The last chapter of J. Edward Chamberlin’s “If This Is Your Land,Where Are Your Stories,” discusses how there can be multiple equally truthful versions of a single event in history. It all depends on the culture in which one is raised, and how they look at the world, for which version of a story that one wants to believe – or even multiple versions. An example that Chamberlin uses is the story of a large angry bear who tore half a mountain with him when the Gitksan people of the North West of British Columbia got too comfortable in a valley and no longer respected the land or the animals in the way that they once had. After geological analysis, it turns out that there had been a massive earth quake that tore the mountain away in the same time frame that the bear story took place. The Gitksan believe both stories because of their culture, especially since the oral story had been around thousands of years before seismology existed. The land claim court that the Gitksan took both stories to, however, could not use the bear story as evidence because it was not understood in colonial terms. Perhaps the two stories having the same time frame and setting was coincidental. I find this interesting because it make me think that oral histories should be taken more seriously than they have been – even if they are told like a story with elements of religion and spirituality.
The story of land title connected to Aboriginal title is another interesting topic of Chamberlin’s last chapter. Chamberlin explains that land title is a completely fake notion, that people take for granted. This made me think of Vancouver where large sums of money are transferring hands for houses, condos, and the rare commodity of bare land. Likewise Aboriginal title is a made up thing, and rather pan-indigenous, as what makes someone indigenous is as much cultural, as it is genetic, but these days post-colonial governments seem to base Indigeneity on genetics mostly. Before colonists arrived in what is now called Canada, Aboriginal title did not exist. The difference from band to band existed, the stories that they passed down did, and their cultures did – even if those are all made up as well. Just people grouping themselves as they tend to.
The third part of the final chapter that I found interesting is connected to the other two parts of this chapter that I touched on in this post. It is Chamberlain’s idea that knowledge is made up of stories – from science, to religion, to national anthems, to laws. Thus scholars cannot be as objective at they try to be because they read and write with the knowledge that they had before they started writing. They have to choose between stories, and what to believe. Who is ‘barbaric’, who is ‘the other’ are chosen too. Chamberlin says, “Like home, it is at the centre of contradiction,” because there is no ‘home,’ (Chamberlain, 240.) That is made up too.
This book has really made me question what I know and my place in the construction that is Canada. I think that it is a good step on the path the reconciliation.
Cited works:
- Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: A.A. Knopf Canada, 2003. Print. 219-240.
2. CTV News. Will Vancouver’s Real Estate Bubble Burst? http://bc.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=875918 , Accessed September 15, 2016
3. Indigenous Foundations. Aboriginal Title. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-title.html, Accessed September 15, 2016.
4. Gitxsan_map. http://www.nativemaps.org/files/images/pictures/Gixtsan_map.jpeg Accessed September 16, 2016
Hi Sarah!
I agree that orality should really be taken more seriously and that literature is seen as the superior form of communication in terms of collecting evidence as shown in the Gitxsan case. Thеѕе twо аrе rеаllу interconnected. It іѕ hard fоr оnе tо exist wіthоut thе other, and Westerners have to understand that just because another culture communicates primarily by orality that it isn’t a “primitive” or “alien” culture.
Vаrіоuѕ new forms (internet, tv, and cameras) аrе reinventing whаt literacy аnd orality іѕ bу redefining thе definition. Orality is not the opposite of writing, but more of the center of communication (writing and speech) and stories should be taken more seriously albeit even if meshed with spirituality and religion. With those elements, it doesn’t necessarily make orality or story-telling false in any way, just a completely different way of telling the exact same story as Chamberlin mentioned.
It is also true that these scholars choose who the barbarians are in culture and it’s usually the ones they refuse to understand.
Let me know what you think!
Cheers,
-Chloe Lee
I’m glad that you understood my points, Chloe.
Since you mentioned orality as the center of communication, I might as well bring up a study that I learned in a mass communications course a few years ago. I should mention that the course also put oral communication in the center of all communication. According to the study, the earlier a child learns how to read, the worse his or her long term memory is in later education. The studies’ results showed that children from the school who were taught to read at age seven and learned through oral means rather than written means before that age had much better long term memory at age eleven than the children from the school that taught reading from kindergarten. My cousin’s twin children just entered kindergarten and they were expected to know the alphabet and how to write their names. Unfortunately these days the written word has become incredibly important and children are being forced to read earlier and earlier in North America.
It is therefore negative to both settlers and Canada’s Indigenous population to keep the written word as the most utilized form of communication. Indigenous peoples don’t get taken seriously in land claims because of oral histories, and settler children do not have good long term memory. It is both a social and an education problem connected by oral communication.
Hi Sarah,
I think it’s very interesting (and appropriate) that you incorporate Chamberlain’s discussion of land claims and the ongoing issues at play in the Vancouver housing market. If we agree with Chaimberlain when he says that home is made-up, that home does not exist, the exorbitant prices attached to land in the Vancouver area start to seem particularly disproportionate, even comically so. People are paying huge sums of money to furnish a fantasy. What do you make of this situation? Do you agree that “home” does not exist? How does your opinion about the definition of home colour your view of the issues plaguing Vancouver’s housing market?
Looking forward to discussing this further!
Anne
I think that the sums that people are paying for houses in Vancouver is rather silly. I have heard many different claims about the cause of the inflation. and the one that sticks out in my mind from my Chinese history professor, Colin Green, last term is that only a handful of people actually own all of the properties that are being bought. According to his claim it is not necessarily paying money to furnish fantasy because those buying the properties are paying people to live in the houses and put he houses into their name so that the Chinese and Canadian governments do not get suspicious. In his claim it is all corrupt money and the buyers are multimillionaires playing the markets. In regards to this course, we can think of the buyers as people playing with fake currency for fake ownership of land. Money, after all is just another story that people tell themselves.
I agree that home does not exist. I have been thinking what home is to me all week, and I really have not had one since the age of five. I could get into a sob story, but I will stick to academic conversation. Home is a state of mind, not a place, that is what I have learned. At the moment home is warm slippers, my fiance, my kitten, and the prospect of future opportunities.
My definition of home makes the issues plaguing Vancouver’s housing market rather trivial. If home is not a place, than one can move anywhere and still feel at home. Consequently that is what I have done for the last few years. I have moved around from an apartment in Vancouver, to a boat in Campbell river, to another apartment in Coquitlam, to the Gulf Islands, to Australia, and now I fluctuate between Coquitlam and he Gulf Islands constantly.
I have a feeling that your definition might be similar to mine, Anne, especially after reading Chamberlain’s discussion of land claims.
Hi Sarah,
Well said. You’re correct, I feel very similarly about the definition of home, that is, I view “home” as a sensation, a feeling, which one must learn to create for oneself. As you say, the abstract quality of this definition of home makes the high pricetag for Vancouver real estate somewhat bizarre, even a little insane. On the other hand, if the prices people are willing to pay actually reflect the interests of bored overseas investors then it’s easier to understand: these people aren’t trying to buy anything tangible in the first place, only propagate something which was abstract to begin with- money.