4) 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.” Canadian Literature 161-162 (1999). Web April 04/2013.

“I got back as soon as I could,” says Coyote. “I was busy being a hero.”

“That’s unlikely,” I says.

“No, no,” says Coyote. “It’s the truth.”

“There are no truths, Coyote,” I says. “Only stories.”

“Okay,” says Coyote. “Tell me a story.” (King, 391)

There are many small instances in dialogue that King uses to point out a few things—in this case, the fact that Coyote claims to be playing the role of the hero can be related to the concept of Manifest Destiny and this entitlement that colonizers perceived that they could take matters to their own hands. While pop cultural and political references may have been the only things familiar to a Westernized mindset, we have to maneuver through foreign-like references we do not understand, such as the symbols of the Medicine Wheel, in order to read Green Grass Running Water and understand the plight of the First Nations characters. The idea that there are no truths and only stories is an interesting disclaimer, especially as King combines myth and stories together in an array of characters and worldly issues.

Moreover, “King repopulates their stories with First Nations characters whose presence replots doom as survival of, and resistance to, colonial violence and domination” (Cox, 220). In Green Grass Running Water, these characters (like Lionel and Eli) generally face this pattern of wanting to mask their identity (avoiding family) and yet ultimately are isolated from society as “The Indian who couldn’t go home” (King, 286). However, the audience is also displaced into their reality through intertextual struggles, as well as the stories of Coyote and the 4 Old Indians.

Two Acts of Narrative Decolonization:

1. Water Imagery + 4 Old Indians Trying to Fix Things.

“Where did the water come from?” Alberta, Patrolman Delano, Sergeant Cereno, and Lionel ask (98).

Throughout the novel, there is this constant imagery that all characters come across: water. Water can be seen overall as a spiritual cleansing and seeking of change. Just as the puddles are recognized by characters, so are their stories affected by the water imagery. The water imagery can be related to the 4 Old Indians who have been retelling certain stories in between the narratives of the characters they want to help, but keep making some sort of mistake that creates another layer of issues. The fact that there are walking myths that Dr. Hovaugh perceives as dangerous and something he personally wants to avoid tells a lot about the current narrative of decolonization where progress may feel stagnant. However, in the end, when the dam breaks, Sifton asks: “What the hell are [a Nissan, a Pinto, and a Karmann-Ghia] doing on my lake?” (407). This imagery gives the sense that all the issues addressed and referred to have overflowed and in return, this personified force is an unification of all the things left unaddressed in society, and yet have its own form of power in the book as water.

This aftermath is near the ending of the novel, but because it is implied that they keep trying to fix their mistakes, there is no beginning nor end when it comes to decolonization. Flick refers to Lee Maracle, who explains: “Most of our stories don’t have orthodox ‘conclusions’; that is left to the listeners, who we trust will draw useful lessons from the story—not necessarily the lessons we wish them to draw, but all conclusions are considered valid. The listeners are drawn into the dilemma and are expected at some point in their lives to actively work themselves out of it.” (11-12) Our imagination is supposed to run wild and our perceptions of images are supposed to transform throughout the novel, just as our reality does as we read the stories of these people. Fixing these narratives and preconceptions may take forever just as after you tell a story, it cannot be undone.

“Oops,”said the Lone Ranger. “I thought we fixed this one.”

“Yes,” said Ishmael, “I thought we did, too.”

“A lot of them look the same,” said Hawkeye.

“Boy,” said Robinson Crusoe, “this is sure a lot of work.” (King, 320)

The 4 Women in Native creation stories may resemble a metaphorical form of “walking ghosts” in which the pop cultural references that they represent (ex: First Woman as Lone Ranger) feel responsible for the actions of a past that keeps repeating itself. This mixture of stories and cultural symbols such as the Medicine Wheel, exist without explanation in the novel, and reveal the flaws of what is believed to be true in our settler’s consciousness—where we come across this border of reality and fiction and close the gap between our own perceptions of First Nations people (through television and media) and how we originally see things. One form of misunderstood dialogue between characters can lead to an unraveling story that transforms continuously throughout the book, and it is this overall form of decolonization that King seeks to re-identify in his characters.

2. Myth + Mundane → Noah and Changing Woman

In the end, it is suggested that to fix everything again they “could start in the garden” (428). The constant entanglements with Christian doctrine brings a lot of irony, because the garden is where Adam and Eve became sinners (how evil started in the human world). When Changing Woman meets Noah and the Ark, he constantly repeats how there are “Christian rules” and that if she does not procreate with him, and follow these rules (talking to animals is bestiality apparently) then she will ultimately be kicked out of the ship. Ironically, one interpretation in the link is that it refers to a “wet” holocaust and how God also failed to ‘cleanse’ the world.

Nonetheless, Noah’s character is one of many (God, Dog Dream, and Young Man Walking on Water) who feel that they are entitled to whatever they wish. Moreover, because in the bible story Eve had been blamed for the downfall of humanity, Noah was at first suspicious of the woman appearing on his ship. Cox mentions that “to emphasize the male attempt to dominate European/Euro-pean North American culture, the Noah of King’s novel invokes patriarchal privilege to assign blame to Eve for this destruction, too” (228). He objectifies her body to fulfill his desires, makes his rules an ultimatum and her eventual departure a punishment, and does not understand consent but only procreation as he chases her around. Moreover, all of his actions were declared under being a Christian.

This mindset is also a reference to the entitlement that colonizers originally had, except in King’s novel, God is not the true creator in power and only some “Dog Dream” who claims to be. It is also important to note that the gender roles are subverted and yet despite these women representing Hawkeye, Lone Ranger, Ishmael, and Robinson Crusoe, their true intentions are devalued in the eyes of biblical characters, Hovaugh, etc.

One overarching reference is the phrase “as long as the grass is green and the waters run” (King, 267), which is quoted here (search: second word of bitterness, speech in bold) where President Jackson sent an army major to talk to the Choctaws and Cherokees in moving them to another place, to which they provide a speech. I think that despite land settlements, the depiction of nature imagery and First Nations issues still coexist and is part of our reality (that some may not be willing to face). Ultimately, the book title speaks of the narrative of First Nations people today and in the continuous attempts of decolonization.

Works Cited:

“Noah And The Flood An Ironic Allegory.” 1 In Faith: A Christian Bible Study, Robert Traer, 2000, http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Sermons/noah.flood.htm.

Cox, James. “All This Water Imagery Must Mean Something”: Thomas King’s Revisions of Narratives of Domination and Conquest in “Green Grass, Running Water.” American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2, Spring 2000, pp. 219-246 (28). University of Nebraska Press, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/1185872.

Fee, Margery and Jane Flick. “Coyote Pedagogy Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature, 161/162, 0008-4360, 1 July 1999, 131, https://canlit.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/canlit161-162-CoyoteFeeFlick.pdf.

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

Michaud, Rony. Pixabay, 28 Dec. 2014, https://pixabay.com/p-578897/?no_redirect.

Zinn, Howard. “Chapter 7: As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs.” A People’s History Of The United States, New York, HarperCollins, 2003, 259.