“If Europeans were not from the land of the dead, or the sky, alternative explanations which were consistent with indigenous cosmologies quickly developed” (“First Contact,” 43). Robinson gives us one of those alternative explanations in his stories about how Coyote’s twin brother stole the “written document” and when he denied stealing the paper, he was “banished to a distant land across a large body of water” (9). We are going to return to this story, but for now – what is your first response to this story? In context with our course theme of investigating intersections where story and literature meet, what do you make of this stolen piece of paper? This is an open-ended question and you should feel free to explore your first thoughts.
What fascinated me about the story of Coyote and the Paper was how it was introduced in different magnitudes of Robinson telling many versions and twists of other stories as well. Wickwire talked about how Robinson “wanted to show the cultural importance of maintaining a full range of stories” (29). And while there are storytellers, there are those who did not represent their stories well because they filtered a certain theme. Robinson included stories involving contemporary political issues as well, stories that showed that “Harry’s forebears were not strictly ‘mythtellers’ locked in their prehistorical past” (25). The story places the ancestor of the colonizers as the trickster who steals the paper, and of Coyote as the obedient twin. This paper would represent how the ‘evil’ twin’s descendants, “true to their original character” (10), would take advantage of their God-given blessing and law in colonizing and claiming the land as theirs.
“And its message would be clear to all: that whites were a banished people who colonized this country through fraudulence associated with an assigned form of power and knowledge who had been literally alienated from its original inhabitants” (30). While I can understand the purpose of this story in depicting a different narrative for decolonizing the settlers, the lacking characterization in both ancestors of these opposing races were rather concerning. Black, versus white, good versus evil. There is no gray area, nor this contact zone that represents a place for hope, nor any misunderstood communication. It’s clear that one side was mistreated. Wouldn’t portraying this be a misrepresentation that is equally incorrect as to how settlers assumed this Adam and Eve aspect of the native people? If we were able to forget our own cultural preconceptions before understanding another culture, how much of their stories should we believe, and yet still be suspicious of? Is it a matter of what the story tells, or what the story has also assumed?
From this obvious depiction of two black and white characters, how are we able to move beyond these set perspectives of each other? I find it ironic that it is assumed our natures must oppose one another, and that even the descendants can be seen as failing to set things right, even in the power of law. This depiction makes this assumption about innate nature, and such assumptions can imply irreversible issues.
I’m particularly curious about how art serves as this outlet in expressing and paving a movement for certain paths, and how there may also be drawbacks when it comes to a mutual understanding, a reconciliation of sorts. While art can provoke questions and start movements, “when metaphor invades decolonization, it kills the very possibility of decolonization; it recenters whiteness, it resettles theory, it extends innocence to the settler, it entertains a settler future” (Tuck, 3). While Robinson’s metaphor does not entertain any certain future, are there dangers to character implications, and does this do more hurting than helping the situation at hand? Tuck claims that an “easy adoption of decolonization as a metaphor…is a premature attempt at reconciliation” (9). I wonder how much walking on eggshells needs to be properly done to establish similar goals and an equal perspective, without being misleading of details, assumptions, or biases. I think I can understand how metaphors themselves cannot serve as part of the bigger picture, but can only point to specific points. For instance, Robinson’s story overall, points to the establishment of the colonizers as unfair.
Overall, is it our own nature that manipulates and corrupts law to our own purposes? If there was no existence of the written document or no symbol of law, would both sides have been able to live peacefully, and come to a collective conclusion about how to live together? Hypothetical questions, but I think they are worth wondering about especially when it comes to this intersection of myth and historical storytelling, of reality and imagination intertwined.
Works Cited
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver, Talon Books, 2005.
Taylor, Steve. “The Real Meaning of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.” Psychology Today, 26 Aug. 2013, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil.
TEDx Talks. “Be suspicious of stories | Tyler Cowen | TEDxMidAtlantic.” YouTube, presentation by Cowen Tyler, 8 Nov. 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoEEDKwzNBw.
Tuck, Eve. Yang, K. “Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society.” Decolonization is not a metaphor, Vol. 1, 1 Nov. 2016, 40, Decolonization, http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554.
