Welcome to our annotated bibliography page.
The Maple Leaf Igloos are concerned with how Indigenous representation in both the Canadian nation-building canon and the literary canon are dominated by two acts: an outright act of exclusion or non-Native voices having the louder voice to impose colonizing narratives on Indigenous.
The Maple Leaf Igloos acknowledges a historical need to intervene against colonizing representations of Indigenous peoples. Native stereotypes are unsalvageable and colonial representations are unfixable.
Instead, we open discourse with the aims of: acknowledging the harmful effects of Native stereotypes which historically requires an intervention in representation; listening to new stories and championing the voices of actual Indigenous writers over the colonizing and exclusive literary canon.
Denise K. Lajimodiere (2013) American Indian Females and Stereotypes: Warriors, Leaders, Healers, Feminists; Not Drudges, Princesses, Prostitutes, Multicultural Perspectives, 15:2, 104-109, DOI: 10.1080/15210960.2013.781391
This article written by a Native female author, discusses the sexually objectifying and marginalizing representations of Indigenous women by settler-colonizer men. The earliest observations of Native women were written with the colonial biases of men who wished to understand Indigenous women as “held in low regard” in tribal cultures because European culture expected female obedience to men (Lajimodiere). This is a misrepresentation, as Indigenous women actually enjoyed gender equality in many tribes pre-colonization. Colonizers have historically imposed images of wild, exotic promiscuity on Native women. Colonizer storytelling established distinctive roles for Native women: “if they are not being raped or murdered, they are usually shown as slaves, household drudges or bodies en masse in camps and caravans” (Lajimodiere). It is proven that when imposed stereotypes distance women as the ethnic other and dehumanize them, it is a big problem because those women become disproportionately more vulnerable to sexual violence. Even the “positive” representations of Indigenous women has historical roots in furthering a colonist agenda. The Indian Princess “must save or give aid to White men”. The Pocahontas story centres its plot on a “good” Indigenous woman who helps “non-Indians defeat and subdue their own people”. Lajimodiere calls attention to the historical need for intervention in these stereotypes, because Native women have historically had “to be exotic, wild, collaborationist [or] crazy to qualify for non-Native attention”.
Works Cited:
Bubar, Roe. “Decolonizing Sexual Violence: Professional Indigenous Women Shape the Research.” International Review of Qualitative Research, vol. 6, no. 4, 2013, pp. 526–543. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/irqr.2013.6.4.526.
Denise K. Lajimodiere (2013) American Indian Females and Stereotypes: Warriors, Leaders, Healers, Feminists; Not Drudges, Princesses, Prostitutes, Multicultural Perspectives, 15:2, 104-109, DOI: 10.1080/15210960.2013.781391
Hearne, Joanna. “‘I Am Not a Fairy Tale’: Indigenous Storytelling on Canadian Television.” Marvels & Tales, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 126–146.
This article
explores the concerns which arise when Indigenous stories are adapted into
mainstream media platforms. This means that the stories which were
traditionally meant for oral-storytelling are now being molded into new forms
and genres, such as fairy tales and sitcoms. The categorization of Indigenous
stories as fairy tales, folklores, and myths disregards the historical and
cultural significance behind these narratives. It also makes Indigenous peoples
become one-dimensional in their own tales, as well as in our understandings of
them. This article
lists out some of the common characters that the Natives become associated with
as myths and fairy tales. These are characters we are familiar with while growing
up: the Indian princess, the Native princess, and the Noble savage. These
representations make us forget that the Indigenous peoples are just as diverse
in their beliefs, culture, and traditions as people of the West. The in-depth
analysis of this journal can hope to provide how Indigenous voices may be lost
and changed through different modes of storytelling, as well as what effects
this might have for the historical context of these stories.
In Parallel Voices: Indians and Others- Narratives of Cultural Struggle, Gail Guthrie Valaskakis points out that “stories are more than a window on identity”, and our identity is constructed not based on “internal conceptions of the self, but in the adoption of transforming, open-ended representations and narratives.” (Valaskakis). Therefore, it is important to consider the effects of labeling narratives as fairy tales and folklores. We need to be weary of the lost meaning and historical context in the Indigenous stories that have been adapted into the Canadian media. That said, the questions that emerge from this issue now are: is it better to have stories heard through mediums that does not cater towards the intentions of the stories, rather than having them be lost? What psychological impacts may this have on the people whose stories have been told in ways that aren’t theirs
Works Cited:
“Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People.” Media Smarts, http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/aboriginal-people/common-portrayals-aboriginal-people
Hearne, Joanna. “‘I Am Not a Fairy Tale’: Indigenous Storytelling on Canadian Television.” Marvels & Tales, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 126–146.
