Blogpost 3/7.

 PAGES 416 to 428, 2007 Edition (referencing will be based on 2007 Edition).

     Kamloops.

     “The end remembers the beginning.”

      —Every creative writing teacher.

      I have chosen to focus on the allusions in the last section of Green Grass Running Water because they help strengthen the thematics present in the cyclical structure. The themes include the fluidity of Native stories, the hegemonic influence of Christianity and Western pop culture, and the importance of orality. One could write a novel-length article if they chose to analyze every single character and symbol in this last section, and so, for the sake of brevity, I will mostly rely on Flick’s analysis and include hyperlinks for further readings. There are few thematic connections for me to draw from Flick’s list of allusions that other scholars have not already stated. To not only reiterate what has already been said I will also be focusing on the one allusion that Flick missed in these pages—Kamloops.

     Before I return to the importance of Kamloops, let us look at the plethora of allusions Flick found in these pages and connect them to some of the novel’s themes. One of the most important characters to understand is Coyote, a trickster figure from Native American tales who lived before humans existed. Coyote, along with other mystical beings had tremendous powers and created the world. They instituted human life and culture, but they were also capable of being brave or cowardly, conservative or innovative, wise or stupid. (Flick 143). In other words, for one to understand Coyote, one must be able to understand and believe in contradictions in the same way that one must understand contradictions to constructively interpret Green Grass Running Water. King also contradicts Christian stories to satirize them. “The Last time you fooled around like this,” said Robinson Crusoe, “The world got very wet.” “And we had to start all over again,” said Hawkeye. (King 416). King establishes that it was Coyote, not god, who was responsible for Noah’s flood. (Flick 164). King further subverts the Christian story when Coyote refers to the character Alberta and says, “But I was Helpful, too. That woman who wanted a baby. Now that was helpful.” To which Robinson Crusoe responds, “You remember the last time you did that?” (King 416). The last time Coyote did that refers to “the Immaculate Conception commonly misunderstood to refer to the conception of Jesus in Mary (rather than Mary’s own sinless conception).” (Flick 164). The reference to the character Alberta is one example of how King subverts, satirizes, strengthens, and dismantles stories by constantly overlapping stories within stories.

     The Old Indians–as the Lone Ranger, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe, Hawkeye, and Coyote are sometimes referred to–influence Alberta’s life; however, Alberta is not just a character, but a reference to the Canadian province. Alberta’s frankness could represent the characteristics of Albertans. (Flick 144). All these references to stories from different times cycle back to the present. Another example of this is when King starts off page 425 in the exact same way that he starts off page 16—with the line “Dr. Hovaugh sat at his desk and rolled his toes in the soft, deep-pile carpet.” Dr. Hovaugh’s narrative has come full circle and carries with it the stories of which his name alludes to. One can understand the Hovaugh to refer to many different people and characters such as Joe Hovaugh who appears in King’s story, “A Seat in the Garden,” and a play on the word Jehovah. (Flick 144). Dr. Hovaugh’s storyline is deeply connected to the Old Indians storyline throughout Green Grass Running Water, which we also see in the section I am analyzing when the Lone Ranger says, “We could start in the garden.” (King 428). “If they offer “to help” Joe Hovaugh fix up the world, they will have to start, of course, in the garden. That is, Eden—or Frye’s “central story”—since everything went “wrong” there. Once everyone is able to mind his or her relations, there may be hope of fixing up the world.” (Flick 164). However, King is not only subverting the Christian creation story, but with Lone Ranger’s use of “We,” King is also uniting Hawkeye, a adopted Indian name from famous frontier heroes in American literature, Lone Ranger, reference to Texas Rangers and character that had a faithful Indian companion named Tonto, Robinson Crusoe, a famous character from the novel by Daniel Defoe, and Ishmael, a character from Moby Dick and the firstborn son of Abraham. These characters and western writers who have shaped problematic ideas about indigenous people are now transformed and satirized to accompany the Native story.

     Many of these allusions are not ones that I would have picked up on if it weren’t for Flick; however, the thematic connections came from my experience and knowledge from ENGL 470 99C Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. Now, in the essence of King’s writing, let’s return to where I started—with Kamloops. As already discussed, when Robinson Crusoe tells Coyote, “You remember the last time you did that?” (416) King alludes to the Immaculate Conception. Coyote then responded with, “I’m quite sure I was in Kamloops” which brings the Christian story into the Okanagan. To understand the significance of Kamloops and the Okanagan, one needs to read, Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory by Harry Robinson. Harry Robinson was an Okanagan writer that heavily influenced King’s writing. Robinson grew up in Oyama as a member of the Lower Similkameen Band of the Interior Salish people. (Talonbooks). The Interior Salish people’s territory expanded through Kamloops which comes from the Secwepemc word Tk’emlúps, meaning “where the rivers meet” and refers to the convergence of the North and South Thompson rivers. (Tourism Kamloops). By alluding to Kamloops, King is not only referring to a writer that inspired him. The name also signifies the beginning of our world. A time when there was nothing. Just the water.

Works Cited

“Alberta Canada.” Travel Alberta, www.travelalberta.com/ca/.

Archibald, Jo-Ann, and desLibris – Books. Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit. UBC Press, Vancouver, 2008.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Garden of Eden.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 6 Sept. 2013, www.britannica.com/topic/Garden-of-Eden.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Robinson Crusoe.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 Jan. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/Robinson-Crusoe-novel.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Tonto.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 7 Jan. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/Tonto.

Eldatari. “Dr. Joseph Hovaugh and Jehovah.” Words and Names, 19 July 2010, litstudies.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/dr-joseph-hovaugh-and-jehovah/.

Flick Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. 18 March 2016. 

GotQuestions.org. “Who Was Ishmael in the Bible?” GotQuestions.org, 8 Mar. 2017, www.gotquestions.org/Ishmael-in-the-Bible.html.

“Harry Robinson.” Harry Robinson » Authors » Talonbooks, talonbooks.com/authors/harry-robinson.

“Immaculate Conception and Assumption.” Catholic Answers, 19 Nov. 2018, www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption.

“Kamloops Indigenous Culture | Tourism Kamloops, BC.” Kamloops Indigenous Culture | Tourism Kamloops, BC, www.tourismkamloops.com/thingstodo/artsandculture/ kamloopsindigenous/.

