As mentioned several times throughout our unit 3 lessons, Thomas King, in his novel “Green Grass, Running Water”, creates layers of stories with the expectation that the reader will choose to uncover them or leave them as unknown allusions. The first few characters in section 169-180 of his book follow the four Indians, Bill Bursum, and Alberta. What shocked me the most while researching the historical and literary symbolism was that even within these sometimes personal, sometimes culturally broader side stories, King’s social and political commentary is fixed on Western hierarchy and unequal representation of Aboriginals.

The four Indians, collectively, Ishmael, The Lone Ranger, Hawkeye, and Robinson Crusoe, follow King’s pattern of four directions (red-east, white-south, black-west, blue-north), the four stages of life (First Woman, Thought Woman, Changing Woman, Old Woman), and the four sections of the story.

The Lone Ranger, a character featured in numerous films, radio broadcasts, and TV shows, is a white male protagonist in a loose plot (varies because of the broad scope of stories he is featured in) that follows a hero and his Aboriginal companion Tonto, to rescue towns. While this historically troubling duo reflects on past cultural stereotypes and damaging character tropes, the film was recreated in 2012 by Disney. According to Margery Fee and Jane Flick in their essay “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders are in Thomas King’s ‘Green Grass, Running Water’”, The Lone Ranger represents a hierarchical model in Western Literature, of the white man who is all-knowing—The Lone Ranger translated in Spanish means “He who knows”, and the Aboriginal sidekick  (referred to as marginalization outside of the movie business) Tonto, whose name in Spanish translates to “Numbskull” (Fee and Flick 135).

Yet again, Hawkeye is a white, male, antagonist with an Aboriginal sidekick (Chingachgook ) in the saga, “The Leatherstocking Saga” written by James Fenimore Cooper. Rather than focus on the hierarchical relationship already observed between The Lone Ranger and Tonto, perhaps King is commenting on the author, Cooper, who is credited for the concept of The Noble Savage (McGregor 120). This damaging idea positions Aboriginal people as primitive, common, problematic, something to be fixed.

Robinson Crusoe, the novel by the white, male, British writer Daniel Defoe, is also the name of the antagonist in Defoe’s story about a man stranded on an island, who befriends an Aboriginal man. The novel was believed to be an autobiography for years, before it was revealed to be based on the life of a Scottish man. Perhaps King finds this telling (and slightly hilarious) of the realistic possibility that Crusoe actually encountered cannibals and saved an Aboriginal man from a savage life. Similar to The Lone Ranger, his character presents a hierchical connection between white, male, antagonists in novels, and their Aboriginal sidekicks, or in this case, Crusoe’s Aboriginal project who he Christens.

Ishmael is a character in the story Moby Dick by Herman Melville. He too befriends an Aboriginal cannibal named “Queequeg”, and survives a flood by staying afloat on Queequeg’s coffin (Flick). In a novel full of Christian symbolism (Ishmael is taken from the Bible), Queequeg as a cannabil and pagan may symbolize the devil within Christian indoctrinated belief.

According to Fee and Flick, King relies on a Westernized embedded inability to see anything different from the norm as acceptable. That is why, the four Indians, who are represented as mixed-race pairs in Western literature, are looked over, and are not recognized for their sex–all four are female, or for their ethnicity—all four are aboriginal (Fee and Flick 135).

Bill Bursum, according to Flick, encompasses the hostility toward Aboriginals that Buffalo Bill historically did as well. King’s Bill Bursum embodies the idea that Aboriginals need to be eradicated, although, to a slightly smaller degree. Bursum is the first to buy property around the lake, and is unable to occupy it until Eli’s cabin is destroyed or moved. While he doesn’t show violent contempt toward Eli, his thoughts on page 267, when he claims Eli and his cabin “can’t stay there forever” suggest a similar attitude that Buffalo Bill violently up took as he hunted and killed buffalo in order to try and eradicate the Plains people.

