Assignment 2:4
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?
In “The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative”, Thomas King demonstrates, in the way of story-telling, the problematic aspects of the monotheism-based dichotomy, where different cultural beliefs exist in competing and hierarchical relationships. He suggests that such an “easy” way of thinking might lead to situations where cultural complexities and choices of beliefs are at stake (King 25). In the context of cross-cultural exchange informed by the monotheism-based divisions, according to King, cultural complexities are likely to be reduced to simplified and opposed terms, such as “civilized/barbaric”, with superiority as well as negative connotations involved (25). Such dichotomy-based conceptions with egocentric and dismissive characteristics, as identified as “the elemental structure of Western society”, might lead to the distrust of the cultures of “them” which seem to contradict those of “us” (King 25). In the context of Christian-monotheism-based dichotomy, for example, if the Christian Creation stories are accepted as “sacred”, then the Creation stories BY the Native North American people, which also claim to be authentic, will be automatically categorized as “secular”. Such categorization implies the Christian European’s cultural hegemony that undermines the First Nation stories’ credibility as well as their status; despite the fact that “these two creation stories are essentially the same” from a theologian’s perspective (King 23). In King’s words, “if we see the world through Adam’s eyes, we are necessarily blind to” the Native stories (25). In my own words, given the “omnipoten, omniscient, and omnipresnt” (King 24) and “martial” (King 26) nature of the Christian God who insists that “there’s only one rule” (King 21) and “a single deity” (King 24), the Native Creation myths have to be eliminated in order to be “invisible” to Adam’s eyes.
The consequences of the European ideas of monotheism-based dichotomy were devastating to the Indigenous people and their cultures which are known for diversities (“Lesson 2:2”). The European settlers saw the Indigenous traditions “through the lenses of their ancient stories” (Lutz 3) informed by “firm and distinctive hierarchies and divisions” (“Lesson 2:2”). From this peculiar dimension, the “Indians” were immediately assumed to be “originated outside of the Garden of Eden” and conveniently classified as a kind of primitive species from “somewhere between the realms of man and animals” (“Lesson 2:2”), as opposed to the Europeans who were proud to be descendants of Adam and Eve. Once the dichotomy was readily established, the European colonizers, armed with the supremacy of science and reasons, were determined to enact “God’s will” that might include a “divine” plan of excluding the “Indian” oral traditions just because they did not seem to fit into the European “cosmology, mythologies, and histories” (“Lesson 2:2”) under the circumstances of the “Christian monologues” (King 21). According to Paterson, in a 75 years’ time between 1880 and 1951, the First Nations institutions such as telling and retelling of stories at the potlatch were outlawed by the Indian Act (“Lesson 2:2”). Moreover, the continuity and credibility of Indigenous oral traditions were seriously disrupted as First Nations children were “cut off from their community and family stories” due to their mandatory attendance of the residential schools (“Lesson 2:2”). The major cause of such a brutal genocide of Indigenous cultures is very likely to be rooted in the ethnocentric notion of monotheism-based dichotomy that creates fierce tensions and inequitable power relations between distinctive worldviews held by different cultural stories.
In order to prompt his readers to reflect on the conventional Western paradigm of monotheism-based dichotomy critically, King retells the two Creation stories, one attributed to the Christian Europeans and the other Indigenous people, by pairing them up in a binary opposition in a subversive way. Despite the centrality of the Christian Genesis and the marginalised status of the First stories in reality, in King’s story-telling narratives, the believability of the Native Creation story is instead given more credits while the Christian one’s seems to be undermined. Such a creative dichotomy that frames the story-telling narratives is further reinforced by a neat analysis of the contrasting characteristics of the two stories, in which the values that the Indigenous myth represents, as opposed to the Christian ones, continue to be favoured in a contemporary paradigm. For example, being influenced by “different strategies in the telling of these stories”, a general modern audience is very likely to find themselves identifying more with the imagery of a “comic” world of equality and cooperation and balance crafted in the Native story, than the authoritative, hierarchical and chaotic world in Christian Genesis (King 22-24). Then the story-telling ends up abruptly with a tough question: here are the choices and which one do you choose? At this point, it manifests itself as a false choice based on a simplistic and exclusive dichotomy. The interpretation of the values that claim to be characteristic of respective stories seems to be deliberately selective for the sake of making up a binary opposition, overlooking the cultural complexities of each story; not to mention that the distinctive values of both stories are not mutually exclusive, as one may argue that a world of competition and a world of co-operation simply represent two sides of one coin. After all, Creation stories are ONLY stories that are used by different cultures to “understand the world in which they exist” (King 10), with no issues of believability or authenticity involved. In this sense, both the Christian and First Nations beliefs that “define the nature of the universe” (King 10) from divergent dimensions make equally perfect sense. In my opinion, they could also work together in an cooperative way, contributing to providing diverse and comparative perspectives for human beings to make complete sense of the complex world.