Kennedy, Dorothy, and Randy Bouchard. “Interior Salish.” Interior Salish | The Canadian Encyclopedia, 21 Nov. 2006, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/interior-salish- first-nations.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. 1993. Perennial-Harper, 2007.

LitCharts. “Hawkeye Character Analysis.” LitCharts, www.litcharts.com/lit/the-last-of-the-mohicans/characters/hawkeye.

Paterson, Erika. Lesson 3:3 ENGL 470 99C Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. UBC Blogs.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

Trailers, Movieclips. “The Lone Ranger Official Trailer #2 (2012) – Johnny Depp Movie HD.” YouTube, YouTube, 11 Dec. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFsNSoDZK8.

7. Describe how King uses the cyclical paradigm of the Medicine Wheel (and a little help from Coyote) to teach us to understand, or at least to try to understand the power behind the stories we tell ourselves.

The cyclical paradigm of the Medicine Wheel in Green Grass Running Water forces the audience the engage with the text and make connections. The fractured and cyclical narrative reflects an indigenous way of thinking; however, I will conclude this blog post with a list of cyclically structured movie narratives to show how less esoteric writers have mixed various cultural orientations through story structure. First, I will elucidate on how King attempts to heal and teach his readers by creating a structure that reflects the Medicine Wheel. The Medicine Wheel may not be a native term, but indigenous people used the Medicine Wheel as a tool for teaching, which in the First Nations worldview is interchangeable with healing. (Paterson). The Medicine wheel’s colours (red, white, black, and blue) represent cardinal directions, seasons, states of being, and natural elements. In the case of King’s novel, the four quadrants also represent the four Old Indians (which are also the names of the four sections in the book), and the four women that fall from the sky. (Paterson). For the purposes of this blog post, I will be addressing the influence that repeated stories have on the characters, and that the cyclical structure causes the reader to feel the power of stories along with the characters.

The most repeated story in Green Grass Running Water is the creation story. The first creation story involves Ahdamn and First Woman, mixing Indigenous and Judeo-Christian creation stories. Coyote becomes confused when First Woman is given the name of the Lone Ranger, and joined by three other figures, so the narrator begins the story again. In the second retelling of the creation story, Changing Woman falls from the sky and meets a chauvinistic Noah. Coyote keeps getting the creation stories wrong. Even at the very end, when the narrator is retelling the story of Old Woman, and when the narrator asks what Old Woman sees, Coyote says “A burning bush” which is the wrong answer. The reason Coyote got the wrong answer was that Coyote read a book. The narrator tells Coyote that Coyote must forget the book to tell the story. (King 349). Even though the narrator keep returning to creation stories, Coyote is still influenced by written texts. Coyote, who is godlike in that he has the power to cause earthquakes through dance and song, is not much different than the audience. The audience cannot get King’s story right without engaging in the text orally as well. When the narrator teaches Coyote (and the audience) creation stories, King is fixing the belief that Indigenous cultures lack the same rich history as European Christians. The satirical humour makes the Christian story seem subordinate to the Indigenous story in a similar way that the Westerns made indigenous people seem primitive compared to white cowboys.

The repeated motif of Western movies shows the influence that these narratives have on indigenous people. For instance, when the siblings Benjamin, Elizabeth, and Christian watch a Western, Christian asks his mother, Latisha, “How come the Indians always get killed?” Latisha explains that’s how western movies are to which Christian responds, “Not much point in watching it then.” (King 193). These movies perpetuate the idea that indigenous people are powerless to the white man. Furthermore, the reader can make connections that cross temporal boundaries when relating all the scenes that mention Westerns. One of the most significant influences of Western’s is on Charlie Looking Bear and his father, Portland. Charlie sees his father perform a stripping gig where the announcer says, ““And now, straight from the engagements in Germany, Italy, Paris, and Toronto, that fiery savage, Pocahontas! Put your hands together for the sexiest squaw best of the Mississippi.” (211). King shows us that the Western story still exists today, but Charlie’s nostalgia toward Western’s subverts it from something that the white man owns to something that Charlie can enjoy. The repeated use of Western’s allows King to show us that one can understand to contradictory statements—Western’s perpetrated fabricated ideas about indigenous people, and indigenous people can enjoy and profit from Westerns.

Another contradiction that the reader can only understand through a cyclical structure is that of Eli’s existence. Norma tells Eli that nobody on the reserve believes he’s alive, and when he tells her to tell them that he’s dead, Norma lets him know that nobody believes that either. (286). This not only foreshadows his death but works with the theme of cycles and stories. Eli dies when the damn collapses which reflects his disappearance from the reserve in his earlier life, but also his return from Toronto. King writes Eli’s story so that two contradictory believes that exist at different times can exist simultaneously. Eli’s story is also the one that breaks the common narratives. “Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, goes to the city, and is destroyed. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, is exposed to white culture, and becomes trapped between two worlds. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, gets an education, and is shunned by his tribe.” (286). Eli left the traditional world of the reserve, got an education and became successful from a Western point of view, and then returned to a traditional way of life while slowing down an inevitable damn project. However, the three common narratives about Indians leaving the reserve are also present in Eli’s life. The Truth is rarely one thing, and that is something that King wants us to understand.

To believe in contradictory statements is common among cultures cyclical view of the world. Psychologists, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, explain cultures through four different value dimensions—time, nature, human nature, and relational. Individualistic Western cultures often focus on the future, believe in mastery over nature, see human’s as evil (must be washed from their sins), and relationships are approached with an individual point of view. Indigenous cultures, on the other hand, don’t distinguish between times in a lineral way, believe in harmony with nature, see human’s as having a mixed human nature, and approach relationships collaterally. (Cheung). The indigenous world view becomes especially apparent with coyote. Coyote struggles to understand the story about Thought Woman and the narrator explains the story with anthropomorphized natural elements. The trees tell thought woman to wake up, the rocks seem indifferent to what happens, and the river sings “La, la, la, la” as it takes Thought Woman to the edge of the world where she floats into the sky. (King 232). There is no good or bad, the natural elements connect to Thought Woman, and there is no hierarchy of characters.

