“Oh NO says Coyote … The Pinto was sitting in a low depression …” (122-130)

Green Grass Running Water is a novel full of allusions, the following are allusions I have researched from pages 122 to 130.

Noah and Changing Woman

Changing Woman encounters Noah’s ark, or “big canoe” (King) in this case, and is determined not to land in all of the “poop” (King) created by the myriad animals on board. The Noah we encounter appears savage, unlike any of the Islamic, Biblical, or literary references I have encountered before. According to Flick the words “big canoe” are a mockery of ” missionary adaptations of biblical stories for Indians” (Flick 152).

Noah, in this narrative, equates talking to animals to “bestiality” and wants Changing Woman to show him her breasts. Noah’s admonishments to Changing Woman regarding her talking to animals appears to be symbolic of colonizers who attempt to convert people as well: Noah keeps using the argument of “Christian rules” when speaking with Changing Woman. King uses this Biblical reference and shows Noah as a man who assumes that since Changing Woman fell from the sky she must be a “gift from heaven” (King) and proceeds to treat her like property he has no right over – perhaps this allusion is a reference to the fact that when white settlers landed in North America they chose to just take or presume that all land they had landed they had in fact conquered and therefore it belonged to them: even though the land had people living them from before and clearly belonged to someone else.

According to Laura E. Donaldson this use of the Noah story is also a

” kind of poetic justice, since early Euramerican accounts positioned Native Americans as descendants of Noah’s disgraced and exiled son, Ham. For the seventeenth-century Puritans, such a paternal heritage allowed them to ask whether the Indian “was not perhaps the farthest of all God’s human creatures from God Himself? Descended from wander ers, had he not lost his sense of civilization and law and order? Had he not lost, except for a dim recollection, God Himself?” (Pearce 25). ”  (Donaldson, 29)

Thus using this as a backdrop for the Noah story in this novel it is evident that the tables are being turned on him. Donaldson also references the idea of the Christian belief that “women bear primary responsibility for the Fall.” (Donaldson, 34).

The Pinto

Image Credit: Colorado Pinto

As Charlie arrives in Blossom he rents a car and ends up with a rickety red Pinto. The car plays a strange role in the novel as it is one of the cars which ends up in the dam. The car is made by Ford, a quintessential American car brand. According to Jane Flick a Pinto can also refer to a “Plains horse”, or a “piebald or “painted” pony associated with Indians of the Plains”. Pinto is more specifically a horse coloring, considered “the proper breed” in America. A Pinto horse has a dark background coloring with large, and random, splashes of white. Considering the fact that this car is associated with the destruction of the dam, an area warred over by  Eli and a white building company, the coloring aspect of its name and the fact that King chose this car could either be a strange coincidence or King chose it on purpose – the horse itself depicts a colored background with large patches of white coloring.

According to HorseChannel.com “spotted horses seem to have originated with American Indian horses, the distinctive two-toned coat pattern probably came to North America through Arabian and Spanish stock that accompanied early explorers. Early American Indians preferred the spotted color and bred horses specifically for this characteristic.” thus making these horses, and this distinctive coloring, all the more poignant for a story where Indigenous people are being harassed – whether through Amos’ experience with border officials or through the stolen truck incident – this word, and by extension this car that Charlie drives, becomes symbolic of the divide, harassment, and colonization of the Indigenous peoples.

Charlie’s Father: Portland Looking Bear/Iron Eyes Screeching Eagle

Throughout the novel Charlie is recognized and mistaken for his father, people constantly ask him why he appears familiar and comment on having seen him before, this is due to the fact that his father appeared as the quintessential ‘Indian’ in Hollywood Westerns. (Later in the novel a Western film is ‘fixed’ by the four Old Indians and Charlie’s father, unusually for Westerns of the time, defeats the Cowboys.). According to Flick Portland Looking Bear’s stage name, Iron Eyes Screeching Eagle is a “joke about choosing a “really Indian” name for the movies.” (Flick, 153).