Valaskakis, Gail Guthrie. “Parallel Voices: Indians and Others—Narratives of Cultural Struggle.” Canadian Journal of Communication, https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/756/662
This blog article explores the discourse regarding the controversial Indigenous-focused novel In Case I Go, written by a Canadian White author by the name of Angie Abdou.
Abdou’s case is interesting in the sense that, despite taking several heavy precautions to make sure her novel was approved and accurate to the liking of the Ktunaxa people, she was still scathingly attacked by several Indigenous authors. Much of this criticism included shaming Abdou for vilifying and thus casting the Indigenous community out as being the “other” (Kay 2018). Kay states that, “according to Abdou’s most prominent critic, the best way to tell indigenous stories is through collectively approved celebratory works that advance the community’s cause and image.” However, he likens this to propaganda, which is “never to be confused with true literature.” Indigenous representation in Canadian literature is a slippery slope, and as we have learned throughout this course, storytelling and the merit of the storyteller play a large role in the execution and reception of a story. Thus, it is with no surprise that a White woman’s attempts at telling these stories without truly having the Indigenous lens, scope, and experience would go rather poorly. Abdou’s failure ties into our conference well, as it exemplifies the ever-present accuracy struggle between Colonialists and Indigenous communities to have their stories told.
As Kay ends off in his article, “crude, ignorant stereotypes are just one way to kill a novel, however. As l’affaire Abdou shows, sometimes the cure is just as bad as the
disease.”
Works Cited:
“’A Long Learning Process’: Author Reflects on Controversy after Writing a Fictional Indigenous Character | CBC Radio.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 13 Apr. 2018, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/who-gets-to-tell-indigenous-stories-1.4616308/a-long-learning-process-author-reflects-on-controversy-after-writing-a-fictional-indigenous-character-1.4618950.
Jr, Deward E. Walker. “Ktunaxa (Kootenay)”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 10 October 2018, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kootenay. Accessed 29 March 2019.
Kay, Jonathan. “‘Canada Has Gone Mad’: Indigenous Representation and the Hounding of Angie Abdou.” Quillette, 16 Mar. 2018, quillette.com/2018/01/10/canada-gone-mad-indigenous-representation-hounding-angie-abdou/.
Walker Jr., Deward E. “Ktunaxa (Kootenay).” Ktunaxa (Kootenay) | The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2006, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kootenay.
Shipley was a non-Indigenous writer who was born in Scotland and immigrated to Canada in the early 1900s. This article explores her works that can never seem to stray from Indigenous themes, as she says that “‘It is impossible to write about Western Canada without an awareness of the Indians’” (Klassen 2). However, it will be interesting to see the analysis on her portrayal of Indigenous representations, and the concerns which might arise from it. While her intentions are good, Shipley was limited by her “position as a non-Indigenous Euro-Canadian in the post-war period” (Klassen 2), which “complicated her understanding and interpretation of Indigenous experiences” (2), leading to some stereotypes and “assumptions of vanishing culture.” Therefore, the exploration of this article might serve to highlight the historical necessity of having Indigenous literature that are not published, or written, by non-Indigenous people.
Works Cited:
Carter, Sue. “How Canadian Publishers are Recognizing the Need for More Trained Indigenous Editors.” Industry News. Quill & Quire, 17 Jul. 2017, https://quillandquire.com/omni/how-canadian-publishers-are-recognizing-the-need-for-more-trained-indigenous-editors/
Klassen, Jenna R. “‘A sad hiatus in our national history’: Indigenous Representations in the Work of Nan Shipley, 1950s-1970s.” Manitoba History, no. 88, pp. 2-11.
Lang, Anouk. “A Book that all Canadians should be Proud to Read”: Canada Reads and Joseph Boyden’s Three Day Road.” Canadian Literature, no. 215, 2012, pp. 120.
