Many allusions appear in pages 78-90 of Thomas King’s novel Green Grass Running Water.

In the beginning, both the Lone Ranger and Norma reference the need to stay awake.  Lionel then goes on to reference the mountains and how “if it weren’t for the clouds…you could see all the way to the mountains” (79).  Norma then responds, “you could see the mountains real good if you came out to the reserve once and a while” (79).  I believe that King’s references to sleep and the mountains are symbolic of Lionel’s need to deal with his problems head on.  Working in the city, allows him to escape somewhat from his demons, but the closer he gets to the reserve the clearer and bigger the mountains are; thus, the bigger and clearer his problems become.  Looking at Dream Interpretations it is clear that mountains symbolize obstacles that you will/need to face.

One of the big obstacles that Lionel has to face is his dead end job.  In the flashback where Bill Bursum is trying to recruit Lionel as an employee, he refers to Lionel’s cousin Charlie as “Charlie Looking Back” (80), which Lionel then corrects to “Looking Bear” (80).  Between this mistake and the fact that Charlie “brought a lot of business [to Bill] from the reserve” (80), it is obvious that Bill doesn’t genuinely care for Charlie, but just likes the fact that Charlie brought in “all that easy Indian business” (83)–hence why, Bill now wants Lionel to work for him too.  Bill even goes so far as to stretch the truth a little in terms of the position’s pay in the hope of reeling Lionel into the position.  But, more importantly, this all leads up to the fact that Charlie refers to Bill as “Buffalo Bill” (83).  Buffalo Bill was a former “Indian Fighter”, yet made most of his money by exploiting Indigenous people with his traveling “Wild West” shows.  Buffalo Bill, essentially used First Nations people and their hardships for monetary gain, under the pretense of giving Indigenous people the opportunity to leave their homes and represent their culture.  Though, it is not absolutely certain that Buffalo Bill was the “Indian Fighter” that many believe him to be, I believe that the “Buffalo Bill as a killer” version of the story is what King is using to allude to Bill Bursum.  Like Buffalo Bill, Bill Bursum is exploiting Indigenous people by using Charlie and Lionel to get more customers;  Bill did not hire them purely for honest reasons, but more so as a means to an end (a.k.a a means to make more money).

This section of the novel also carries on Alberta’s story and, more specifically, her marriage to Bob.  One of my favourite quotes of the novel is the description of Alberta’s hatred of planes, which is an allusion to her marriage to Bob.

“[Alberta] rarely flew, hated planes, in fact.  In a plane, she was helpless, reduced to carrying on an inane conversation with a total stranger or to reading a book while she listened for the telltale vibration in the engine’s pitch or the first groan of the wing coming away from it’s fuselage.  And all the time, that faceless, nameless man sat in the nose of the plane, smiling, drinking coffee, telling stories, completely oblivious to impending disasters.  Marriage was like that” (85).

I love this quote because it paints such a clear picture of her marriage to Bob.  She knows that the impending doom (divorce) is inevitable, while Bob is pretty oblivious and just continuing on living as if nothing could be, or go, wrong.  At the same time, I find it curious that King chose the name “Bob” for Alberta’s husband.  Alberta’s name is original and gives the impression of wide open spaces and freedom, just like the province of Alberta itself.  Bob (short for Robert) on the other hand is a name that has been popular for generations and doesn’t produce any substantial images, except maybe an image of British decent.  Compared to the name Alberta, it is ordinary and lifeless.  As a result, Bob seems to want very mundane things.  He wants a government job, kids, a “larger apartment” (86), and a car.  In response to his requests, Alberta says, “we don’t need them” (86), upon which Bob replies, “Nobody needs those things.  But everyone wants them.  You want them.  I want them.  You don’t want to spend the rest of your life in a tepee, do you?” (86)  This quote shows that Bob only cares about living a “normal” life and just being one of the billions of people who buy things they don’t need, but want.  Likewise, he dismisses the idea of Alberta even wanting to live in a “tepee”.  After all, in Bob’s opinion, why would a sane, “normal” person, want to live in a tepee?  Bob is clearly chasing a dream, that isn’t technically his own, but society’s.  Like the socially accepted idea of a woman’s place being in the home, “Bob wanted a wife; he did not want a woman” (87).  As a result, he represents Alberta’s struggle against societal norms.  Bob is everyone in her world telling her to “be a woman” and  settle down, not go to school, make a home, and have many children.  Thus, when Alberta meets up with Bob for coffee after they’ve broken up and learns that Bob is finally living the life he wanted with his new woman, Alberta realizes at that moment that she “had never felt so free” (87) before.  By escaping Bob and his plans for her as his wife, she escaped the socially acceptable responsibility of being a women.  So now, instead, she can live free of her gender stereotype, just as her name suggests.