Still from a John Wayne film|Image Credit: Writer Loves Movies

According to the AMC Filmsite, Westerns plots were simple and consisted usually of one main theme

“the classic, simple goal of maintaining law and order on the frontier in a fast-paced action story. It is normally rooted in archetypal conflict – good vs. bad, virtue vs. evil, white hat vs. black hat, man vs. man, new arrivals vs. Native Americans (inhumanely portrayed as savage Indians), settlers vs. Indians, humanity vs. nature, civilization vs. wilderness or lawlessness, schoolteachers vs. saloon dance-hall girls, villains vs. heroes, lawman or sheriff vs. gunslinger, social law and order vs. anarchy, the rugged individualist vs. the community, the cultivated East vs. West, settler vs. nomad, and farmer vs. industrialist to name a few. Often the hero of a western meets his opposite “double,” a mirror of his own evil side that he has to destroy.”

A young Charlie asks his mother whether his father played a myriad of roles and is told by his mother, Lillian, that his father “made a very good Indian” (King). Portland Looking Bear fulfilled Hollywood’s demand for the stereotypical Indian, the ‘Hollywood Indian’, and we are thus led into the racist world of Hollywood where actors were paid less than “their white counterparts” (Tavare) and were forced to wear prosthetic noses in order to look even more like the stereotypical Indian. All of this led to the idea that “all Indians are the same” (Flick 153) an idea which King emphasizes through the Westerns talked about and shown throughout the novel.

Works Cited

“Breeds of Livestock, Department of Animal Science.” Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma State University Board of Regents, 28 May 1996. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Dirks, Tim. “Westerns Films.” Filmsite. American Movie Classics Company LLC, n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Donaldson, Laura E. “Noah Meets Old Coyote, or Singing in the Rain: Intertextuality in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.”Studies in American Indian Literatures 7.2 (1995): 27-43. JSTOR. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162.161/162 (1999): 140.

“Pinto Horses.” Pinto Horses. HorseChannel.com, n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Sutor, Cheryl. “Equusite.com – Coat Colors and Patterns: Paint and Pinto Horse Color.” Equusite.com. Cheryl McNamee-Sutor, Jan. 2000. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Tavare, Jay. “Hollywood Indians.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 May 2011. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.

Q. “Narratives assume, in Blanca Chester’s words, “a common matrix of cultural knowledge.” The Four Old Indians are perhaps the best examples of characters that belong to a matrix of cultural knowledge, which excludes many non-First Nations. What were your first questions about and impressions of these characters? How have you come to understand their place in the novel?”

When I was younger I used to like reading books that involved decisions and consequences: you would read a few pages and then make a choice between option A and option B (each option would lead to a different page and set of plot points). As a child if I disliked the option I had chosen – or my characters met with an unfortunate demise – I would immediately go back to the last cross roads and make another choice, sometimes I would have to go back to the first cross roads in my novel and make a different choice. While first reading Green Grass Running Water by Thomas King I felt as if the Four Old Indians were ghosts, or spirits, who ran throughout the novel changing it at will.

My first impressions were that they were figments of Dr. Hovaugh’s imagination, characters he was chasing and looking for who appeared and re-appeared at will, seemingly saw everything, entered into the storyline where they felt like, and generally caused a certain amount of mayhem. Without much prior knowledge of First Nations cultural knowledge I was unable to place certain aspects of their stories and did indeed wonder if the Women whose stories they were telling were indeed other characters that had ended up out of their place in history and storytelling by accident.

As the novel progressed it became clearer to me that these  characters were not as distanced from the action as I had previously thought – even though the characters names like Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe brought to mind fictional characters from Western literature – these characters were clearly not  Ishmael from Moby Dick  and Robinson Crusoe.

When the Four Old Indian’s turn up to Lionel’s job its incredible to see how their interactions seemingly affect the novel, the jacket they give Lionel fits him perfectly and he enjoys wearing it, whereas after leaving their presence “the jacket had become uncomfortable, tight, as if it were slowly shrinking around him.” (King). As well the fact that the Indian’s, and the reader, can hear what Coyote is saying implies that they are not quite human.

