Sparke suggests a number of possible inspirations for Judge McEarchern’s “map that roared” comment. All three possibilities suggest that Judge McEachern was disdainful and condescending of the map presented at trial.

First, Sparke makes reference to the turn of phrase “paper tiger.” The “colloquial notion of a ‘paper tiger'” is taken from a Chinese expression (Sparke 468). The expression describes someone/something that has a threatening appearance but is harmless in reality (Bourque). When applied to McEachern’s comments regarding the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen territory map, the “paper tiger” interpretation is patronizing. Rather than interpreting and evaluating the map as a textual authority in the way that the maps of the colonizers would be viewed, it segments the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen attempt to chart their land into a threat, or an act of bravado with little authority.

Sparke also mentions that the “map that roared” might refer to the Peter Sellers film The Mouse That Roared. The film is about the world’s smallest country which decides to declare war on the United States of America. The punch line of the film is that a primitive, under-dog of a country would deign to take on one of the large super power nations of the world. The trailer declares that it is “the funniest war ever waged…the war that had to be lost to be won.” In this respect, comparing The Mouse That Roared to the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen Territories trial is an apt assessment. It is doubtful, however, that Judge McEachern was sufficiently clairvoyant to foresee that his ruling against the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen claims would pave the way for the eventual Delgamuukw Decision in favor of recognizing aboriginal title as a property right to land.

In both the “paper tiger” and The Mouse That Roared interpretations, Sparke justly interprets a “derisory scripting of the plaintiffs as a ramshackled, anachronistic nation” (Sparke 468).

Sparke’s third interpretation is likely more in line with the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen understanding of what they were trying to achieve. The idea of “a roaring map simultaneously evoked the resistance in the First Nations’ remapping of the land: the cartography’s roaring refusal of…Canadian colonialsim on native land” (Sparke 468). The word roar certainly has revolutionary connotations: Exhibit A, Exhibit B. The map presented to Judge McEachern thus reads as a battle cry issued by people who will no longer suffer injustice. Sparke’s interpretation of the map as a revolutionary roar is strengthened by his grounding his investigation within a musical framework. Sparke suggests that narratives about land should be understood as a musical score (468). While “the Canadian state takes the position that jurisdiction over the land belongs to the settlers” the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’wen cartographic narrative roars its own (hi)story about the land we now call Canada (Asch 30). The two story lines are independent but they are interdependent in their harmony like a musical composition. They complement and contribute to one another when they are considered as harmonious works. Narratives about the land must be given “contrapuntal voicing…[to] enable [the] national Canadian audience to rethink the colonial frontiers of national knowledge itself” (Sparke 468).

The Gitxsan Wet’suet’wen roaring map therefore “subverts any punctual notion of a singular national origin, displacing it with an invitation to readers to reevaluate the ways in which the template of contemporary Canada is imposed proleptically on a heterogeneous past” (Sparke 468). When viewed in such a way, the map that roared may be seen not only as a counterpoint but as an elaboration, a fleshing out, of the story of the land we live in.

Works Cited

Aisthesis. “J.S. Bach – The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 – T. Koopman and T. Mathot.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Asch, Michael. “Canadian Sovereignty and Universal History.” Storied Communities: Narratives of Contact and Arrival in Constituting Political Community. Ed. Rebecca Johnson and Jeremy Webber Hester Lessard. Vancouver: University of British Columbia P, 2011. 29-39. Print.

Bourque, Jeremiah. “A Paper Tiger.” English Idioms. English Idioms. 9 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

Collier, Russell and Martine Rose. “The Gitxsan Model: A Vision for the Land and the People.” The ESRI Conservation Program. ESRI, May 2007. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

ROAR Magazine. ROARMag.org: Reflections on a Revolution, 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Saw1110. “Helen Reddy – ‘I Am Woman’ (Live) 1975.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 4 Jun. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Sparke, Matthew. “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation Author(s).” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88.3 (Sep. 1998): 463-495. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb 2014.

Troz2000. “The Mouse that Roared Trailer.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

In his analysis of creation stories King employs a number of dichotomies. King emphasizes the dichotomies between the story of Charm and the Christian biblical creation story in order to emphasize the danger of either/or modes of thinking. If one is to ascribe fully to one creation story as truth, than other stories must be dismissed as untrue. Yet in King’s retelling of the creation stories, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize the commonalities of the two stories, rather than prove one as fallacy. It is King’s storytelling that undermines the similarities of the stories and imposes difference.