It seems that King wants us to understand that the stories we tell affect how people understand themselves and others and that it is essential to recognize the possible fabrications within stories. King uses the cyclical paradigm of the Medicine Wheel to break free from linear thinking and bring the reader closer to an indigenous way of viewing the world. Even though there are cultural differences between the West and Indigenous cultures, I want to end this blog post with a link to a list of movies (see the last half) that don’t give into linear thinking. It is important to understand that cultural values and ways of seeing the world always exist on a dimension (people from all cultures are capable of thinking in ways that differ from their own culture). Sometimes there is no need to exclude people by alluding to various historical figures and making the story more academic than it needs to be (which I think King does at times). The majority of people understand emotion, and if you write rich characters and place them in a story structure that forces the audience to make connections, people will engage and emphasize with stories, and therefore, the world.

Works Cited

Cheung, Benjamin. “Lecture 15: Self and Personality.” Cultural Psychology. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 7 February 2019. Lecture.

CineFix. “10 Best Structured Movies of All Time.” YouTube, 16 Aug. 2016, www.youtube.com/watchv=mgk6e8gWDbk&fbclid=IwAR3V2MrAdgvrkFwxZ0alpSlFsEwaWrQyqiJsrJHIE3Xku22VM3hkuWg0TqU.

Hills, Michael D. “Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks Values Orientation Theory.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 4, no. 4, 2002, doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1040.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. 1993. Perennial-Harper, 2007.

Paterson, Erika. Lesson 3:2 ENGL 470 99C Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. UBC Blogs.

 5]  In her article, “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel,” Blanca Chester observes that “the conversation that King sets up between oral creation story, biblical story, literary story, and historical story resembles the dialogues that Robinson sets up in his storytelling performances (47). She writes:

Robinson’s literary influence on King was, as King himself says, “inspirational.” When one reads King’s earlier novel, Medicine River, and compares it with Green Grass, Running Water, Robinson’s impact is obvious. Changes in the style of the dialogue, including the way King’s narrator seems to address readers and characters directly (using the first person), in the way traditional characters and stories from Native cultures (particularly Coyote) are adapted, and especially in the way that each of the distinct narrative strands in the novel contains and interconnects with every other, reflect Robinson’s storied impact. (46)

For this blog assignment I would like you to make some comparisons between Harry Robson’s writing style in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and King’s style in Green Grass, Running Water. What similarities can you find between the two story-telling voices? Coyote and God are present in both texts, how do they compare in character and voice across the stories?

A Struggle to Enjoy Robinson 

By Nolan Janssens

Harry Robinson’s influence on Thomas King is apparent when comparing Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and the  

The storyline in Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water that makes use of an unnamed, first-person narrator who interacts with both Christian and Native American traditional figures, showcases the influence Harry Robinson had on King. For the purposes of this blog post, I will be focusing on Robinson’s writing style in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and comparing it with “Green Grass Running Water.” To be honest, I struggle with Robinson’s writing style. I find the subversive use of grammar frustrating, the lack of sensory detail lazy, the poetic-like stanzas uninteresting, and the character’s dialogue unrealistic both in the oral and written sense. A lot of this frustration stems from the fact that I really want to appreciate Robinson’s writing, and haven’t fostered the ability to do so. As for King’s novel, the Christian and Native American traditional figure storyline are less frustrating due to it’s more modern language and humour. Before elucidating on the negative affect Robinson’s writing style has on me, I will refer to Jane Flick “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water” and Blanca Chester, “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing  the World of the Novel.” Their analysis has done little to increase my appreciation, but they have taught me why and how to respect Robinson’s writing style. To understand the importance of Robinson’s and King’s subversive writing, one must first understand what roles Coyote and God/dog can play in these texts.

     Coyote and God/dog can take on various shapes and meanings in Green Grass Running Water and “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England.” Flick references Bright’s work when defining Coyote in First Nation/Native American tales. Coyote is a familiar trickster figure that lived before humans existed, had tremendous powers, created the world as we know it, can be both brave and cowardly, conservative or innovative, wise or stupid. (Flick 143).  GOD/dog is “…a play on words and names. A dog (Canis familiaris) is, of course, a “lesser” form of coyote (Canislatranis)—and a god is a backward kind of dog. Or as Robin Ridington suggests, God is contrary from a dog’s point of view. GOD turns out to be the loud-voiced God of the Old Testament. (143). In “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” God seems to represent the God of the Old Testament because God seems more omniscient in Robinson’s text. For example, “So in another way, God knows that./They want to change./They don’t want to have a king—a man…” (74). In Green Grass Running Water, on the other hand, God uses more modern and comedic language. For example, “Wait a minute, says that GOD. That’s my garden. That’s my stuff. “Don’t talk to me,” I says. “You better talk to First Woman.” You bet I will, says that GOD.” (41). The language is not only more modern, but it’s less jarring. The flow of the conversations between God and Coyote are more realistic and causal whereas “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” reads as though Robinson uses whatever language he feels like, whether or not it is coherent.

     The frustration that I feel while reading Robinson might not only be due to the incoherence and switching of tenses. The fact that I can enjoy King’s novel, but not Robinson’s stories could be because King still makes use of some Western narrative techniques. “The “oral” influence of Robinson on King’s writing, however, paradoxically comes through written texts. This irony is perhaps reflected in King’s own multi-faceted translations and recreations of various stories and characters from different Native cultural traditions. King connects Robinson’s Okanagan Coyote with stories from the Blackfoot of Alberta, and the traditions of Thought Woman (Pueblo), First Woman (Navajo), Old Woman (Blackfoot, Dunne-za), and Changing Woman (Navajo).” (Chester 46). There is something more recognizable and comforting about King’s writing even though it still reflects Native orality. The dialogue in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” is broken up with poetically-styled verses and doesn’t come across as natural. I find it challenging to discover a realistic and oral flow that Robinson attempts through indentation.

So finally, another time, after that,

     After they was chased around by white people,

        Long time after that,

          God sent the Angel to Coyote.

Sent the Angel. (66).

