{"id":139,"date":"2016-11-18T23:49:00","date_gmt":"2016-11-19T06:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/?p=139"},"modified":"2016-11-22T16:24:21","modified_gmt":"2016-11-22T23:24:21","slug":"139","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/2016\/11\/18\/139\/","title":{"rendered":"Hyperlinking Green Grass, Running Water"},"content":{"rendered":"

PAGES 293 \u2013 303, 2007 Edition<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

I argue that this section in Green Grass, Running Water<\/em> (shortened to \u201cGGRW\u201d hereafter) works as the climax of King\u2019s story with the focus on the conflicting claims of land titles and \u201cuncivilized stories\u201d of colonialism (Paterson). \u00a0Its significance also includes serving as not only a site of intensive intersections where orature and literature, literature and history, imagination and reality meet (Paterson), but a symbol of the departure from the colonial narratives. \u00a0Based on the discovery of the in-text allusions to some of the most prominent historical, literary, and mythological figures in the racial history of North America (Paterson), I am going to explore in this blog the connections between the four old Indians and other characters, including the inter-connections among those characters appearing in page 293-303. In particular, I will look at how Robinson Crusoe as a Western literary figure relate to other characters such as the Thought woman and Coyote as Native mythological symbols, in a story told by the Robinson Crusoe as one of the four old Indian characters. It might lead to the understanding of the ways in which \u201cKing tells stories that absorb and transform the narratives of Western literature, religion, history, colonialism\u2026in order to \u201cfix things\u201d\u201d(Paterson); or precisely, to fix the Indigenous issues in North America through enabling narrative decolonization and thus achieve racial balance. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The connections among the four old Indians <\/strong><\/p>\n

The characters of the four Indians seem to share a considerable number of commonalities. First of all, they all represent fictional figures in well-received narratives of Western literature (Ishmael & Robinson Crusoe) and pop culture (the Lone Ranger & Hawkeye). For example, the character of Robinson Crusoe, as one of the FOUR Indians, comes from a novel which is arguably based on a Scottish castaway who lived for FOUR years on the pacific island, and recognised as one of the FOUR greatest in English literature (Wikipedia contributors). Moreover, these four Western literary symbols happen to be all white male characters displaying stereotypical White attributes. Take Robinson Crusoe for example: this character demonstrates a whole range of White or Anglo-Saxon spirits e.g. \u201cthe manly independence, the unconscious cruelty, the persistence, the slow yet efficient intelligence, the sexual apathy, the calculating taciturnity\u201d, which is evident in his colonial attempts to \u201creplicate his society on the island\u201d \u201cthrough the use of European technology, agriculture and even a rudimentary political hierarchy\u201d (Wikipedia contributors). In the context of GGRW, the white Britishness such as economic individualism, enterprising spirits and religious didacticism that the character Robinson Crusoe represents seems to allude to the Scottish Loyalists who in English Canada played leading roles in business, politics, religion and education (Coleman 5).\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The connections between the four old Indians and the Natives<\/strong><\/p>\n

The archetypes of those four old Indians in GGRW are known to have companions of Native origins, i.e. the Lone ranger with Tonto, Ishmael with Queequeg, Robinson Crusoe with Friday and Hawkeye with Chingachgook. There is no exception here that the characterisation of those Western literary characters always favors them over the Native figures who can only play sidekicks roles to assist the White male protagonists. However, King manages to play with these Western cultural symbols and twist them into Aboriginal female characters. As a result, the privileged positions that Whiteness and the white patriarchal ideologies occupies are remarkably challenged.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The inter-connections among Robinson Crusoe, Ishmael and the Natives<\/strong><\/p>\n

