Reading Prompt: Each student should select a section of Green Grass Running Water approximately 10 pages. The task at hand is to first discover as many allusions as you can to historical references (people and events), literary references (characters and authors), mythical references (symbols and metaphors). While I am suggesting a method to help organize your task — you should quickly discover that there is no method for making neat categories out of King’s numerous (and humorous) allusions and references. Instead of categories, what you will discover are connections, and inter-connections and cycles.

(Photo taken from Reasonable Faith. “The Historical Adam and Eve”. February 2015.)

For my blog post, I chose to look at a passage in Part 1 of Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water (GGRW). Unfortunately, since I read this book in the Kindle Edition on my laptop, it gives me a ‘location’ rather than a page number, and these locations increase by around 10 every time I click for the next page. Therefore, for my close reading, I chose to look at location 361 to 418. This is in Part 1 of the text, and is around 8% into the novel. I chose to focus mainly on the numerous biblical illusions found in this passage, particularly in relation to the Genesis story.

GOD/dog

The first allusion that I wished to look at is the dog, who insists on being called GOD. GOD is depicted as similar to the “loud-voiced God of the Old Testament” (Flick, 143), with numerous references to the Biblical God, particularly to the Genesis story. The insistence on capitalizing all the letters of GOD made me think of two things. Firstly, in the Bible, the title LORD  is often shown completely capitalized (such as in Exodus 15:11). As well, in the bible the word God always has a capital ‘G’ in reference to the Christian God, whereas god’s (other ‘idols’ worshiped by humans) is always lowercase (for example, Exodus 23:13; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10). Secondly, when words are completely capitalized, it often signifies yelling. GOD seems like an obnoxious, loud character, who Coyote has to ask to quiet down. The capitalization of his name contributes to his depiction as a slightly whiny, immature and loud character.

We see references to the Genesis story when GOD asks “What happened to my void?”, and “Where’s my darkness?”, referencing how the Genesis story begins, with God surrounded by a dark void. King also references the story when he writes, “And everything is perfect. And everything is beautiful”, a reference to the repetitive statement in Genesis, when God looks at each creation after making it and states that he is pleased. In King’s novel, GOD’s self-centered demands continue humorously throughout the entire passage that I selected. He whines “that’s my garden. That’s my stuff”, and then says, “They can’t eat my stuff”, before jumping into the garden. King depicts the GOD as intolerant and childish in the way he attempts to command the story, and control what is ‘his’ role.

First Woman

The First Woman is a reference to the native creation story, which King tells in more detail here. While parts of that native story are told in GGRW, such as the Woman’s fall, the turtle and the making of the land, this story of the First Woman also contains elements of the Bible’s Eve. Choosing to refer to her as the ‘First Woman’ is itself a subtle reference, as Adam and Eve are most commonly referred to as the ‘First man’ and ‘First woman’. The name Eve literally means “the mother of all human beings”. As well, in GGRW the First Woman lives in the garden with Ahdamn, a reference to the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve live in Genesis. As well, the First Woman walks around “with her head in the clouds”, which I think is probably a reference to Eve’s clued-out naivety in the Genesis story, where she is depicted as curious and slightly unintelligent, eating a fruit which God told her not to because a serpent tells her it will give her knowledge. Finally, the tree that First Woman bumps into, and the food she takes from it, is a reference to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Bible. There is a common assumption that the fruit in the Adam and Eve story was an apple, which is the first food item King lists as falling out of the tree. However, he then gives a list of increasingly yummier and more processed/unhealthy foods – Melons, Bananas, Hot dogs, Fry bread, corn, potatoes, Pizza, and fried chicken (Location 399). King mocks the Genesis story, suggesting that if a food item is able to cause the downfall of mankind, it must be something yummier than an apple – surely, Pizza is a more likely alternative. As well, the passage I chose concludes with First Woman bringing the food to Ahdamn, and putting it all in front of them. Neither has yet eaten the food, and already GOD jumps into the garden to claim his stuff, leaving the outcome inconclusive, while still a clear play on the Genesis story.