Lang’s journal article is focused on explaining the clash of reading practices that emerge among Canadian readers by exploring different interpretation modes, especially when it comes to the narratives related to the national history, identity and identity especially within the Indigenous context by analyzing reception of Joseph Boyden’s novel Three Day Road . In this book, Boyden raises questions about the representation of First Nations people and of the shortcomings of Canadian historiography. The author emphasizes the importance a book can have on inducing moral empathy in order to understand the different worlds and to provoke reflection on contemporary social issues. In an attempt to teach Canadians about Native involvement in the war (WWI) that was little known which framed this novel as a text that shed a little bit of light to this missing detail about First Nation peoples’ involvement in the war as Canadians and their achievements. Lang intention is to show that reading can be seen almost as a nation-building project.
Works Cited:
Lang, Anouk. “A Book that all Canadians should be Proud to Read“: Canada Reads and Joseph Boyden’s Three Day Road.” Canadian Literature, no. 215, 2012, pp. 120.Patel, N. (2016). Struggles for and with indigenous poetics. Canadian Literature, (228), 256-259,269
Mackenzie, Sarah. “Performing ‘Indigenous Shakespeare’ in Canada: The Tempest and The Death of a Chief.” Shakespeare and Canada: Remembrance of Ourselves, edited by Irena R. Makaryk and Kathryn Prince, University of Ottawa Press, 2017, pp. 111–125. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1n2tv7r.11.
This article by Sarah Mackenzie highlights the depth beyond the execution of one of William Shakespeare’s plays when they meet Indigenous influence, and subsequently, strong efforts at decolonization.
In Canada, Shakespeare’s name is a household one, with his work having been woven into every Canadian student’s school curriculum. However, Indigenous literature and mediums have not been so lucky, often ignored or briefly grazed upon. With this, Indigenous parties have begun to take mediums that are held as culturally iconic to North America, such as Shakespeare’s plays, and adapted them in order to better fit their own narrative, while still being familiar enough to Westernized audiences. With this, “it is essential that much of [Indigenous] theatre is about colonization” (1) in order to exploit the wrongdoings of Colonialism, as well as to reclaim and rewrite the Indigenous narrative.
The article also discusses the stereotypes behind genders. Although Indigenous people are native to Canada, their tales and ways of living are often taken out of context and conflated with other narratives, or sometimes, simply forgotten. At times, there is also a jarring disjointment between portrayals within the Indigenous community itself. Mackenzie cites Baumander’s production of The Tempest as an example of purposely exploitive Indigenous theatre, which depicts Native women as being “impure and domitable” (Mackenzie citing Stoler 114), and men as dark skinned rapists (114). These blunt depictions act as a slap in the face for audiences, as they are immediately greeted with a very overt idea of the Colonialist perspective. However, some argue that such imagery helps to push forth the Colonial narrative and its misguided stereotypes, rather than correct it.
This source will be helpful to our conference site, as it discusses the reclaiming and retelling of popular North American narratives by the Indigenous community, and is a prime example of what happens when they decide to rewrite these stories into their own in order to form a stronger bond with their country, as well as debunk stereotypes.
Works Cited:
Knutson, Susan. “Reinventing the Bard.” Literary Review of Canada, 2014, reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2014/10/reinventing-the-bard/.
The Death of a Chief, http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/a_thedeathofachief.cfm.
Mackenzie, Sarah. “Performing ‘Indigenous Shakespeare’ in Canada: The Tempest and The Death of a Chief.” Shakespeare and Canada: Remembrance of Ourselves, edited by Irena R. Makaryk and Kathryn Prince, University of Ottawa Press, 2017, pp. 111–125. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1n2tv7r.11.
MacKinnon, Kennedy Cathy, and Yvette Nolan. “The Death of a Chief.” Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare Project, http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/a_thedeathofachief.cfm.
Mclaurin, Virginia A., “Stereotypes of Contemporary Native American Indian Characters in Recent Popular Media” (2012). Pp. 6-24. Masters Theses 1911 – February 2014. 830
This article by Virginia Mclaurin discusses the “continuation of the historical willingness of colonists” to perpetuate Indigenous stereotypes for the purpose of managing Indigenous threat (11). For early settler-colonizers; Indigenous threat referred to both Indigenous cultural/economic success and perceived threats of attack against invasion. Early colonizers responded to perceived threats hastily with gun violence. “Many Indians were killed this way” and the bodies of children were found among them (11). Settlers historically used stereotypes such as “the Savage Indian” and “the warrior Indian” to dehumanize the Indigenous peoples they were killing. Settlers ultimately enforced a distancing narrative to alleviate guilt and justify the perpetuation of violence against Native peoples. It is important to note that “even when Native tribes like the Pequot made the decision to engage in war activities, they often did so reluctantly and because they felt that the Europeans […] were not responsive to their calls for peace and equitable treatment” (10-11). Despite the “war-oriented” Native stereotype being absolutely fabricated, settlers preferred to push stereotypes because it assuaged their guilt and allowed the perpetuation of violence against Indigenous peoples. Mclaurin calls attention to the historical need for intervention in Indigenous representation, as these oversimplified/false archetypes pervasively work to continually “justify” a horrific colonial history.