It seems that Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe as literary figures share plenty of similarities, which are employed in GGRW to counter colonial narratives. For example, in the original work, both of them run into shipwreck and come to be kind of social outcasts, a reference to the marginalised status of the Indigenous peoples in the society. The storyline that Robinson Crusoe survives the shipwreck and ends up in an island with THREE animals might be used as a satire by King against the historical racist statement that judged the Indigenous peoples as \u201cunorganized societies..roaming from place to place like beasts of the field\u201d (Chamberlin 10). They both turn out to be the only survivor of the marine accidents, a mockery to the historical and racist statements that suggest the Indian is a \u201cdying\u201d or \u201cvanishing\u201d race.\u00a0 Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe both have encounters with Native characters who are assumed to be cannibals. The only difference is Ishmael has got saved because of his Indian shipmate while Robinson Crusoe saves Friday. In order to ridicule these storylines, King mocks Robinson Crusoe\u2019s incivility through his dialogue with his fellow Indian characters in GGRW and Coyote\u2019s dialogue with the story-teller. For example, while indicating the Western Robinson Crusoe\u2019s Britishness, characterised by civility, by having him to say \u201c..you can\u2019t make any rude noises\u201d (332), \u201c..that wouldn\u2019t be polite\u201d (358) and \u201c[w]asn\u2019t Coyote going to do that (\u201coffer an apology\u201d) ?\u201d (430), King has Coyote to jest in a typically British way that Robinson Crusoe is actually naked and thus \u201cembarrassing\u201d (294). The distance between the deserted island that Robinson Crusoe gets stuck in and the civil societies is illustrated by one of his anticipating lines \u201c[i]n that car?\u201d (King 106) and the other ones by Coyote saying \u201c[h]e doesn\u2019t have a car\u2026[t]hat\u2019s a bad point\u2026he doesn\u2019t have a television, either\u201d (King 294). King also makes it explicit that it is Robinson Crusoe that needs to be rescued by pointing out his anticipation for rescue through some lines e.g. \u201c[h]ow long do we have to wait?\u201d (49) and \u201c[w]e were better off standing\u201d (106). In addition to the mockery against the Western literary metaphor, the rebellious aspects of the Native figures e.g. Queequeg and Friday, demonstrate King\u2019s aims and techniques in narratives decolonization. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The inter-connections among the two Robinson Crusoe characters, Thought woman and Coyote <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Biblical aspects of the character name of Ishmael, the Puritan Christian characteristics of Robinson Crusoe and their shared shipwreck experience all indicate their representation of Christianity in GGRW that leads to their seeking of spirituality in a wilderness. This is in part that reason that it is Robinson Crusoe who tells of the story of THOUGHT Woman. The other reason might be his shipwreck experience closely associated with the water imagery that plays a critical role in both the Native worldviews and GGRW. The \u201creasonable\u201d decision that Thought Woman makes, with \u201c[a]ll things considered\u201d (King 295), and that she would rather be floating than stay with Robinson Crusoe, embodying an Indigenous departure from the colonial narratives. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ways that King parallels the Western Robinson Crusoe with his Native character counterpart in GGRW are very interesting. For example, the Native Robinson Crusoe acts as if a didactic Christian God, ordering his fellow Natives to \u201clisten\u201d up (King 15), coaching Coyote \u201c[t]hat\u2019s not the right dance at all\u201d (King 274), concerning that the Native Lone Ranger claims himself \u201comniscient\u201d (King 49). This resonates to the Western Robinson Crusoe who complains that \u201cit has been difficult not having someone of color around whom I could educate and protest\u201d (King 294), a reference to the assimilation of the Indigenous peoples in history.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The interactions between the four Old Indians, particularly Robinson Crusoe, and Coyote seem to have determined who is the Creator of the world. As a representation of an enlightened European Christian in the original work, the Native Robinson Crusoe in GGRW raises the question \u201c[w]hat about the light\u201d (9) and then suggests that \u201c[m]aybe Coyote can turn on the light\u201d (230) with a further acknowledgement \u201cI believe he did (turn on the light)\u201d (233). This suggests that a Christian admits that it is Coyote who creates the light instead of the Christian God. The Creator status of Coyote is reaffirmed by the Native Lone Ranger, who tells the first and First stories in GGRW, who makes it explicit that they \u201cwon\u2019t\u201d (King293) and \u201cdidn\u2019t want to\u201d (king 357) START without Coyote.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having undermined the supremacy of White civility, Christianity that Robinson Crusoe represents, King also use the inter-connections among the four old Indians and Thought Woman to dismisses the land claims that the European settler-colonists made in history. The storyline that Thought Women hits an island before she encounters Robinson Crusoe implies that there is going to be a clash of land claims await. Here Robinson Crusoe on the island symbols the \u201cScottish orphan\u201d or homeless European immigrants to the Native lands establishing the nationhood of Canada characterized by the \u201cfictive ethnicity\u201d (Coleman 6). In order to counter the colonial narratives that describes Canada as a deserted land before the arrivals of the European settlers, King plays with the fictionality of the novel Robinson Crusoe, which is credited as marking the beginning of realistic fiction as a literary genre (Wikipedia contributors), and implies that the believability of the colonial narratives is questionable. For example, King embarrasses Robinson Crusoe\u2019s bad memory by having his fellow Indians to keep reminding him how bad his memory is (9, 234), having him to remind himself \u201c[w]e don\u2019t want to forget that\u201d (302) and boast his memory \u201c[y]ou remember the last time you did that?\u201d (416). King also set him up in mistaking Canada (22) for the tropical island (357) he has been to (22, 357)\u2014another excellent and amusing example of Robinson Crusoe\u2019s bad memory or he is just making up stories. The story told by Robinson Crusoe about himself surviving the shipwreck and the island life is implied as fictional, ironically, through his own lines saying \u201cyou can\u2019t Tell it all by yourself\u201d (King 14) and \u201cyou\u2019ll be able to TELL your children and grandchildren about this\u201d (King 387). The narrative technique that has Robinson Crusoe to tell his story in GGRW further reinforces the mythical aspects of the colonial discourse. In order to urge the younger generation of the Indigenous peoples not to forget the false land claims by the settler-colonists, King has the four Indians to give Lionel the George Custer\u2019s jacket as a birthday gift (382). The Robinson Crusoe\u2019s line \u201c[w]e let Lionel borrow it for a while\u201d seems to allude to the problematic aspects of the land treaties between the European settlers and the Natives. The joke around Robinson Crusoe\u2019s red shirt, alluding to the Native skin color, appears to be not only a reference to the Native character he plays in GGRW but a mockery of the European settler-colonists\u2019 effort in \u201cindigenizing\u201d themselves with the purpose of legitimizing their claims for land titles.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Works Cited:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground<\/em>. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada<\/em>. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.<\/strong><\/p>\n

King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water<\/em>. Toronto:\u00a0 Harper Collins, 2007. Print.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3.<\/strong>3″<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong> ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres Sept 2016<\/em>. University of British Columbia Blogs. 2016. Web. <\/strong>1<\/strong>5 Nov. 2016. <\/strong><<\/strong>https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1\/unit-3\/lesson-3-3\/<\/strong>><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PAGES 293 \u2013 303, 2007 Edition \u00a0 I argue that this section in Green Grass, Running Water (shortened to \u201cGGRW\u201d hereafter) works as the climax of King\u2019s story with the focus on the conflicting claims of land titles and \u201cuncivilized stories\u201d of colonialism (Paterson). \u00a0Its significance also includes serving as not only a site of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":43386,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1755158],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-37-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/43386"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":156,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions\/156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/patrickwoo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}