Question: “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 Indian Act is purposely designed to assimilate us. It is meant to sever the generations. The Act is working its purpose, through provisions concerning land, elections, membership, commerce and education. It cuts us from those future relationships. We can not take account of the seventh generation if the Indian Act continues to remove them from us. […] I also look for guidance in the other direction, seven generations back. My grandmothers and grandfathers also have something to teach me about eliminating the Indian Act.”

             — John Burrows,
Seven Generations, Seven Teachings – Ending the Indian Act (3)

For thousands of years, Indigenous people lived on the lands now known as Canada without the legislation of the Indian Act. ”As First Nations we lived free from its constraints. We observed laws that encouraged us to be wise, humble, respectful, truthful, brave, loving, and honest in our dealings with others. Other people did not define our citizenship. We held our land in accordance with our own traditions.” (Burrows 1).

Most Canadians are vaguely familiar with the Indian Act, whether they know it or not. Canadians know that many Indigenous people live on reserves (which are legislated through the Indian Act). Canadians know that many Indigenous people pay different taxes (because of their Indian Status, which is legislated through the Indian Act). Canadians know that Indigenous people face injustice and inequality (much of which is a product of violence inflicted through the removal of Indigenous people from their homelands, restrictions on their rights to move freely, and misrepresentation or lack of representation in government- a result, in large part, of the Indian Act).

To begin, see this meme project on the Indian Act for a straightforward summary with dates of some of the harmful policy enacted on Indigenous people through the Act, much of which is still in effect today.

The Indian Act, 1876

The primary concern of the Indian Act, first enacted by the Crown in 1876, is “Indians and land reserved for Indians” (Coulthard). To be clear, this legislation was imposed on Indigenous people and lands for the benefit of the colonizers- the benefit of Canada.

In her book As We Have Always Done, Anishnaabe scholar Leanne Simpson explains: “colonizers wanted the land. Everything else, whether it is legal or policy or economic or social, whether it was the Indian Act or residential schools or gender violence, was part of the machinery that was designed to create a perfect crime – a crime where the victims [Indigenous people, as well as colonizers/ settlers] are unable to see or name the crime as a crime,” (Simpson, 15).

The Indian Act came as a result of the Gradual Civilization Act, 1857, and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, 1869, both with the goal of taking away Indigenous rights and enfranchising or assimilating Indigenous people into the Canadian body politic (but only those deemed adequate – read: male, able to read and write in English or French, deemed “civil” according to non-Indigenous Indian Agents).

The Indian Act, a product of the aforementioned acts, had and has the ultimate goal of assimilation “by eliminating all aspects of Indian difference: spiritual, economic, political, gender and land relations,” (Coulthard). As Tanya Talaga writes, it is “a federal statute that governs every aspect of an Indigenous person’s life, from land management to education to cultural ceremony and even status and identity. It is a registry of all First Nations people in Canada. Those who have proven status – based on the Government of Canada’s strict criteria – are given a ten-digit number signifying that they have been sanctioned as official Indians and are kept on a roll. The policy also kept First Nations on reserves allocated on Crown land and sanctioned the cruel removal of children from their families, their communities, to be sent to one of the 139 Indian Residential Schools across the country. The Indian Act has been described as a form of apartheid, controlling Indigenous people’s lives to this very day,” (Talaga 64).

The Indian Act was created to exercise colonial control on Indigenous people, and domination over lands and governance. “The Indian Act makes it easier to control us: where we live, how we choose leaders, how we live under those leaders, how we learn, how we trade, and what happens to our possessions and relations when we die,” (Burrows, 5).