Works Cited:
Mclaurin, Virginia A., “Stereotypes of Contemporary Native American Indian Characters in Recent Popular Media” (2012). Masters Theses 1911 – February 2014. 830
Stephanie A. Fryberg, Hazel Rose Markus, Daphna Oyserman & Joseph M. Stone (2008) Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30:3, 208-218, DOI: 10.1080/01973530802375003
Patel, N. (2016). Struggles for and with indigenous poetics. Canadian Literature, (228), 256-259,269.
Patel’s article. Engagement with Indigenous poetics is burdened with difficulties and challenges, especially for non-Indigenous readers and ask for more than a nominal understanding of what Indigenous poetics means. The author wants to show how Indigenous poetics confronts the colonial project leading to spiritual or artistic emancipation of that poetics. The author strongly believes that Indigenous poetics is a way of making sense of Indigenous poetical expressions holding its own position despite the crushing weight of the English and French poetics. The method for reading the Indigenous texts can be interpreted as a map that focuses on holophrastic reading. Indigenous poetics, according to author can be interpreted s a theoretical activity grounded in narrative and language.
Works Cited:
“Holophrastic Definition and Meaning | Collins English Dictionary.” Holophrastic Definition and Meaning | Collins English Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/holophrastic.
Neuhaus, Mareike. “Struggles for and with Indigenous Poetics.” Emerging Scholars 2. Special Edition of Canadian Literature, vol. 2, no. 228-229, pp. 256–259. Summer/Spring 2016, canlit.ca/article/struggles-for-and-with-indigenous-poetics/.
Patel, N. (2016). Struggles for and with indigenous poetics. Canadian Literature, (228), 256-259,269. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1882450798?accountid=14656
Exploring Interventions 
Test
LikeLike
Interesting that you included an article about female Indigenous stereotypes, because I read a great local article on that topic on my way to work this morning. It is about local Vancouver Indigenous women who are telling their stories in a new report called “Red Women Rising: Indigenous Women Survivors in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” It bears witness to the stories of 138 Indigenous women who hope to change the way people see them–not as victims, but as “leaders and visionaries with ideas about how to fix the systems that should help them, not hold them back.” Many of them also participated in the provincial and National Inquiries into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which they felt didn’t represent the full truth of their experiences. One said this report is so valuable because nothing is “smoothed over” to present to the “funders,” but is the whole truth, in their own words. This is exactly what Canada needs to move past the stereotypes that are written about in the article. Although in Canada, we do not have so much the Indian princess/Pocahontas type stereotypes as we do victimized representations of Indigenous women.
Going further than that, equal rights for Indigenous women are the next step. As Tanya Talaga writes in this article, First Nations women have their status (and their children’s) taken away if they marry a non status-man, which is a form of genocide. In Canadian literature, we can find common ground by reading strong female Indigenous writers who present truths about their culture—such as the novel Birdie by Tracey Lindberg, a moving but joyful story of a Cree women who goes on a journey of self-discovery, which ends up “touching on the universality of women’s experience.”
(Oops – I had links to add but I can’t figure out how to do them?)
LikeLike
Thank-you for your comments Andrea.
My understanding of your argument, you argue that one of the stereotypes about Natives in Canada is that Indigenous women are portrayed as victims and sexually vulnerable.
On principle, I understand where you are coming from, not wanting to portray a certain group as victims. However, part of the requirement for being a stereotype is, the thing is not generally true.
It is demographically proven and factual that Indigenous women are disproportionately victimized by sexual abuse and made more vulnerable by the fact that Indigenous women have gone missing and murdered for years before the Canadian government would acknowledge it.
For this reason, I am having trouble following the idea that victimization of Indigenous women is a misleading stereotype.