Ahdamn

Ahdamn is a rather obvious reference to the biblical Adam, who lives in the Garden with Eve during the Genesis story. Differing from the Adam in the bible, Ahdamn does not come first – rather, it is First Woman’s garden, and Ahdamn simply lives there with her. The narrator states that he does not know where Ahdamn came from (location 399). King plays with the word Adam, inserting ‘damn’ into his name. This is likely alluding to Adam and Eve’s mistake, in eating the forbidden fruit and getting kicked out of the garden, and therefore “damning” humankind. What is interesting is the blame that is put on Adam in this mistake. Often, Eve is seen as the one deserving more of the blame, since she ate the fruit first, and then offered it to Adam. However, King plays with a role reversal of sorts – having the woman appear first in the Garden, and as a ‘God-like figure’, emphasizing Adam’s role in the damning of mankind, as well as portraying Ahdamn as a rather unintelligent character. King references the task that God gave Adam and Eve in the Genesis story of naming all the animals. However, Ahdamn’s unintelligence is shown in his comical inability to correctly name all of the animals. In the bible, Adam is given a certain level of respect, as the first man and the person appointed as ruler over the earth and the animals on it. King manipulates this story, to depict an incapable ‘man-in-charge’.

Works Cited

Biblegateway. Holy Bible, Good News Translation (GNT). Retrieved from biblegateway.com

Biblegateway. Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). Retrieved from biblegateway.com

Flick, Jane. “Reading Note’s For Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water”. Canadian Literature, 1994, pp. 140-172.

King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.

King, Thomas. “The Truth about Stories – Part 1”. The 2003 CBC Massey Lectures. Nov 2003.

Michelangelo. The Creation of Adam. 1508-1512. Vatican, Rome. “The Historical Adam and Eve”. Reasonable Faith. February 2015.

Photo credit to illustration by John Kahionhes Fadden (Mohawk)

For this blog post, I decided to compare the creation story that King tells in The Truth About Stories with the Genesis story found in the bible. As a Christian, this Genesis story is sacred to me and my beliefs, and I found it very interesting to read a different creation story. While I really enjoyed reading the story, I also found that there was a bit of a tension for me as the reader, since I was unable to view this story as sacred due to my belief in the sacredness of a different story. This was an interesting realization for me, and brought up the question of whether or not an individual can see more than one contrasting story as sacred, as well as if, by definition, seeing one story as sacred means regarding all others as secular?

While listening to King’s telling of the creation story, I noticed some similarities and differences between that story, and the Genesis story I am so familiar with. For those who may be unfamiliar with either of these two stories, I will start with a brief summary of each. In King’s creation story, there is a woman named Charm, who is pregnant and wishes for a specific root from the oldest tree. She finds the tree and begins to dig, and digs right through to the other end of her world. She is curious, so she sticks her head in to look, but goes too far and falls through. She comes towards a blue planet (earth), which is completely covered in water. Since there is no where to put Charm down, she ends up on the back of a turtle. However, Charm needs land, so the Otter dives down to the bottom of the ocean, and finally comes back up with some mud, which they sing and dance around until it turns into land. On the land, Charm has her babies – a right handed boy, and a left handed girl. The right handed boy flattens the land, and makes straight rivers. Then, the left handed girl creates mountains and valleys, and puts rocks in the river. Finally, the boy creates mankind, and the girl creates womankind.

In the biblical Genesis story, God creates the earth in six days – beginning with light and darkness on the first day, and ending with two humans – Adam and Eve, on the sixth day. Adam and Eve are made in God’s image and therefore seen as superior to the other animals. They are put in charge of naming and taking care of the animals. They live in the garden of Eden, where they have been instructed that they can eat from any tree, except one in the middle, called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A serpent comes to Eve when she is alone, and tempts her to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, telling her it will make her as wise as God. She eats the fruit, and then gives some to Adam. They gained knowledge, and learned of good and evil, and then God banishes them from the Garden of Eden.

The first similarity that I noticed between the two stories was the curiosity of the two women, as well as their desire for food, and how that led to downfall.  In the native creation story, Charm is looking for food when she digs the hole, and it is her curiosity which prompts her to peer further into the hole, until she falls through. Similarly, in the Genesis story, Eve is the one who is tempted by the fruit, in large part because she is curious about the knowledge that she is lacking, and this leads to the downfall of mankind.