Near the end of this section, we are also introduced more in-depth to Alberta’s father, Amos.  Interestingly enough, Amos refers to Alberta’s mother, Ada, as “Daarlink” (88), which “is what comes out when a Russian says ‘darling'” (Darlink).  But at the same time, Amos is of Hebrew origin (Amos).  Likewise, “the name is seldom used in this century, perhaps because of lingering negative connotations from the highly politically incorrect radio show ‘Amos ‘n Andy’ that was popular in the 1940s and 1950s” (Amos).  Within the radio show, two white men created an “aural blackface” (Bowman) by putting on various voices and acting out various “black” stereotypes.  The infamous name, therefore, aptly suits Amos (Alberta’s dad) because within this passage we see that he is an abusive drunken idiot who refers to his wife as having an “ugly cow face” (88).  The apple doesn’t fall far from the name, if you get my drift.

Works Cited

Amos. n.d. Web. 18 July 2014. <http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Amos>

Bowman, Dona, et al. “Amos ‘N’ Andy was the rare representation of black culture on 1950s TV–but at what cost?”A.V. Club. 7 July 2013. Web. 18 July 2014.

Buffalo Bill. n.d. Web. 18 July 2014 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bill>

Darlink. n.d. Web. 18 July 2014 <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=darlink>

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

Mountain. n.d. Web. 18 July 2014 <http://www.edreaminterpretation.com/mountain-2/>

In his novel Green Grass Running Water, Thomas King uses the Indigenous spiritual character Coyote to add life and more dimension to his story.  Coyote acts closely alongside the narrator and even manages to provide some comic relief to the story.  But what I found most interesting about King’s use of Coyote in his novel was the fact that King presented Coyote as more human than spiritual or mystical.  Because of this, I couldn’t help but feel that King used Coyote as a means to represent basic human instinct and thought processes, when preconceived “truths” are taken out of the equation; mainly, how most people think, feel, and act, when they are not told or “programmed” how to act (basically when people are not taught a preconceived idea of what is right and wrong–usually taught through religion).

I found Coyote’s interaction with GOD to be hilarious, yet incredibly truthful.  Coyote just doesn’t seem to understand why GOD is the way that he is and is constantly puzzled by GOD’s actions.  At the same time, King’s portrayal of GOD is quite comical in itself and, yet again, comes from a place of truth.  After First Woman eats from the garden, the narrator says, “That GOD fellow doesn’t eat anything.  He stands in the garden with his hands on his hips, so everybody can see he is angry” (69).  This image of GOD is amazing because it is representative of many religions, and, quite frankly, most authority figures in general.  It represents the fact that we view many real or believed persons/things as having superior status over us and, therefore, we feel they must be respected and listened to.  But, what is interesting is the fact that Coyote, and many of the other characters for that matter, find GOD’s behaviour not “all-mighty”, justified, worthy of praise, and/or worthy of submission.  Instead, they see him for what he really is–someone who makes lots of rules and attempts to make everyone follow them.  Seeing God represented in this light makes me think of how God in the Christian faith has been put on this pedestal, yet at the end of the day, he was/is just one guy making rules and I can’t help but think how things would have worked out differently if people like Coyote were there to argue against God or those who spread his word.  After all, the heart of the issue is: Why should I allow someone else to dictate what is right from wrong and how I should live my life?  Can’t I live according to my own rules and just trust that I can live the happiest life by carving my own path instead of following someone else’s?

This is why I believe Coyote serves the story so well.  He represents a version of the type of human beings that we would all be if we were free from certain control and could ask the questions that most avoid as well as question certain ways of living. Period.  He is a prime example of a character who just does what he sees fit.

I don’t mean to bring up religion so much because I know it is a touchy subject, but I was shocked in my reading about how many insights came up that tied directly to religion in my mind.  As I have said before, I am not religious, but I am fascinated with the religious culture.  So it intrigued me greatly every time King brought up religion.  “This is a Christian ship… I am a Christian man.  This is a Christian journey.  And if you can’t follow our Christian rules, then you’re not wanted on the voyage” (148).  When I was young, I had to fill out a medical sheet for a Naturopath and one of the questions was: “What are your religious beliefs?”  Yes, I could’ve put: “None”.  But I was struck by the question and actually remember thinking hard about it because I wanted to give an honest answer (I have a point to this story, I swear).  So, after thinking long and hard about it, I wrote: “Lara-ism”.  And then on part two of the question (explain your religion/beliefs), I wrote something along the lines of: “I believe that we are all our own god and should have the power to make choices as we see fit, independent of others opinions/ beliefs.  I choose to be the best person that I can be according to my own personal morals/values, not through someone else’s, or strictly due to a innate fear of going to hell and/or being punished”.  I brought this story up because throughout my reading of Coyote’s involvement in the story, I kept being reminded of it.  In my mind, it is clear that Coyote is his own god as well.  He acts purely through his own will and it is clear that he does not bow down to anyone else or, conversely,  put anyone else on a pedestal.  At the same time he is not perfect and often gets reprimanded by the narrator.  After Coyote asks, “where did the island come from?” (293), the narrator responds, ‘that’s what happens when you don’t pay attention'” (293).  Coyote is funny, charming, and, ultimately, just being himself, which is inspiring in itself.

