Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW according to the pages assigned to you (Pages 146-161). Be sure to make use of Jane Flick’s reference guide on your reading list.
I just wanted to write you all a precursor before I go into my blog. There were so many stories, so many connections, so many allusions. I decided to, within my pages assigned, talk about two stories within King’s text I found most interesting, both for the purposes of this blog as well as personally. Also, apologies for the page numbers that do not coincide with the 1993 edition of the text, I have the newer ebook edition. Here’s hoping that doesn’t throw you off too much, and that the long post is worth your time to read! Cheers!
Noah & the Changing Woman
Noah, stop chasing that poor Changing woman around the canoe! Noah and his big canoe, is a direct connection to the Noah and the Ark story. Jane Flick notes that Noah’s big canoe is “likely a swipe at missionary adaptations of biblical stories for Indians” (Flick 152). This act of transforming a traditionally perhaps non-native story into one for the ‘Indians’ is continued when “Christian ship…Christian journey…Christian rules” has the animals silent, while Indian narratives quite the contrary (King 229). Why is this? I see it as King’s way of placing importance on Indian story-telling histories, with animals playing a much more active role. Instead of silencing them in predominantly White narratives, animals speak, have a life of their own, and play a part. I relate this to my familiarly with ancient tales of my Chinese heritage, such as the Monkey King. “Monkey King never did that in the original story!” my grandpa would yell at the TV. Stories can evolve, change and adapt, and it isn’t always for the worst. I think it’s been valuable to see this different twist on Noah, the animals, and his ship/ark. Once a story changes, different things can happen, different issues can come to light, and different intersections of culture can be examined.
So why the poor Changing woman? Jane Flick notes the Changing Woman as “a holy person of miraculous birth” (Flick 152). No surprise that Noah would chase the Changing Woman for procreating; “Time for procreating, shouts Noah” (King 226). There’s a sense that Noah is a playful and even blundering character, constantly falling in poop. “Thou shalt have big breasts” certainly doesn’t sound like the traditional language that we associate with Noah (King 228). The Changing Woman, both holy and miraculous, is being chased by this blundering sexualized Noah. Is there something about Noah’s bestiality towards the Changing Woman that King is trying to comment on? I saw it as King’s take on the westernized notion of Noah and his Ark. Noah is often seen as a hero of his time or even a saintly savior. But is it always pretty flowers and rainbows? I think we see, or often led to see, these westernized tales of history as perfect, while King brings it into a different light. Perhaps they are human, just like all of us. By bringing Noah down to Earth with poop and breasts (pardon my language), I think King brings stories of Noah and others, down from the heavenly pedestal that they are often on. Perhaps for us to begin to look at other stories also worth looking at, perhaps native narratives, that are deemed inferior when in fact not?
Charlie and his mother, and the story of C.B Cologne
Charlie asked his mother, “Did he ever play the lead? You know, the hero” (King 233). Maybe, Charlie’s mother answered him, “But that was back before they had any Indian heroes” (King 233). Jane Flick makes sure to point out that this is an “allusion to the shift in the presentations of Indians in some Hollywood films” (Flick 152). I also find it fascinating the roles that King prescribes these Indian heroes, “quick fox…Chief Jumping Otter…Chief Lazy Dog” (King 234). Flick makes it known this is King’s allusion to the alphabet learning process for children (Flick 153). By pairing these roles and “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”, is this King’s way of commenting on how Indians only got elementary and undeveloped roles in mainstream culture? The traditional story line of cowboy versus Indian was once everywhere in mainstream culture, and I argue that this mentality is still evident today. From the Lone Ranger and a white stylized cowboy, to Indians becoming more pronounced as actual forces in culture and film. I walk into a dollar store today, and I still see cowboy toy sets with guns and a sheriff badge, with a cartoon drawing of a classic cowboy versus Indian fight on the packaging. I don’t see that in all the other places I’ve traveled globally, and I think this issue has become so engraved in our culture; it would be hard to erase. Instead, all we can do is educate ourselves.