Another similarity that I noticed between the two stories was the very different roles that men and women played. In Genesis, there is an emphasis on the difference between Adam as a man and Eve, the women, as well as the hierarchy in the relationship (rather than being seen as the same and two equal partners). In the native creation story, Charm’s two children are depicted as opposites, with the right-handed boy creating a world that is straight and flat, and the left-handed girl creating texture and curves. When I first read that, I immediately thought of the two sides of our brains – the left, which is associated with analysis and methodical thinking, and the right, which is associated with imagination, creativity and art (which is the opposite right/left to Charm’s children). As well, though this is a stereotype, males are often associated more with the left-brain (analysis and method), which lines up with the world that Charm’s son creates, which is orderly and straight. In opposition, girls are (stereotypically) associated with the creative right brain, which is more in line with Charm’s daughter and the disorderly, creative additions she makes to the world. As well, in both stories it is man who is first – In Genesis, man is made and then woman follows from him, and in the creation story, the boy works on the land first, and then the woman follows.

The last similarity that I found was the way in which humankind was made, and after whom humankind was modelled. In the Genesis story, it is stated that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God. While this is not directly stated in King’s creation story, I found it interesting that it was the girl who made womankind, and the boy who made mankind. In this way, they are both modelling their creations after their own image.

In The Truth About Stories, King talks about how native stories have always appreciated humour and light heartedness, and how that has meant their stories are not always taken seriously. In the native creation story, there are talking animals, and Charm is able to dig through a world and fall through. These impossibilities are reminiscent of a children’s storybook, and may contribute to the lack of respect for the sacredness of the creation story which King is talking about. In comparison, the Genesis story still has elements which are impossible for us as humans – God speaks the world into being, Eve is made from Adams rib, etc. However, the story is told in a much more serious tone, and lacks the more childish details – for example, the animals in the Genesis story cannot talk, and are ruled over and taken care of by the humans, in a natural hierarchy. This is much more similar to our world as we know it today, and this may contribute to the more serious feel of the story.

As well, in the Genesis story, there is a hierarchy created – God, man, and then animals. It is God who makes the world and who makes man, and God appoints man as caretaker of the animals. In comparison, the native creation story describes a universe created through cooperation. The animals help Charm and her children, and the world is made in a collaborative effort. There is no hierarchy, even at the end. As well, in Genesis the world is perfect before the fall – God has made a perfect world, and it is humankind who taints this. In the native creation story, the world begins as water and mud, and it is through characters that the earth is moved from a formless world to one which is complex and has a rich diversity.

Lastly, another difference between the Christian and native creation stories is the relationship between humankind and the creators of the world. In the Indigenous story, humans are never offered a relationship with Charm or her children – there is no interaction between the two during King’s telling of the story. In comparison, the Genesis story largely features interactions between God and his creation. Adam and Eve are offered relationship with God, and it is through their own choices that this is removed.

Works Cited

Biblegateway. Genesis 1:27. Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). Retrieved from biblegateway.com

Pietrangelo, Ann. “Left brain vs. Right Brain: What Does this Mean for Me?” Healthline. January 2017.

King, Thomas. “The Truth about Stories – Part 1”. The 2003 CBC Massey Lectures. Nov 2003.

Reading this week’s blog posts about home was so enjoyable – this prompt led to so many great stories and memories, and I felt honoured to read them. The blogs were far from descriptions of each person’s childhood house. Rather, most blog seemed reminiscent of a ‘coming-of-age’ narrative of sorts, in which many of the blogs writers came to understand what/who/how/where they feel belonging. Belonging was definitely the word most commonly used throughout the blogs that I read, and it’s perfectly fitting – at the end of the day, it is the feeling of belonging which determines a home, and it was so interesting to read the variety of ways in which that was achieved.

For some people, they did have a physical area which represented home to them – either the walls and rooms of a house, or their childhood town/city, or even a country. However, the descriptions of these places were always intertwined with stories of people, memories and events which accompanied the physical area.

