re. Land- I thought King was arguing that in general Europeans and Indiands relate to Land in different manners.
I think he was also saying, and what Christina mentioned too, was that taking land was a major motivation, if possibly the primary one, and that all actions against First Nations people have been because White people want the land.
I'll type the first discussion guide question (they are all long.) Consider the evolution from the title Pesky Redskins: A Curious History of Indians in North America to the book's title The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America. Why did King come to the conclusion that the book is not a history? What do you think is the significance of the terms "Redskins" and "Indians"?
I guess there is a very large difference between ownership of land and stewardship of land. We have seen it playing out in the fracking protests here in NB. I don't think King argues that land is the key to solving the injustices. I think he sees nation to nation discussions as paramount. One of the huge isssues to be surmounted is land and how Europeans have treated it and still treat it in NA>
This is a tangent, but my partner is working on a project with members from the OCAP, which stands for ownership, control, (I forget what a stands for) and posession and is about maintaining control over Indigenous communities health records and stuff because they have been grossly misused in the past without consent.
I guess that highlights that White people continue to be terrible towards Native people in more areas than just land. Whomp.
I guess there is a very large difference between ownership of land and stewardship of land. We have seen it playing out in the fracking protests here in NB. I don't think King argues that land is the key to solving the injustices. I think he sees nation to nation discussions as paramount. One of the huge isssues to be surmounted is land and how Europeans have treated it and still treat it in NA.
I hate to say it, but I don't like Caissa's latest study guide question much (sorry!!!). I really would like to know what people think about Wagamese saying this book as about "healing". And about how King sees Indigenous people's struggle today.
Earlier in this book, I hinted that I didn’t think that legal action was going to provide a solution to the problems that centuries of North American Indian policy and action had created. I suggested that the legal gauntlet created by legislation and the courts better served the powerful and the privileged than it did Native people.I still believe this.
But I do have to admit that, in spite of such impediments, Native people in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have begun to find moments of success within the legal systems of North America. Perhaps, after all this time, the laws of the land will finally ride to the rescue and we will all live happily ever after.
Is this part-humour, all humour, what?
Hmmm,
The statements King made about legal solutions were ... interesting, ya. I kind of tilted my head at this as well, however, I don't think it is surprisingly or unrealistic for someone to say that legal solutions are not an option for Native people. I mean, he gives a whole slew of examples in the book both past and present about the govt just being like "legally yes, but just no."
The demonstrations recently seem to be a blend of occuption and legal work -- but while some kind of suceed, most still are failing, for example teh SWN injunction in NB.
I found his ending funny, in the reference to the cowboy rides away thing, especially after the part on the irony of Native communities using money to buy back land through the govt.
I don't think his part about the law serving the privileged was meant in a humourous way.
(i'm going to go read that Wagamese thing again)
Oh, and it is 3pm!
Those who need to step away from our real time talk, please feel free to do so. If others would like to stay on chatting, yes please!, but remember questions may not be answered right away.
Thanks everyone for joining!
Some of the other question were better, but this one was the shortest. ;^)
I think the comment by King was wishful thinking, knowing that it was unlikely.
I think King and Wagamese both believe that without healing there we be no reconciliation and a wya forward to justice.
... but remember questions may not be answered right away.
Wow! Kaitlin just summed up the human condition! Beautiful!
I just reread rabble's review on Bev Sellars' book 'They Called Me Number One' which referencing healing and surviving quite a bit, and this stood out:
Sellars is incredibly insightful about her residential school experiences and the process of "decolonizing." She references the amazing abilities of First Nations’ leaders Bill Wilson and George Watts in that they "were not prisoners in their mind like too many of us who attended the schools." They were able to engage others from a position of strength and confidence.
and
Did she share with fellow survivors who were suffering? Yes. Her nephew, Robert Sellars, after reading Sellars’ draft, stated that he could now forgive his father as he understood what the survivors endured during their lifetimes and now understood why he had done certain things.
I'm not sure it completely touches on what you were speaking about U and C, but found it interesting within the larger conversation of "self care" and "healing"
... but remember questions may not be answered right away.
Wow! Kaitlin just summed up the human condition! Beautiful!
I like to drop truth bombs.
