Logically, there can only be one creation story taken as truth. Otherwise, it would be inherently contradicted by any other creation story. People have used false dichotomies to argue for the truth of their preferred creation story, but as explained in this video by carneades.org, there is also a third option of another deity creating the world, or even a fourth, being the Big Bang Theory (here’s an interesting story going into more detail on the scientific creation theory).
Thomas King presents two creation stories in the either/or scenario, suggesting that one is more believable over the other. He sets up the dichotomy of the collaboration-focused ‘The Earth Diver’ and the hierarchical ‘Genesis’ tales, operating under the idea that one must choose which story to believe in to make his point.
King presents his readers with this choice to illustrate the fundamental difference between European and Native cultures:due to the nature of oral storytelling, Indigenous stories are generally more subjective and adaptable, with an emphasis on collaboration, while European stories are based almost entirely on this hierarchical structure, reflecting and justifying their societal values. He also uses the correspondingly anticipated voice to tell each of the creation myths, the storyteller voice for ‘The Earth Diver’ and the authoritative voice for ‘Genesis.’ These different voices accentuate the oral tradition and rationalistic values of the respective cultures.
European society was originally structured according to monarchy and class divisions, falling into the hierarchy perpetrated by the Genesis creation story. This sense of human superiority is inherent to this structure, and within that is an individualistic superiority.
Sure, life might suck right now, but at least there’s someone worse off than me. If I behave like a good Christian, I’ll get into heaven. Someone else is a worse Christian than me, so they’re going to hell.
As King says, “we [are], certainly, the most arrogant” (28).
In contrast, the creation story of ‘The Earth Diver’ highlights the effectiveness of cooperation. This is not to say that there wasn’t a semblance of hierarchy in the many Indigenous tribes in North America, but it does suggest that this hierarchy wasn’t a core value, and therefore not as rigid or as integral to their sense of self identity as it was for the Europeans.
King has spent this particular chapter of the book discussing the power and effect of stories, and this dichotomy between the authoritative Genesis and the more casual Earth Diver exemplifies the purchase that the mode of storytelling can have. As King says, “As for stories such as the Woman Who Fell from the Sky, well, we listen to them and then we forget them, for amidst the thunder of Christian monologues, they have neither purchase nor place” (21). The Christian creation story is almost invariably told with the same rigid tone that brooks no argument, while any Indigenous creation myth isn’t taken seriously outside of the tribe it is important to, as King quotes Basil Johnston (23).
The way we tell a story almost always mirrors the values within the story itself. King contrasts and dichotomizes these two creation myths to show, rather than tell, the reader this lesson, while also subtly hinting at the subject of the next chapter, wherein he discusses the White Man’s Indian. The relationship here is in the absolute conviction in his beliefs, to the point of stupidity, of the white or European man. The Genesis tale and the Ideal Indian are both stories created and unwaveringly accepted by White Men, as both fictions uphold their sense of superiority and hierarchy, their place as close to the top as they can reach.
WORKS CITED
Carneades.org. “False Dichotomy (Logical Fallacy).” Online Video Clip. Youtube, 18 Feb 2014. Web. 7 Oct 2016.
Holliday, Dan. “How do atheists explain the Earth’s formation?” Quora. 4 Jan 2015. Web. 7 Oct 2016.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.
Hi Madelaine,
I really liked your post because as you emphasized this difference between the hierarchical divisions in the European culture, and the “effectiveness of cooperation” noted in the Indigenous culture, it brought up the terms individualism and collectivism. I began thinking of the Europeans as a culture filled with individualists, people solely looking out for themselves and as you talked about hierarchy this created the image of trampling on another man or woman to get to where one wants to be: superiority, If we look at the Indigenous people in connection to collectivism, this priority of group over individual, can we then assume that the story told by the group holds more truth than the story told by the individual? I say this because the story told by the individual wanting superiority will say whatever to get to that higher position; whether this be filled with truth or lies.
That’s an interesting idea, the deviousness inherent to the hierarchical structure. For centuries, though, that structure was pretty darn rigid. You could lose your place easily in losing your wealth, but it was nearly impossible to move up in society. I would assume, though, that those who were able to make the climb had to be incredibly persistent and willing to stop at almost nothing in order to make that step.
I’m not sure that I would say any version has more inherent truth than another, but perhaps that some versions have worse intentions. (If God intended the universe to have this hierarchy, then who dares oppose His will? This line of thinking leads to far less dissent among the commoners.)
Hi,
I felt that you blog post was wonderfully written, and a real pleasure to read. I think it was very appropriate of you to begin the post with a brief reference to false dichotomies. One of the things that King’s juxtaposition of creation stories really underscored, for me, was the hugely problematic, destructive qualities inherent in rigid dichotomies. A culture, like western Judeochristian culture, that is founded on dichotomies of male/female, right/wrong, good/evil, sacred/profane, propagates an absolutist, fatalist mindset that can lead to great personal and communal suffering. A less absolutist worldview, by contrast, one which embraces plurality and fluidity across boarders, appears far more healthy and productive; as you note, people in a culture of this sort work together rather than against one another. Thus, it seems to me that this is the message we really need to take from King’s juxtaposition: the violence inherent in dichotomized thinking.
If this is a subject you’re at all interested in I would really recommend The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin. It’s a science fiction novel that ambitiously tries to work against the most fundamental facet of western thought, by imagining a world in which the male/female dichotomy does not exist.
Thanks for your comment! I have to say I’m not a fan of the male/female dichotomy, so that book sounds amazing. I’ve only read one book by LeGuin before (and it was awhile ago) but I remember enjoying it, so I’ll be sure to check it out! I love scifi! Thanks!
Hello Madelaine,
I enjoyed reading through your blog post which responded to the same question that I was also interested in investigating. I found that we both agree that the dichotomy-based ideas of Creation stories seem to be “false” ones. In this sense, do you think the logic that “there can only be one creation story taken as truth” is problematic? If the logic is considered relevant, the monotheism-based dichotomy between Creation stories is very likely to emerge, with inherent contradictions in-between involved, as only ONE story can be “truly” and “logically” sacred. However, in the case where the dichotomy is claimed to be “false”, the believability of all Creation stories you mentioned are therefore all acknowledged, which will be against the logic concerned. What do you make of the relationships between the logic and the dichotomy?
Moreover, your essay seems to suggest that King intended to make the First Nations story sound more believable than the Christian Genesis through demonstrating the differences in-between. Do you think this is what King wanted to do, being in favour of the First story by undermining the Christian one and prompting the readers or audience to choose one over the other within the dichotomy? I look forward to hearing from you!
Thanks,
Patrick
Hey Patrick! Thanks for your comment. In my opinion, I think most ideological dichotomies tend to lack logic, since usually there are other options beyond what is proposed by the dichotomy. I don’t think King would want to prompt the reader to choose one over the other. He probably operated under the assumption that most if not all of his readers would be familiar with the story of Genesis, and wanted to present them with another viable alternative to the Christian creation story, which has permeated much of Western culture.
Much like how the way a story is told reflects its values, I think the believability of a story (especially a creation story) depends upon the values of the rstoryteller (and therefore whether they believe it) and upon those of the reader (and therefore how receptive they are to alternatives to their accepted stories).
Thanks again!
Madelaine