I am very excited to explore the allusions I found in the text of “Green Grass Running Water.” For my analysis, I have chosen pages 30-49. 

Lionel removes his tonsils out…

For my first analysis, I would like to examine the story Lionel tells of his mistake, removing his tonsils. This might be a bit of an oversight, but when I read the story, I related it back to societal relationships between Natives and White people.  Natives would be promised land, or benefits as a reconciliation gift, but in the long run, it turns out to be inconvenience after inconvenience, situations that make life harder for Natives. Let’s examine residential schools, Native families were told it was necessary to instill their children into boarding schools, to further their education and opportunities.  Many Natives resisted, just like how Lionel’s mother did not want his tonsils removed in the beginning, but eventually caved in. This single action caused Lionel to suffer throughout his whole life; opportunities were taken away from him, and became a societal disability for him. It might be far fetched, but overall, I saw how this situation could symbolize the relationship between Natives and colonizers. 

Interaction between Narrator, God, and Coyote 

As Jane Flick points out in her reading notes, the God in this text resembles the voice of God in the Old Testament.  He questions where his darkness is, the void and the garden, which clearly refers to the Adam and Eve story in the bible; the “Genesis” story.  At one point God says no one can eat his food, which might allude to how Eve ate the apple, which became known as the Original sin. When the Narrator is talking about a world where the First woman falls and meets grandmother Turtle, and starts creating land, he is alluding to the Earth Diver Story, which is the Creation Story told by Natives.  While this may seem obvious, what I would like to point out is the interaction overall. No one seems to be able to agree with how the story is going, which is symbolic of present time, how different religions do not agree about the Creation story. There are different beliefs and values and we have differentiated opinions which can cause tension amongst people, just like with the characters. 

Conversation Alberta has with Charlie, about flying to Edmonton 

Jane Flick points out that Alberta might be named Alberta to represent the province.  Alberta’s conversation with Charlie was interesting, and I thought about how Charlie represents Western values such as materialism and possession (Flick 151). Lionel has a promising future, until certain circumstances took that away from him.  Alberta is in between both. This might represent the growing tensions in Alberta, during colonization.  There were different value systems, and “gaps of rich and poor and division of economic power.  As the source that I have hyperlinked finds, “Political and economic power was concentrated in the hands of a small elite who reaped the benefits of economic growth/ In contrast some frontier construction camps, and resource towns such as Lovettville and Cadomin, Alberta, led to the emergence of a workers’ resistance movement” (Friesen 2017). 

Works Cited 

Flick, Jane. Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water. Canadian Literature, 1999, blogs.ubc.ca/engl372-99c-2019wc/files/2013/11/GGRW-reading-notes1.pdf.

Friesen, Gerald. History of Settlement in the Canadian Prairies. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 23 Dec. 2019, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/prairie-west.

“Boarding Schools.” Native American History and Culture: Boarding Schools – American Indian Relief Council Is Now Northern Plains Reservation Aid, American Indian Relief Council , www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=airc_hist_boardingschools.

1. 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’m from Sri Lanka, where the majority of the people are Sinhalese Buddhists. I grew up with Buddhism, as my whole family, including my extended family are practicing Buddhists.  So the story I grew up with is the story of Siddhartha Gautama, a prince near the borders of Nepal and India who gave up his luxuries to find a more meaningful life. You might have already heard the story but let me share some of the basics. One day an astrologer had told his future, that he would either be a great king or a spiritual leader, his family had tried everything to shield him away from life’s suffering, as to secure him as a King.  However one day as he walked around in the village, he saw someone suffering and understood that life was full of suffering and impermanence; it happens to everyone. He set off on a spiritual journey, leaving everything behind him. During his journey, he began to understand the key to happiness and a free mind. He realized the right path was the middle path, not to indulge but not to omit, and underwent deep meditation.  This was to help the people around him, and enlighten others. After Siddhartha became enlightened, he became known as the Buddha, and spent the rest of his life traveling on foot, to help others around him and pass on his knowledge.  

