Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW using at least 10 pages of the text of your choice. 

I have to say the section of the book that stuck with me the most as I was reading it was pages 214-223. I think this was an absolutely perfect intersection of so many stories and evoked so many different feelings for me that it honestly felt like the climax of the book, even though it was only halfway through. This is the short section that has all of our major players, separate from each other, all viewing the same Western movie, at the same point in time, but all from a different perspective. King does such an incredible job in this short sequence of placing all of the characters in their own context and providing their own lens to view this same Western story, and also showing that they all react differently to it.

The first page of this sequence is from the viewpoint of Alberta. The scene in the movie is when the Indians whip their horses into the river, but she turns it off before anything further happens. I think this is a intentional stopping point by King. Alberta is trapped in her decision between Lionel and Charlie, just like the Indians are trapped in the river between John Wayne on one side and the troop  of soldiers behind them on the other side. Jane Flick suggest’s that Alberta Frank has a double meaning for King and that she represents not only the province, but that fact that her personality is also quite “frank”. This can even be seen on page 214 with Alberta’s quick decision to simply shut the Western off the tv because it was “the last thing in the world she needed to do”.

Next up is Latisha. She also turns the movie off at the exact same point, but for a completely different reason. She is sitting watching with her children. She doesn’t want to see the Indians in the movie be slaughtered as the cavalry descends on them, again with the white John Wayne on the other bank, ensuring that they have no escape. She reassures her son Christian that the movie is over before the scene plays out to spare him having to see this reenactment of what was done to many Native people. Her son’s name is an obvious allusion to christianity. As I read the book I took Christian to be a representation of the assimilation that was done to the Natives in our country. He is a Native child with a settler’s name, and with the allusion to christianity we are forced to think of him as such throughout the book.

From here we move to Lionel. At this point in the story he has already been lectured numerous times by Norma to straighten out his life. She keeps suggesting that there’s something missing for him and that eventually he’ll figure it out and come home, but Lionel just can’t hear what she’s trying to say. This passage ends with “But Lionel saw non of this. He lay in the chair, his head on his chest, the tumbling light pouring over him like water”(216). This reference to water again by King is a way of suggest to us that Lionel has spent so much time away from the reserve and in Western culture, that he can no longer absorb information presented fluidly like Native story-telling. Like water. Instead of drinking it up, it just washes over him. He isn’t watching, he isn’t listening, and he isn’t thinking correctly when taking in information.

Charlie is our next character to be enjoying this Western simultaneously with the rest of our characters. Charlie gets something completely different out of this scene. He is reminded of family, and of his father. Shortly after this scene, Charlie decides he wishes to reunite with his father, and attempts to reach out to him where he lives in the West Edmonton Mall. As Flick points out, this is one of the most commercial and materialistic places in Alberta if not Canada, and is a symbol of Charlie’s materialistic nature. At the same time though, it is where his dad lives, and he’s trying to get through all of that to reach him.

We then get a short excerpt from Eli’s perspective. All we get here though is a reference to Iron Eyes, Charlie’s father Portland, but with his “really Indian” name for the movies. King’s use of this is to bring our awareness to how Western culture views Natives, and that they are all the same. Western culture has this idea of what a Native is supposed to be, and stereotypes are generated from this. And I’m not the Indian you had in mind.

Bill Bursum is after that with him celebrating and exulting his glorious Map. Bill’s crowning achievement in this story is The Map, and it seems quite fitting for this to be the case for the white character in the book that King is using to reference both Holm Bursum, who was very interested in defining the map of New Mexico, and Buffalo Bill (William Cody) who exploited Indians for his tv show.

Babo is the next central character to follow. She is alone in her hotel room when she finds this same Western that the rest of our characters are watching. Although she is the first to notice that the 4 old Indians are in the movie, as she recognizes the red shirt of Robinson Crusoe. It is suggested that Babo is the descendent of Babo Jones from the story “Benito Cereno”. She mentions in Green Grass Running Water that her grandfather used to work on a ship and was a barber. This is confirmation of this idea as Babo Jones was indeed a barber on the San Dominick, and is the one who leads the revolt on the ship so that it sails to their freedom in Africa.

Dr. Hovaugh appears on the next page. King suggests that Dr. Hovaugh has sympathy for the Indians as he was “moved by their plight…caught between the past and Western expansion”. As Flick points out again, this is another obvious allusion to Jehovah from Christian theology, who also happens to drive a white convertible. quite similar in idea to that of the Pope in his Pope-mobile which were traditionally white in colour as well. Dr. Hovaugh believes that he is helping the 4 Indians by tracking and keeping them in the hospital, which can be linked to the idea that Christians thought they were helping Natives by putting them in residential schools.