All in all, I think Coyote can be used to represent all humans in the most basic form, which is evident in this interaction between Coyote and the narrator:

“‘And there is only one Coyote,’ says Coyote.

‘No,’ I says.  ‘There is a world full of Coyotes.’

‘Well,’ says Coyote, ‘that’s frightening.’

‘Yes it is,’ I Says. ‘Yes it is'” (272).

After reading Green Grass Running Water, I can’t help but feel like we are all Coyotes or conversely, we all have a Coyote within us; we just need to let our own unique Coyote within shine through.

Works Cited

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

The Immigration Act of 1910 was another means for the Canadian government to control who immigrated to Canada.  Under this act, the federal cabinet “could arbitrarily prohibit the landing of any immigrant deemed ‘unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada'” (Immigration Act).  “The act also introduced the concept of domicile, or permanent residency, which an immigrant could obtain after residing in Canada for three years. Until domicile was granted, an immigrant could be deported if they became classified as undesirable. Undesirable immigrants included prostitutes, pimps, vagrants and inmates of jails, hospitals and insane asylums. Under the new act, political dissidents advocating for the forceful overthrow of government and those attempting to create public disorder were also subject to deportation” (Immigration Act).  But it doesn’t end there.  Under this new act, the boards of inquiry were given the power to admit or, more importantly, deport immigrants to Canada “based on any evidence they considered to be credible or trustworthy” (Immigration Act).  Furthermore, the Immigration Act of 1910 banned “courts and judges from reviewing, reversing or otherwise interfering in the decisions of the minister responsible for immigration and the proceedings of the boards of inquiry” (Immigration Act).  Lastly, the Act stated that all immigrants of Asian decent must have at least $200 in their possession to enter Canada, while every other male and female immigrants were required to have only $25.  This acted as a tool for government officials to assess if immigrants were poor, which would, in turn, prevent them from being granted access to Canada (Immigration Acts).

Because of the increase in power of control over immigrants in Canada, by 1913 the Canadian government was able to deport “almost 870 people on the grounds that they were insane. [Likewise,] another 6,900 were ordered out of the country for criminality and some 2,850 were forced to leave for fear that they were about to become criminals. Since detailed crime statistics weren’t kept, historians think this could be anything from a would-be pickpocket to someone who was a political protester” (Immigration Acts).

All of this leads me to believe that my findings support Daniel Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.  It seems like the Canadian government was very concerned about keeping Canada predominately “white” and “British”.  Taking a closer look at actual copies of the Immigration Act of 1910, I am struck by the term “alien”.  Under the Immigration Act of 1910, “alien” is defined as “a person who is not a British subject” (Immigration Act), while a Canadian citizen is defined as being: 1) a person born in Canada who has not become an alien or 2) a British subject who has Canadian domicile or 3) a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.  Throughout the Immigration Act of 1910 is a constant separation of people.  It is clear that there was a class system imposed to separate different races/cultures of people, with British people at the peak, gaining easier access into Canada.

In terms of the word “alien” that is thrown around quite often, I am surprised by how much it hits home for me.  Reading about the Immigration Act of 1910, I can’t help but realize how hard it must have been for people to immigrate to Canada during these times.  At the same time, I get a sense that there must have been thousands of people who became Canadian citizens, yet didn’t feel completely Canadian because they weren’t of British descent.  Even though I was born in Canada and so were my parents, I still don’t feel completely Canadian, so I can’t imagine how first generation immigrants felt.  I mean, when you have to be a British subject in order to be unclassified as an “alien” it’s hard not to feel excluded.

Reading up on the Immigration Act of 1910 makes me think what kind of nation Canada would be like now if it wasn’t under British control and wasn’t so concerned with upholding “white civility as a definitive of Canadian identify” (Paterson).  At the same time, it makes me think how ridiculous it all is.  Canada was the home to countless indigenous people and then in came immigrants (a.k.a the British) who then decided who they would let in to “their country”.  Furthermore, deciding that a “true Canadian” was white and British, when in fact the “true Canadian’s” were those living on this land well before the British.  But the very crux of the issue is that there should be no “true Canadian” but rather, people leaving harmoniously under one nation.  Is that too much to ask? Probably, but as soon as we start classifying people into different groups it can only create problems, especially when we are all humans and therefore one people.

Works Cited

Immigration Act, 1910. n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1910>

Immigration Acts (1866-2001). n.d. Web, 3 July 2014. <http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/specifique/immigration_e.html#1906>

Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A: Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2014. Web. 3 July 2014.