Describe how King uses the cyclical paradigm (recurring example) of the Medicine Wheel (and a little help from Coyote) to teach us to understand, or at least to try to understand the power behind the stories we tell ourselves.

*************************************************************************

The Native Americans view the medicine wheel as a pathway to truth, peace, and harmony. These are also three themes Thomas King strings into his novel, Green Grass, Running Water. The medicine wheel is based off of color, direction, and elements. The medicine wheel is an integral part of Native American spirituality and Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water

There is no doubt that King wants us to work to get the story. Personally, it took me a good amount of research and help from other scholars to wrap my head around this hugely metaphorical book.  With that in mind – I took something different, than my classmates away from the book. While the words written on the page of the book are the same, my theories and understandings of it will differ from yours. Why is that? Well the story and the narrative are two different things. This book is a narration of Indigenous theories and beliefs.  That being said, after reading some of my classmate’s blogs I have come to see that while everyone may understand the general story but – each of us has our own interpretation. We all read the exact same text, but it has come to give different meanings to all of us, there is a different between a story and a narrative.

It’s essential when it comes to organizing and making sense of narrative and the way people deploy or use them. Stories are pieces that can come and go, change, and morph, but the narrative remains. When the narrative shows great resilience, we have “master narratives,” meaning narratives that have endured the test of time and become deeply embedded in culture. These are the most important narratives in strategic communication. People make use of them all the time. The narrative provided by the medicine wheel in Indigenous teaching allows for the obtaining of knowledge through interpretations of the story.

In many Indigenous cultures, the Medicine Wheel metaphor contains all of the traditional teachings and can therefore be used as a guide on any journey, including the educational process. While there is some variation in its teachings and representations, the underlying web of meaning to Medicine Wheels remains the same: the importance of appreciating and respecting the ongoing interconnectedness and interrelatedness of all things. The medicine wheel is the narrative.

The story, on the other hand, is coupled with our interpretation of what is being said. Stories are important, but not as important as the narrative. Indigenous knowledge is attained by choosing to do what is necessary to obtain multiple perspectives from which to view the world. This in-depth searching for knowledge is what leads to wisdom – becoming aware of the learning through all the senses, requiring the learning to be introduced to the students in multiple modalities – giving multiple ‘stories’.

Keep in mind that oral storytelling is perhaps the earliest method for sharing narratives, we see this practiced throughout aboriginal. During most people’s childhoods, narratives are used to guide them on proper behavior, cultural history, formation of a communal identity, and values, as especially studied in anthropology today among traditional indigenous peoples. Narratives may also be nested within other narratives, such as narratives told by an unreliable narrator (a character) typically found in fiction genre. An important part of narration is the narrative mode, the set of methods used to communicate.The structure of Green Grass, Running Water symbolizes a circle like the medicine wheel, Coyote’s voice helps in achieving this. Each part starts the way it ends. On p. 1 it says, “In the beginning, there was nothing. Just the water.” It also starts with the story of Coyote. On p. 107, the last page in part one, King is back to Coyote and the last two lines read, “In the beginning there was nothing. Just the water.”  The whole book starts with I, Coyote, and the topic of water and the whole book ends with I, Coyote, and water. It also ends literally with water because the damn breaks. The narration is the theory of the medicine wheel – it should not change, it is the theory. The story emphasizes the power of words to each individual who reads them.

“To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing” (Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson and explain why it is important

***************************************************************************************

I think the topic of authenticity is really relevant today. I understand that the context on which we are learning about it is different than in say, the American Presidential race, but the fundamentals are the same.

In a ted talk about authenticity, Brown, a researcher, discusses how, in order to understand authenticity, you must widen your perception. I think this is a great point. Authenticity is a challenge. Not only to those trying to portray it, but also to those judging it. The same story can come across so differently, depending on who you are. The biggest job of authenticity is to create a connection, make yourself vulnerable, show the true you or the true idea and see what follows. I think this is something that the aboriginal community does as a whole. They are very proud of their history, traditions and culture. That being said, authenticity is something they struggle with.

Stories of their (Salish)  past are told orally. There are a few reasons for this. The first and most obvious is when the stories began, there was a lack of literacy. If the story was written it couldn’t reach everyone. Another great point is, like with authenticity, stories can be observed and judged in very different ways. Through using an experienced story teller, you can control the narrative. Which brings me to the most important and, to me, curious part about orally telling stories. If the story is told badly, or the storyteller does not have all the facts, then the story is not told at all. Telling it wrong would be insulting to the people. My issue with this is over generations it could be like a game of broken telephone. Not on purpose of course, they all work extremely hard to preserve their narrative, but there will always be an element of human error. So one of two things can happen. Either the story teller realizes they do not have all the details and refuse to tell it..losing the culture that accompanies that story (surely they must know some of it) OR through this broken telephone the story unintentionally completely changes. Obviously both of these would be considered failures, but I don’t see a way to mitigate the risks and ensure an outcome of factual historical stories that will continue for generation.

Obviously writing down the stories would help, but there is a long list of reasons why this is not something that happens regularly. Orality does certainly have its strengths, but they depend largely on the situation it is used in. This is why not just anyone can tell the story, those tasked with doing so hold a large responsibility. Oral tradition is, therefore, a collective enterprise. A narrator does not generally hold singular authority over a story. The nuances evident in distinct versions of a specific history represent a broader understanding of the events and the various ways people have internalized them. Often, oral histories must be validated by the group. This stems from the principle that no one person can lay claim to an entire oral history. Narrators will also “document” the histories they tell by citing the source of their knowledge, such as a great grandparent or an elder. Such collective responsibility and input maintains the accuracy of the historical record.

I think the most key part to all of this is that storytelling is reserved for certain individuals. This is one way they Salish people have worked to improve authenticity in their story. One of the worst things that has happened to their history is European interruption. Settlers not only distorted their stories, but decades later, when they tried to tell the story as a form of tourism, they insulted the people and cut ties even further. There are few things more disrespectful then misrepresenting their cultural stories. Our sad attempt to make a connection actually severed our weak connection further.

All of this is to say that I do think authenticity is in the eyes of the beholder. I may see the exact same story in a different light than you. But to the Salish people, authenticity of their culture is a communal and unified understanding. One that is the very definition of who they are as people. For them there is no variance – just right and wrong. It is a concept that I find hard to relate to but I can understand. After all, I don’t have much of a “cultural” background and if I did, I know I would want to work hard to preserve it. So really, when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the only tool the Salish people have for preserving their culture is truly authentic stories.