Figuring out this place called home is a problem (87). Why? Why is it so problematic to figure out this place we call home: Canada? Consider this question in context with Chamberlin’s discussion on imagination and reality; belief and truth (use the index).Chamberlin says, “the sad fact is, the history of settlement around the world is the history of displacing other people from their lands, of discounting their livelihoods and destroying their languages” (78). Chamberlin goes on to “put this differently” (Para. 3). Explain that “different way” of looking at this, and discuss what you think of the differences and possible consequences of these “two ways” of understanding the history of settlement in Canada.
——–
“This is the home we all long for, the Jerusalem we are not to forget. It may be the place we came from, five or fifty or give hundred years ago, or the place we are going to when our time is done. It is the place we still haven’t found but are looking for. The place that gives us a sense of our self, and of others” (Chamberlain 87)
Developing a connection with one’s homeland doesn’t come as easy as one would expect. Oftentimes there are contributing factors that we are ourselves aren’t quite sure how to decipher, and I think this is how Chamberlain feels as well. Being from the Americas emphasizes the inner conflict that Chamberlain tries to convey to the reader, that if he’s from this place, why does he find it so difficult to call it home? He continues on by stating, “It is a problem for me… And somebody else calls this place home, somebody who isn’t always happy having me around” (87). The issue of entitlement to a place has persisted until today, and Chamberlain’s feelings of hesitancy and doubt in his ability to call Canada his home is a direct result of this. Coming from an Asian background myself, I too, have encountered a few individuals that feel as though they have more of an entitlement to live here than I do; as if I do not necessarily belong. While encountering these types of self-entitled individuals is an inevitable and unfortunate aspect of Canada’s multiculturalism, Chamberlain makes direct references to the relationship between the settlers and the aboriginals, and how they’re dynamic contributes to one’s struggle to comfortably refer to a place as home.
“We have lost the ability to both surrender to a story and separate ourselves from it, to live in both grief-stricken reality and the grace of the imagination” (Chamberlain 124)
‘Them and Us’—this sort of mentality is prevalent in our everyday lives whether we recognize it or not. Chamberlain discloses the importance of recognizing and accepting, rather than trying to dissipate either side for he discloses, “Dividing the world up into Them and Us is inevitable. But choosing between is like choosing between reality and the imagination, or between being marooned on an island and drowning in the sea. Deadly, and ultimately a delusion” (239). The relationship between Them and Us is similar to that of reality and imagination, for both are best understood when they converge. Chamberlain argues, “the line between the strange and the familiar is so culturally determined” (140), and I couldn’t agree more. Our use of agency in deciding for ourselves between what is real and what is imaginative is hindered because we often believe in something, or perceive something a certain way, strictly because we are influenced to. We become so wrapped up in the arbitrariness of art and life that we neglect to question the supposed truths we are being fed; “we have become addicted to facts” (124). Now, especially, it has become increasingly difficult to freely exercise one’s agency without the threat of outside cultural influences clouding our judgment by means of validating and falsifying our personal beliefs. As Chamberlain notes, the main way to combat the threat of cultural influence and pre-determination is through belief. We must rid ourselves of society’s expectations and narrow set of rules that determine what is fact or fiction and worthy or worthless, in favor of our own beliefs for “this act of believing can provide the common ground across cultures that we long for” (224). Ultimately, I perceive partaking in ceremonies of belief as a communal attempt to find legitimacy in viewing Canada as our home.
The culturally determined and enforced necessity of things needing to be black and white is what hinders one’s ability to establish what a home is. I think this is what Chamberlain’s book focuses on: uncovering and sifting through the blurred lines that push the connection to a home further away. There doesn’t need to be a visible borderline between reality and imagination, belief and truth, Them and Us… all of these differences are better understood when fused together rather than strictly kept apart. If we learn to accept that not everything can or must be made black and white, that our experiences, understandings, and definitions can be blended, confusing, and imperfect, then perhaps figuring out this place called home would be made easier.
“The sad fact is, the history of settlement around the world is the history of displacing other people from their lands, of discounting their livelihoods and destroying their languages” (Chamberlain 78)
Chamberlain argues that the “different way” of looking at the history of many worldly issues is by recognizing that it is filled with the neglect and refusal of cultural differences. There is a history of disapproving individuals simply based on the fact that they may not share the same beliefs, languages, or behaviors that may be familiar to someone else; oftentimes, people of varying cultures are judged based on their malleability and cooperative willingness to assimilate. However, when a culture of people is seen as threatening cultural conventions, they are met with hostility, ridicule, and immense judgment. People are so quick to judge others based on their dissimilarities, finding flaws in what make different cultures unique; the history of many of our world’s conflicts is rooted in an adamant unwillingness to accept the unfamiliar. I think the difference between the former and the latter ways of looking at this is that displacing and discounting livelihoods is not the same as deeming one untrue, which is what the “different way” of looking at this suggests. While I think that both of these ways are more similar than not, the “different way” seems more personal and aware. While the former is ignorance and insensitivity, the latter is condescending and judgmental in that settlers are dismissing cultural beliefs as unbelievable and cultural behaviors as misbehaviors; as a result of this, groups like the aboriginals are wrongfully labeled as barbaric or abnormal.
The dominant consequence of these “two ways” is the loss of home. The inescapable commonality of both ways of understanding the history of settlement in Canada is that the aboriginals were robbed of their home. As Chamberlain comprehends, “we don’t want to get too close to something we fear so deeply” (79), which is a universal fear that moves beyond the conflict between the settlers and the aboriginals. The fear of homelessness is a persisting one within all of us, whether ignited or dormant. Settlement around the world is seeded in the fear of not having a place to stay, a place to call your own; the “gut-wrenching emptiness” (84) that consumes the homeless is one of the greatest burdens to bear and consequences to deal with.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf. 2003. Print.
Davis, Wade. “Dreams from endangered cultures.” TED. Feb. 2003. Lecture.
Morgan, Vanessa Sloan. “On Being Here to Stay: Treaties and Aboriginal Rights in Canada.” Intercontinental Cry. N.p., 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.
