2. In this lesson I say that our capacity for understanding or making meaningfulness from the first stories is seriously limited for numerous reasons and I briefly offer two reasons why this is so: 1) the social process of the telling is disconnected from the story and this creates obvious problems for ascribing meaningfulness, and 2) the extended time of criminal prohibitions against Indigenous peoples telling stories combined with the act of taking all the children between 5 – 15 away from their families and communities. In Wickwire’s introduction to Living Stories, find a third reason why, according to Robinson, our abilities to make meaning from first stories and encounters is so seriously limited. To be complete, your answer should begin with a brief discussion on the two reasons I present and then proceed to introduce and explain your third reason from Wickwire’s introduction.
There are many reasons why finding meaningfulness in first stories may be a challenge. The first reason offered by Professor Paterson is that “the social process of the telling is disconnected from the story.” As we have seen in past assignments and readings, the telling of a story can be just as important as what is being told. When a story is taken out of the context in which it was originally told, it will inevitably lose meaning. Stories that were traditionally told at ceremonies as a means to proclaim land ownership and connect particular place names with individuals will not have the same impact when told in a one on one setting with a recording device in the room. These stories are based on an oral tradition, and take on significance through their delivery and the time and place in which they are told. As storyteller Harry Robinson reminds us in the Introduction to Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory, these stories need to be listened to multiple times before one can truly understand their significance. (Robinson, 19)
The second reason offered is the residential school system and banning of potlatch festivals. Both of these government programs sought to eradicate First Nations culture and values. It seems impossible that children growing up away from their parents and grandparents could retain an untainted sense of their heritage and traditional stories. The process of assimilating First Nations children into the white, westernized culture caused their own cultures to become discredited. Understanding the first stories requires cultural knowledge, and this knowledge was effectively erased from multiple generations through these programs. Silencing these stories meant the death of history and meaning.
A third reason I would like to propose comes from Wendy Wickwire’s introduction to Harry Robinson. Over the course of their acquaintance, Robinson related many stories (three books worth) to Wickwire. It seemed that Wickwire herself struggled to find meaning in some of the first stories, and was surprised by the role her first ancestor played in them. In Robinson’s story of the twin brothers, the white twin is a thief and liar banished to a distant land after stealing a written document. (Robinson, 9) When retelling this story, Wickwire notes twice that this unsavoury character is her ancestor. Her emphasis on the word my strikes me as interesting. This story is somehow personal for her, as it is for everyone. It seems that her capacity for understanding Robinson’s story is impeded (at least at first hearing) by her personal stake in it.
Additionally, Wickwire notes the presence of “impurities” in Robinson’s stories. Upon first hearing, she is puzzled by the references his stories included to modern people, places, and things, and the inclusion of political themes and conflicts between whites and Aboriginal peoples. Traditionally, historians collecting First Nations stories were more interested in myths and prehistorical legends. Franz Boas, a prominent anthropologist and story collector, actually edited the stories he heard to make them more consistent with the “precontact” myths. (Robinson, 23) What had been told as a historical narrative becomes a myth once these modern references are removed. This traditional approach weighs heavily on our abilities to take away meaning from the first stories. As Boas himself asks, “How can we recognize the shackles that tradition has laid upon us?”
Works Cited
“A history of residential schools in Canada.” CBC News, 21 Mar. 2016, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280.
“Franz Boas – The Shackles of Tradition.” YouTube, uploaded by ayabaya, 12 Dec. 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFDioPrMM.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2.2: First Stories.” University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 7 Oct. 2016. Lecture.
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy C. Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon, 2005. Print.
Hey!
I like how you addressed the idea of first stories being impacted by how they are told a lot. I’m taking another class which heavily involves Beowulf, and we’ve addressed that the translation and the written word versus the oral tradition removes a lot of the tone, especially the idea of melancholia. Do you think that the stories that Robinson retells are impacted by this change of medium? And do you think having an audio book option available would change the way the stories are interpreted?
I know for myself personally whenever there is an audiobook option I never consider it because I get much to distracted to pay attention. I would listen to the first few sentences and not be able to tell you anything else about what was told to me. For myself I find visual stimulation is better than auditory simulation if I want to retain or learn anything.
Hi,
Thanks for your comment! I feel the same way about audiobooks. I’ve always wanted to be the type of person who listens to audiobooks on long car rides, but I just can’t seem to get into them. Even when there is nothing else going on around me, I have trouble concentrating on the voice telling the story. I know that many people find them to be a useful resource, and prefer them to the written text.
Reading Robinson’s stories, I found that they felt somehow incomplete to me when just looking at the words on the page. Once I tried reading them out loud, they made a lot more sense. When his stories are kept on the page, they do seem to lose tone and some of their power. I think having audiobook options available would definitely change the way these stories are interpreted. I think the Bible offers a good comparison. Reading the written text of the Bible is a much different experience than hearing it read aloud by a pastor or reverend.