“Black and White Game Match Chess.” PEXELS, 16 Feb. 2016, https://www.pexels.com/photo/black-and-white-game-match-chess-2902/ .
Hi Jenny!
I enjoyed reading your post this week and I was particularly drawn to your discussion about the lack of grey area in the story of the stolen piece of paper. I answered the same question as you, but I did not contemplate this. I like how you talk about how the story presents that the natures between the black and the white characters have to be against one another and that even the descendants cannot set things right. I did not think about this in detail while I was reading, but I understand that this seems to be setting up the idea that these characterizations are set the way they are and that they cannot change. I think your observations of this story do show that there are dangers to character implications just as there are dangers to stories in general. I think that this set up can definitely be more hurtful than helpful in the sense that it leads to the assumption that there is no way to make better what has happened. This is true in the sense that there is no way we can go back and change what happened in the past, but I think the danger is that these characterizations could promote that even the future cannot be changed. If a story is presenting that history has made things the way they are and that there is no hope for change, then this could promote the feeling that there is no point trying to change anything.
I like how you ended your post with questions and I think that it is hard to answer how the situation would be different without the symbol of law and the written document because we cannot go back and experience what that would be like. I think we can try to assume what it would be like, but we will never know if that is actually how it would be. I’m curious what you think about those questions. Do you think that we should regard the written document itself as a symbol of destruction of peace or does this destruction come more from the act of stealing and lying? Do you think that the story sets a negative tone for the future?
Thanks for your post Jenny!
– Chloë
Hi Chloë!
Thank you for your comment, I’m really glad it made you wonder more! I always want to keep track of when storytellers might rub things off the wrong way in any case, and characterization is an important aspect of telling ‘biased’ truths. I think, most importantly, that this hope for change can initially begin when both sides / twins are able to come to a common ground of understanding.
I think that this document is a rather abstract concept in the sense that how we interpret the symbol to be reflects our own beliefs and values. It’s more so what we make of understanding it, like a mirror. So destruction happens more when people are unsure and acting on their fears or insecurities, like when the younger twin stole the document initially because he felt like the older twin was being favored anyway.
Although I did point out that perhaps this characterization is more harmful than helpful, I feel that as a whole, the story represents itself so that one may question why certain things just are. The story tells of the past so that the future aspects depends on how we interpret it. Similar to ambiguous book endings I suppose! I would like to say the story sets this ambiguous tone, because it depends on us in the now, to work things out for the better.
Best,
Jenny
Hi Jenny,
I gained a lot of insight from your post on the extremes of morality of Robinson’s portrayed Coyote twins story, but I on the other hand tended to find a lot of grey area stemming initially from the indelible fact that they were twins. You can see my post for more of the unifying maneuvers I see the story make: https://blogs.ubc.ca/michaelpendreigh470/2016/10/13/24/
I’d be very interested in any critique you have for my ideas.
Your quote on metaphor invading decolonization is wonderful. The language of the quote itself sounds the violence of colonization, the metaphor taking on the exploitative European’s written mode and mendacity. I think you’re agreeing with Tuck on the inability for metaphor to truly bring peoples together due to its ambiguity.
Hi Michael,
Your post was definitely a different perspective on the initial unifying aspect of the blood bond between twins- something I did not consider in mine. I liked how you further considered modern influences, such as the Bible, and even the blood bond as well, coming from the storyteller’s perspective. The part about how the book was “the law from the time we finish” (Robinson, 10) and signifies what you say, is a duality of existence–It reminds me similarly to the creation story of how evil came into the world that I made, where in the beginning (not the future/end), the two characters were united as one, and were cooperating with one another in that sense. In that sense it is asking for the question of bringing people together again, something similar to this sacred bond of humanity.
I suppose I moreso commented on how this continuation with the twins’ characters passing down to the descendants, brought more of a separation between this said bond. In terms of stories in general, I tend to easily point out/notice when there are one-dimensional characters, though from what your post suggests and what I’ve read from others’ posts (like Bryony-Rose’s), from what made the younger twin steal the document and deny this act (jealousy?) the future involves reconciling and accepting what makes them different.
Thank you for your comment, as well as your summary of my points on this ambiguity as a whole.
-Jenny