The final page then brings to us the 4 Old Indians: The Lone Ranger, Robinson Crusoe, Hawkeye, and Ishmael. These are all allusions to other characters, stories, and ideas. In Green Grass Running Water they are also watching this same movie and see it as troublesome and therefore need to go and fix it. That way they can fix the world a little bit. The Lone Ranger is a reference to the character the Lone Ranger, the renegade lawman from the West.Robinson Crusoe is a reference to the story of Robinson Crusoe and his companion Friday, the “savage” that he christianizes. Hawkeye is a reference to the faithful Indian companion of Chingachgook from the Last of the Mohicans. Finally Ishmael is a reference to Moby Dick, to the character that survived by floating on the coffin of Queequeg, his Indian companion. Essentially all of these references are to white characters who are better off because of/try to improve the “Indian savage” stereotype in some way.

It is interesting to see how this full passage plays out. By bringing together so many characters and intersecting them with the same story is a very interesting way of showing us the different motivations and viewpoints of the various characters. Doing this while also referencing so many characters from outside of the book really creates this portal within his book where, really anybody could view this scene and be impacted in some meaningful way. It is the a true intersection.

What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story or stories you are familiar with and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories ?

I chose this question because it really forced me to think about, what exactly is the culture of where I live? To really examine not only my personal experiences, but to think about the stories of others I know.

Western culture as a whole I think is dominated by certain features. It is obviously a capitalist society, which necessitates there being a top and a bottom of the ladder. It is a very individualistic society, that focuses on the self. We are constantly told that we can do whatever we want, if only we try hard enough. The emphasis is always on our own effort. It doesn’t matter what barriers are in place, if we as individuals put our mind to something, we can achieve anything. I think the combination of these things can lead to problematic situations though. This Western cultural ethos leads to labelling and putting people in boxes.

I’m again going to bring in some of my neuroscience background here… but putting things in boxes is something we naturally do. It is how our brain more easily stores information. As a very simple example: imagine the last time you went and got a coffee. You might recall you ordered a small coffee. This might not be because you have a detailed memory of that specific experience, but because you remember there are 3 sizes of coffee, small, medium, and large, and you normally order a small coffee. By chunking things down a little, our brain more easily remembers this information. Now after that brief aside, in terms of how this relates to our Western culture, there are those who do, and those who do not. Those who work hard supposedly rise to the top, and those who don’t naturally sink to the bottom. Now what does this lead to? Why it leads us exactly to what King tells us about in “The Truth About Stories”, it leads us to dichotomies.

Dichotomies are the central theme of our Western culture. The have and have nots, the in and the out, us vs. them mentality. The capitalist structure and the narrative of us needing to work hard so that we can rise to the top, in order to not be like those on the bottom naturally creates an us vs. them mentality. This central dogma from the get go creates divides. It puts labels on people and because we are told that we must always improve ourselves, we are always comparing ourselves to others to prove that we are somehow “better”.

As Thomas King points out this all stems from our Western creation story. “In Genesis, the post-garden world we inherit is decidedly martial in nature, a world at war – God vs. the Devil, humans vs. the elements. Or to put things in corporate parlance, competitive”(King 24). Our creation story wants us to compete, to struggle and deal with adversity, and to come out on top. Those who do are rewarded, and those who don’t suffer.

Now how does all of this compare to the Native story King shares with us in “The Truth About Stories”?  “In our Native story, the world is at peace and the pivotal concern is not with the ascendancy of good over evil but with the issue of balance” (24). I believe that this idea of balance is the central ethos to this story. Charm interacts with all of the animals in the story equally, and considers all of their opinions as valid. Her children, the Twins, “a boy and a girl. One light, one dark. One right-handed, one left-handed” (18).” “The right-handed Twin created roses. The left-handed Twin put thorns on the stems. The right-handed Twin created summer. The left-handed Twin created winter. The right-handed twin created sunshine. The left-handed Twin created shadows (20)”. Everything in this story is about balance, for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. Which quite nicely fits some of the laws of nature as Sir Isaac Newton gave us.