Now there are key similarities with the story King tells in the Truth About Stories and the Buddha story.  The animals were willing to help the Earth Diver when she was in unknown territory and the Buddha wanted to help others free their mind and take away the suffering. Both stories teach the value of giving and extending help towards others.  Both stories also encourage you to go out of your way even if it means taking away from yourself. Also, both stories encourage us to realize we are all connected beings and we are part of nature. (Side note, please use the hyperlink to understand more about the Buddhist teachings and the life lessons that it instills).   In the Earth Diver story, nature and the key elements of it are emphasized, such as the water and creatures that inhabit Earth. In Buddhism, we believe all living things have purpose and deserve to be respected and cared for. Both stories also include someone going beyond what they know and exploring and discovering something new.  The Buddha left his comfortable lifestyle to understand life, and the Earth Diver, ended up on Earth and ended up exploring the unknown. Another thing to note is that when the Buddha left his position as a Prince to go on a spiritual journey, he is acknowledging that titles and societal hierarchy are meaningless. Everyone suffers, and everyone goes through the same things in life, we are all equal.  In the Earth Diver story, no one is acknowledged as more important than another, or if one should be saved over another, they foster cooperation to complete a task. Overall both stories express a non hierarchical aspect, and interconnectedness. 

Overall, I believe these two stories share quite a few similarities, and it might be why I think more community wise rather than individualistically — because they foster characteristics such as cooperation and thoughtfulness. 

Works Cited

“Following the Buddha’s Footsteps.” THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA, San Francisco State University, online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm.

King, Thomas, “The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative.” CBC Massey Lectures. House of Anansi Press, 2003.

“Who Was Buddha? A Short Life Story of Buddha Shakyamuni.” Diamond Way Buddhism, www.diamondway-buddhism.org/buddhism/buddha/.

1.  Assignment 2:4   https://blogs.ubc.ca/sashini/2020/02/09/assignment-24/
   • This blog post I explored the two creation stories, the “Genesis” story and the “Earth Diver Story.”  I said that King emphasized the believability of the Earth Diver Story because the “Genesis” story creates animosity in society and highlights values such as hierarchy, punishment and and right and wrong, while “The Earth Diver Story” values cooperation and acceptance.
2. Assignment 1:3 https://blogs.ubc.ca/sashini/2020/01/17/assignment-13/
   • I explored the concept of written culture and oral culture and if they can be distinguished. I reached the conclusion, that they are too interchangeable and more fluid to be boxed away in 2 separate concepts.
3. Assignment 3:2 https://blogs.ubc.ca/sashini/2020/03/01/assignment-32/
   • I researched the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and whether it supported Coleman’s arguments of the project of white civility.  I found that it does because it puts British values beyond other people and restricts the rights of non British people.

Assignment 3:2 

2)In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” 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.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a document issued by King George 111, which established principles for governing Indigenous populations, and the “constitutional negotiation of treaties with the Indigenous populations” (Hall 2019). It also provided the framework to assimilate French populations with the British, after British acquisition of Quebec. 

Some of its specific assimilation policies included that the governor, who was appointed by the British government, would be the authority in Quebec. All French laws would be replaced by English (criminal and civil) laws, and Catholics (French majority)  would not be able to run for public position. 

What is important to recognize of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is that, “all land would be considered Aboriginal land, until ceded by treaty” (“Royal Proclamation, 1763,”). As well as, First Nations’ land could only be bought by the Crown, and settlers could not claim land from Aboriginals.  This document is recognized as a stepping stone into recognizing Aboriginal rights and acknowledgment of their land. 

Does the Royal Proclamation of 1763 support Coleman’s arguments of the project of white civility? 

Now that I’ve done my fair share of research into the Royal Proclamation of 1763, it’s time to get into the nitty gritty and declare whether this Proclamation supports or negates Coleman’s arguments of the project of white civility… unfortunately, I do believe it does. 

For example, although Aboriginal rights were beginning to be acknowledged by this Proclamation, it clearly dictates a British monopolization of the land.  No one but the Crown could purchase lands from the First Nations, which clearly restricts Indigenous rights and ownership of the land. Also that the governor who has authority over Quebec, is appointed by the British government, paves the way to instill British values and customs, into the governed. Also, the restriction of Catholics into public positions, is also creating a white, British superiority amongst the population.  Canadian Nationalism was born by rejecting non British values (replacement of all French laws), and creating a governance of its populations and monopolizing the land, by claiming everyone is under British protection. White civility is evident in these circumstances, because this Proclamation creates the framework to dictate what is above the law, and who is above the law, in this case, the British above all others.   An article I found, highlighted the significance of white civility as tool; laws could be implemented, in order to “contain communities of colour” (Bates, 2019). The people of colour, in this case, mainly the Indigenous populations, are given the illusion of  rights and land, handed down as a gift by the British, which in turn creates a relationship that is “unequal, racist and undemocratic” (Bates 2019). 