King uses creation stories because they feature “relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist” (King 10). Certainly, there are similarities between the two stories. The earth starts out as water. Humans are introduced into a world that has already hosted animals. Yet in his presentation of the stories, King also sets a trap. King sets “the trap that categories always lay for us…[dichotomies] have become hard-wired into our consciousness…but the choice between them…is a foolish choice between false alternatives” (Chamberlain 24).

King plays to a number of assumptions historically implemented in the misleading categorization of stories. Firstly, the story of Charm opens “back at the beginning of imagination” (King 10). In contrast, the story of God creating the world occurs “in the beginning” (21). In his organization of the stories King has already lent more credence to the Christian creation story by omitting any reference to imagination. If one is to believe the biblical creation story as fact, it wouldn’t do to acknowledge that at some point, the story sprung from imagination. King sets up his reader to make the “false choice between reality and the imagination” when truly both stories “locate us in between…[and neither is solely imagination or reality but rather] ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or'”(Chamberlain 126-127). He also designates the Charm story as exotic. The word exotic suggests that something is different, different from what we are used to.

Furthermore, King’s storytelling mode changes the way the stories come across. Throughout the story of Charm he apologizes for the story. He emphasizes how unbelievable it is “given the fact that we live in a predominantly scientific, capitalistic, Judeo-Christian world governed by physical laws, economic imperatives, and spiritual precepts” (King 12). And yet in comparison to the candid, communicative telling of Charm, the biblical creation story King’s recounting of the biblical creation story is unyielding. King’s storytelling voice between the stories insists on ‘truths,’ the quality of one story over the other, and yet his assertions seem misinformed. After recounting the story of Charm, King introduces the Christian creation story by remarking on “the beauty of the language” and that “the story…captures the imagination” (21). The reader has just read an engaging, accessible story and in comparison, the biblical creation story seems lackluster. The beauty of the language King comments on is not visible nor does it seem to allow for any imaginative variation.

King thereby positions the reader to listen and personally evaluate rather than to exact judgement and strict categorization. King’s categorizing through the narration is ineffectual and therefore the reader/listener must listen with an open mind rather than accept the strictures placed on the stories by an outside authority. By setting himself up as an unreliable narrator, in effect, King comments on the danger of seeing in dichotomies. The reader must look to and embrace the complexities rather than limiting a story to a specific category. Like Wickwire found in his experience with Harry Robinson, setting aside stories that appear to be anomalies can be a dangerous, externally-imposed categorization (22). While historically, western culture has used categorization to clarify, King therefore exposes that rather than clarifying, categorization limits and even erases important cultural truths.

———————————————————————————————————-

This unit reminded me of this video. Someone had posted it on Facebook awhile ago and I had watched it then. In the discussion of contact stories, I was reminded of the video. The video is of Jean Pierre Dutilleux, a Belgian filmmaker, encountering a Papua New Guinea tribe. The assertion of the video is that the Toulambi people had never seen a “white man” before this. From what I’ve read up on it, much of the video may be ‘performance’ or ‘acted’. I think the video is problematic in a number of ways. It makes me a bit uncomfortable so I was hesitant to post it. Yet I also thought, what does the video say about contact stories and our fascination with them? What is being suggested by the video and why would someone go to such great lengths to ‘falsely document’ such a moment? Does the video corroborate what Lutz says about contact stories being a form of performance for all parties involved? Does the video exoticize the people in its portrayal? How are things portrayed and what does the film medium contribute/alter in its portrayal. If the video is, indeed, fake then it says a lot about expectations of content in contact stories. If it isn’t fake, is it insensitive to capture people on film without their express consent. If you’d like to read up on sources who contest the accuracy of the video there is a thorough examination here and a forum of evidence here.

Works Cited

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.

Dutilleux, Jean Pierre. “Filmography.” Jean Pierre Dutilleux. Jean Pierre Dutilleux, 22 Jun. 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

“Is the ‘Tribe Meets White Man for the First Time’ Video Fake?” Skeptics Stack Exchange. Skeptics Stack Exchange, 24 Jun. 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2014.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.

Kranz, Peter. “Toulambi 1976 contact: fact or fable.” Keith Jackson & Friends: PNG Attitude. PNG Attitude. 11 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

Lan, Kevin. “Isolated Tribe Man Meets Modern Tribe Man For the First Time – Original Footage Full.” Online Video Clip. Youtube, 18 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.

The Big Myth. Distant Train, 2007. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

The following words seemed to be common in many of our stories of home:

Comfort
Nostalgia
Tradition
Earth
Family
Loved ones
Stories
Safety
Feeling
Language
A place to leave/a place that will be returned to
Memories
Remember
Difficult to describe
Bittersweet
Haunting

I think we had more similarities than differences in our stories of home. And what differences we had seemed to be more details than over-arching themes.