These conflicting ethos’s between Native and Western culture can also explain why we see things today like pipelines being forced through on unceeded territory. The Western idea is that this is a competition. If they just keep pushing harder and harder, regardless of what the law states, they’ll “win” eventually. This is in direct contrast to the Native view which is being destroyed here. The Unist’ot’en use their land for trapping and healing responsibly. But the unnatural activities of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline have driven away wildlife, and forced the Unist’ot’en out further and further into more difficult areas to continue trapping. They are trying to preserve the balance of the ecosystem, but CGP only care about their profit margin. The Unist’ot’en aren’t “us”, so they’re “them” and need to be pushed aside by any means so that CGP can get what they want.

The questions I’ll end on then are these. Do you think the employees of CGP are bad people? Or do you think that they are simply a product of the story they have been told their entire lives? Has this competitive focus only created stronger dichotomies, which in turn, only make it more difficult to strike a balance and hear other stories from those around us? And for those inclined…do you think our biological tendencies (i.e. memory systems) should be considered in our teaching of these stories so that we can be more inclusive?

Works Cited

Hemmer, Pernille, and Kimele Persaud. “Interaction between Categorical Knowledge and Episodic Memory across Domains.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, 2014, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00584.

Intercontinental.Cry. “Coastal GasLink Ordered To Cease Work on Unist’ot’en Trapline.” Intercontinental Cry, Intercontinental Cry, 6 Mar. 2019, intercontinentalcry.org/coastal-gaslink-ordered-to-cease-work-on-unistoten-trapline/.

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

“For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.”

There are quite a few landmark moments in Canadian immigration history, and the early 1900’s were particularly eventful when it comes to this. These events highlight a lot of problematic legislation that was enacted in that time. I would like to focus on some of the events that took place during this time to show how this legislation worked to further white civility in British Columbia, and Canada as a whole.

A lot of these policies were enacted between 1906 and 1910 with the Immigration Acts and their orders-in-council. The Immigration Act of 1906 was supposed to consolidate all immigration legislation, in an effort for the Department of Immigration to deal with undesirable immigrants. This legislation granted power to the government to exclude immigrants under the categories of “prostitutes and others convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude”; epileptics, the mentally challenged, and the insane; the hearing, sight, and speech impaired; and those with contagious diseases.” On the surface this may seem to be protective of Canada, but in reality it brought broad powers to a singular person (Minister of the Interior, Frank Oliver) to deny any immigrant he did not deem worthy of entering Canada. All in the effort to uphold white civility.

This continued into 1908 when the Continuous Journey Regulation was added to the Immigration Act. This “prohibited the landing of any immigrant that did not come to Canada by continuous journey from the country in which they were natives or citizens.”  As the article points out, this was done by the Minister of Labour William Mackenzie King, in response to an increase in immigration from Japan. The government was concerned that the foreign immigrants would be taking jobs from white nationals, and this would impact this fictional white narrative that they had created for Canada’s identity. This regulation led to probably the most incredulous moment in Canadian history for me personally. This is something that has stuck with me since high school and something that serves as a reality check every time someone says Canada is the bastion for multiculturalism. This is the story of the Komagata Maru. As you have probably all heard this story, and it is listed in the article linked above I will spare you the details, but this very much underlines the Canadian governments priority to maintain this white narrative for the country. They instituted a law to make it almost impossible to for immigrants from Japan and India to get to Canada, but when the Komagata Maru arrived lawfully, they forced the passengers to stay on the ship for two months, and then sent them home without them ever disembarking. The government had instituted a frankly racist law to limit immigration of non-whites, and when a group arrived still under the conditions of that law, they were turned away anyway. This was astounding to me that the government could be so blatant in this discrimination, when growing up here in BC, all anyone talks about is how accepting Canada is. The juxtaposition when I first learned of this was mind boggling. The point was driven home even more recently, as my girlfriend and I found out that her great-grandmother was actually on the Komagata Maru. It was a surreal moment for both of us.

This discrimination continued in 1910 with the new Immigration Act. This act added on to the previously mentioned in a few ways. It granted even greater powers to turn immigrants away, including simply on the basis of “belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada”. In 1910 and 1911, groups of African-Americans were headed to central Alberta after being pushed out of Oklahoma. Upon hearing of this, “the government merely instructed immigration inspectors and their medical aides along the American border to reject all Blacks as unfit for admission on medical grounds.” Asian immigrants at this time also had a head tax of $200 placed on them as a requirement for entry, another barrier in place to protect the idyllic white Canada.