      The writing is so fractured and random that I can’t even begin to “fill in the blanks” that Chester refers to in her paper. In Green Grass Running Water I feel more of a need to fill in the blanks because the storylines with Lionel, Alberta, and especially Eli and Karen, resonate with me emotionally. I feel that I am involved in the story because by King  “juxtaposing these different narratives, fragmented texts contextualize each other, creating meaning in gaps that cannot be read linearly. (47). With King, I’m both emotionally and intellectually invested in his stories, but with Robinson, I can only understand his intent on an intellectual level—and that’s due to reading other scholar’s opinions.

Works Cited

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

Flick Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. 18 March 2016. 

PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 10 July 2015, www.pbs.org/video/chicago-tonight-october-8-2015-subversive-copy-editor-takes-grammar/.

“Top 10 Best Nonlinear Films.” The Script Lab, 22 Mar. 2011, thescriptlab.com/features/the-lists/971-top-10-best-nonlinear-films/.

*I by no means agree with the 10 Best Nonlinear Films. I just added it because they’re Western movies with fractured narratives.

5] “To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing “(Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson, and explain why it is important to recognize this point.

If one wants to raise the question of ‘authenticity’ to challenge the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing, one must first reach methodological equivalence. Methodological equivalence is achieved in cross-cultural studies when the researcher diminishes biases and when what is being accessed is perceived the same way across cultures. (Cheung). Even though Carlson does not use the term methodological equivalence in Orality and Literacy, he does point out the different interpretations of authenticity. To understand how the Salish notion of authenticity differs from the western perspective, one must first understand the types of stories that distinguish the Salish peoples way of knowing.

Carlson refers to two different types of stories: sxwōxwiyám/shee-ma-ee and sqwélqwel/teek-wl. Sxwōxwiyám and shee-ma-ee are two terms that apply to “stories set in the distant past describing both the work of Transformers or Coyote as they set about ‘making the world right’ by transforming it into its present stable and recognizable form and their efforts to introduce special technical or ritual power to heroic ancestors…” (Carlson 56). The terms Sqwélqwe and teek-wl refer to recent stories from recent events and generations. (Carlson 56). Even though both of these are equally true and real to the Salish people, authenticity is not part of the criteria that the Salish people use in assessing them. Instead, the stories are judged by ones that are better remember and conveyed. (57). An ethnographer, cultural psychologist, anthropologist, or sociologist that want to do their job beneficially should realize that authenticity is not a term that can be used in understanding and comparing the Salish culture to the Western culture because it does not have methodological equivalence. The same can be said about the terms accuracy and literacy.

Carlson is correct in asserting that Western academics and Salish people differ in how accuracy is accessed, but Carlson forgets to mention that this is likely due to analytic vs. holistic thinking. To mainstream Western academics, historical accuracy is measured concerning verifiable evidence which means that when historical interpretations conflict with one’s understanding, the historical evidence would be regarded as poor scholarship. (Carlson 57).  With Salish people, on the other hand, historical evidence is “assessed in relation to people’s memories of previous renditions or versions of a narrative and in relation to the teller’s status and reputation as an authority. In cases of conflicting narratives, discrepancies are as often as not dismissed according to familial alliances and associations.” (57). However, Carlson could have taken his analysis further and adopted research on analytic vs. holistic thinking. For instance, Westerns are found to interpret the world through analytic thinking, and when they encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the better argument as even more compelling than when they encounter the same argument by itself. (Heine 368). In contrast, people from Asian cultures and many Ingenious cultures are found to interpret the world through holistic thinking. When they encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the weaker argument as more compelling than when it is presented by itself. (Heine 368). This is because holistic thinkers understand that something can be both true and untrue, similar to the quote from Laso Tzu, “If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given.” (Heine 369).  However, as important as it is to understand the different ways in which various cultures think, it is also essential to look for intersections.

While some Western perspectives view the indigenous traditions of orality as primitive and illiterate, the truth of prophets in Salish culture or Judeo-Christian Western culture are equally valid. Carlson refers to Mrs. Peters’ story about her great-great-great-great-grandfather St’a’saluk that had a paper with written text that predicted knowledge that came from Europe. (60). This is only one of many pre-contact prophet stories. (52). Whether or not this is historical truth or fiction is up to what one chooses to believe, and the same can be said for the stories in the bible. The sacred Western beliefs achieved dominance in part because they were written down; however, the fact that indigenous people did not write down all their stories did not mean they were illiterate. For instance, Carlson refers to Bertha Peters who perceived “literacy not as a source of knowledge and power itself, but as a tool for preserving certain kinds of knowledge that could have assisted Salish people during times of great distress.” (48). Again, the various interpretations and histories of the term “literacy” make it challenging to achieve methodological equivalence.

Carlson focuses on establishing that Salish peoples were, in fact, literate; however, it is also important to understand that both cultures put tremendous value on spoken stories. “Talking and language have held a privileged position in much of the Western intellectual history. Among ancient Greeks, Homer concluded that there was no greater skill than to be a good debater, and Socrates thought that knowledge existed within people and could be revealed only through verbal reasoning. In Judeo-Christian beliefs, the “Word” was viewed as sacred because of its divine power to create.”  (Heine 375).  The importance that Westerner’s place on oral communication is seen in our judicial systems, the popularity of radio and podcasts, and public debates. As Carlson points out, “those that share stories in the public forum will acquire a reputation as poor historians if their retellings are sloppy and transgress.” (57). Even though Westerners and Indigenous people differ in some ways when discrediting stories, there are many similarities in how they perceive the ‘truth’ of stories.

It seems that both Western academics and Salish people are interested in telling stories that reliably help people understand their history and culture. Neither authenticity nor accuracy can be used to correctly understand how stories affect Salish people. As Carlson states, “this is not to argue that outsiders should not ask about authenticity, just that they should be alert to the significance and implications of their questions to indigenous people.” (59). I would also urge people to find intersections between the cultures to better grasp what questions are valid to ask when doing cross-cultural research. One cannot and should not judge a culture with the same reference points they use to judge their own culture.

Works Cited

Carlson, Keith Taylor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality and Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto. U of Toronto P, 2011. 43-72

Cheung, Benjamin. “Lecture 14: Measuring culture.” Cultural Psychology. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 1 February 2019. Lecture.

He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture. 6 June 2012. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111

Heine, Steven J. Cultural Psychology. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, New York, NY, 2016.

Kennedy, Dorothy, and Randy Bouchard. “Coast Salish.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. 6 Feb 2006, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/coastal-salish.