In addition to imposing the reserve system which confined Indigenous people to small tracts of land, the Act also imposed Status which is a federally-mandated determination of who and who is not Indigenous. Until 1985 when Bill C-31 came into effect, Indigenous women who married non-Status men (including Metis or Inuit), lost their status, their children’s status and rights to live with their communities. The effects of this legislation are still deeply felt by women and their children who were pushed out of their communities. Additionally, women were excluded from political participation under the Indian Act from 1876-1951 (Simpson 105), with detrimental effects to their Indigenous governance models, many of which were matriarchal pre-Indian Act. I can barely begin to summarize the violence imposed on women, queer and Two-Spirit people through the Indian Act here or its lingering effects on Indigenous women, queer and Two-Spirit people today. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson offers a powerful summary in her book As We Have Always Done, in the chapter titled The Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples’ Bodies. Her decolonial work needs to be upheld all across the lands we know as Canada. Please take time with her words.

Back to the Indian Act…

For those who remained on reserve, governance shifted dramatically under the Act which imposed a Band and Council system. Shin Imai elaborates: “in order to ‘assimilate’ Indians, the Indian Act gave the government the power to override traditional methods of governance. In the case of Six Nations in Ontario, for example, the government used its power to overthrow the traditional Haudenosaunee Council in 1924 and replace it with a Chief and Council elected under the Indian Act. This was against the wishes of the majority of the members of Six Nations. Even, today, the vast majority of the residents of Six Nations refuse to participate in Indian Act elections,” (Imai 4).

Additionally, the Minister of Indian Affairs had the power to overrule Band Council legislation without reason, and in some cases, still can today. In 1995, the government of Canada affirmed the inherent right for self-government of First Nations, done on a case by case basis, which is often costly and rarely favourable for First Nations. This came at the time of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, calling for new relationships between Indigenous people and Canada, in part, a result of the Meech Lake Accord and the Oka Crisis. RCAP recognized nearly 90 provisions where the Minister of Indian Affairs has powers over the Band and Band Council (Imai).

Self-governance is too often defined or restricted by colonial terms and comes after  a costly, lengthly court procedure where Indigenous nations need to prove their land base and traditional governance under colonial definitions, but it is what Indigenous communities need and many have reached or are working towards. “Negotiated self-government agreements remove much of the power of the Department of Indian Affairs and require more accountability by Chief and Council to community members. Even Bands under the Indian Act are moving in that direction […] [by] creating their own custom election codes,” (Imai 10).

Under the Criminal Code of Canada and United Nations definitions, some Indian Act policy is considered genocidal. For example the forced attempts to kill a culture by removing women (repealed in 1985 under Bill C-31) and banning potlaches, sundances, and other cultural ceremony (ending in 1951).

We must recognize Indigenous resilience in the face of ongoing settler-colonial violence and genocidal practices. Simpson reminds us that, even when outlawed, cultural practices persisted. She says, “our cultural practices were hidden from the surveillance of Indian Act authorities because they embodied our political practices, because they were powerful, and regenerating language, ceremony, and land based practices is always political,” (Simpson, 50).

Dismantling the Indian Act

Decolonization: “transforming the colonial outside into a flourishment of the Indigenous inside.”

                                                                                                                           — Leanne Simpson
                                                                                                             Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back

“If the Indian Act is going to be eliminated in a way that benefits First Nations people, goodness must lie at the root of such change.”

                                                                                                                             — John Burrows
                                                 Seven Generations, Seven Teachings – Ending the Indian Act (8)

“As a father of two daughters, he [Alvin Fiddler, Nishnaabe Aski Nation Grand Chief] wants to live to see the day when their existence is no longer legitimized by assigned numbers or dictated by the federal government, effectively making them wards of the state.
Alvin believes it is not up to the government to determine who is Indigenous and who is not.
Belonging is not theirs to give.”

— Tanya Talaga
                                                                                                             All Our Relations (198)

Trudeau’s White Paper, 1969

At first glance, the White Paper may have appeared productive. It promised to eliminate the Indian Act, recognize First Nations contributions to Canada, offer services to Indigenous people equal to those of all Canadians, and transfer control of Indigenous lands to Indigenous people as private property. However, the proposed “solution” failed, as it did not guarantee specific rights (specifically collective title to the land) nor unique (sui generis) status to Indigenous people and communities and was not created collaboratively with Indigenous people- rather, it was yet another effort at assimilation.