After reading over these materials the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this evidence supports Coleman’s idea of white civility. The Canadian government had decided what it’s history was going to be, and that meant that Canada was going to have a white history (fictitious or not). They cultivated this through series of discriminatory policies, and tight control over immigration so that they could ensure this fiction remained true. I think the greater fiction though is the story we are told now that Canada is and always has been a multicultural nation. We have a ripe history of discrimination, and I think this needs to be acknowledged more.

Works Cited

“Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21.” Pier 21 | Pier 21, pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/continuous-journey-regulation-1908.

“Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21.” Pier 21 | Pier 21, pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1910.

“Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21.” Pier 21 | Pier 21, pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/order-in-council-pc-1911-1324.

“Immigration Act (Canada) (1906).” Immigration to America, immigrationtous.net/140-immigration-act-canada-1906.html.

“Immigration Act (Canada) (1910).” Immigration to America, immigrationtous.net/141-immigration-act-canada-1910.html.

“Immigration in Canada.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration.

In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: “Contrapuntal Cartographies” (468 – 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke’s analysis of what Judge McEachern might have meant by this statement: “We’ll call this the map that roared.”

The story of the “map that roared” begins with a land claim between the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people versus the federal and provincial government of BC. This is a case that is remarkable for several reasons. It highlights how little regard the government has for Indigenous views, as well as highlighting how favourable the law is for Western views. In this dispute, the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people worked very hard to try and at least meet the Western court halfway. The evidence they presented for their land claim included maps that they had drawn of the land, so that the Judge presiding over the case could understand their claim (Sparke). This Judge, Chief Justice Allan McEachern, upon seeing one of these maps, referred to it famously as “the map that roared” (Sparke). This case ended with Justice Allan McEachern absolutely dismissing the claim, for reasons we will go into, but what did he mean by “the map that roared”? What can this statement tell us about how he viewed the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people? We will be using Matthew Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation”, to help us answer these questions.

In his article, Sparke makes a suggestion as to what he believes McEachern was intentionally saying by using those words, but he also explores what he may have alluded to or subconsciously meant. Sparke points out that he believes McEachern was referencing the colloquial term “paper tiger”. Meaning that the map on its exterior may be threatening to the law, but in actuality is ineffectual. He also points out that McEachern could be possibly referring to the 1959 Peter Sellers movie “The Mouse that Roared”, that was a satire of Cold War geopolitics (Sparke). From these two possible references, Sparke indicates that “the comments might be interpreted as a derisory scripting of the plaintiffs (Wet’suwet’en/Gitxsan) as a ramshackled, anachronistic nation” (Sparke). I believe this was Sparke’s version of what he thought McEachern was trying to say. Sparke goes on though. He brings up Don Monet, a cartoonist working with the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan, as Monet points out that “the Chief Justice’s reference to a roaring map simultaneously evoked the resistance in the remapping of the land: the roaring refusal of the orientation systems, the trap lines, the property lines, the electricity lines, the pipelines, the logging roads, the clear-cuts, and all the other accoutrements of Canadian colonialism on Native land (Sparke).

This roaring refusal may have been more accurate as to how the Wet’suweten and Gitxsan felt about the map, but I don’t think McEachern would have acknowledged or even noticed this consciously. Sparke goes on in that McEachern dismissed the land claim “with a remarkably absolutist set of colonialist claims about the extinguishment of aboriginal rights” (Sparke). Also that “he systematically dismissed Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en claims to ownership, jurisdiction, and damages for the loss of lands and resources since the establishment of the colony” (Sparke). From this I think we can see that McEachern’s comments of “the map roared” were intended more as a derisory comment than anything else. His decision and views on the Indigenous peoples stem from “his understanding of Canadian history”(Sparke), which have obviously biased him to that of Western ideas. If we take the paper tiger example, it is obvious form the get-go then that McEachern did not believe that the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan had a case to argue. That even at that point, he knew that he was going to deny their claim. The map they created was entirely to have the court take their claim seriously, but even at first glance McEachern had dismissed it.

The map may have roared, but it fell on deaf ears.

Works Cited

Sparke, Matthew. “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 88, no. 3, 1998, pp. 463-495.

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?