As a Classical Studies student I often find similarities between Greek mythology and most pieces of literature – it was more difficult to find such similarities here except for the river images – however the way these characters behaved reminded me greatly of the Gods in Greek and Roman mythology. The main male Gods: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades – who ruled the heavens, seas, and the underworld respectively – displayed more human characteristics than expected. These Gods would often interact (in different forms and shapes) and interfere with humans and cause chaos in the human realm.

For me, by the end of the novel, the Four Old Indians held a special place between the real and the supernatural. Like the old humans that they are they run away and attempt to interfere in other peoples lives, like the ancient gods they resemble they often interfere where they might not be needed and change things which need changing – for example the John Wayne film.

Works Cited

Chester, Blanca. “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature 161-162.161/162 (1999): 44.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162.161/162 (1999): 140.

Hornblower, Simon, Antony Spawforth, and Oxford Digital Reference Shelf. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd rev.; 3rd rev. ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

King, Thomas (2012-10-30). Green Grass, Running Water. HarperCollins Canada. Kindle Edition.

The Royal Proclamation 1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a document, issues by King George III, that dealt with the ‘ownership’ of North America. The Royal Proclamation was one of the first steps towards “the recognition of existing Aboriginal rights and title”. The Royal Proclamation has also been referred to as the “Indian Magna Carta”. The document was also issued in response to Pontiac’s War and the threat from the Thirteen Colonies and their desire for expansion.

An image of the Royal Proclamation | Image Credit: Indigenous Foundations UBC

The Royal Proclamation states, in summary, that Aboriginal title exists, and will continue to exist, until the land was ceded by treaty. The document made sure to outline that settlers could not claim land from Aboriginal occupants; instead land would have to be bought by the Crown and then sold to the settlers. By making sure to state that a treaty is required between the Crown/settlers and the Aboriginal people the document highlights that the land belongs to the Aboriginal peoples and that they need to be compensated for their land.

Although this document was a step in the right direction it was still written by the British without any input from the very people it was regarding thus, “clearly establishes a monopoly over Aboriginal lands by the British Crown”. (“Royal Proclamation, 1763.”). The documents guidelines highlighted that the Crown was a necessary agent for any land treaties or purchases – thus making the Crown indispensable (in the United States this document also held power, until the American Revolutionary War and subsequent independence) for land purchases and expansion. As well the Aboriginal nation could choose to sell their land or not – whether this practice was followed as closely as the law outlines is another matter.

At the end of the day this document did emphasize that the Crown was sovereign over the territory listed in the document, even though Aboriginal nations were given land rights and titles, the British Crown was emphasizing its power and sovereignty. Another issue arising from this document is a modern one – since the constitution still retains this proclamation it is technically valid till this day. However there is a problem with regards to the province of British Columbia: BC argues that since it did not exist when the document was issued it is not applicable to follow it. It is interesting to see how a document issued in 1763 can have such far reaching consequences, causing people to have ot prove their land rights and ownership.

While this document attempted to encourage the Aboriginal nations to accept British rule it is still a document written by and for the British Crown and, while being a step in the right direction with regards to Aboriginal rights, did serve to emphasize the sovereignty of the British Crown. Daniel Coleman’s argument about “White Civility” is poignant here because the document assumes that allowing a certain amount of rights would have encouraged Aboriginal people to give up their lands. As well the proclamation only encouraged British expansion and civilization in the region, only this time through more civil means like treaties. Since people today are forced to prove their land ownership – rather than the ownership being a given, without having to provide proof, as the document meant it to be, it is safe to say that this emphasizes the “fictive element of nation building” and that nationalism favors the British/white population rather than the whole Canadian population.

A quote from the Royal Proclamation extrapolates upon this idea:

“We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.” (“Royal Proclamation, 1763.”)

Works Cited

“Royal Proclamation, 1763.” Royal Proclamation, 1763. First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.

Hall, Anthony J. “Royal Proclamation of 1763.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Ed. Gretchen Albers. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 02 July 2006. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.