The Shagganappi Lounge, is referenced indirectly previously with the four Canadians who eat at Latisha’s café, one of which is P. Johnson, author of “The Shagganappi”. Pauline Johnson, a half Mohawk, half English writer, famously wrote “never let anyone call me a white woman”, and embraced her Mohawk identity, claiming in “The Shagganappi”,

“Oh, why have your people forced on me the name of Pauline Johnson?” she said…Was not my Indian name good enough? Do you think you help us by bidding us forget our blood? by teaching us to cast off all memory of our high ideals and our glorious past? I am an Indian. My pen and my life I devote to the memory of my own people. Forget that I was Pauline Johnson, but remember always that I was Tekahionwake, the Mohawk that humbly aspired to be the saga singer of her people, the bard of the noblest folk the world has ever seen, the sad historian of her own heroic race. “

Works Cited

Chester Blanca. “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.”Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. April 04/2013

Fee, Margery, and Jane Flick. “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature (1999): 131

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

I read “Green Grass, Running Water” for a previous English course at UBC. In fact, I read it twice, and I felt like I had thoroughly absorbed many of the allusions the book offered. In some ways, I probably did. And then I went on a road trip to Saskatchewan, and decided to read the book out loud to my friends for this course. I realized then how adamant King truly is about the power of oral storytelling, and the way he challenged readers to understand through listening, rather than simply reading, as mentioned in lesson 3:2. Blanca Chester discusses this in her article “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel”, when she explores the influence of Harry Robinson’s form of storytelling in King’s novel. She claims Robinson’s storytelling “ultimately moves beyond either written or spoken word” (Chester 44), to ensure a dialogue is created between oral and written traditions in Native culture as well as Western literary work (Chester 45). Similarly, King draws from these oral traditions in order to push the reader to confront previous knowledge of Western allusions, with Native culture, and historically important occurrences in Canada. According to Chester, King’s oral storytelling strategy reveals “a dialogue with the past that moves into the present, a history of Native tradition that now includes European elements within it” (47)

While reading in the car, the first name that I spoke aloud which triggered an allusion was Dr. Joseph Hovaugh. Admittedly, going through lesson 3:1, I understood the connection of this character to Northrop Frye, but I could not understand why he was described as Jehovah, rather than the more popularly used term, God. King’s brilliant pun is only understood when said aloud, and as an even further reach of the power of spoken word, I was able to pick up on King’s juxtaposition of Dr. Joseph Hovaugh, and his interaction with the four natives, to Buffalo Bill Bursam, and his interaction with the four natives. At the beginning of the novel, Dr. Hovaugh is introduced as sitting behind his desk at the hospital. “It was a way to collect his thoughts, a way to get ready for the week. Every day, he sat a little longer. There was no harm in it” (King 16). Bursam, later on, is described as having recently cultivated “the habit of sitting behind his desk and watching the early morning costumers come into the store. It was a way to collect his thoughts, a way to get ready for the day. Each day he sat a little longer. There was no harm in it” (King 268). This deliberate repetition is King’s way of continuously reintroducing the cyclical idea of storytelling presented in the (by now) familiar Medicine Wheel (lesson 3:2). But what is he trying to allude to about these two characters in particular?

The aurality that King demands is necessary for King’s puns to be understood, offering “connections to yet another narrative” (Chester 54). The characters Louis, Ray, and Al, when read aloud, form the name Louis Riel, a key figure in Canadian Native history. Similarly, the Nissan, Pinto, and Karmann-Ghia allude to Columbus’ historic—and highly recognized Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Why does King choose to infuse Western Colonial allusions into Native narratives in this way? According to Chester, the oral resonance forces the stories to be read aloud in a Native oral tradition, as mentioned previously. Yet, it also suggests an assumed audience, and aspects of a storytelling performance (Chester 55). Reading aloud to my friends in the car, my sister would interrupt me suddenly and ask why certain characters had certain names, and inquire about literary allusions that she didn’t understand, because she didn’t have literary background knowledge. Only then did I understand the importance of Chester’s observation, when she claims “In creating a dialogue, or conversation, with the text the speaker/reader/listen enters into a highly contexted discourse where every name suggests a story and every story suggests yet another story” (55).

Throughout King’s novel, just as with the Medicine Wheel, he is challenging his readers to question everything, and look for the story within the story. His manipulation of oral puns and allusions is just another way he is allowing his readers a chance to probe beyond previous knowledge of Western allusions, toward a greater understanding of new narratives, such as the Native narratives he presents.