To start this post off, I would like to state that I believe King has created this particular dichotomy in order to force us to challenge our beliefs. Not only our beliefs of creation, but our beliefs of how we analyze information. As the question points out above, it does seem strange that King would create this dichotomy for us to examine, when he himself asks us to question dichotomies. It is exactly for this purpose that he does this. He is providing us with a direct example of why we need to question and examine dichotomies. Doing this is easier said than done though. One of the longest standing areas of debate in my field of interest, Psychology, is that of the Mind/Brain Dichotomy. Humans have thoughts and feelings (a soul), but these are all created by bits of goop in our head (neurons). Is the mind part of the body? Or is the body part of the mind? Which one is in control? Humans want easy and definable answers to their questions, that they can put into neat little boxes. But not many people have approached this concept from the point of view of…both are true. The mind is the body, and the body is the mind. This is what King is asking us to do with these two creation stories as well. He is challenging us to view both of these stories as true, and is asking us why can’t these coexist?

King presents these stories differently to draw our attention to the way the narrative in our culture is most often portrayed. As mentioned, he presents the “Earth Diver” story like a storyteller, and the “Genesis” story authoritatively. He does this to mirror our society. Christianity and God have been the driving forces behind a lot of actions in Western culture for several hundred years. King himself points out that the Genesis story has led us to being arrogant, as “God’s Chosen People” (King 28). This belief was in part what led to the Crusades. This idea of Christians justly conquering because “Christ commands it.” This entitlement is pervasive and is what leads us to brush aside alternative stories. Christ commands it, so it must be true, and anything else is in conflict with this absolute. If you do take the moment to step back and read these two stories at face value though, it becomes much easier to accept both. Living in a world of absolutes like that, feels ridiculous when you stop to think about it.

King also points out that there are many dichotomies we readily use in our daily life. “Rich/poor, white/black, strong/weak, right/wrong, culture/nature, male/female, written/oral, civilized/barbaric, success/failure, individual/communal” (25). He is trying to show us that in more ways than just the creation story, do we view things as binary. Just like we need to pause and step back when thinking about creation, so do we about almost every aspect of our lives. He’s asking us to challenge what is accepted, and try and find different viewpoints and analyze stories in a different way. He’s doing this because if we don’t change the way we think, and try and incorporate new ideas and ways of thinking, we’re never going to produce any change in how we view and treat First Nations people. We’ve arrived where we are with this arrogance, but he asks us “what kind of world might we have created” if we had arrived starting from a different story. Would we still have this arrogance or would we be more accepting and open?

This is why he presents these origin stories to us as a dichotomy, and this is what he’s trying to show us.

Works Cited

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

McLeod, Saul. “The Mind/Brain or Mind/Body Dichotomy in Psychology.” The Reasoned Society, 2007, thoughtdigest.wordpress.com/tag/mindbrain-dichotomy/.

“The Crusades.” Rational Christianity – Christian Apologetics, www.rationalchristianity.net/crusades.html.

It was very interesting reading through and hearing what people thought about their homes. I was particularly impressed, and humbled, with how incredibly honest and vulnerable a lot of the people in this class were. It is often sobering to hear how privileged your viewpoint can be at times, and is a good reminder that people come from very different backgrounds.

The first common theme that stood out for me in reading through everyone’s posts, was that of confusion. It certainly felt like “home” is not something people think about often, or at least what it means to them. We all needed to examine our own thoughts and beliefs as to what we consider home, and then decide on where home is for us.

It also felt like home for a lot of people ended up being somewhere that they felt safe. Somewhere they could go and not have to worry about the troubles of life. It is the place to unwind, unravel, and put life on pause. It’s where we get our energy from to tackle the day’s challenges, and it’s somewhere we retreat to when things become too tough.

Most significantly though, it felt like home is somewhere with a lot of memories and a lot of emotions. For something to feel like home we need to be attached to it. We need to have experiences there, photos, and most importantly people. I didn’t read all of the posts, but the ones I did always included other people. Most often including family. Family was something that led to a lot of strong memories and left us reminiscing. Because of those memories, we felt safe, and we could recharge our batteries in those spaces.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for everyone though. Some of us did not feel like we have a home, or that we are looking for a home still. The idea that home is something that can be lost, but also something that we can find again. There were several of us who mentioned they do not have a home. The reasons behind why this might be vary, but I get a sense of hope from everyone that one day they will eventually have a home. It feels like it is something that we all value, whether or not we have one, and it is something worth striving for.

Looking at some common problems for immigrants, it feels like a lot of them struggle to integrate (to Canada specifically) due to the loss of features of their home. Home in this context feels like a collection of culture, people, environment, and weather even. Things that bring comfort are no longer present, and the change can be shocking. In reading some of the stories of home, it felt like a common theme for those who were a newer to Canada, was that they were stuck between two places. They missed certain aspects of their former home, but also have begun to integrate into Canada, but don’t really fit in either place.