Comprehensive Treaty Process, 1973

Established to address Indigenous land rights, bands who complete the Comprehensive Treaty Process are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act (such as the Nisga’a whose territories I’m writing from today). The ultimate goal, however, was to open up clarity for Canada to pursue economic development mainly through extraction on Indigenous lands through the process of extinguishment of Indigenous people from their lands. To make this process very difficult, Canada’s expectation of proving Aboriginal title (maps, written documentation) do not always align with Indigenous ways of knowing (oral histories, toponyms). It is through lengthly court battles, such as the Calder Case, that nations such as the Nisga’a have had their oral histories recognized as legitimate and been able to sign modern treaties.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2007

Included in this commission, with a focus on bringing light and justice to the harms of the Canadian residential school system, were 94 calls to action, many of which are being worked towards nation-wide today. However, there appears to be a selectiveness with the calls to action; a preference for reconciliation, too-often defined by non-Indigenous institutions, and a forgetting of the importance of truth; a preference for the uplifting of cultures, rather than the return of land and rights, such as what would be possible through a legally-binding UNDRIP (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People).

 The current government refers correctly to the Indian Act as a patriarchal piece of legislation, yet it hasn’t been dismantled. Today, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has moved away from explicit domination, to more subtle acts of selected recognition of Indigenous self-determination and self-governance. Under Trudeau, the country’s first Indigenous Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, was demoted in her attempt to uphold justice.

In so-called Canada, where the violence of imposed white civility through the nation-building project is alive and well, we can learn from Nelson Mandela who said, “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” This includes the surrender of settler-Canadian land, power, and privilege to Indigenous people, which includes the dismantling of the Indian Act. This work involves deep listening, patience, and a willingness to let go of power so Indigenous people can take what is rightfully theirs – their land, their bodies, their fullest sense of agency. Settler-Canada must trust that justice will work out better for us all- and Indigenous people must know and feel the justice they’ve always deserved.

(note: Listen to MediaIndigena Ep. 124 & 125 to learn about Trudeau’s “solution” to the Indian Act – the Indigenous Rights, Recognition and Implementation Framework – a set of laws and policies that would indefinitely change Indigenous rights in the country. Hayden King and Shiri Pasternak offer a strong primer and critique of the policy which was drafted in collaboration with Jody Wilson-Raybould.)

Works Cited

Burrows, John. “Seven Generations, Seven Teachings – Ending the Indian Act,” National Centre for First Nations Governance. May, 2008.

Canada. “Indian Act”. February 14, 2019. Accessed at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-5.pdf

CBC Books. “As We Have Always Done – Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.” August 14, 2017. Accessed at: https://www.cbc.ca/books/as-we-have-always-done-1.4433527

CBC Radio. “Years after Oka, Mohawk activist Ellen Gabriel says Indigenous people still treated as ‘dispensable’.” November 13, 2018. Accessed at: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-50th-anniversary-special-friday-1.4903581/years-after-oka-mohawk-activist-ellen-gabriel-says-indigenous-people-still-treated-as-dispensable-1.4903609

Coulthard, Glen. “FNSP Intro Lecture” (Georgia’s personal notes). 2014.

Galloway, Gloria. “Elijah Harper, First Nations leader who brought down Meech Lake, dies at 64,” The Globe and Mail. May 11, 2018. Accessed at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elijah-harper-first-nations-leader-who-brought-down-meech-lake-dies-at-64/article11988959/

Hamilton, Taryn. “Indian Act Meme Project,” Otahpiaaki. Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. Accessed at: https://www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-art

Harp, Rick. “Is Canada’s newest solution to the Indian Act worse than the problem? (With Hayden King and Shiri Pasternak)” MediaIndigena: Ep. 125. July 26, 2018. Podcast. Accessed at: https://mediaindigena.libsyn.com/ep-125-is-canadas-newest-solution-to-the-indian-act-worse-than-the-problem-part-2

Imai, Shin. “The structure of the Indian Act: accountability in governance.” National Centre for First Nations Governance. July, 2007.

Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. “As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance.” University of Minnesota Press. 2017. Print.

Talaga, Tanya. “All Our Relations: Finding the Path Forward.” CBC Massey Lectures, Anansi Press. 2018. Print.

Tyee Staff. “On the record: Jody Wilson-Raybould’s Devastating Testimony of the SNC-Lavalin Scandal.” February 27, 2019. Accessed at: https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/02/27/On-the-Record-Jody-Wilson-Rayboulds-Devastating-Testimony-on-the/?utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0FjEFiu-3_MVSU7geoXzDDycSz-jWw2ZonnPbFfNnIZlZK7Dm4YVHtL3Y

“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 the 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.”

To curb the silence of my days, I gravitated to this question. Unfortunately, I had nobody but my dog to read Harry Robinson’s Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England to, and there was nobody to read it to me. But, alone, I read it three times, each time uncovering new pieces of information and, I think, hearing Robinson’s voice louder; more clearly.

The first time was before I had read the blog questions. I found myself reading aloud. Having read the introduction of Living by Stories and understanding that each story was orated to Wendy Wickwire, it made sense to me to read aloud; to listen for Robinson’s voice, or at least to develop a voice which I imagine to be like his.

In his article Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial, Thomas King refers to Robinson’s writing as interfusional, his term to describe “that part of Native literature which is a blending of oral literature and written literature,” (King 186). King tells us that often when oral literature is translated to English, the voice of the storyteller and the relationship to the storyteller are lost but, “by forcing the reader to read aloud, Robinson’s prose, to a large extent, avoids this loss, recreating at once the storyteller and the performance,” (King 186).

Robinson accomplishes this in many ways. Like with structure, his use of short, sometimes repetitive sentences, cueing the reader to imagine Robinson pensive; taking time as he offers the story. Sometimes, the structure is circular, returning to a detail several times before moving along, or slowly adding details while also using repetition: “Because whoever made that law, one of ’em was black and the other one was white. See, that’s the king, that was white. And Coyote was black—was an Indian. “Black and White.” They made that law. That’s the reason why they call that book, “Black and White,” the law, they call the law, “Black and White,” (Robinson). The slowed pace allows listeners to absorb details.

Performance is also developed through Robinson’s frequent use of “and” to begin sentences, indicative, to me, of realizing in the moment the importance of adding new details. We are there with him. Absorbed. Waiting for more.

Or Robinson’s direct engagement with the listener, through questions or assertions which, maybe with Wickwire, were responded to with nods or gesture. He asks, “do you know what the Angel was? Do you know? The Angel, God’s Angel, you know,” (Robinson). And, admittedly, I don’t know. This is a loss from reading his story in a book. In person I might’ve furrowed my brow, and Robinson would’ve known to elaborate. Or maybe he would’ve left me to fill the details.

Performance is also developed beyond painting a picture of the Coyote story itself; readers are led to envision the story telling when Robinson inserts himself and his gestures. When describing seeing the “Black and White,” Robinson states: “they was big, about this long and about this wide,” (Robinson) leading the reader to visualize Robinson and the way his hands were able to describe the size of the books.

Robinson shapes meaning through these techniques by reminding readers that storytelling is relational. Our relationship to the teller, to the content, to the place, all influence our understanding and the level of importance we place on the story. “For the non-Native reader, this literature provides a limited and particular access to a Native world, allowing the reader to associate with that world without being encouraged to feel a part of it,” (King 187-188).

An opportunity for settlers to be in relationship without trying to become.

An opportunity for Indigenous people to be reminded of the “continuing values of our cultures,”(King 188).

King would likely refer to this piece of storytelling as associational, as it is Native-centred and “a fiction that de-values heroes and villains in favour of the members of a community, a fiction which eschews judgements and conclusions,” (King 187) and, though it is dynamic, it tends to avoid “ubiquitous climaxes,” which King says non-Native stories adore (King 187).