Hi!
I enjoyed reading your post. I also wrote my blog on this question! However, you picked up on a theme that I did not: we are unable to understand first stories due to our ‘personal stake.’ I think that is a very interesting area to comment on.
So, do you think a non-native would be more receptive to first stories if their ancestors were unremarked on? Is the emotional ties ruining our ability to fully grasp the first stories we are told?
Thanks!
Hey!
Thanks for commenting. In my own experience, I would have to say that yes, our emotional ties influence the way we hear a story. When reading Robinson’s first story about the two twins, I found that I had difficulty knowing my ancestors were the villains in the story. It made me feel guilty and somewhat sad. I tried to console myself by removing my family from the equation. If we only emigrated to North America in the last hundred years, are we less to blame than the settlers that came before us? Probably not, but this was the path that my mind wandered down. I think people reading first stories for the first time may have trouble reconciling their ancestors role within them. Western storytelling is super concerned with heroes and villains, and it is hard to see one’s self, however indirectly, in the position of bad guy.
Hi Mikayla,
I really enjoyed reading your post, especially your last (two) ideas regarding why understanding first stories can be so challenging.
I found your point about the way a story portrays one’s ancestors can affect one’s interactions with and understanding of that story to be very thought provoking, and it made me wonder if the stories that we “keep” and understand are the ones that portray ourselves, or our ancestors, in the best light (or something we’re comfortable with), or if your observation of Wickwire’s surprise was more related to the elements of the story that were unexpected for her.
On another note, your mention of stories not always fitting expectations (such as expectations held by Boas or Wickwire) brought to mind Lutz’s paper (“Myth Understandings: First Contact, Over and Over Again”) when he writes about how people, of European and Indigenous backgrounds, found “in large measure” what they expected to find, based on the stories they knew and had been told (2, 4). Even when something was relatively unexpected, Lutz suggests that this unexpected event “retreats into the imagination” and could still be incorporated into pre-existing understandings of the world (2). This prompted me to think further about how one’s own expectations of a story, for instance, could affect one’s perception and experience of that story — do you think this is the case?
Thanks for the thought-provoking post! I look forward to connecting with you soon 🙂
— Kaylie
Hi Kaylie!
Thanks for your insightful comment! ☺️ It is interesting to think about the ways in which our ancestors influence our understanding of everything around us, including the stories we hear. I personally find stories that are critical of my culture, or something I identify with personally, harder to swallow and digest. I don’t imagine it would be comfortable to hear stories that implicated relatives in belonging to the KKK or Nazism. I think everyone wants to believe that their ancestors were on the right side of history, and I think the first stories (justifiably) do not paint European settlers in a good light. I do think it is important to try to view stories objectively, but this is not always easy.
Moving to the second part of your comment, I would agree that one’s expectations play an influential role in one’s understanding of a story. I think the stories the first Europeans took with them to North America helped shape their perception and understanding of their new world. Thay saw what they were expecting to see, even when faced with the unexpected. For example, in Susanna Moodie’s imagination, (from Roughing It In the Bush), the land was like a second Garden of Eden, wild and unpopulated, despite the fact that there were natives already living on the land.
Hello there!
Excellent blog post. I very much enjoyed reading your take on this question as I responded to another question and did not have a chance to consider this one.
In your post, you wrote: “When a story is taken out of the context in which it was originally told, it will inevitably lose meaning.” While I agree with this statement, I’m curious if you think this is a negative or positive thing? In my opinion, I think it can be both. When a story is taken out of context, or the meaning is altered, this can take the story into dangerous territory where its meaning is being twisted into the preference of the reader. However, one of my favorite parts of English courses is when some students are able to take a lot at these stories and interpret them differently in a new and exciting way. Sometimes reinterpretation can provide clarity to a story, or rekindle the discourse surrounding it.
I also enjoyed your observations on stories becoming personal to us. I do sometimes find it difficult to keep myself indifferent when reading material, but I do not often recognize this. So, I think it was an interesting concept for you to point out in order to raise awareness towards it.
Hi!
Thanks for your comment, it made me think about the value behind reinterpretation, something I had not previously considered. I agree that it is always interesting to hear a new interpretation of a story, especially when it differs from your own reading experience. i think taking stories out of their original context can be both good and bad. Native stories, when taken out of their intended oral performance context, can lose meaning and be more difficult to understand. Yet, recording them in written form may encourage the continuation of their telling for future generations.
Shakespeare’s plays are often taken out of their historical, theatrical context and remade into modern versions. (Ex: From Taming of the Shrew we get the glorious movie 10 Things I Hate About You). Modern Romeo and Juliet movies recapture our imaginations and give us a new way to interact with the tragic tale of two lovers. While some critics might say this is lowering Shakespeare, it seems to make his work more accessible to a modern audience.