Overall, the goal of this Proclamation seemed to be to assimilate the bands of the Indigenous groups and French settlers, in newfound British authority of Quebec. Assimilate in the sense, is washing away Indigenous culture, and French power, to assimilate to “white civility” as put forward by British standards.  

Works Cited 

Bates, Karen Grigsby. “When Civility Is Used As A Cudgel Against People Of Color.” NPR, NPR, 14 Mar. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/03/14/700897826/when-civility-is-used-as-a-cudgel-against-people-of-color.

CanLit Guides. “Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom Guide to Nationalism.” Canadian Literature. Web. April 4th 2013.

Hall, Anthony J. “Royal Proclamation of 1763.” Royal Proclamation of 1763 | The Canadian Encyclopedia, Canadian Encylopedia, 30 Aug. 2019, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763.

“Royal Proclamation, 1763.” Indigenous Foundations, UBC, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/royal_proclamation_1763/.

In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to both King;s article and Robinson’s story.

This was an interesting assignment because I never thought to explore literature that was meant for orality, and taking note of the differences, and it was quite an experience. 

Reading to myself, proved a bit difficult as the sentences were short and abrupt, and it was impossible to gain sense of where and how without the gestures. For example, when Harry Robinson writes phrases such as, “For a long time, Coyote was there/ on the water sitting on the boat./ And he eat right there” (64).  My mind stopped and would question, where exactly? It was hard to take any meaning out of the story reading silently, because it was missing the gestures. Without gestures, it was hard to paint a full picture. What is where, and where exactly is the water? It almost seemed like floating words that were missing a meaning.  It was similar to what Thomas King said was the common complaint of oral literature, being translated to English, the storyteller lost their voice (King 184). Another thing I noticed was because I am a fast reader, the story lost its excitement because the anticipation of what is happening was lost when I silently read to myself.  It seemed repetitive and lost its appeal. 

When I read out loud to myself, it was similar to reading silently, I saw the words before me and it was not as exciting.  I was speed reading again, and did not make the effort to add gestures or music, or interact with my audience, because my audience was myself.  I did not feel the need to create any suspense, as the words were right in front of me. What lacked from this experience was the suspense, and captivation of listening to a story as gestures, pauses, and interactions that would go with saying this story out loud, were missing. 

My favourite experience was getting my friend to read the story to me. Because my friend had an audience, who was intently listening (me), he made more of an effort to keep me engaged.  He paused at the right moments, which created suspense. And he was able to paint a picture of what he was reading with his hands. The oral syntax aspect of it took me on a journey and placed me at the center of the story.   It emphasized the polemical and associational literature and let me understand the story and its historical aspect in a “Metamorphosis” way (King 187). The polemical aspect was underlined because reading it out loud emphasized Native values (peace and acceptance, such as not going to war with the King of England, is possible).  The Coyote going to the King showed their way of resistance to the invaders. Reading it out loud “recreated the storyteller and the performance” (King 186). In the Youtube video of a TEDxSMU talk show, Seth Fairchild describes how when an Native elder dies, history dies as well with it. And how important it is to hear them, as there is a magical element about it that is important to pass down. 

Overall, the story was more inviting and engaging while listening to someone read it out loud.  What is interesting that I learned from another Tedx Talk, is that hormones and neurotransmitters are released, the same ones you experience when you are in love, during storytelling. Storytelling is powerful, and it feels good.  Perhaps that is why there is a connection and engagement that is lacking in written language, that is evident in oral storytelling. 

Works Cited

Fairchild, Seth. “Native American Oral Storytelling & History.” TedxSMU, Youtube, 3 Nov. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JcKbN_GjCE.

King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Mississauga, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190.

Phillips, David JP. “The Magical Science of Storytelling.” TedxStockholm, Youtube, 16 Mar. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj-hdQMa3uA.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

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?

King emphasizes the dichotomies of the two creation stories because it is not about what is true or false, but that the way stories are told, are an influence on how society works.  A creation story is a mix of imagination and reality to establish a political system and a way of life. As Tanya Gahr  writes in the Indian Corporate Training Inc blog, creations stories pass down understandings about themselves and their landscape.   I think King likes to emphasize the dichotomy of the stories, because the way they contradict themselves, only one would be “correct”, as King even says in The Truth About Stories, “we are suspicious of complexities, distrustful of contradictions, fearful of enigmas” (King 25),.  Hence, the reason for causing Native genocide by the colonialists.