One or two of the blogs that I read associated home with a significant item, song, sound or smell, because of the memories that were attached to that thing. Similar to those who described a physical house, the choice of these items was related to the memories that were attached to them, rather than the thing itself.

A very common description of home in the blogs that I read was people – either a parent/parents, sibling or a significant other. Often this was attached to feelings of love and care, and were often contrasted by moments in which the individual felt isolated, or alone, or unloved. Ultimately, I believe that belonging and feeling at home is always going to be related to people in some way – either through their physical presence, or the memories associated with them.

In contrast, some people described finding a home within oneself. Personally, I find this a difficult concept to understand. For me, home will always be about some form of surroundings – whether people, places or things. I think that being comfortable within oneself, and having that be enough, is a very valuable mindset. However, I do not think that that replaces the need for a ‘home’ of some sort. One blog that I read described how travelling abroad actually solidified his understanding of Canada as his home. I found this interesting because he seemed to be someone who travelled around extensively, and therefore could naturally find home within himself, and yet Canada still held a specific significance for him.

Some people wrote about multiple homes, either through travelling a lot in childhood, or transitioning into adult life. Sometimes those moves were accompanied by a loss of that home-feeling towards a place. Many blogs showed that a person’s idea of home is dynamic, and shifts across different seasons of life. For some, a place that once meant ‘home’ can loose that title.

Lastly, a theme that I noticed, which all of us must come to terms with as Canadian residents, is the fact that our (at least temporary) physical home is on taken land. A part of calling Canada home includes accepting it’s history as our own, and that can be a difficult thing to do in light of the abuses in Canada’s past, particularly towards the First Nations groups who are the original residents of this land. Movements such as Idle No More, and current events such as the Trans mountain pipeline, in which Indigenous voices are still being ignored, make clear that we still have a long road ahead of us in shaping our collective home.

Writing Prompt: “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.

In Carlson’s article, “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History”, he describes the importance for Western academics in identifying the historical accuracy of Salish narratives. However, this can be tricky to identify at times, because of this distinction – while Westerners’ assess historical accuracy based on hard evidence, the Salish people determine historical accuracy as it relates to people’s memories of how the narrative was previously told (Carlson, 57). This does not make historical accuracy any less important for the Salish people. One of the reasons historical accuracy is considered so important is because of the ways that a story relates to the spiritual world. When the Salish people tell a story about the past, the Spirits of the historical actors convene (Calson, 58). As well, if they find that their story is being mistold or abused, the Spirits may cause bad things to happen to the teller and the audience. This demonstrates the importance of authentic storytelling for the Salish people. To question the authenticity of their narratives, then, is also to imply a lack of respect towards their ancestors –  by deliberately altering a narrative, you are also knowingly challenging the Spirits.

Further, stories such as those about the transformers and Coyote, which give the history of literacy for the Salish people, are sacred narratives. The tradition of oration is also sacred to the Salish people. By questioning the authenticity of those narratives, you are diminishing the sacredness that those stories hold for the Salish people. Further, as well as removing the sacredness of those narratives, you are also confining the Salish history of literature to a colonial context, which imposes Western history onto the Salish people.

Carlson’s point is that we must be respectful when questioning the authenticity of Salish narratives by our own Western measures. This is important in the larger, historical context, in which colonialists and non-natives have repeatedly imposed their own ways of knowing onto Indigenous groups, and dismissed Indigenous knowledge. In the past, First Nation’s oral history has been regarded as unreliable. In the historically famous Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia court case (par. 9) which argued whether or not First Nations groups had occupied Canada for thousands of years, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en’s people provided their oral history as evidence, and were dismissed and told they were a “people without culture” who had “no written language”. Indigenous history has been questioned and belittled in the past, and it is important when looking at the authenticity of narratives such as the Salish history of literacy, that a relationship similar to the colonial one is not recreated. In this court case, what the First Nations people believed to be true was not considered authentic enough to stand as legal proof, because it did not conform to Western ways of knowing. If we must continue questioning authenticity, then we must learn to shift our view to accommodate various ways of knowing, potentially with “different measures of historical accuracy and different definitions of what constitutes an historical actor, as Carlson suggests (60).

