Identify and discuss two of King’s “acts of narrative decolonization.”
Please read the following quote to assist you with your answer.
“The lives of King’s characters are entangled in and informed by both the colonial legacy in the Americas and the narratives that enact and enable colonial domination. King begins to extricate his characters’ lives from the domination of the invader’s discourses by weaving their stories into both Native American oral traditions and into revisions of some of the most damaging narratives of domination and conquest: European American origin stories and national myths, canonical literary texts, and popular culture texts such as John Wayne films. These revisions are acts of narrative decolonization.”
James Cox. “All This Water Imagery Must Mean Something.” Canadian Literature 161-162 (1999). Web April 04/2013.
———
Narrative decolonization, as I define it based on lessons from Decolonization is not a metaphor (which might actually suggest that narrative decolonization is not, in fact, very meaningful), is the return of land, power and privilege to Indigenous people, communities and nations through literature and story. It is also the reformation of Eurocentric, Western narratives to centre Indigenous lives, lands and perspectives and to assert a diversity of Indigenous experiences, which have often been left out or only side marked in the West’s understanding of story and of history.
Thomas King’s novel Green Grass Running Water (GGRW) is abundant with acts of narrative decolonization, particularly in the way that the novel seeks to disrupt Judeo-Christian narratives predominant in Western understanding of the world by inserting and centering Indigenous presence, agency and worldview. GGRW also works to highlight, mock and dismantle the power that Indigenous tropes have had on Western imaginations, particularly tropes represented in Western films- such as that of the Stoic Indian, the Indian Princess, the Savage Indian, and the Dead Indian.
The first act of narrative decolonization I’ll highlight is the way the four Indians and Coyote, rework, or “fix,” the Western starring John Wayne, Richard Widmark and Charlie Looking Bear’s dad, Portland, that Bill Bursum is showing to the group in the video store. The old Indians literally colour and alter the actions of the film just when the Indians in the film were expected to die.
The narrative is altered to show capable, strong and determined Indigenous warriors who manage to rise, kill John Wayne and ride away safely on their horses.
The settler TV shop owner, Bill (who questionably claims to be an ally to Indigenous people), is deeply bothered by this act of narrative decolonization muttering “What the hell,” (King 321) and later, still troubled and confused, asking “Who would want to kill John Wayne?” (King 359).
The Native viewers, however, are empowered and the four Indians are satisfied. Charlie is filled with excitement and shouts “Get ‘em, Dad,” (King 322).
This act of narrative decolonization disrupts the anticipated ending to the film by reempowering the Native subjects, including Charlie’s father Portland, and affirming Indigenous resilience in the face of colonial violence.
They resisted.
They continue to resist.
The Four Indians continue with their decolonial magic, their “fixing, throughout the novel eventually igniting an earthquake which ruins the dam that was to be imposed unconsentually on Indigenous lands and waters, particularly threatening the home of Eli Stands Alone which was built with love and labour by his and Norma’s mother.
This act of narrative decolonization changes the anticipated future of the story so that “Below, in the valley, the water rolled on as it had for eternity.” (King 415).
The presence and agency of Indigenous people, such as Eli, and their land rights are re-empowered, whereas the settlers and their wishes of land modification and settler colonialism (building cabins via private property ownership on a lake that was to be created by the dam’s flooding) are disempowered.
This act of narrative decolonization hits close to home for me.
My kokum’s cousin, William Dysart, who shared his story of being displaced from South Indian Lake
My maternal Cree kin, including by Grandma’s cousin William Dysart who shares his stories of South Indian Lake here, were displaced from their homelands at South Indian Lake when Manitoba Hydro flooded their lands by installing the Churchill River Diversion to generate hydro power via the Nelson River dams in the 1970s. The community was forced to move across the channel. Today, future generations, like myself, are disconnected from our ancestral homelands which have been irrevocably altered and damaged due to colonial acts of displacement and energy extraction. My Cree relations and others in what’s now known as northern Manitoba continue to fight Manitoba Hydro today.
King’s act of narrative decolonization, thus, is powerful because it reimagines the all-too-common story of the displacement of Indigenous communities for the sake of settler-profitable extractive projects into a story of ongoing Indigenous presence rooted in belonging, inherent rights and justice for people and the land.
But it is just that. A story.
We must take acts of narrative decolonization to heart as teachings for how to effectively contribute to decolonization on Turtle Island.
Works Cited
K., Adrienne. “Smiling Indians and Edward S. Curtis,” Native Appropriations Blog. February 22, 2011. Accessed at: https://nativeappropriations.com/2011/02/smiling-indians-and-edward-s-curtis.html
King, Thomas. “Green Grass Running Water,” Harper Perennial. 2010. Print.