Works Cited

Chester Blanca. “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.”Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. April 04/2013

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

The Indian Act of 1876 is considered to have a “long history of assimilation policies that intended to terminate the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of Aboriginal peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian life and values”, according to the UBC Indigenous Foundations site. Previously, the act was a combination of past colonial legislation, including the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. (Indigenous Foundations). The former, worked to integrate Natives into Canadian settler culture, while the latter elected Superintendent Generals of Indian Affairs, who held executive control over “indian” status, and were able to make life-altering decisions on behalf of Natives. For example, if a Native man passed away, the superintendent would decide if the wife of this man was able to keep her children, based on his personal opinion on whether or not she was “moral” (Indigenous Foundations).

The Gradual Enfranchisement Act also was the start of gender specific restrictions on Native status benefits, over ruled many band council powers, and restricted alcohol consumption by Natives. The Indian Act which followed, allowed for one legislation, which consequently disregarded specific treaty rights of different Native groups, placing them all under one legislation to be monitored (Indigenous Foundations).

Within the Indian Act, were laws such as the Potlach law which banned the ceremonious act, and which later banned other ceremonies such as the Sun Dance. As discussed in previous lessons, this law banned Natives from coming together to practice oral traditions, medicinal work, and many other culturally identifying activities. This law greatly served to assimilate Natives into Canadian culture. However, other laws seemingly contradicted assimilation laws, and helped bind Native women. Concerning Native status, the Indian Act contained a part of the legislation which took away a Native woman’s status, and consequently, her treaty rights, health benefits the right to be buried with her ancestors, the right to live on her reserve, and the right to inherit family property if she were to marry a non-status man. At the same time, if she was abandoned by her husband, or was widowed, she would also lose her status .

These acts and policies are very strongly based on discriminatory behaviour concerning the perceived racial inferiority of Natives, and their incapacity, as the Canadian government considered it, to assimilate into Canadian culture, and the mainstream view of nationalism. The very core of the Indian Act suggests Coleman’s argument on white civility is embedded in Canadian legislation, and has consequently created Canadian identity, and what is considered to be “whiteness”, offering “a position of normalcy and privilege in Canada”, as discussed in this lesson (lesson 3:1). Consider the diction used in the previous legislation that the Indian Act is founded on: “gradual civilization” and “gradual enfranchisement”, unapologetically states the motive of the legislation in the name itself. This plan to assimilate Natives into Canadian citizenry, completely works to create what Coleman calls a Canadian identity that is characteristic of being white and civil, and is based on a constructed sense of normalcy. For example, I mentioned above the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, which gave white males the power to make decisions for Natives. This decision-making was based on a colonial standard of living, and discretion used to decide if Natives were moral enough, or civil enough to suit Canadian legislation standards were based on normalcy and privilege offered exclusively to white settlers.

This colonial mentality is greatly observed in the Potlach law, as mentioned above, and in previous lessons. What the Natives saw as a ceremony to establish property, and serve in the distribution of wealth, Canadian settlers saw as a challenge to the assimilation of Natives away from an economic system of redistribution, to a private ownership system that ruled white Capitalist ideols. A first account testament, by Judge Alfred Scow, illustrates the ways these laws negatively affected Native identity, and forced a Canadian identity onto Natives.

 This provision of the Indian Act was in place for close to 75 years and what that did was it prevented the passing down of our oral history. It prevented the passing down of our values. It meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have, and we did have forms of government be they oral and not in writing before any of the Europeans came to this country. We had a system that worked for us. We respected each other. We had ways of dealing with disputes.

            The Indian Act, while attempting to create a Canadian Identity, such as the one Coleman believes exists, also created a Native Identity that is understood today to be “normal”. Coleman argues that there is no “normal” identity, but a fictive ethnicity that is based on a “necessary forgetfulness” of our history, and the acts which allowed for such a brutal breakdown of human rights.

Works Cited

The Indian Act. n.d Web July 4 2014.

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indian-act.html#origins

CanLit Guides. “Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom Guide to Nationalism.” Canadian

           Literature. Web. April 4th 2013.