A Response to:

1. First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?

A Rhetoric Analysis of King’s Dichotomies

By Nolan Janssens

     King gives his readers the opportunity to reflect on different cultures and what they hold sacred by positioning two different creation stories in binary opposition. While King himself and other scholars such as Chamberlin caution us against binary thinking, the dichotomies set up by King allow us to analyze the rhetoric of the creation stories rather than forcing the reader to believe one story over the other. King ends the chapter with “But don’t say in the years to come that you would have lived your life differently if only you had heard this story. You’ve heard it now.” (King 29). Here, King is referring to the story about Charm, the story that “celebrates equality and balance.” (24). King contrasts this story with the story of Genesis—a story that he points out is about law, order, good governance, and, I would argue, has influenced the ethos of human mastery over the planet. The idea that Christian stories lead to environmental destruction is also referred to in a paper by Lynn White’: “To a Christian, a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and the ethos of the West. For nearly two millennia Christian missionaries have been chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume spirit in nature.” (White 1206). I have quoted this before in one of my comments; however, it is appropriate to reiterate White in this blog post because it is essential to understanding why King creates dichotomies.

     Even though dichotomies can create problematic thinking—black vs white, gay vs. straight, them vs us, etc.—it is a useful tool in rhetoric because of its salience and simplicity. King is using rhetoric analysis when he points out that in the “native story the conversational voice tends to highlight the exuberance of the voice but diminishes its authority while the cover voice in the Christian story makes for a formal recitation that creates a sense of veracity.” (23). King is not telling us to believe one story over the other; he is telling us why the Christian story has taken power. It is not the case that one story is more sacred than the other. After all, many indigenous people hold both Christianity and Native stories as sacred. Here, King is analyzing what Aristotle would call logos, the logic of the argument. Later, King points out the ethos, the emotions and character of the audience, when he states that we struggle to believe in the story of Charm because we live in “a predominantly scientific, capitalistic, Judeo-Christian world governed by physical laws, economic imperatives, and spiritual precepts.” (12). As an atheist (in the religious sense of the word), I don’t completely agree with King’s point because Charm’s story starts with a scientific truth about how our earth looked like in its earliest stages: “…the world we know as earth was nothing but water.” (King 10). However, the notion that Charm’s story might be difficult to believe heightens the need for simple rhetoric. The dichotomies make it is easier to compare and contrast the two stories which also makes it easier to understand that the Christian story isn’t necessarily the right one, but the one with more authoritative rhetoric.

     When King places the Native story and Christian story in binary opposition, he is not polarizing us vs. them; he is making it possible for the reader to get a sense of someone else’s culture. King mentions that “creation stories are relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist.” (King 10). The Christian story causes us the view ourselves as detached from the world and better than other creatures. The Native story gives us a sense that we are part of nature and that animals share similar souls to our own. The Native story seems to have a better outcome for the environment, but King doesn’t dismiss the Christian story altogether because we can learn it’s authoritative rhetoric and why it has influenced so many cultures. By contrasting two stories in a way that is easy to understand, he shows us that there are different ways to view our world and that these beliefs affect our behaviour and culture. It doesn’t seem that he is saying one story is better than the other, but that viewing the world from one belief system can normalize a lot of destructive behaviour. After all, “a person who knows only one country knows no countries,” Seymour Lipset.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Marks, Gary. “Obituary: Seymour Martin Lipset.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Jan. 2007, www.theguardian.com/news/2007/jan/12/guardianobituaries.usa.

Richards, Daniel. “The Power of (Splitting) Dichotomies.” Daniel T. Richards, 19 Mar. 2017, www.danieltrichards.com/the-power-of-splitting-dichotomies/.

White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis.” Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, 1967, pp. 1203-1207.

Common values and ways to describe the sense of home (in order of prevalence and the amount of time/wordcount spent writing about that value).
1.) Family.
There were many different ways of exploring the importance of family and how at home family makes us feel, but it was the most consistent value brought up. Some people spent more time on siblings, others on parents, and some talked about their partners. In summary, home can be a person or people.
2.) Home grows.
My classmates used many different synonyms—expand, moves, etc.—but the idea that a home can change locations and add locations was consistent. There was also a more abstract way of looking at this by understanding how values of meditation can be found or expand or grow into different religions.
3.) Exploration.
Whether it be exploring new places, new ways of thinking, or new ways of doing things, my classmates seem to be very high on intellect/openness. I think valuing exploration ties into the idea that homes can grow.
4.) The sacredness of food.
Whether it be the smells that bring us back to our childhood, the food we ate with our siblings, or the foods associated with religion, the sense of home and what we value is intertwined with food.
5.) Balancing work with play.
This value wasn’t explicit in all the blogs I read, but there seemed to be a need to balance the things we ought to do and the things that bring us joy. The places, people, or life circumstances that allow us the find this balance seems to contribute to how at home we feel. Of course, these things can be the same at times.
6.) Nature.
This was usually glossed over or briefly mentioned; however, it was still mentioned in most of the blogs that I read. Whether it be the sight of the ocean, the smell of the forested endowment lands, the majestic mountains of North Vancouver, or a family garden, nature was a way to anchor us to both our old and new homes.

Different values and sense of home.
1.) Religion.
It was difficult for me to find values and descriptions of home that I did not share with my classmates. The closest thing that I could find was religion, but even the descriptions of religion were closely related to what I value and makes me feel at home. I might be an atheist in the religious sense of the word, but I could still relate to what my classmates described. I have done several types of meditation with my mother, I eat sacred meals, and I try and connect with people through movement and shared spiritual experiences.

Special Thanks to my classmates, Kynan, Charlotte, Kirsten Boyd, Marianne, Laen, and Simran. I chose my classmates in no particular order. For this assignment, I used the blogs that I saw posted first. I look forward to reading everyone else’s work as well.

Works Cited

Smelt, Walter. “The Sacredness of Food.” Harvard Divinity School, 22 Nov. 2016, hds.harvard.edu/news/2016/11/22/sacredness-food#.

Villines, Zawn. “7 Types of Meditation: What Type Is Best for You?” Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 22 Dec. 2017, www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320392.php.

My home was created before I was born, in a country I have yet to visit, with people I will never meet.