A question for you: I’ve always read, even in my head, with different voices, rhythms, intonation, pauses. When I read, I hear a voice (either created by my imagination, influenced by people I’ve met, seen or heard, or based on the voice of the writer, from interviews, readings or videos).
Do you hear a voice? Do you create a voice? Or is reading ever flat, monotone? I know that when I read monotone, I am not grasping the words; not offering attention or care, but I’ve heard people read like this (I’m sympathetic to the fact it might have to do with comprehension, or fear), but I also wonder to what level a reader animates a reading and whether we’re able to perceive how we do this, how we voice what we read, in relation to other readers?

___

Thanks for joining me. May we learn to listen deeply.

Works Cited

CBC Radio. ‘Our literatures matter because we do,’ says Indigenous author Daniel Heath Justice. March 16, 2018. Radio/ Online.

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

Swiftwolfe, Dakota. Indigenous Ally Toolkit. Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy Network, 2019. Online.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. E-Book.

 

Question: “In this lesson I say that our capacity for understanding or making meaningfulness from the first stories is seriously limited for numerous reasons and I briefly offer two reasons why this is so:
1) the social process of the telling is disconnected from the story and this creates obvious problems for ascribing meaningfulness, and
2) the extended time of criminal prohibitions against Indigenous peoples telling stories combined with the act of taking all the children between 5 – 15 away from their families and communities.
In Wickwire’s introduction to Living By Stories, find a third reason why, according to Robinson, our abilities to make meaning from first stories and encounters is so seriously limited.”

Before beginning, I will clarify the parts of the question where I have lingering questions; where I am required to make assumptions.

Who is our? Who is us?

I can safely assume that “our” means the students in this course. “Our” might also refer to Canadians. It might refer to Indigenous people, it might not. I am only part Indigenous. It matters to how I understand the world, but I don’t identify that way because I am not close to a specific community; I never have been (yet- though I intend to spend time in and around South Indian Lake in the next couple years). I haven’t heard “the first stories” from my Cree kin because I’ve lived apart from my grandma and her relatives my whole life but, I wonder, would I lack ability to make meaning of those stories?

What are first stories? Are they creation stories? Are they reminiscent of Franz Boas “fixation on the deep past” (Robinson)? Are they the first stories that were recorded in writing throughout the lands we now know as Canada? Are they the first stories that were told here, or are they stories told now about the beginning of time, or are they both? Are they any and all stories told by First Nations people? Can anybody define what is or isn’t a first story?

Back to the question- why is our capacity for understanding or making meaningfulness from the first stories seriously limited? I will respond in three parts.

“Indians and whites derived their power from two completely different sources. For Indians, power was located in their hearts and heads; for whites, it was located on paper.” (Robinson)

1. “The social process of the telling is disconnected from the story and this creates obvious problems for ascribing meaningfulness,” (Paterson).
   

   Relational storytelling among friends and family – informed by time and space

   Story telling is a relational act. When we read stories, especially as a class assignment, we are less likely to be invested in the story and in the relationship to the teller than if we were sharing space. As readers, we are unknown to the storyteller and our own voices, experiences, history and knowledge shadow our reading.
   Lost is the honour of hearing the tone, intonation, the pauses in between; we miss the hand gestures, eye contact, or lack thereof; we miss the moments before, after, and in between; we miss the place where the story is told; we miss shared time.
   As listeners, it is our role to receive stories. As good listeners, we understand the importance of reciprocity. Something is given in return, whether it be presence, tea, a meal, a story in exchange, the ability to carry that story with us lighting, from then on, the way we move through the world (this happens in subtle and radical ways). Reciprocity is better understood through relational storytelling. Through shared moments and shared space.

2. “The extended time of criminal prohibitions against Indigenous peoples telling stories combined with the act of taking all the children between 5 – 15 away from their families and communities,” (Paterson).