The final theme that I came across was that of how most, if not all, of our homes are built on the land of someone else. Our homes and communities have been built on the land of Native communities  who have been here far longer than we have. A lot of us, myself included, feel perfectly at home here in Vancouver and don’t always remember this fact. I think this is something worth remembering though. That this was their home first, and they have their own memories and stories of this land. It can’t hurt to try and integrate these stories into our own, to make our homes as inclusive as possible.

Works Cited

“B.C. First Nations & Indigenous People.” WelcomeBC, www.welcomebc.ca/Choose-B-C/Explore-British-Columbia/B-C-First-Nations-Indigenous-People.

Spracklin, Pat. “Top 10 Problems for Immigrants.” Immigroup, 18 July 2018, www.immigroup.com/news/top-10-problems-immigrants.

Home is an interesting concept for me. My initial reaction to the question of what home means to me was to try and define it. As I mentioned in my introductory blog I have lived in several areas of the the Lower Mainland. This includes multiple areas of Surrey, New Westminster, UBC, and Vancouver. I was thinking of all these places and trying to decide which one I truly considered to be home. Right now I live in Vancouver in the Cambie area, and I have to say it’s probably the favourite place I’ve lived in the last decade, but my parents still live in our old home in New Westminster. Is that my real home then? As it’s where my family is? I lived there longer than my current address, but can home be somewhere you don’t currently live? These are some of the questions that came to mind when thinking of home and I’ve been struggling to even come up with a definition for myself. I’m guessing this is true for others as well, and leads to me to believe that “home” is more what we make of it, than any defined thing.

Humans, or human ancestors, have been congregating and living together for 2-2.4 million years. I’m not an archaeologist, but I can imagine that this might have been done for shelter, and for safety. Evolutionarily speaking it is advantageous to have to have a space like this to work from and keep going back to, somewhere you can rely on not being in the rain and surrounded by things trying to eat you. This notion of a base is interesting to me. Why do we return to one area instead of finding a new place to live constantly? I think it is because of the memories we have there that creates this attachment to any given place. Humans are emotional beings, and studies have shown that emotions create longer lasting memories. Emotions arise from our interactions with our environment. Either we’re angry that we’re in Vancouver and it is raining YET AGAIN, or we are ecstatic that we get to go to our favourite coffee shop because Lucky’s has the BEST doughnuts. These memories, good or bad, are little micro-stories that remind us of the emotions we felt and our perception of any given place.

So, what does that mean then for my perception of home? Where have I created the strongest memories, where have I been happiest, or where do I simply have the most memories? When evaluating my different homes from this lens, I find that there isn’t really a single house that I would consider more of a “home” than the others. What I did find though, is that there is an equal connection to all of them. My first home is where I learned to ride a bike, my second is where I met my first best friend, my third is where I excelled at sport, my fourth is where I received my education, and my current home is where I am creating new memories. Home for me isn’t one house or one city, it is all of the places I’ve been. It has led to a much larger sense of home, British Columbia. When travelling abroad, the first thing I always miss is not my house, but the mountains, the sea, and the people. When I think of the mountains I think of the hundreds of hours I’ve spent hiking and exploring. When I think of the sea, I’m reminded of the camping trips with my family where my mom would call me “sharky boy” because I refused to get out of the water. Most importantly though is the people. My family of course, but I have made so many friends all over BC as well. No matter where I go, I feel like I will be welcomed into a home. All of these memories have left incredibly positive emotional marks on me. Just retelling them puts a smile on my face.

The exciting thing as well though is that this means “home” can change. If home is the memories you create, and the people you are with, you can do that anywhere. I think this idea broadens my horizons for what I could consider future home. I am not locked in one place, but I am free to experience different cities, different countries, different cultures, and different people. This is exciting because it means that wherever I end up, I know I can always be happy. Home is what you make of it.

Works Cited

University of Toronto. “Archaeological Discovery: Earliest Evidence Of Our Cave-dwelling Human Ancestors.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 December 2008. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081219172137.htm, January 28, 2019.

“Emotions and Memory: How do your emotions affect your ability to remember information and recall past memories?” Psychologist World. www.psychologistworld.com/emotion/emotion-memory-psychology, January 28, 2019.

Stories are incredible things. They are things we hear, things we tell, but too often do we not realize that stories are unfolding around us constantly. I now have a great story to tell you, about the evil in the world.