The aims of the “Maple Leaf Igloos” discourse is partly about the historical necessity of intervention against colonizing misrepresentations imposed on Indigenous peoples, which of course includes stereotypes. But in this case, the stereotype would be that colonist discourse had historically (falsely) framed Indigenous women as promiscuous and inherently sexually available, which led to sexual abuse of Native women and girls by non-Native colonist men. That is an example of how colonist stereotypes of Natives have historically led to harm and marginalization against Indigenous peoples.
But I would not call the victimization of Indigenous women a “stereotype” because stereotypes are misleading/untrue –and the fact that Indigenous women are disproportionately made vulnerable to sexual abuse and murder is a fact, which is in direct result of a history of colonial abuse and a Canadian government/society which is perpetually failing the Indigenous peoples who live in Canada.
I googled the article to “Red Women Rising: Indigenous Women Survivors in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” It can be found at this link: https://online.flowpaper.com/76fb0732/MMIWReportFinalMarch10WEB/#page=16
Thank-you for a powerful source.
Your quotation about how Indigenous women are “leaders and visionaries with ideas about how to fix the systems that should help them, not hold them back” is very powerful. However, I read this article differently. I read this as, one can still recognize Indigenous women as leaders and visionaries with the hope and agency for change, without disregarding that they have also been victimized and failed by the Canada in which they live. I don’t believe these concepts are mutually exclusive.
Here are some excerpts from the article which I found particularly highlighted the strength and resiliency of Indigenous women, but also the many ways in which Canadian society has enabled the disproportionate harm and vulnerability faced by Indigenous women:
“Violence against Indigenous women, girls, trans and two-spirit people is one of the most pressing human rights issue in Canada today. We know that the over-representation in statistics on homicides, poverty, homelessness, child apprehensions, police street checks, incarceration, and overdose fatalities is not a coincidence; it is part of an infrastructure of gendered colonial violence. Colonial state practices target women for removal from Indigenous lands, tear children from their families, enforce impoverishment, and manufacture the conditions for dehumanization.”
““We need to keep families together. Colonization and missing and murdered Indigenous women has broken families. The children left behind by missing and murdered Indigenous women are mostly in foster care and then when they age out they end up on the street. The violence against missing and murdered Indigenous women continues with their children who are also violated and made vulnerable.”
Thank-you for the source, it was very informative. If I have misunderstood your argument, or if you would like to develop it further, I would love to engage further in this discussion with you. Thank-you for your thought-provoking comments.
Works Cited:
Martin, Carol Muree, and Harsha Wallia. “Indigenous Women Survivors in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” Red Women Rising – Home, The Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre (DEWC), 3 Apr. 2019, redwomenrising.org/.
LikeLike
I do not necesarily agree that “part of the requirement for being a stereotype is, the thing is not generally true.” From what I understand, stereotypes are based on prejudices that are generalized on a whole population.
For example say “All Canadians play hockey” is a sterotype. Well it is true that many Canadians play hockey, it is not true for the whole population.
Now we are arguing semantics here and should not be the issue at hand, I just thought I would point out the fact that victimization of Indigenous women can be a stereotype.
It is great that we are able to have these discussions and it is too bad that we do not have Indigenous people in the class who could comment on our discussions. These discussions are a healthy form of understanding Indigenous issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Alexis and Team Maple Leaf Igloos,
Don’t mind if I do (engage in further discussion, that is :))
The title of the article I was commenting on that your team posted was “American Indian Females and Stereotypes: Warriors, Leaders, Healers, Feminists; Not Drudges, Princesses, Prostitutes.” The article that I was referring to in my comment was not linked, and I see now that in this glorious www-hyperlinking-discourse-having-course, it might lead to confusion.Here it is: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/04/03/were-rising-and-taking-our-place-now-say-indigenous-women-behind-ambitious-bc-testimony-project.html
Your team’s article was written by a Native American women, Denise Lajimodiere, who wrote about her upbringing and the racism against her, joining the American Indian Movement (like we read about in GGRW), and finding her roots again, and then becoming an educator, fighting stereotypes. You responded that stereotypes are generally not true. The definition of a stereotype is “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” By me writing sentence like this: “This is exactly what Canada needs to move past the stereotypes that are written about in the article,” I was commenting on the Vancouver Star Metro article—here are a couple of quotes from it from Indigenous women:
Sophie Merasty: “Although it doesn’t matter where I’ve gone in this country, I’ve experienced a lot of stereotypes and the oppression of being an Indigenous women.