References

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, par. 13

Erin Hanson. “Oral Traditions” First Nations and Indigenous studies. Indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca

Prompt: Write a short story (600 – 1000 words max) that describes your sense of home and the values and stories that you use to connect yourself to your home

A few weeks ago, my brother and I swapped rooms. He had recently moved back into our family home in Fort Langley, and since I currently live on campus at UBC, my old room wasn’t being used too frequently. My parents thought it might be nice for him to get a bit of a “fresh start”, following some life events, and a brand new room was a good way to do that.

He cleared out all his furniture, bought a new duvet and got woodworking – he’s incredibly handy, and quickly built a desk, shelving unit and a window seat. He now has a new room, detached from some of the harder memories that accompanied the last one. As for me, I also have a new room, painted a colour I don’t prefer, and without the nostalgic hominess of my previous abode.

When I went home this past weekend, my dad told me that what I needed was to put up a few picture frames, in order to make it personalized, and a bit less like a guest room. I guess what I’m trying to describe here is the process of “turning a house into a home”. For me, this new room felt detached – it did not hold any significant memories, I had spent very little time there, and it just felt unfamiliar.

I’ve never considered space to be an important aspect of the word ‘home’. For me, what has always felt like home is relationships, the kind where you take a big, deep breath and relax, and don’t stress about what to say or how to act. My home in Fort Langley has always been one of those places for me – where I can come home from a busy week of University homework stress and socializing, and just unwind. But some of my close friendships that I’ve made here at UBC also feel like a comforting home as well. So has my Aunt and Uncle’s house, in the Okanagan, and my church here in Vancouver. As a Christian, coming into community with other Christians has also been a comforting experience. It’s about being known and understood, and cared for. And being able to let your guard down.

The importance of spaces, such as my bedroom in Fort Langley, is when they accompany those relationships and memories. Putting up pictures of me doing activities I love, or including objects such as a vase that I made in pottery with my friend, or a book that my mom lent me, are what turn a random, furnished room into something that feels like home. However, this still needs to be accompanied by loving people, and that feeling of safeness, where I can come home from a tiring day and lose the tension in my shoulders as I kick off my shoes.

Taken from Pinterest.

I think that much of my understanding of home has been shaped by my parents – they have emphasized to me that humans are really meant to live in community, though this is incredibly rare today, and that everyone, at the least, needs significant human interaction. In our current society, isolation is everywhere. But meaning, and a sense of home, is found in human interaction and community. One thing that I have always been fascinated with is communal life. I remember looking at pictures taken from National Geographic, which I was able to pull up here, of a commune in the states. I also used to love reading about the way that ‘hippie’ communes functioned in the 60s to 80s (I have attached a popular photo that I used to love, which romanticizes the ‘hippie commune’ lifestyle). As well, I used to read some Amish fiction when I was younger, fascinated with people who lived simply and on the land, and whose homes revolved around community. I probably romanticized all of those examples in my head, but there was a reason that I was so drawn to these stories and ways of living – I think they exemplify what a home is meant to be. In essence, it is about being known, and feeling safe, and finding significance.

References

Vandross, Luther. “A House is Not a Home”. Never Too Much, Genius. Retrieved from https://genius.com/Luther-vandross-a-house-is-not-a-home-lyrics

Amish Fiction. Christianbook. Retrieved from https://www.christianbook.com/page/fiction/amish

Rice, Sarah & Alexandrah Genova. “An intimate look inside a modern American commune”. National Geographic, July 25. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07/commune-farm-sustainability-mineral-virginia/

With the technological advancements of our modern world, the public sphere, which was once largely confined to a geographical area, has expanded to become transnational. The internet has allowed for individuals from all over the globe to share their stories and personal experiences, in a larger sphere outside the context of their culture, class or nation. With this shift, there have been changes in the way literature is obtained, shared and read.

Blogs are a really unique phenomenon that have accompanied the growth of digital literature, in which anyone with access to a computer can share their writing. No longer is a publisher a barrier for anyone wishing for their work to enter the public sphere. This has led to an excess of literature and stories, with much more amateur or even factually incorrect literature available. Therefore, discretion is required when sorting through the plethora of blogs found on the internet, on any given topic.

