Thomas King’s “Green Grass Running Water” is a novel rich with an amalgamation of historical, pop-cultural and politically charged allusions. In my reading of the text and, more specifically, the range of text I will be covering in this blog post, I was able to uncover at least a few of these cleverly incorporated allusions (albeit after much re-reading and outside research).

The first of these allusions came to mind as I read about the theft of Milford’s truck. In this section, Milford’s truck is taken without his consent or knowledge, and sold to a car dealer named Fred Peterson. The theft is initially reported to a man named Amos who works for the tribal police. When Milford comes across his truck in Peterson’s parking lot, Amos is alerted and proceeds to confront Fred Peterson about the matter. Peterson, however, states that he has a bill of sale with Milford’s signature on it. On the bill of sale, Milford’s name is misspelled as “Melfred”; a clear indication that his signature was forged and the bill of sale was not authentic. Peterson, however, disrespectfully dismisses what Amos is saying and exhibits a  disdain towards both Amos and Milford, as well as the larger community of First Nations people. In response to Amos’ suggestion that the bill of sale was not signed by Milford, Peterson simply states that Milford must have signed it and was likely drunk, desperate for money and/or simply forgotten he signed it. Peterson clearly displays his lack of regard for First Nations people, assuming that these negative character traits can be used to describe Milford (and in general, all First Nations people) and, further, that he has no regard for the ownership of property by First Nations’ individuals. The scenario that transpires between Amos, Milford and Peterson reminded me of past legislation that has served to abolish and show blatant disregard for Aboriginal land claims. In the CanLit guides, Fee and Flick mention, for example, the “Bursum Bill of 1921” which sought to remove land from Pueblos (Native Americans in the Southwestern United States) and give the rights to this land to “non-Indians”. A disregard for the land rights and opinions of First Nations people is also evident in the White Paper of 1969. Similar to the “bill of sale” presented by Peterson, the White Paper and Bursum Bill were not agreed upon by First Nations people. The White Paper was, quite frankly, an act displaying blatant disregard to First Nations peoples’ desires, identities and land claims, as well as a covert means of assimilating First Nations people into a colonial conception of Canadian identity. The misspelling of “Milford” as “MelFRED” stood out to me as a smaller-scale display of this assimilation process.

The CanLit guides proved to be an indispensible resource as I searched for allusions within the text. I would not have known, for example, that Buffalo Bill Bursum was an allusion to two men who were “famous for their hostility to Indians” (CanLit guides). I mentioned the Bursum Bill of 1921 above and this bill was proposed by none other than Holm O. Bursum, a senator from New Mexico. There is some discussion of his lack of regard for Aboriginal land rights above so I will move on… “Buffalo Bill” refers to a man named William F. Cody who was known for exploiting First Nations people for entertainment purposes in “Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Shows”. The shows depicted a “western cowboy” mentality, in which First Nations people were shown as inferior adversaries to the ever-heroic white cowboy! King’s Bursum exhibits these same character traits and discriminatory views of Indians as inherently lesser and, furthermore, as a white man’s entertainment.

Perhaps a more obvious allusion in this section the mention of John Wayne; an actor who often played the “heroic white cowboy” who would defeat the antagonistically depicted First Nations people. These western films and John Wayne’s role as a victor in these films have created a pop-cultural reference point that justifies the depiction of First Nations people as stereotypically defined adversaries and, furthermore, has served to normalize and perpetuate violence and discrimination against First Nations people as well. The narrative put forth in these media depictions is one that favours the colonial settler and positions him/her as the dominant societal figure while diminishing the identity and importance of First Nations peoples. King, in his novel, shifts the narrative by making the First Nations people in the film the victors and bringing John Wayne to an untimely death.

As mentioned, these are only a few of the allusions that I could find/decided to share here! I hope you found this post interesting and informative! Also, please note that due to the confusion surrounding page numbers, this covers pages 300 – 317 in the 2007 edition (the one made available at UBC Bookstore) of Green Grass Running Water! 

Works Cited

The term “Coyote Pedagogy” appears to be an apt term to describe the role of Coyote within the novel. King uses Coyote as a means of conveying a number of important lessons; some I found to be more obvious than others and some that I likely have yet to realize. As much of the questions throughout this course have prompted me to do, I was compelled to do a little background research into the subject matter. A quick search of the role of the trickster within the stories of First Nations’ people led me on an interesting journey, to say the least. Although the role of the trickster seems to vary from story to story, it largely seems to embody a creator who, as Warn puts it, is ever-changing; a transformer. King uses Coyote as a transformer in Green Grass Running Water, I believe, to urge readers to consider stories from various perspectives. As we have been doing throughout the course, Coyote urges us to uncover different stories and narrative voices and, in doing so, allows us to interpret these stories in our own ways.

The role of Coyote is multifaceted. King’s descriptions of Coyote suggest that he is constantly questioning and transcending the boundaries of supposedly established knowledge. Coyote’s questions may be considered uncomfortable by those who are attached to the idea of knowledge as hierarchical and fixed. Consider the following quotation from King:

“There are no truths, Coyote,” I says. “Only stories.”

“Okay,” says Coyote. “Tell me a story.” (326)

What role is Coyote playing in the dialogue shared? My interpretation of the quote is that Coyote serves to help the reader question the frameworks that govern our daily lives. Truth, for example, is being questioned by King through Coyote’s inquisitive nature and the reader, in turn, is being urged to question the truth and the dominant narratives we come to accept as truths. In Green Grass Running Water, Coyote has a dream which takes an enlivened form and calls itself “God”. Coyote, however, refers to the self-proclaimed God as Dog upon seeing that Dog misinterprets the details of the creation stories being told by the nameless narrator of the tale. “Dog” represents the Colonial worldview; a perspective fixated on a singular conception of truth and knowledge. In Coyote’s engagement with this dream-come-to-life, the reader becomes wary of the problems of only being receptive to a singular interpretation and this reminded me of an earlier lesson in which one of the questions asked us to discuss some of the barriers we face in understanding first stories. Coyote’s role is to bring forth the complications of preconceived notions of truth and falsehoods and the oft-held perception that we can only subscribe to a singular conception of truth. Coyote goes beyond being a character and becomes, instead, the guideline you loosely follow in subversion of the hegemony and in pushing the established boundaries.

“A burning bush!” says Coyote.

“Where do you get these things?” I says.

“I read a book” says Coyote.

“Forget the book,” I says. “We’ve got a story to tell. And here’s how it goes.” (King 291)

Forget the book? What an impossible notion for those of us entrapped within western academic discourses! What is King trying to say!? In opting for the telling of an oral story and the “forgetting” of the book, King urges a reclamation of “alternative” voices that have been silenced within the discourses of the colonial encounter. Once again, I believe, Coyote’s encounters are being used to urge the uncovering of non-dominant narratives and to exhibit the relationship between First Nations’ resistance and colonial dominance and further, to not privilege one medium of storytelling over another.

Throughout my research, I happened upon an interesting read in which the author makes a statement that resonated with me: “Coyote, then, helps me to reflect and to gain understandings, challenging and comforting me just like a critical friend” (Archibald 7). As Archibald mentions, Coyote does not draw out understandings for the reader. These understandings are gained from critical reflection and it is up to the reader to uncover these. Do not fear boundaries, they have been created; ask questions and ask them often – that is what I learn from Coyote.

Works Cited

Archibald, Jo-Ann. “Indigenous Storywork.” UBC Press, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 9 Mar. 2015.

Kallu, Shamina. “2.2 – Question 2.” Canada Muffled Voices and National   Narratives. WordPress, 6 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 Mar. 2015.