It all started with an equestrian gaucho whose father and brother had been killed during the Argentine War of Independence. The gaucho’s mother refused to live throughout the war years. Even in 1825, when the war had ended, the gaucho’s mother rested where she could keep her youngest son close to her body while staring at her husband’s fine horse-riding ass. The gaucho visited his mother in a time before the war and said, “Mama, come back to the present with me, and I will find a wife, and she will give you grandchildren.”

His mother could not hear him.

The gaucho returned to the present, roaming the pampa region of Argentina in search of a wife. He rode his horse all day and night, replacing sleep with mate tea. When the dream world finally entered his withering reality, he found his wife sitting next to some burning coals. Even her modest grey dress couldn’t disguise what the gaucho thirsted for. Her brimming eyes filled with the type of desire that could bring her to do anything. But she wasn’t staring at the gaucho, she was staring at the dark red steak heavily marbled with fat.

Inevitably, the gaucho woke with a pitched tent that finally collapsed when he pissed out the mate. With high spirits, he set out to find his wife. Days turned into weeks that turned into months, but the gaucho knew that love didn’t exist in linear time. Solitude overwhelmed him, and he had nobody to turn to but his horse.

“What the hell am I going to do?” The gaucho asked.

The horse didn’t answer.

“It can’t just be you and me for the rest of our existence, buddy.” The gaucho said.

The horse stayed quiet.

“Please God, tell me what the fuck I should do!”

“Make her come to you,” the horse finally said.

The gaucho thought long and hard about what the horse had said. The answers weren’t coming to him. He began to count all the wild cattle because what the hell else are you supposed to do when it’s just you and a horse? He counted until he reached a thousand, and then it dawned on him. The dark red steak heavily marbled with fat.

At night time, he snuck up behind a sleeping bull and slit its throat, letting the peace of sleep remain in its meat. After he sliced the bull into steaks, removed its delicious intestines and glands, and ripped off its big round balls, the gaucho let the meat cure. As the meat cured, the gaucho searched for a parilla. He found one next to a quebracho tree and bag of sea salt. He attributed the miracle to God which gave him the strength to chop the quebracho tree into little pieces of wood and lite a fire. The meat was cured. The fire had burned to coals. The time was now and everywhere.

He put the sweetbreads on first and showered them in salt. He looked around but saw nobody. Then he looked at sweetbreads, and half of them were gone.

“Who took my sweetbreads? the gaucho asked. “Show yourself!”

The gaucho pulled out his horsewhip, ready for battle. Then the laughter came. It was the laughter of the first guest, his brother.

The gaucho’s brother reminded him how much their father loved intestines. The gaucho immediately threw them on, and moments later, his father arrived with a gust of wind.

With the three boys together again, the gaucho’s mother finally left the past and arrived in the present riding a horse.

“All those years watching me taught you something,” said the father to the mother.

The mother stood up on the horse while it was in full gallop and said, “I think I could be teaching you.” Then she jumped off the horse and blew a kiss to the wind.

The gaucho enjoyed listening to his family laugh and talk and lick the salty fat from their lips, but he was still waiting for his wife. The coals were at their hottest, and it was time to grill the dark red steak heavily marbled with fat. After a moment, the fat started to drip onto the coals forming a small cloud of smoke from which the gaucho’s wife appeared. The gaucho wiped his hands on his pants and wrapped his arm around his wife.

“This is my wife,” he said.

“When did you get married, hijo?” his father asked.

“Tomorrow,” he answered.

“And in five years, we’ll have these little troublemakers,” the wife said and pointed to two little girls playing soccer with an armadillo.

As the night went on, people from neighbouring campos came to eat. They brought wine and stories of love, loss, and hope. Then more people came with more wine and stories of mistresses, war, and politics. The people laughed. The people learned. The people formed a culture. And it all started with an asado.

***

The asado stayed in South America until my grandfather brought it to Belgium. It was the only time his father ever said he was proud of him. He then showed his sons and son-in-law how to make an asado with steaks and merguez from Spain. There was never a need for salad, maybe the occasional tomato. My father then brought it to Canada. A land where the soul of the animal was destroyed by gas BBQs. As the indigenous people of the land, my father knew the power of wood and smoke. We began to use North American cuts and Italian sausages that we covered in curry sauce, blending cultures but holding onto what is sacred. The coals and the people.

Asado. It’s where we talk for hours about food, throw in some sociopolitical discourse, drink, dance, tell dirty jokes, and unite our friends from all over the world. The asado is my home.

Wors Cited

“Argentine Parrilla Grills.” Fenwesco Custom, 17 Jan. 2017, fenwescocustom.com/parrilla-grills/.

Longmore, Anna. “STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO THE PERFECT ARGENTINE ASADO.” The Lomito Steak Sandwich: a National Treasure | Argentina Food, Therealargentina, 15 Jan. 2015, therealargentina.com/en/step-by-step-guide-to-the-perfect-argentine-asado/.

Longmore, Anna. “STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO THE PERFECT ARGENTINE ASADO.” The Lomito Steak Sandwich: a National Treasure | Argentina Food, 15 Jan. 2015, therealargentina.com/en/step-by-step-guide-to-the-perfect-argentine-asado/.

   There once was a community where the fear of death ceased to exist. Deep inside the forest, where the streams were raging rivers, the cedar trees reached the stars, and a single huckleberry fed a family, lived the gnomes. They weren’t the strongest. They weren’t the fastest. And they sure didn’t mess around with violence. But they understood one thing better than any other animal. Connection. 

     At first, they told each other stories about how everything was connected through joy. But then they figured out that everything still grew when they were sad and ran out of fermented juice. Then they told stories about how everything was connected through light. But most things survived the dark ass winter. Then they dug deeper and said that everything was connected through roots. But then they saw that the roots were selfish assholes that were all up in their own business. Eventually, they figured it out.

     They noticed that the fungi communicated with every plant in the forest through an interconnected web of strings they called mycelium. And that’s why they built their homes inside of mushrooms. The mushrooms felt their needs. Then the mycelium would whisper things to the roots like: Grow some berries, let your leaves drip more water, close your flowers before it gets too cold, and make some for ganja, please.