I think the comment by King was wishful thinking, knowing that it was unlikely.
Yeah, that seems like the best take.
I think King and Wagamese both believe that without healing there we be no reconciliation and a way forward to justice.
I agree (that they both believe that).
What I don't really see in King, is how we get to "healing" (other than via "understanding", which rarely seems good enough in human history). What's the role of struggle - of rising up - of being "idle no more" (to coin a phrase)? King at times seems apologetic about the struggle (my impression). He's concerned about the AIM turn to violence.
His strength, I think, is in debunking and satirizing the White need for the ritualized, dead, harmless Indian. But I would have like to hear him more clearly on the "Invisible Indian", which he touches on once or twice, and how that is being transformed. There's surely room to convince Whites that the Indians didn't massacre and rape White women and children, and that they were victimized by the invaders. He does a decent job at that, and I love his story-telling manner. But the path from resistance to healing... maybe it wasn't intended to be a theme, but I missed it.
Hey, U were you referencing this quote from Wagamese:
But the book is ultimately about healing. As much as he uncovers the dirt of history, King shines a light on what is possible in the advancement of Indians to an equal place in both countries.
in that it was in juxtaposition with what King ultimately ended on? (My brain is slow today [everyday])
If so, I think King does "shine light" on what is possible for the advancement, but puts that under the cloud of 'but the govt has got to start abiding by its own laws/treaty rights'
ETA: So, yeah. I don't know how much this book was about healing either.... or at least thing was also not the impression I got.
Yup, Kaitlin! I think I confused matters by proceeding backwards, and not linking to Wagamese's review (which I think you provided the other day... thx!). But yes, that's what I was getting at. And I largely agree with your conclusion as to what King is saying "we" should do, which is consistent with the book being addressed mainly to non-Indigenous folk.
Sorry I missed the BBB discussion earlier today - it was "Budget Day" @ work, - and you miss those meetings at your peril!
I just read through the conversation above - some interesting thoughts and perspectives. Despite some early misgivings, I did feel that King's tone / voice worked for the book as a whole. It found it a little "rich" at times, which slowed down the rate at which I could read the book - never more than a chapter at a sitting. But the slower pace left space for thought and reflection, which is not a bad thing, given the content.
And I learned new stuff, too... Cherokee Freedmen and organizational history pre-AIM, jump to mind. Anyhow, if I get to the end of a work of non-fiction and want to know more, I figure the author has done a good job. so thumbs up from me.
For anyone interested, King did a radio interview with the local afternoon CBC station here in Ottawa back in September.... he discussed Tonto, Hollywood Indians, dead Indians, identity, authenticity, and humour. I just tracked it down on the web: here's the link:
http://www.cbc.ca/books/2013/09/the-inconvenient-indian-by-thomas-king.html
And I learned new stuff, too... Cherokee Freedmen and organizational history pre-AIM, jump to mind. Anyhow, if I get to the end of a work of non-fiction and want to know more, I figure the author has done a good job. so thumbs up from me.
YES!
I have been thinking more and more about this book after our discussion, especially since I was trying to convince my partner to read it, and found I was almost gushing about it. (Sign of a good non-fiction book too!)
The Cherokee Freedmen was a very interesting issue to bring up, one that is obviously very complex and wish could have been delved into a bit more, but understand why it wasn't.
Also I like this reference, and many others, that serve to "debunk" the romanticism that a lot of white people view indigneous cultures with (my editor was just talking about this. She is the smartest.)
Yup, Kaitlin! I think I confused matters by proceeding backwards, and not linking to Wagamese's review (which I think you provided the other day... thx!). But yes, that's what I was getting at. And I largely agree with your conclusion as to what King is saying "we" should do, which is consistent with the book being addressed mainly to non-Indigenous folk.
Oh no worries -- just wanted to make sure we were on the same track!
I mean, I can't speak to what Wagamese felt and whatnot, but again, the tone of the book served more as well historical account, but as a means to draw more attention to indigenous activism, ignite more indigneous activism, and to also get other non-indigneous people to join that activism and educate themselves on colonial history.
I felt the feeling I ended more with is "Canada is terrible. Let's oust these jerks and make things better!" not "Canada is terrible. This account made me feel better" (that is a naive interpretation of what "healed" means)