“Charlie, your father made a very good Indian” (King 233). So what was a good Indian on screen? Of course, you had to start with a great Indian name? Perhaps “Iron Eyes Screeching Eagle” (King 234)? C.B. Cologne in the text is noted as a “red-headed Italian who played some of the Indian leads” (King 233). Cristobal Colon, or Cristofor Colombo, or as we know it, Christopher Columbus, was sent by Spain to find a route to the Indies (Flick 153). Can we comment on King’s allusion to Christopher Columbus in connection to his commentary on Indian prevalence in the entertainment industry? I see it as King commenting on how an Italian could portray an Indian lead, alluding to Columbus’ quest to conquer the native, or the Indian. The Italian, or ‘white’, is going so far as to invade and assume the identity of the ‘Indian’. Again, much like the cowboy versus the Indian, we see that history tells us a story of colonization and westernization by the ‘whites’. Perhaps not negatively, but King certainly brings to light these issues using the characters of his texts as prompts in our journey to not only look critically at the allusions he’s making, but also why.
There were so many stories. But I’ll leave it at that, it is already a hefty read and I apologize! What do you think?!
PS: I found it so fascinating finding and digging for these allusions, anyone else get a sense that you were reading TS Eliot’s ‘The Waste Land’ 2.0 in a native form and telling? Can we think of both authors’ canonical work in the same light: bringing and connecting history before our eyes? What is the value of doing so?
Thanks, and cheers!
Works Cited
Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. March 12/2015.
King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water: A Novel. Toronto: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2010. IBooks.
Stokes, Dashanne. “Time to Stop Playing Cowboys and Indians.” Indian Country Today Media Network, 16 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/16/time-stop-playing-cowboys-and-indians>.
Webb, Franki. Under-representation of Native Americans in the Mainstream Media. Under-representation of Native Americans in the Mainstream Media. N.p., 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nativeweb.org/papers/essays/franki_webb.html>.
“Animals – Native American Mythology.” Native American Mythology. Myths Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Mi-Ni/Native-American-Mythology.html>.
“Christopher Columbus.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus>.
“Noah’s Ark.” Noah’s Ark. Christian Bible Reference Site, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.christianbiblereference.org/story_NoahsArk.htm>.
“T.S. Eliot – The Waste Land.” Genius, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://genius.com/Ts-eliot-the-waste-land-annotated>.
Hey Jeff, nice blog post. One thing I found interesting about Changing Woman’s story, and something you allude to in your piece, is this inclusion of breasts. The Noah story that I remember had no big breasts, so where did they come from? It seems that this may be another instance of King splicing and mixing Western and First Nations traditions in his story. I found some info on Changing Woman (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma97/dinetah/change2.html) that describes her origins and significance. This piece (and I am not sure how accurate it is, perhaps Dr. Paterson can help me out here) states that Changing woman rubs skin off each of her breasts to create different clans, which she then takes with her into the West. If this story checks out this is an interesting instance of King connecting the two cultures because he gives Noah (Western culture) the superior knowledge over Changing Woman (First Nations culture). Noah would in this sense be aware (although unable to grasp the meaning of) Changing Woman’s story, while Changing Woman has to ask Old Coyote where all Noah’s ‘rules’ came from and why he keeps insisting on ‘upholding’ them. Given that the other Western characters in the story tend to indicate ignorance of culture and history I wonder why Noah gets special treatment (unless of course the Navajo story I’m referencing is not relevant). Any thoughts?
Once again forgot my name.
Sorry,
Nicolas Thomson
Hi Jeff,
Great job on the substantial analysis! I really liked the story of Changing Woman and Noah. I found it funny and also empowering because Changing Woman’s superiority clearly undermines the absolute superiority the Western story supposedly had. Your insight on Indian roles in Hollywood films and its juxtaposition with the pangram also got me thinking about our Research Team’s work. While Aboriginal stories may not have been considered “Canadian literature” in time past, there has definitely been a shift such that stories like Green Grass, Running Water are taught in Canadian literature courses at least in university. This gives me hope because we are being educated and hearing more stories that we probably would not have encountered had we been in school prior to this shift.
Jasmine
Hi Jeff,
I really enjoyed the 2 stories that you picked out to write about.
I was just going to comment about where you said about an Italian portraying an Indian in a Hollywood movie. I think this still exists today, where the representation of Indigenous groups and or other minority cultures are represented using “white” people. Besides in acting, an example that I can think off the top of my head would be in 2009, when Vogue painted white models black.
I think this perhaps encourages us to ask – how can “minority” races be portrayed by “white” people? Why has this practice been done? Is it because there’s the perception that “white” people do “it” better? What kind of questions does this practice beg us to ask.
Because our culture is saturated by “white” heroes, children of minority groups do not have the chance to grow up aspiring to be a hero of their own race. White traits are more beautiful. White is better- is the message that this culture is stating, and this is what I think King is asking us to question.
forgot to leave my name
Qihui Huang