   Indigenous families, communities, and nations ability to be together and well has been gravely fractured through the horrors of colonialism and settler colonialism. But, importantly, people, communities and nations have resisted. Strength remains, in abundance, despite the ongoing violences of colonialism and the inter-generational trauma of colonialism, due to dislocation, residential schools, and discriminatory and inhumane government policy which attempted to diminish Indigenous cultures, languages, ways of life, and ability to be together.When we are well, we have time and space for stories – to share and to listen. Fear and internalization – when colonized peoples internalize the message told to them by their oppressor (that their stories and ways of knowing are invalid) – are both barriers to storytelling. Beyond that, the settler state has been attempting, systematically, to diminish Indigenous cultures, pride and connection to lands and life ways for over 150 years.The government of Canada, the provincial governments, municipal governments, the church, and settler-Canadians have committed genocide and violence on Indigenous people, reducing their ability to be together, be well, and to share stories. This has happened in a myriad of ways, including but not at all limited to:

• Potlach ban, Sundance ban – gatherings to reaffirm creation stories, governance, to enact law, to celebrate, to mourn
• banning of Indians gathering in groups
• the Indian Act as a whole
• Reserve system, Pass system – essentially locking people up. Keeping them from being free on their lands, which are inherently connected to their stories and ways of knowing.
• Dislocation of Indigenous people from their lands
• The destruction of Indigenous lands for profit, and also, the imposition of capitalism on Indigenous communities without consent
• Residential schools and boarding schools – where the goal was to “kill the Indian in the child,” as said by Duncan Campbell Scott
• Children STILL having to move away from their homelands for schooling
• 60s scoop- and the fact that EVEN MORE Indigenous children are in care today
• Imposition of Christianity
• Imposition of English and French – stories are embedded in language. Stories lose meaning when translated.
• Population decimations, such as through smallpox, insufficient medical care for disease brought in by settlers
• Disproportionate incarceration rates
• MMIWColonialism continues to interrupt indigenous people’s ability to be together and to be well.
  
  3. Because the West has been attached to a made-up idea of the mythic Indian, rather than an evolving and diverse people. “The ‘mythteller’—the bearer of the single, communal accounts rooted in the deep past.” (Robinson) — and this doesn’t exist!

  Though Harry Robinson doesn’t explicitly say it himself, it is suggested through the introduction to Living By Stories that “our” ability to let first stories resonate deeply is fractured by the West’s attachment to a mythic idea of who/ what an Indigenous person is, and what Indigenous stories should be like (ie, set in the past). This idea has been built upon through film, television, and advertising depicting a variety of Indian tropes (wise, stoic, noble savage, ecological/ one with nature, Indian princess, cowboy vs. Indians, etc) representing “some overarching, static, ideal type of culture, detached from its pragmatic and socially positioned moorings among real people.” (Robinson).

  In The Truth About Stories, Thomas King hypothesizes why so many Indigenous authors write in the present- to respond to the world’s attachment to the dead Indian; to represent the ever-evolving, diverse lives of Indigenous people today. Wendy Wickwire discusses her own influence from Franz Boas and the stories he deemed important thus publishable, mostly pre-contact stories. Initially, Wickwire let this influence her choices in which stories of Robinson’s were worthy of sharing, but she has let go of this attachment.

  Harry Robinson responds to attachments to the mythic Indian by seeing value in telling and sharing a diversity of stories, to represent a variety of experiences of what it means to be Indigenous and what it means to be on this planet. “He wanted to show the cultural importance of maintaining a full range of stories,” (Robinson).

  Does it mean we’ll understand? No- but still- as readers, we can read knowing that stories are told because they are meaningful.

Works Cited

Henderson, William. “Indian Act.” February 7, 2006. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act

Monkman, Leonard. “Indigenous incarceration rates: why are Canada’s numbers so high and what can be done about it?” June 29, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-incarceration-justice-system-panel-1.4729192

Robinson, Harry. “Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory.” Talonbooks. Kindle Edition.

Sardar, Zia. “Fanon and the epidemiology of oppression.” November 30, 2009. http://www.frantzfanoninternational.org/Fanon-and-the-Epidemiology-of-Oppression