Mansky, Jackie. “The true history of Pocahontas,” The Smithsonian. March 23, 2017. Accessed at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pocahontas-180962649/
Tuck, Eve & Yang, K. Wayne. “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 2012. Accessed at: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554
Waniskatan. “William Dysart’s Story,” Hydro Impacted. 2015. Accessed at: http://hydroimpacted.ca/william-dysarts-story-south-indian-lake/
Wilt, James. “How Green Energy Has Hurt First Nations in the North,” Vice News. October 19, 2016. Accessed at: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/4w58mq/how-green-energy-has-hurt-first-nations-in-the-north
Hi Georgia,
Thank you for making a personal connection to your analysis of King’s narrative decolonization. In your first hyperlink, Tuck and Wang explain that since our system is built on settler colonialism, narrative decolonization can cause reoccupation that furthers settler colonialism. They also explain that the metaphorization of decolonization makes it possible for settlers to “problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity.”
Do you think only those that belong to the “white oppressor category” can problematize decolonization? Or do you think King might problematize narrative decolonization as well? For instance, the vast number of references that people need to look up to understand Green Grass Running Water makes it more academic than emotional (at times). Do you think this helps break the metaphorization of decolonization? Or does it cause the book to remain in academic circles rather than reaching the broader ethos of the public?
Hi Nolan!
Glad you took time to read Decolonization is not a metaphor… it’s such important work. I passed the paper along to Prof. Paterson who read it as well 🙂
An an Cherokee man, King’s decolonization looks very different than a settlers. The way he subverts Judeo-Christian and Western narratives in GGRW and disrupts them with Indigenous stories, lives, and ways of knowing, is IMPORTANT. The book was published in 1993 and I do believe that folks closer to King’s age would catch more of the references- especially Indigenous folks.
Just as we’ve learned to read Shakespeare, we can take time to learn to read King. I’ve noticed that many of the class blogs are searchable on Google, so our hyperlinking assignments could contribute, perhaps, to making the book more accessible. Beyond that- it has been widely read beyond academia. The book won the Governor General’s Award for fiction and was nominated for Canada Reads in 2004.
So, no, I don’t think King makes decolonization problematic through this work… plus, he never uses that term. I’d add that another book of King’s, The Inconvenient Indian, may be one of the most popular and widely read Indigenous history books of our time (in what is currently known as Canada). His contributions to Native literature have been really valuable.
For settler readers, however, it would be problematic to say they’re “decolonizing” because they’ve read his work. It is, however, a decolonial narrative. As Tuck and Yang assert, decolonization is through concrete actions- the return of land, power, and privilege. Personally, I feel settlers can (and should!) contribute to decolonization, but cannot decolonize themselves, whereas Indigenous people can/ should/ deserve societal, political, and social support to do both.
Not to say, however, that reading King’s work doesn’t matter for settlers. I believe strongly in the importance for Canadians to fill their lives with Indigenous voices- friends, family, literature, films, social media posts, academic papers… all of it. For me, it supports learning, growth and better informs my actions on the land and in community.
Hope you’re happy, healthy and well today.
Kindly,
Georgia
Hi Georgia,
Thank you for this really interesting analysis. I appreciated the ways you personally connected King’s writings and Canada’s colonial histories to its modern-day consequences and your family’s own experiences.
I found your analysis of the ways in which King engages with stereotypes commonly seen in media really thought-provoking. It’s clear how King connects to historical figures, but I think the idea of the importance of the narratives and fictions we see about indigenous people is also important. You highlighted the changes they make to an actual film in the novel, but also drew my attention to the deliberate subversions of film tropes of indigenous peoples within King’s own character. Why do you think King chooses to engage with multimedia forms of representation? You drew attention to the fact that although this is a decolonizing narrative, it is also just a narrative. What is the value in representation and challenging existing representations of indigenous peoples if action isn’t following? Can one lead to the other, or do they engage symbiotically?
Hi Charlotte-
Wow. Thank you for reading and some great questions…
First, it was impossible not to connect my own story to the Four Indians magicwork which allowed the waters to flow. I loved that part of the book… but also wish it they could’ve worked their magic on my relatives homelands. To be displaced is deeply painful.
I think King chose to subvert the typical course of action in the Western to disrupt linear Western-thinking, which would’ve assumed the Indians would die and John Wayne would ride away proudly. Today, it is critical that settler-society learns to re-imagine our present//presence and our future in a way that MAJORLY disrupts the settler-colonial violence that continues on what is currently known as Canada. First, we learn and imagine, then/ and we take action- so, decolonial/ Indigenous narratives and the learning they support, and decolonial or co-conspirator action which disrupts hetero-patriarchy, settler colonialism, racism and violence of all sorts do (or can at least) indeed act symbiotically!
We must take it upon ourselves to let the stories we read shape us and the way we move through the world.
Hope you’re well today.
Warmly,
Georgia