3:7 Gender Politics and Religious Clashes
Hello! I decided to work with pages 35-40, and then continue back up again with 86-91.
According to Bright, whose ideas are found in Flick’s reading guide, the Coyote breed are “a race of mythic prototypes who lived before humans existed. They had tremendous powers; they created the world as we know it; they instituted human life and culture—but they were also capable of being brave or cowardly, conservative or innovative, wise or stupid” (Bright xi). In the beginning of the book, Coyote battles their dream of (literal) world domination, dreaming up Dog/God. It is interesting as to how King begins the creation myth with Coyote, having Coyote dream up another “creator” in the form of God. It is as if King cheekily implies that Christian theology is nothing but a figment of imagination, and that Nature, and thus Indigenous beliefs, prevail as being responsible for the ultimate origin story.
Flick points out that a dogs are, essentially, just a “lesser” form of coyote (143). Furthermore, Dog backwards spells out “God.” There are several implications that King is likely making here. Firstly, he further drives home the notion that there is a sense of order, with Nature reigning over any other form of religion, which is exemplified by the fact that Dog/God is essentially just a copy of Coyote, yet inferior in comparison. Although Coyote is typically viewed as being a trickster character, this is instead attributed to Dog/God, implying that the Judeo-Christian religion is much more troublesome and burdening for Indigenous parties than their own religion.
Famously, many creation myths feature a woman and a garden (both of which are found in the Book of Genesis, as well as Indigenous myths). Although Eve infamously messes everything up for mankind in the Judeo-Christian religion, the Indigenous notion of the First Woman instead stands in for a strong, heroic figure. Several critics believe that the character of Coyote is also a female, due to colloquial references to Coyote as a “her” in several of King’s stories. This sets up a gender discourse that seems to infer that women are highly powerful. Much like how human women can nurse a child in their wombs, the women figures in King’s stories and Indigenous creation myths nurse the world, adding a whole new level to the idea of the “motherland.”
Ahdamn
This name is obviously satirically given by King in order to parody the infamous Adam of Genesis’s Adam and Eve duo. Ahdamn tries (and miserably fails) to find his hierarchal place in the garden by attempting to attribute names to the animals. By doing this, Ahdamn tries to control the narrative and leave his mark by doling out names that he deems fit, but is unsuccessful. Compared to the First Woman, Ahdamn is rendered powerless. Going back to my aforementioned point regarding the gender dynamic in this story, the First Woman, who is both a woman and a strongly Indigenous symbol, prevail again, while the Judeo-Christian and male Ahdamn pales in comparison. Additionally, when Ahdamn tries to give the animals names, the animals already seem to know their names, which parallels the Eurocentric idea of renaming Indigenous citizens with “better” European names, in an attempt to strip them of their Indigenous identity. Here’s a link to a long but interesting piece from The Washington Post regarding Eve’s perceived inferiority to Adam in the Judeo-Christian context.
***
WORKS CITED
Cooper, Guy H. “The Canadian Journal of Native Studies .” The Canadian Journal of Native Studies , 2nd ed., VII, Bearpaw Publishing, 1987, pp. 181–193.
Flick, Jane “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water“. Toronto, Harper Collins, 1994. Web. July 31 2016.
Joseph, Bob. “What Is the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Animals.” What Is the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Animals, 2016, www.ictinc.ca/blog/what-is-the-relationship-between-indigenous-peoples-and-animals.
Milne, Pamela. “GENESIS FROM EVE’S POINT OF VIEW.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Mar. 1989, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/03/26/genesis-from-eves-point-of-view/dc371184-1f4c-4142-ac2d-d5efee72a0da/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e45d5171090a.
Olan , Kay. Creation: The Beginning . www.mbq-tmt.org/assets/Wellbeing/FamHealthChildDev/HBHCnews-creationthestory.pdf.
Hi Katrina,
Thank you for pointing out the gender dynamics in the Creation Stories. I have read a lot about how King is trying to “fix” power dynamic, but I haven’t read a lot about the effect Green Grass Running Water on addressing the inequality between men and women. Do you think his representation of women in Green Grass Running Water in beneficial?
The article you posted subverts the notion of”Eve as subordinate and inferior to Adam — because she was created after and from him — and as weak, seductive and evil, the cause of Adam’s disobedience.” Instead, “Why not speculate instead that the serpent questions her because she is the more intelligent of the two? Or because she has a better understanding of the divine command?” Furthermore, Milne mentions that “patriarchal interpreters claim that woman is inferior because she is created last (Genesis 2:22). But these same interpreters never argue that humans are inferior to animals because they were created later (Genesis 1:27).” I think this is an excellent point, and it also relates to the Christian notion of man having mastery of animals whereas Indigenous people have a harmonious relationship with nature.
My question for you is: Do you think Indengious creation stories are more beneficial to women and equal rights than Judeo-Christian creation stories?
Hi Nolan!
In response to your questions, I personally do think that Indigenous creation stories are more beneficial to women and equal rights than Judeo-Christian creation stories. Obviously, Adam & Eve and the Book of Genesis function as the primary Judeo-Christian creation narrative, whereas different regions of Indigenous nations will have different variations of myth, usually with a woman featuring but in a non-negative light. In a sense, its as if the emphasis on the power of women colours these myths, with Coyote being portrayed as female, as well as the First Woman. The Judeo-Christian narrative does not allow a lot of wiggle room for a more equality-oriented interpretation, and thus I concur that Indigenous portrayals of women and equal rights are more beneficial.
Hi Katrina,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I really appreciated the four separate analysis given to the four figures. The article link about how Eve was interpreted by some as weak and evil, and by some as intelligent, allowed me to think about how differently stories can be perceived. Creation stories are tales that have been passed down through many generations and even King’s tale, though written in the modern times, contain historical references which enrich the purpose of the story. That said, seeing how there’s so many different interpretations of these important stories, how significant, would you say, is the author’s original intent behind the storytelling? Is it necessary for readers/listeners of these aged tales to try to understand the original purpose of the author, or is it alright for us to simply interpret the stories through our modern-day resources?
Hi!
I think that, although the author’s original intent is important to keep in mind, there is also no harm in forming an individual interpretation that may differ from the author’s. Media such as literature is made to be consumed by an audience, and although there may be didactic lessons that the author wanted to include, the way that the story will resonate best with an audience is if they interpret it in their own way.