Now it is clear that King emphasizes the believably of one creation story over another; the believability of the “Earth Story,” because he is trying to show us how the Adam and Eve creation story has created a lot of animosity in human civilization.  The Adam and Eve story would have helped bring a world where something is good or evil, where there is a hierarchy, fortune and punishment, right or wrong. Because of this, it would have paved the way for discrimination against anything outside of the norm.  We see that with the way of the treatment towards Indigenous populations, through the establishment of residential schools to assimilate them into colonial populations, Native camps, and the establishment of laws such as the Indian Act of 1876, that sought control over the Indigenous way of life.  Overall, there were grave consequences for Aboriginal communities, in that there was a loss in knowledge and storytelling, and culture inheritance. The First Stories, and the Indigenous way of life would have been a complexity and outside the norm for Colonialist life, thus in a hierarchy, it would be below them.  Hence the need to control Indigenous populations. 

However, I am aware that King does not want us to attack one creation story over another, but to be aware of the consequences of a story. Stories establish a system and a way of life.  I think he wants us to be more open minded and going beyond what we think as “normal.” I think he wants us to rethink what we have accepted socially, and understand why we think the way we do.  After reading the article, “Why do we have creation myths?” by Julian Baggini from the Guardian, I understand why we feel the need to create creation stories. We are trying to make a causal link between what we are and the world. We try to make sense of it by linking reality and imagination.  It seems to be the way we cope in making sense of the world around us. Unfortunately, sometimes this way of thinking has more good than bad. It can lead to prejudice, and discrimination. Understanding our prejudices and discrimination, can help us be more open minded, because we are aware of the way we think and why we think the way we do.  I think that is what King was trying to show us.  By creating a tidy row of dichotomies between the two creation stories, he is able to emphasize the values being portrayed in both populations.  The “Earth Diver” creation story emphasizes a world of accepting uniqueness, and collaboration.  The Adam and Eve story emphasizes structure, dominance, and hierarchy. 

Works Cited

Baggini, Julian. “Why Do We Have Creation Myths?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Mar. 2006, www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/mar/28/features11.g21.

Gahjr, Tanya. “Creation Stories – The Origins of Culture.” Creation Stories – The Origins of Culture, 7AD, www.ictinc.ca/blog/creation-stories-the-origins-of-culture.

King, Thomas. The Truth about Stories: a Native Narrative. House of Anansi Press Inc., 2010.

After reading other students’ blogs, the shared assumptions I found about home is:

1. Support
2. Spending time with loved ones (family) 
3. Non Physical entity 
4. Security 

I think it is safe to say all 4 points on my list are interconnected.  None of the ideas of home ended up being a physical entity, and I find that highly significant in this day and age. With globalization, and UBC being a highly diverse student body, I think people are starting to or have found home in intangible things. It is also important to remember that countries are a social construct, an idea of varied “sovereign statehood” (Taiye Selasi). I find that in this day and age it is hard to describe home as one place.  What is interesting about her statement is that it becomes limiting when you try to define things on a singular concept. What really stood out to me was when she said, “identity is experience.” Very true. Pico Iyer, in his Ted Talk, even says that there are over 220 million people not living in their own country. Globalization eats away at the concept of home as a physical entity, 

I found a lot of people had said support, which makes sense because as we go through life and come across obstacles, it is essential to have support to get through them, and the people we find support are also the people we end up spending time with.  Spending time with someone builds a bond. While I found a common trend for most bloggers to say family, there are some who mention the friendships and the relationships they built. Going back to Pico Iyer, he tells us as home is engulfed in flames, he ends up sleeping in his friends house with only a toothbrush he bought from a supermarket.  I think the point of his story was that he could not say his home was the physical house as that is already gone, but his relations; his family and friends who are there to support him and have each others’ back. This is why home tends to be a nonphysical entity.  

People tend to have also described home as a place of security, which I highly agree with, and is also connected to my other 3 points on the list, a feeling, an intangible thing.  Security is what gives life to home, where we can be ourselves, and be vulnerable. 

Overall, it was quite enjoyable reading blogs on stories about home.  In a way, it showed me I need to appreciate the people around me more and really take care of my home. 

Thank you all! 

Home, it is a question that I always struggle to answer.  Should I describe where my parents live now, or where my family meets up for holidays? Or should it be the place I’ve been living the last 3 years? How can I describe a home, when I’ve moved almost every year growing up. It has never been an easy question to answer.  But I do know home is the taste of my mother’s curry, the aroma of spice, and coconut stirred in different vegetables and fruits. Home is my 3 brothers, as annoying as they are, spending time with them, or fighting over the best snacks in the house.  Home is my father, cracking his jokes at the dinner table, the kind you roll your eyes at, but deep down know that you love. Home is the questions I always get from my parents,

“Are you doing alright?” ” Are you cooking now?” “How is your schoolwork?” “How is your job?”