Works Cited:
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough:Anansi Press. 2003. Print.
Lutz, John. “Contact Over and Over Again.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indignenous- European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 1-15. Print.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2:2 First Stories”. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres Sept 2016. University of British Columbia Blogs. 2016. Web. 7 Oct. 2016. https://blogs.ubc.ca/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1/unit-2/lesson-2-2/
hi patrick. i find the last few phrases of your writing particularily strong in regards to the creation stories – the point that if creation stories are made to “understand the world in which they exist”, then varying stories could work together to display our diversity rather than being seen as contradictory core beliefs. how beautiful would the world be if throughout our histories more of us had respected and esteemed alternative religions/non-religions/ideologies/cultures and allowed others to exist in difference to ourselves and accepted diversity as a chance to learn more about others and accept rather than perceiving otherness as dichotomy and a threat to our own core values.
one current issue i see this kind of dichotomy in is the growth of anti-islamic sentiment coming from panic over the rise of extremist attacks. it is very heart breaking to see muslim folks again and again coming forward publicly to denounce the extremist works being done by a small group of war-torn peoples joined together as the self-proclaimed califate of isis, and yet so much racism and hatred is still being perpetuated and hurting all those hundreds of thousands of muslims not involved. people find it very easy to just blame and vilify religions and groups of people. but we must always remember to see ourselves in others and try and see ourselves in them. try and understand why we are different the ways in which we differ.
Hello Stephanie,
The above statements of yours look incredibly strong to me too! It is sad that monotheism-based dichotomies in conflicting nature hover around the world not only in history considering the clashes between the Indigenous people and European settlers but in contemporary times as far as the wars between the Christian and Islamic communities is concerned. It makes King’s effort in introducing alternative stories or balancing values to the mainstream ones look particularly challenging. In this case, I was just wondering if the traditional Chinese thinking, which is characterised by the notion of “Yin-Yang” that promotes an interconnected and complementary relationship between opposing forces, is able to contribute to negotiate divergent cultural beliefs. In the context of such a school of thought, diversities or alternatives become the sources of cooperation rather than conflicts. Do you see the way the idea of “Yin-Yang” works in terms of supporting King’s, Stephanie?
Regards,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
I thіnk King’s uѕе оf dichotomies аnd binary thinking isn’t аѕ problematic аѕ thе question ѕееmѕ tо imply. I bеlіеvе thаt it’s simply іn оur nature tо categorize thіngѕ аnd people, thіnk іn binary, аnd create dichotomies.
I wаѕ curious tо knоw whеthеr уоu thіnk thаt King іn setting uр thе dichotomies bеtwееn thе twо creation stories іѕ аlѕо setting uѕ uр tо bе critical оf оur own criticisms. Do you think hе аѕkіng uѕ tо соnѕіdеr thе reason whу wе wоuld compare аnd contrast creation stories іn thе fіrѕt place?
Cheers,
Chloe Lee
Hi Patrick,
I thіnk King’s uѕе оf dichotomies аnd binary thinking isn’t аѕ problematic аѕ thе question ѕееmѕ tо imply. I bеlіеvе thаt it’s simply іn оur nature tо categorize thіngѕ аnd people, thіnk іn binary, аnd create dichotomies.
I wаѕ curious tо knоw whеthеr уоu thіnk thаt King іn setting uр thе dichotomies bеtwееn thе twо creation stories іѕ аlѕо setting uѕ uр tо bе critical оf оur criticism. Iѕ hе аѕkіng uѕ tо соnѕіdеr thе reason whу wе wоuld compare аnd contrast creation stories іn thе fіrѕt place?