Blogs and other similar digital platforms allow for information outside of the mainstream media to be widely shared. Mark Thwaite, from The Guardian, appreciates that blogging creates the possibility for community-building. This community is hopefully able to move away from the mainstream media.  The blogging world has the potential to become a commune for “amateur literary essayists”, all supporting each other and sharing each others work. However, Thwaite states that, with the genesis of Twitter, that potential was never optimized. Twitter links have become the new and accessible way for people to quickly update themselves on current events – it requires a short attention span, and minimal effort, which both conform to the preferences of our media-using world today. However, these links often reflect only the mainstream media, according to Thwaite, meaning that smaller stories, or unpopular/beginning writers may not receive any attention.

The hyperlink is another outcome of the digital literature movement, and hyperlinks are used frequently in blogs and similar literature forms, making them a sort of equivalent to the scholarly source cited in a scholarly article. It allows writers to pay tribute to the writings and ideas of other authors, and to point their readers towards reading those texts. There is power in the hands of the writer, to point their readers towards quality material. As well, this is another opportunity for a writer to focus their readers on literature and stories outside the bounds of mainstream media. Relating this to our course, this means that Canadian issues which maybe aren’t receiving public attention on news networks, can be broadcasted through popular blogs. The hyperlink aids political conversations by drawing readers to the original sources, such as interviews, debates or speeches, giving the reader more information on the topic. As well, a study has found that when news stories use hyperlinks, it increased the perceived news credibility. Since blogs do not require citations, it can be easy for information to be misconstrued. By including hyperlinks, there is a greater insurance that the information is accurate.

Citations

Borah, Porismita. “The Hyperlinked World: A look at how the interactions of new frames and hyperlinks influence news credibility and willingness to seek information.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 576-590. 2014. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jcc4.12060

Thwaite, Mark. “What became of literary blogging?” The Guardian, June 9. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/jun/09/literary-blogging-twitter

Hi, and welcome to my course blog for English 470: Canadian Literary Genres.

My name is Rachel, and I am a 4th year student at the University of British Columbia, studying English and Special Education. I also currently work three days a week as a Nanny, taking care of a three year old boy. After completing my undergrad, I plan to obtain my PDP and become an Elementary school teacher. I was born and raised in British Columbia, about an hour away from UBC in Fort Langley. The picture I have included in this post is of me, enjoying my very favourite aspect of living in Canada – being able to ski in the mountains

Although I was born and raised here in Canada, I did not have a lot of knowledge growing up about Indigenous history, or about Canada’s current relationship with Indigenous groups. Since coming to UBC, my understanding has grown and I have come to appreciate what it means to live and study on traditional, ancestral and unceded Musqueam territory. That being said, living in a larger city like Vancouver, it can be easy to ignore many of the issues which affect Indigenous people in our country. For example, currently there is much controversy regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline. This pipeline crosses over 500 km of Indigenous land, and not only disrupts the lives of the communities living on that land, but also puts them at risk of potential oil spills, which can poison their water and the creatures living in it. While there is some controversy, there are many First Nations individuals who feel that consent from the communities living on that land was never given. As a Vancouverite, I live in the southern part of B.C. and am therefore not directly affected by issues such as these – it is largely Northern communities who will experience the detrimental effects of the Pipeline. This can make it easy to ignore these issues, but I understand that it is my job as a Canadian citizen to educate myself on these relevant topics.

As well, as someone who wishes to one day work in an elementary school, I feel that taking a course such as this one will be very beneficial. English 470 looks at Canadian literature from a historical perspective, and takes into consideration colonial and Indigenous experiences. I hope that I will gain from this course a new way of viewing literature, and that I will be able to use the information that I have learned from this course to ensure that, when I teach in a classroom, the students I teach will have a better understanding of Indigenous history and Canada’s current relations than I did when I grew up.

Works Cited

Barrera, Jorge. “Trudeau apologizes for First Nation consultation failures on Trans Mountain pipeline.” CBC News, CBC, 4 Dec. 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/trudeau-afn-pipeline-1.4932663

UBC Life Team. “What is a land acknowledgement?” 30 Aug. 2019, http://students.ubc.ca/ubclife/what-land-acknowledgement