There were was a small village in a remote part of the world, that had suffered a great disaster. There were few adults who remained, including orphan children. In the wake of this disaster there was a great sense of community in the village, everyone pulled together to make sure everyone had a roof over their heads and enough to eat.

There were three young orphans who were the best of friends in this village and did everything together. Lived together, ate together, and played together. They were inseparable. The village loved them all, and often remarked about how they were the soul of the town.

The house they stayed in was the house of the mayor, who often had many duties for them to perform.

One week they had to gather some firewood for the village, so everyone could heat their homes. To this they had no problem. “We will be the strongest lads in the village and will carry more than anyone else!” As they left the mayor’s house on their errand, they waved to Timmy and said “goodbye!”.

One week they had to fetch water for the village so that everyone could have something clean to drink. to this they had no problem. “We will be the healthiest and cleanest in the village!”. As they left the house on their errand, they waved to Timmy again and said “goodbye!”.

The next week they had no errands, as the mayor gave them the week off. To this they had no problem. “Oh the adventures we’ll have! Like the three musketeers!” As always though, as they left the house, they waved to Timmy and said “goodbye!”

At the end of that week the village gathered to celebrate that their town had been rebuilt. As the orphan boys were the soul of the town, they were called to the centre to dance. After a moment, the Mayor John said “wait, where’s Timmy?”. The town searched high and low for the last orphan boy, who was a little different and never quite fit in with the other three. All they ever found of Timmy was a note he had left describing how lonely and sad he had been in this terrible town. His family had passed in the disaster, and the next closest thing he had to family, the three other boys, never included him in anything. So he decided to leave the town with no food, or water, or anywhere to go. But he knew “he was going to a better place”.

When this note was read the three orphan boys protested and said “No! This isn’t are fault! We’re the best of friends the three of us, it’s not our fault he didn’t fit in! Take that awful story back, take it back!”

To this Mayor John replied: “It’s too late. For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told it is loose in the world.”

Reflections:

I can’t say I’ve written many stories in my life, the last I can think of was entitled “Garden Snacks”, before I knew how to spell “snakes”. This was an interesting challenge then for me as I do love reading stories. I love the meaning behind every choice of word, every allusion, every piece of foreshadowing. So I wanted to at least try to write something that meant something. I volunteer frequently with kids suffering with mental health concerns, and I wanted to draw from that. As simple as an assignment as this was, I really had a hard time trying to build things up in a way that my story ended with a punch and a message. When writing I thought I did a good job of trying to trick the reader into believing the Mayor’s name was Timmy, and was trying not to reveal that this was indeed another orphan. I wanted Timmy to be as forgotten by the reader as he was by the other orphans. I thought I nailed it. As a science student, I wanted to test this theory naturally so I did two things. I had my girlfriend read the story, and I retold the story orally to my sister. To my shock the opposite was true! My girlfriend knew right away that Timmy was one of the orphans, but my sister was surprised and upset when I finished repeating the story to her out loud. One of the things Thomas King points out is that “one of the tricks to storytelling is to never tell everything at once…to keep everyone in suspense” (Thomas King, 7). From this I learned that the main difference between reading and listening to a story is who’s story it is. It may have been created by the same person, but if you’re reading it you are allowed to create your own version of events in your mind as you go along. Whereas, if you are being orated to, it is very much that person’s story, and they can control what you hear and don’t hear.

I would love to hear what you all thought of my first attempt at a written story in close to 20 years, and whether or not Timmy was apparent in your mind, or as forgotten as he was by the other three orphans….Thank you for reading!

Works Cited

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

“Why not change underlying title back to aboriginal title?” (229). This is one of the last questions that Chamberlin poses to us, right at the end of his novel, If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Chamberlin justifies this claim by outlining how underlying title is fiction, how it was created with ceremony, and then showing how changing underlying title to aboriginal title can be done by believing two stories at once. He first outlines how “title” (228) is really just a metaphor in a fictitious story of how ownership of Canadian land belongs to whoever holds it. This story was written for one reason by the settlers, and that was to justify their destruction of indigenous lives and languages. The settlers believed that because they held the title to the land, that they owned the land, and because of that they could do whatever they wished on that land. This is a fiction because the aboriginals were here long before any settlers arrived, and if claim of the land belongs with those who live there, then it should belong with them.

