In response to Question #2:
In her introduction, Moodie is extremely deceptive in her rhetoric, to a contemporary reader at least. I think that’s why I had such a hard time really answering this question. Is she really aware of these stories engrained in her culture? Is she aware that she is using them to her advantage in this tale? Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that she is completely aware of how the engrained European principles and stories aid her justification of her settlement. Let me show you how I got there with one of those stories.
She doesn’t mention the tale of Genesis and the Garden of Eden specifically in her intro, but she does use some of the principles of that story to describe her new home across the Atlantic, specifically the egalitarian nature of the garden. In the Garden – as opposed to their state after expulsion – Adam and Eve enjoyed the freedom from want alongside the other living creatures. They were all provided for equally, and they were all under the authority of God. The notion of harnessing nature for food only came after they were expelled. In Moodie’s case, she views the move to Canada as a classless endeavour; the greatest cost of this adventure is a “love of independence“, a virtue certainly in line with those who occupied the garden.
The principles she uses for her justification are understandable, even for a contemporary reader, but her selfish use of them shines through all that very quickly. She describes that all “individuals of a race” should have the same chance to explore this land. This is where it got tricky for me reading into her intent. Contemporary readers such as myself see this statement as an immediate red flag. But what was her perception of that statement? Nowhere in the introduction does she mention First Nations specifically, is this statement an implicit reference to the First Nations as “the other“? Whatever her intent, she uses it as a convenient bit of rhetoric for her cause.
She only uses these stories and the rhetoric that is associated with them when it specifically helps her cause, which made me wonder if she is truly manipulating these principle to her advantage consciously. For instance, she describes the rich as willing to “prove their zeal as colonists”. Again, to the contemporary reader: red flag. “Colonist” has become a dirty word for us, a word that we as a nation have struggled to accept our role in. But it wasn’t so in the time of Moodie, and I think that is exactly why the rhetoric is so cutting. She takes a word that for centuries before her was used to describe the “duty” that European Christians put on themselves to “discover” the New World and she recycles it as a pejorative term.
It’s rather smart, and that really cemented it for me: she knows exactly what she’s doing. Her rhetoric is so on point that it’s hard for me to believe that she doesn’t have a conscious understanding of the tales and principals associated with them. She absolutely does, and uses them completely to her advantage.
Moodie, Susanna. “Roughing It in the Bush.” . The Gutenberg Project, n.d. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4389/4389-h/4389-h.htm>.
Zevallos, Zuleyka.”What is Otherness?.” The Other Sociologist Analysis of Difference. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/>.
Rob, I really enjoyed the more fine observations you made about Moodie’s work. I feel like her use of Christian allusions makes more sense when considering the time this was written (1854), and the audience it was written for. When you say she uses them selfishly, are you looking at her writing with today’s perspective? Because yes, then, I would agree, her use of colonial language and her assumption that everyone will know these stories and relate to them would seem a bit pompous. But considering her audience, as the very colonizers who were her neighbors in Canada, or who were her previous neighbors back home, wouldn’t you expect her to have some sense of “us” vs “them”? Hindsight’s 20/20, and perhaps she would rethink natives as “them” if she had a few more years to witness the consequences of that sort of binary thinking. Until then, she seems to be writing from a personal place of self-discovery rather than an awareness and discovery for the people around her.
I’m wondering in the last few statements what you mean by “she knows exactly what she’s doing?” Are you referring to her resurrection of the stories?
Hi Patrick.
You have chosen one of the more provocative questions – thanks for taking up the challenge. You make an interesting point here: “She takes a word that for centuries before her was used to describe the “duty” that European Christians put on themselves to “discover” the New World and she recycles it as a pejorative term.” I am left still a little curious as to how you would describe “her cause.” I have to say, I have the same questions as Mkomad:
“I’m wondering in the last few statements what you mean by “she knows exactly what she’s doing?” Are you referring to her resurrection of the stories?”
And, I also appreciate Mkomad’s perspective; she seems to be writing from a personal place of self-discovery rather than an awareness and discovery for the people around her.
Perhaps you two will find a moment to engage here ☺