Lately however, as I  forge a new life for myself,  home is also my significant other.  The apartment that we share, the grocery shopping every Sunday,  the food that we make, the laughs that we share, our simple moments.  Us cuddling on a couch, talking about our days, and the plans that we have.  Home is also the face masks and the wine nights I have with my friends, where we complain about the schoolwork we have or the the latest fling.

To me, home is a lot of things, and also one thing at once, its love.  Everything that is home to me, is out of love.  It is not about the place, as there are plenty of places I’ve been and lived, and as great as the places were, it is not where my mind travels first.  It is the experiences, and memories I make with the people I love.  Because with the people you love, you do things out of love, right?

It is also about being vulnerable, and being your true self.  I think that I’m lucky I have a home with my family and friends, and that I am able to be open about my passions and desires in life.  As well as having the support I need to succeed in what I want.  Having this support is the reason why I’m able to attend this wonderful university (UBC),  let alone write this blog post for one of my last classes prior to graduation.  It is the reason why I am able to push myself to keep going and know that it is all for something.

I’m sure all of you have heard this before, that home is whatever you want it to be, but it really is true.  As Pico Iyer says in his Ted Talk, “My home would have to be whatever I carried around inside me. ” Pico himself could not describe home as a single place, and I think as the world becomes more globalized, a lot of us feel the same way.  Habitat for Humanity describes it best,  it is a place of sadness and happiness, and moments that you cherish.

Airplanes, cars, trains, they have all mobilized us to be from different corners of the world, and because of that it is important we value what and/or whom we love.  Especially, since a lot of us have left what we know to be at this University.

Writing this was a bit emotional for me as I haven’t seen my parents in a while, but I guess when you talk about home, it comes to that! So overall, what I value in home is the love, support, comfort and fun I have with the people I want to spend time with.  Thanks for sharing this with me!

Works Cited

Iyer, Pico. “Where Is Home?” Ted: Ideas Worth Spreading, TED , June 2013, www.ted.com/talks/pico_iyer_where_is_home?referrer=playlist-what_is_home.

“What Does Home Mean to You?” Habitat for Humanity, www.habitat.org/stories/what-does-home-mean-to-you.

Let me take you on a journey through the thick jungle, past the mossy vines, across the river of dreams, to a valley where lies a village, a village that bore evil.

The villagers lived peacefully in the valley.  There was abundance of fruits and vegetables, everyone was housed and fed, the children played among the bed of daisies, and the older villagers often gathered, smiled, laughed and enjoyed each other’s company.  When it came nighttime, the families would hustle back into their homes, and sit by a fire, eat their dinner and talk about their day’s work.  The villagers tended to stick to their valley, comfortable with knowing what they know there.  After all, things are good, everything flowed and ran smoothly, so why question it?

However, there was one family in particular who had very curious children, there names were Lia, Tom and Jake. Tom and Jake were the older twin brothers to Lia, who is 5 years younger.  They often played together amongst the grassy hill in their backyard. And while this may be the story of creation of evil, it is also this family’s story.

“You know what I think? What if we went to the river! The sight must be beautiful! Jake exclaimed loudly to his siblings.

“Maybe, buts it fun here too isn’t it?” Said Tom.

“I bet there are pretty mermaids by that river,” Lia said with wonder in her eyes.  Tom and Jake both looked at her, and while didn’t believe in mermaids, they knew with no doubt in their minds, if it made their sister happy, they would do it. They were going to the river, by the forest edge.  They all clumsily ran through the daisy bed, the colours of the grass became darker longer, everything around them became more unruly.  Tom nervously grabbed Jake’s hand, “Are you sure about this?” Jake looked back, and said, “Its something we never have done before, so why not do it?” They both looked ahead and continued towards the river.

As they approached the river, they took it all in, the luminescence of the river mist, the sparkles of water droplets on tree leaves running along the river. As they approached the river and looked down on it, something began to form.  A distorted image formed in the water, it seemed to show something.  What was formed, did not make sense to the three of them, as it was something they have never seen before let alone its existence. But for the readers (you) sake, I will explain it.  It was images of war, blood and death, of a past that was long forgotten.  The river of dreams was showing history of a past lifetime. The children looked up wide -eyed, not understanding, and took it all in.  While they did not understand what was going on, the negative energy swirled around the three kids, almost as if it clung to them.  They left the river, with the negative aura that continued swirling in and out of the kids.