The settlers further legitimized their claim by using ceremony. Chamberlin points out that ceremonies have a power over us, to lead us to believe things that we would otherwise question. He uses the example of Christian communion to point this out (225). During communion we are told to believe that the wafer and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I know not everyone reading this will have experience in a Christian church, but as someone who was raised catholic, this is indeed what is believed. Outside of the ceremony of church, I rationally know that this is not the case. It is simply a wafer and some wine. During church though, for that moment, no questions are asked. The same applies to settlers and their title claim. They used the courts and the government that they themselves set up, as a form of ceremony, to add belief to the claim and to stop people from questioning if indeed they had any right to this land.

Now that we have an idea as to how underlying title came about, why then should we switch back to aboriginal title? Throughout his book, Chamberlin mentions the possibility of having two contradictory stories existing at the same time, but that are both true (132, 220). As a science student I like to refer to this as Chamberlin’s Cat. It is our own context, frame of reference, and our own ceremonies that lead to the belief of any story. And just like how the act of viewing changes the outcome for Schrodinger, so does the act of believing change the outcome of the story for Chamberlin. In other words, changing underlying title to aboriginal title wouldn’t really change our lives, other than to remind us of the difference between fact and fiction (230). By making this change we would be cutting through the ceremony we have put in place to make us forget about the fiction that has been created to make claim to Canadian land, and to remind us of the fact that this was a story we created. Chamberlin argues for this point further by pointing out that this wouldn’t undo everything society has created, we can have both existing. Making this change “wouldn’t mean an Indian chief could come…walk into my house anymore than the Queen or the President could now” (231). We can still live the story we have created, in the society we created, but change the perspective. “We would finally have a constitutional ceremony of belief in the humanity of aboriginal peoples in the Americas” (231). This is something that has long been missing in Canada, and would go a long way to mending a divide that has existed between settlers and the aboriginal people.

Works Cited

Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.

Hanson, Erin. “Aboriginal Title.” Indigenous Foundations, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_title/.

Physics, Minute. “Schrödinger’s Cat.” YouTube, YouTube, 26 Sept. 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4.

Hello one and all to my first ever blog post! My name is Ross Hilliam and I will begin with a little about me, and why I’m taking this course. I am a (somewhat) recent graduate of UBC, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Science, majoring in Psychology. What am I doing then in an upper level Canadian History English course you may ask? Well, after a myriad of experiences post-graduation, I have discovered I have a passion for teaching and would love to be an educator. I was born and raised right here in the Lower Mainland. I grew up in Surrey, went to High School in Burnaby, and have lived in Vancouver for the last 8 years.

No matter where I’ve been though, I’ve always had my nose in a book, eyes on movies/tv, and ears listening to music. I derive great pleasure in consuming stories of all types, and I believe this course will be like the spine of a good book. It will contain many chapters within, all a little bit different, but in the end will contribute to a common goal of broadening my horizons. As I mentioned, I was born and raised here in the Lower Mainland and have always considered myself a “true local”. Very rarely taking into consideration that most of the land I grew up on has a very rich history that my education has barely scratched the surface of. My favourite part of a book though is Chapter 1, or in this case lesson 1, as it means I have so much more to encounter and learn from. I am genuinely excited to explore the stories and voices of those who are much more “local” than me.

With that being said, I would now like to take this opportunity to point out how often our own government could benefit from having a similar attitude, instead of literally bulldozing through any native opposition. Even though I would consider my education of native and aboriginal history to be lacking, this was always a common theme that shocked me. The complete disregard for the thoughts and voices of those most directly impacted by the choices of our government. Let’s choose to be better than that. Let’s take the opportunity this class presents to develop our own critical thinking and analyses when reading stories. To come to our own truth, and to not be scared to explore perspectives we have not considered before. As Christine Amanpour notes, we can often get caught in our own lanes of information. Let’s step out of our bubble this term, and absorb all we can!

Works Cited

Amanpour, Christiane. “How to Seek Truth in the Era of Fake News.” Ted, Ted, www.ted.com/talks/christiane_amanpour_how_to_seek_truth_in_the_era_of_fake_news#t-138975.

Parker, Courtney. “Canadian Court Gives Coastal Gaslink Permission to Violate Indigenous Rights.” Intercontinental Cry, Intercontinental Cry, 17 Dec. 2018, intercontinentalcry.org/canadian-court-gives-coastal-gaslink-permission-to-violate-indigenous-rights/.

“Wikimedia Commons.” Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons, 11 Feb. 2006, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bookshelf.jpg.