Cheers,
Chloe Lee
Hello Chloe,
I agree with you that it might be a natural way of thinking to sorting out the differences between things so as to distinguish one from another. However, I don’t think the binary thinking necessarily leads to creating simplistic dichotomies which seem to imply opposing or even conflicting relationships in-between. Take the Flag of South Korea for example. The red and blue “Taeguk”, or “Yin-Yang” in the Chinese cultural terminology, in the center of the Flag symbolizes an equal and balance relationship in-between. That is to say, in this symbiotic way of binary thinking, you don’t have to choose the red “Taeguk” with the price of undermining or even getting rid of the blue one. In this sense, I don’t think it is King’s idea that we are better off not comparing and contrasting things, which is apparently against the human nature of binary thinking that we have been discussing through. It is the problematic idea of “you can choose only one out of the two just because they are different from each other” that his critiques point to I am afraid. That’s why I argue that King prompts us to think of the possibility of creating an equal and cooperative, or “balance” in the context of this dialogue, relationship between various cultural values. Your critical feedback is always welcome Chloe!
Regards,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
I was actually interested in this prompt as a second choice (given that my own creation story was an attempt of combining both perspectives though not executed quite well), but that aside, you make a well-written note of both ‘opposing’ perspectives. I find it strange that religion can clash but it’s this sense of unity that people were initially afraid of, even if this is created by their own ‘anarchist’ perspective? In terms of colonization, I would like to add that this general concept of finding land was heavily romanticized (ex: John Donne’s poems) so that their own preconceived notions became their reality–hence, Natives that were fallen from Adam and Eve. Thus, what you say about “manifesting itself as a false choice” makes complete sense, in which, what is reality but what we make of it? To what extent is reality manipulated through assumptions that mislead us, or misperceive another?
Given that you also mention how “one may argue that a world of competition and a world of co-operation simply represent two sides of one coin”, I’m curious as to how you see these perspectives working together in a cooperative way in terms of tangible examples? Would the modern audience feel catered towards this combination (multiple perspective, multicultural)?
Always an enjoyable read!
-Jenny
Hey Jenny,
First of all, I maintain that your creation story is one of the most impressive ones that I have read through and I can still remember the “black and white” or “the sun and the moon” metaphors created in your story. Do you notice the dichotomy here such as pairing up “black and white”? It is an easy way of thinking according to King and yet it easily leads to conflicts with for example political-purposes-based manipulations involved. It is likely that the dichotomies are created and manipulated in one’s or one group’s interest such as claiming the Native land as the settlers’. The purposely built and simplified divisions may become the “reality” that continues to mislead the following generations who might therefore have misperceptions about “others”. Thankfully we are given a second chance with this course to critically examine the reality of such “reality”, such as the nature of the dichotomy-based ideas as giving rise to clashes. I think King has done a great job in destabilizing the monotheism-based dichotomy by, in a subversive way, creating binary oppositions between the First story and Christian Genesis. It is the manipulated characteristics of such pairing up that help the readers or audience realize the dichotomy as well as the either/or choice is in nature false and misleading. In fact, the reality is much more complex than the simplistic dichotomies drafted by King in his re-telling of the two Creation stories. For example, on one hand, Indigenous people in Alberta may oppose to island developments in general or precisely the oil pipeline construction; on the other hand, however, there are different voices among the First Nations towards the development plans. That is to say, the Indigenous people are not always as cooperative as the way suggested by King’s narrative of the First story. In contrast, the Canadian authorities representing “law, order, and good government” continue to seek cooperation among the triangle relationships between the governments, First Nations and the energy industry, trying to resolve the conflicts. So as you can see the reality is in nature complex. That’s why I argued that we could hardly make full sense of the complexities of the world, or the reality, without divergent perspectives being considered. With alternative Creation stories being accepted, I believe the modern audience, including the Christians, will come to understand the immediate benefits of embracing multiple cultural perspectives.
Thanks Jenny for reading through and leaving thought-provoking comment!
Regards,
Patrick