     The flourishing forest allowed the bakers to bake more goods, the healers to find more medicine, the artists and scientists to have more time, and the leaders to make less conflict or do shit all.

     Then the bears came.

     They sniffled, and they snuffled and eventually they detected the gnomes’ homes. They thought the mushrooms were delicious—even when the gnomes were still inside. The gnomes knew that was the way of life. They also knew their loved ones would return through stories.

     Then the green boars came.

     They clear cut the mushrooms treating them like an all you can eat buffet. The gnomes fled into a hole in a tree. Every night, they chanted and chanted and sang and sang and stomped and stomped, hoping the boars would hear them say, “stop eating all our mushroom houses, please.” When all they really wanted to say was, “fuck off, you greedy ass pigs!”

     Prophet, the fox, eventually overheard what he considered to be a prayer. He skittered towards the gnomes’ tree and told them that he was there to help.

     The one gnome leader that was left peaked out of the hole in the tree and asked, “What’s your name?”

      “Prophet,” answered the fox.

     “Why would someone name you Profit?” the leader asked.

     “Because that’s what I am!”

     “You’re the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent?”

     “No.”

     “You’re not the difference between the amount earned and amount spent?”

     “Yes, no. I mean, I am the prophet.”

     By this point, the dozen gnomes that were left crawled out of the hole in the tree.

     “Are you sure?” the leader asked.

     “Yes.”

     Then the baker interjected and said, “Because usually, profit is something I get when I make extra yummy cakes for my friends, and then they give me more than I need. Then I buy everyone fermented juice, and then we get silly, and laugh, and—”

     “No, that’s profit with F and an I. I’m the prophet with a P and an H. The proclaimer of God.”

     “What’s a god?” the leader asked.

     “Not a god! That’s old news. The God! It’s the man that created everything.”

     Then the leader’s sister grew tired of hearing her brother and said, “Are you sure it was a man? Because we’ve been thinking about it, and we thought it was probably a woman. But then we were like nah, women might be smarter most of the time, but they also talk behind other women’s backs a lot, and that’s not always productive. So then we did some star gazing and figured maybe it has to do with something bright. And then we realized that bright things, like fire and sun, are hot. So then we thought maybe the energy—”

     “Just stop, okay. You want to stop the boars and bears from chewing up your mushroom houses, yeah?”

     “Yeah…” the brother said.

     “Well, what if I told you that you are their master!”

     “No way, really?” the brother asked.

     “Yes, because God created everything and God created you, and only you, in his image.”

     “Only me! But what about the other gnomes?” the brother asked.

     “Them too. But nobody else. But if you want me to help you, you have to follow certain laws.”

     So Prophet, the fox, laid out the laws they must follow.

     1. Only worship one God.

     2. Don’t kill anyone unless it’s an animal or they worship another God. By the way, gnomes are not considered animals in the eyes of God.

     3. Don’t steal unless you’re taking stuff from a civilization that worships another God.

     4. You won’t say any bad words like, “fuggleberry, shitster, cun, dickles, etc.”

     5. Don’t do anything on Sunday except worship.

     6. Love your family… unless God tells you to kill one of them to show your faith.

     7. Don’t smash uglies unless you’re married.

     8. Don’t lie unless you’re quoting shit I, the prophet, say.

     9. Don’t check out your neighbours’ wife no matter how fine.

    10. Don’t steal your neighbour’s shit.

     Don’t steal and don’t kill was easy for the gnomes—they had never done that in the first place. However, they weren’t so convinced about the other rules. After all, gnomes were horny little buggers that liked to drink and laugh and swear.

     Prophet, the fox, had to devise a plan.

    He gathered the gnomes together and told them that if the gnomes didn’t follow the rules, they would go to a place called hell. The concept of hell didn’t exist in a gnomes heart. They thought to die meant that your body turned into earth and gave life to something new while the soul would live on in stories.

    “No,” Prophet the fox said. “After death, there are two options: heaven or hell.”

     He went on to explain that heaven was a place where you could walk on clouds, eat all the Philadelphia cream cheese spread you wanted to, and watch over your loved ones that were still on earth. Hell, on the other hand, was a place where you had a perpetual sunburn and little demons would five-star you as hard as they could. And if that didn’t do the trick, they’d stuff pineapples in an area you least expected it.

    The gnomes began to fear death, abstain from sex, and keep curse words hidden in their head. They started to feel ashamed about all their unholy thoughts which only amplified their sexual frustration. They grew hostile and ferocious. They longed for their old way of life that was slowly fading from their memories. Prophet, the fox, explained how he killed other animals through trickery and sharp teeth which gave the gnomes the idea of turning tools into weapons. They created catapults that aimed at the homes of boars and even the dens of bears. They shot giant rocks at them, but it wasn’t enough to kill them.

     Then they remembered the use of fire. They created fireballs that flung through the sky like an infestation of fireflies. The boars and bears had no escape. They screamed and yelled, telling the gnomes that they would limit their mushroom intake, but the gnomes hearts had already grown ice walls.

    Eventually, all the boars and bears were dead. Whether they went to heaven or hell didn’t even cross the gnomes’ minds. In triumph, they returned to their home, screaming, “Yeah!” but in their minds, they were still screaming, “Fuck yeah!” But then they noticed that they had burned all the flowers, grasses and weeds—the things that used to bring them joy. In the middle of what used to be their village, stood a mushroom. A poisonous mushroom that the bears and boars knew not to eat and that could make a perfect gnome home. But the bears and boars would never return and Prophet, the fox, could now roam the forest like a king. The story could not be taken back.

Reflection:

I noticed it was difficult to memorize the story in a short time span, especially the dialogue and specific syntax of sentences. Even though our internet age is full of written memes, I noticed how important (if not more important) it is to have a memetic quality to oral storytelling is. The parts that were easiest to remember were the parts that were most noticeably mutated from our cultural ethos. For instance, I had no problem remembering the structure of my story, how gnomes live, the part that reflected the 10 commandments, and the “prophet vs profit part of the dialogue.” I also thought about how King mentioned that humour is important in indigenous stories. Since indigenous stories were primarily oral, humour made them easier to memorize and share. The people I shared the story with seemed to enjoy my writing style more than the oral story, but the primary reason for that is the lack of time I had to memorize the details of the story.

