unfixed space and it is unclear whether that space is the earthly world or an omniscient supernatural place. I tend to picture the setting of their first interactions to be floating along like Floating Woman and hovering over the earth. And this time around I thought about how First Woman, Changing Woman, Thought Woman, and Old Woman were also the four Old Indians (notice how they are not assigned a gender). What I found important is that the Old Indians’ mission is to “fix” the world, to adjust it’s current settings as has been done before, during the “last time [they] were here [in Canada]” (King 22). Repetition is stressed throughout the novel, and the Old Indians and the four women interchangeably demonstrate that the world has been occupied for a very long time and will continue to be occupied in the future but perhaps in different ways. What I found important this time around is the notion that “fixing” the world just means changing aspects that become problematic from stasis.
I think this stasis is a product of the Western method of thinking, where we rely on facts (like Northrop Frye and Dr. Hovaugh) to explain the world around us and treat these facts as absolute. Once we get comfortable, we stick with that belief. And I find it hard as a non-Native person to let go of that process of thinking because I haven’t been raised thinking about the world any other way. Yesterday in my Art History 377 class we had a guest speaker come to our class from the Nuxalk Nation to explain their concept of “art”. To tackle this concept he had to walk the room of non-Native people through the fact that his people do not create “art” just for aesthetic pleasure but rather the products we call art today are made as story-tellers. To illustrate this point he explained that there is no word for “art” in Nuxalk, but the closest word is “carpenter” or “person who cuts wood”. He then shared a story of four carpenters coming together to fix the world. Since the story is not mine to share I won’t include it here, but one message I retained from the story is the fact that the First Nations people of Nuxalk view their existence on this earth as something very minute in a larger history of existence, and that their presence on this earth should not negatively affect the ability of future generations to live with all the amenities the current generation enjoys now.
References
King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: HarperPerennial Canada, 1999. Print.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3.2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genres. UBC Blogs, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl470/unit-3/lesson-3-2/>.
Hey there!
I totally agree with the fact that you mentioned: “I think this stasis is a product of the Western method of thinking, where we rely on facts (like Northrop Frye and Dr. Hovaugh) to explain the world around us and treat these facts as absolute. ”
As an immigrant student, I take it onto myself to be as nonjudgmental and open minded as possible regarding new ideas and being critical with treating various facts as absolute – regardless or if they have been proven non-disputable or not. One thing that I would like to add is the distinction between points of views between western and native culture. One example that really sticks in my mind is the idea of different points of view, both true in their own way, representing the same idea, which is also true. To explain this, I would like you to picture a box sitting on the ground. On each side of the box is a different point of view, or a different truth. If I view the box from only one side, then I will see that truth as being the only truth because I have not seen the other sides. Just like if there is another individual on the opposite side of me, viewing the same box from a different perspective. What he sees is still true to him. But what native tradition and culture emphasizes is being open-minded to the ‘bigger picture’ that western culture tends to frown upon on. If you change your perspective, you will see that the other individuals side is also correct. What he is seeing is the truth as well, just a different version of it. Furthermore, if I pull myself back I will end up seeing the entire box — which is a completely new perspective that I have not seen before. This further exemplifies the fact that many different truths can be part of the whole ‘bigger’ truth, and that calling something absolute is quick limiting.
Thanks for the blog,
Anna.
Anna,
Thanks for coming up for a nice symbol for Rita Wong’s “unlearning” principle though the box analogy. I agree with you that stepping away from the “truth” you specifically perceive to be true and opening up to the possibility that a) others may believe something different and b) this new perceived “truth” could also be true makes the world a more tolerant space and thus a richer, more intelligent space.
A nice analysis of the four old Indians and the challenge of “knowing” – I especially liked your idea of “unfixing stereotypes” and I appreciate your connections to your art history class; enlightening. Thanks Jessica 😉
Hey Anna (again), I was just doing some research for one of my conference annotations and came across another box analogy that kind of expands on yours. I found it here: <http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10135993>. Battiste, Marie Ann. “Unfolding the Lessons of Colonization.” Introduction. Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Vancouver: UBC, 2000. Xvi-xx. Print.