During this week’s lesson, we explored First Stories. First Stories are the creation stories, typically spoken, by Natives. These stories are told as a way to illustrate their connection to their land. They also act as property, meaning that they belong to the teller. As evident in this week’s lesson, First Stories are very important to Natives, as they are evidence of land ownership. Non-natives are said to have a limited capacity for understanding these stories for three reasons. Firstly, because we actively collect, translate, and publish these stories, which damages the meaning of the story. Also, the social connection aspect of storytelling is negatively impacted. Secondly, with the establishment of the Indian Act, the telling of First Stories was made a criminal act. Thus, between 1880 and 1951, Native peoples were unable to share their stories; instead, they were sent to Residential Schools, which hindered their ability to communicate their stories to not only their families, but to the entirety of Canada.
Unlike the previous two, the third reason is found in Wendy Wickwire’s introduction in Living by Stories. Within this introduction, Wickwire describes her relationship with Harry Robinson in the years before he died. She describes how while listening to Robinson’s stories, she was confused about how often the stories were contradictory to others. She would do independent research, looking into other storytellers as a way to make sense of the crossing lines. However, after years of sitting with his stories, she realised that Robinson was not trying to give her a single narrative. Instead, he was showing her the difference between the aim of Native storytelling and non-Native storytelling. According to Robinson, we – or ‘whites’ – are unable to make meaning of First Stories, because non-Natives are looking for ‘single, communal accounts rooted in the deep-past” (Robinson 29). In contrast, the stories of Natives are loose and fluid, in order to generate more storytelling. As described by Wickwire, Robinson was so adamant in telling fluid stories, because he was more concerned with revealing the message behind each story. This message is that Natives were the ‘original inhabitants’ and they are deeply connected to this land; whereas, ‘whites’ are not connected as they have fraudulently colonised Canada (30). By encouraging more stories, Robinson hoped to get this message out.
During Wickwire’s introduction, we feel how much power Robinson assigned to his stories. As he alludes, ‘whites’ will always miss the true meaning behind First Stories, as we need to organise these accounts and describe them on paper. As Robinson says, ‘For Indians, power was located in their hearts and heads; for whites, it was located on paper” (16). Due to this difference, we are unable to comprehend the total meaning of First Stories.
Works Cited
“A history of residential schools in Canada.” CBC News, 16 May 2008, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280. Accessed 5 Oct 2016.
Grass, Starleigh. ‘Reconciliation and Education.’ YouTube, uploaded by TEDx talks, 28 Oct 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu0aIw1vdiE.
Robinson, Harry, and Wendy C. Wickwire. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Vancouver: Talon, 2005. Print.
Anne Tastad
October 12, 2016 — 6:45 pm
Hi there,
When reading your blog post I couldn’t help but feel hung up, so to speak, on something specific you said. In your post you mention that one of the reasons non-aboriginal peoples are prevented from fully appreciating First Stories is that these people collect, translate, and publish their stories, and that, ultimately, this damages the meanings of our stories. I have to disagree, or at least point out for the sake of argument, that it is perhaps limiting to view all stories that have been collected and published in translation as “damaged.” I think it’s undeniable that meaning is sometimes lost in the translation from one language to another, but besides this particular example can we really say with certainty that stories are worsened or improved when mediated in different ways? I think one of the greatest things about literature and storytelling is that there is variety and difference; not all stories are passed on the same way or structured the same way but this variation of expression is part of what attracts us to stories both as readers, listeners, writers, and tellers. I think it’s important to consider: is a story truly damaged simply because it is transcribed? That story is likely altered, but is difference tantamount to damage?
What do you think?
Anne
TillieStainsbyAnderson
October 25, 2016 — 2:00 am
Hi Anne,
Thank you for your response! I really respect your view. In regards to my comment, I was not representing my view, but analysing Wickwire’s feelings on first stories. So, I do agree with you that it is limiting to only listen to stories that originate in your own culture. Perhaps I should have been more specific with my feelings on her comments. Thank you for pointing that out!
mikauber
October 12, 2016 — 10:32 pm
Hey!
After reading your comment I decided to stop by and check out your response to the question (that I also wrote on). I’m glad I did, it was a a good read and made me think about the question from a different perspective. I had not given much thought to the different aims in Native and non-Native storytelling. It makes sense that a storyteller who is more concerned with the underlying message of a story would tell more fluid stories, whereas a story that is told with a single, communal narrative in mind would be more rigid and precise in detail. I’m curious about your initial response to Robinson’s stories in the introduction. Was there anything in particular that struck you about their structure or content?
TillieStainsbyAnderson
October 25, 2016 — 2:03 am
Hi! Thanks for your comment.
I was intrigued by Robinson’s image of Coyote over other Native story tellers. It reminded me of “Western” figures that we create narratives for – for instance, fairy tales.
It seems that Robinson used Coyote to convey a lesson, instead of actually telling an account of his life.