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/93027548526982165/?lp=true

Works Cited

Fleming, Nic. “Earth – Plants Talk to Each Other Using an Internet of Fungus.” BBC News, BBC, 11 Nov. 2014, www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough:Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

     Rastafarian stories transfer ideas of unity and dismantling hierarchical power structures while spreading hate and discrimination. Chamberlin chooses to focus on the positive aspects of the Rastafarian belief as an example of how stories can connect and reconnect people through finding common ground. Throughout the book, If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground Chamberlin goes on at lengths about borders and contradictions, places where reality and imagination meet. Myths are one of these places. And Chamberlin believes that “Rastafarianism may be the only genuine myth to have emerged from the settlement and slavery in the New World.” (187). He points to the Rastafarian history and language to elucidate his point but avoids the negative aspects that could challenge his argument.

     Chamberlin first points to Rastafarian stories expressed through reggae. He explains that stories are places where things happen that don’t, and things are that are not. (82). He then goes on to say, “One of the stories that catches this contradiction as well as any is to be found in Rastafari and its musical expression in reggae, in which the Biblical story of Jewish exile and return is made over into the African experience of slavery in the Americas.” (83). Rastafarianism finds common ground between exiles, whether from Jerusalem or slaves brought to the Americas. Chamberlin explains that it is a “myth of dispossession and dislocation, of wandering and exile, and of home; and it draws on that other great account of racial and religious conflict, seemingly the site of some of the world’s most intense antagonism, the Bible.” (194). One of the songs that Chamberlin doesn’t mention but captures the essence of wandering, exile, and home is Exodus by Bob Marley. The line “movement of Jah people” represents both the physical and emotional diaspora from the past; however, Marley also uses the language to refer to the future, “We’re leaving Babylon/We’re going to our Fatherland.” These two lines capture the semblance of the African and Jewish exile story while uniting people with the repetition of the word we.

    One of the ways that people exclude and include people is through language. Rastafarians use Dread Talk to incorporate their ideas and beliefs in the English language. For instance, “understand” becomes “overstand;” and “site up” means both “see” and “overstand,” but always in the further sense of standing up in one’s own place as in the Exodus. One of the most familiar features of dread talk involves the use of “I,” celebrating both the sanctity of the self (as in “I and I” for “we”)….” (195). This language is often heard in reggae songs with an anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and liberating ideology. For instance, the use of I and I can be found the song Crazy Baldhead by Bob Marley. However, even though reggae and Rastafarianism have many positive messages, it also discriminates.

   Jamaica has been criticized for its homophobic culture, and much of it is due to the Rastafarian religion. Rastafarians have a selective use of the Hebrew Scriptures that results in opposition to homosexuality. (Hewitt 169). The anti-gay rhetoric has also leaked into the popular culture. “Rastafari ideology and Dance hall musical narrative have influenced the evolution of a highly toxic life denying environment that creates negative social factors, including the strong stigma associated with AIDS and homosexuality that engenders intolerance and even violence.” (Hewitt 169). For more on this, click here. Chamberlin also chooses not to mention that the man Rastafarian’s worship, the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, was tolerant of slavery, human-tracking, and indifferent to the suffering of his people. (Thomson). Visit The Guardian to find out more about Haile Selassie. Even though Chamberlin avoids mentioning these crucial aspects of Rastafarianism, it may have strengthened his ideas about borders and contradictions. After all, many Rastafarians are descendants of slaves and yet worship a man that endorsed slavery.

                                                                                        Works Cited

Chamberin, Edward J. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground.  Vintage Canada, 2010.
Hewitt, Roderick. “The Influences of Conservative Christianity, Rastafari and Dance Hall Music      within Jamaica on Homophobia and Stigma against People Living with HIV and AIDS.” Alternation, Dec. 2016.
Thomson, Ian. “King of Kings: The Triumph and Tragedy of Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia by Asfa-Wossen Asserate – Review.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Dec. 2015, www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/24/king-of- kings-haile-selassie-ethiopia-asfa-wossen-asserate-review.

Hello Class 470-99c,

I’m that guy that posted a few too many facebook questions regarding the blog posts. As you may have been able to tell, I’m technologically challenged for a “millennial” (I’m over that buzzword, but I can’t seem to escape it).  I’m also a language and literature major with a psych minor. My greatest passion is writing, and if any of you are interested, I’m always happy to share my published works and collaborate on out-of-class projects.

I look forward to reading your blog posts throughout the term and collaborating on the research project due March 31st. Since this is an interactive and collaborative course, send me as many facebook messages as you like—just know that I stay away from all social media in the evenings (I have a meme, Trump, and armchair activism threshold that cuts off around 7 PM).

I am happy to see that this course focuses on indigenous communities and culture rather than primarily focusing on history from a settler’s point of view. Upon completing this course, I expect to have knowledge that allows me to dismantle and possibly roast my uncle next time he makes a negative comment about progressive ideas related to indigenous communities. That was facetious (kind of), but I am looking forward to broadening my knowledge and maybe even changing my perspectives on both historical and current policies.

I knew that this would be an awesome course after reading the first few pages of “Green Grass Running Water.” I look forward to more humour, new insights, and taking risks with storytelling elements. I hope that we can engage in tough subjects with humour and that we can comfortably express our stance no matter what that may be.

Here is one of my favourite articles that might pertain to this course. What if Natives Stopped Subsidizing Canada? The subversion of expectation in the title makes for great rhetoric—in my opinion. And here is an article I recently saw shared on Facebook: Canadian politician made history by giving a speech entirely in the Mohawk language

And since we are required to share a visual, here is a pic of the first and only sweatlodge I entered (I don’t know who is in the pic). As a white dude, it was a rare experience, and it was all thanks to my dad’s good friend, Ernie Phillip “Dancing Bear.”

Thanks for checking out my blog post!

Works Cited

Reserved., . All Rights. “What If Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?” Canada.com, 2014. All Rights      Reserved., 8 Jan. 2013, o.canada.com/news/what-if-natives-stop-subsidizing-canada.

White Wolf. “Canadian Politician Made History by Giving a Speech Entirely in the Mohawk                    -Language.” White Wolf, www.whitewolfpack.com/2017/06/canadian-politician-made-history-         by.html?