They went home and spoke nothing of it.  But as days went on, things began to change.  Their play fights became more violent, there were more arguments, and their hatred towards one another grew, until one day, the worst came to happen. Tom had killed Jake in a fight.

The village soon began to dissipate of what it once was.  People had to lock their doors at night, in case of thieves and worry if there was enough food on the table due to greed from some more than others.  Before long, evil had taken root and suffocated the village.  Evil was born.

Now this story, saw the village changing after a couple children were exposed to an image in the river. The horrible story told in the image had out powered what was already there, and took a hold.  People started behaving like the story, and had turned into the image.  What I learned about a story telling is, that they have the power to influence the thoughts and behaviours of its reader.  Chimamandu Adichie had explained it in her Ted Talk, about the “Dangers of a Single Story.  Stories are powerful, they have the capability of making people as one thing, a stereotype.  What is unfortunate is, those who are economically and socially powerful (the West) have the ability to overcome all other stories, meaning their story would become reality.  We are what we see in the media.    How we overcome our ignorance is by rejecting the story of the masses, and opening up to others as well.   As Chimamandu says, “When we reject the single story, we regain a kind of paradise.”

In terms of the story I had shared with you, the children’s live became this bad story they had seen, and it consumed them.  They believed and became the story. The reason the witches believed the scariest thing was the story,  is because stories have the power to change our world. They can be real or false, but  regardless energy invoked is real.

Works Cited

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TED, Ted Talk, www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. House of Anansi,

Satell, Greg. “The Power Of Story.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 30 Aug. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/08/22/the-power-of-story/#344540b73635.

This post, I want to explore the concepts of “oral culture” and “written culture” by answering the discussion question as per below:

“Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality.””

The theory that culture can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works because as Chamberlain points out, it is a binary notion which creates a superficial and false hierarchy of “superior culture.” When people think in black and white, they are thinking inside the box, and creating categories where there should be fluidity.  Think about sexuality, people like to categorize based on sexual orientations,  one is either gay or straight – but can there not be a spectrum in between these binary concepts? Just like creating categories for sexual orientation can be limiting,  so is distinguishing culture as either written or oral. In Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality,” she describes, “speech and writing are so entangled with each other in our various forms and performance of language that we are like Penelope, weaving them together during the day and unweaving them at night” (MacNeil 2007).  This is to makes so much sense, sometimes orality triumphs literature and other times literature triumphs orality, because both are necessary in making sense of culture, and the best way make sense of the world around us, is to use both speech and writing.

One thing to point out is that with the established of www, and new technologies such as computer with high speed internet, radio stations, audio records, text messaging,  there is no clear line between oral and written culture. Its nearly impossible to draw boundaries or create a defining box for either. As Alexis Madrigal from the Atlantic points out. “written culture is opening up to oral psychodynamics,”  in programs such as YouTube and Twitter.

The distinguishing of written and oral culture seems more of an excuse of defining Western culture as superior compared to others, such as the Indigenous populations of Canada.  MacNeil points out that, while “Western egocentrism” defines orality as a inferior medium, it is also a globally dominant method of knowledge exchanging and truth searching (MacNeil).  One of the arguments of the inferiority of orality is that it is used as merely an aesthetic but one must keep in mind that written work can be detrimental as well, as it has the power to misinform to large audiences  If anyone is curious on how Indigenous people are affected by misrepresentation by Western media, check out the podcast from Media Indigena, EP 184:Escaping the Orbit of Settler Colonialism. In the podcast, they discuss how they must Indigenous Media must counteract misinformation perpetuated by mainstream media, yet create and inform the public of their own issues as well, instead of merely just responding to the misrepresentations.  Side note, does this podcast come out to you as inferior because it is oral? Probably not, because there is no clear line between oral and written culture, it is just as informing and truth seeking as written work.

Overall, the only thing archaic, is the binary concept that culture can be defined as written or oral, clearly that is not the case.

Works Cited

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

Macneil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS, 2007, lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/.

“Media Indigena: Indigenous Current Affairs.” Media Indigena: Indigenous Current Affairs, Media Indigena, 11 Nov. 2019.

Madrigal, Alexis C. “Oral Culture, Literate Culture, Twitter Culture.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 31 May 2011, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/oral-culture-literate-culture-twitter-culture/239697/.