Robin Raweater: “I’ve faced so many stereotypes, whether it’s dealing with child welfare when they apprehended my children, or the courts or hospitals.”
I connected the article in your bibliography with the one I read on the bus because both of them are “fighting stereotypes.”
Therefore, the victimization of Indigenous women is a “widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.”
By looking at it in the way that, the victim stereotype is an oversimplification, not a falsehood.
So what I ultimately meant is that Indigenous women are MORE than an oversimplified image we may see in media—both of our articles are about Indigenous female empowerment: Lajimodiere says they are “warriors, leaders, healers” and in the article I was referring to, Suzanne Kilroy Huculak says she is a “survivor…I’m also a witness, a sister, a mother, a grandma, a daughter and a friend; I’m a drummer, a singer, and I’m very active in the community.”
Thank you for pushing me to use my analytical skills, it’s good for me when I’ve just been vacuuming goldfish crackers out of the couch cushions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting thoughts and powerful quotations, Andrea, thank-you.
I agree with a lot of the points you are making, but I still have trouble with the terminology of stereotype being used.
In response, I ask you: A stereotype or an oppressive narrative?
You quoted Robin Raweater: “I’ve faced so many stereotypes, whether it’s dealing with child welfare when they apprehended my children, or the courts or hospitals.” You said this, along with other quotes, are “about fighting stereotypes.”
If we go with your working definition of stereotype, “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing” –I don’t believe that fully encapsulates the systematic discrimination which Robin Raweater speaks of.
A stereotype, according to you, is a widely held and oversimplified idea.
But I wouldn’t say that the Canadian government disproportionately targeting Indigenous women and taking away their children is a stereotype anymore than I would say, for example, mass incarceration of Blacks in the United States is a stereotype. Rather than a stereotype, this is factual, statistical evidence of systematic and state-sanctioned racial discrimination.
Terminology aside, I think I understand and agree with the concept you are coming from. When there is a narrative which states that Indigenous women are only ever victims –that is a very disheartening and powerfully pervasive, discouraging and ultimately oppressive narrative. It can be incredibly hard to escape narratives of disempowerment –and in that regard, I am right there with you and Maxwell: oversimplified images of Native women as //only// victims is an oppressive narrative and psychologically difficult to escape.
That being said, I know I seem silly being fixated on words and terminology, but I honestly think that there are implications to terminology which are very important to consider and separate.
The main reason why I want to differentiate between harmfully oppressive narratives and stereotypes, is that when term “stereotypes” is applied to groups who presently experience systematic oppression –there is always that risk that the very real systematic oppression will be mitigated in favor of championing a more hopeful narrative. And while hopeful narratives are important and it is so importance for people who are always framed as victims to be able to see themselves as more than victims, if we systematic discrimination a “stereotype” and define “stereotype” as oversimplification, we perhaps run the risk of a narrative which mitigates the discrimination itself.
So when you say,“This is exactly what Canada needs to move past the stereotypes that are written about in the article” I understand where you’re coming from but I’m also concerned. Because if we go by the definition of stereotypes as “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image” –I don’t think we, as Canadians who are complicit in living on unceded Indigenous land, should move past stereotypes of inequality and discrimination until the legal discrimination itself (in this case, that the Canadian government takes children away from Native mothers at disproportionate rates and for arbitrary reasons which would cause public outcry if, say, a European woman in Canada had her child taken away) have been resolved.
I tentatively propose “oppressive narrative” as opposed to “stereotype” because although I don’t think it is a stereotype –you bring up a very powerful idea which is Native women are consistently framed as victims because of the discrimination they experience, and it is important to read works by Native women about how they see themselves: as more than just a victim.
LikeLike
The questions posed regarding the “I Am Not a Fairy Tale” article is intriguing…. “is it better to have stories heard through mediums that does not cater towards the intentions of the stories, rather than having them be lost? What psychological impacts may this have on the people whose stories have been told in ways that aren’t theirs?”
This is a nuanced one to answer. How do we know when stories are lost? Maybe there are people telling the stories orally but only a certain group know it. Does that mean the story only exists if the the mainstream culture (e.g. fairy tales and sitcoms) picks up on it, and broadcasts them to a wider audience? It’s like, if a tree falls in a forest question—does anybody hear it? I tend to lean towards the integration of stories into the current landscape, and with our renewed focus on Indigenous and diasporic literature, the stories have a better chance of being heard today than any other time, but there’s still lots of work to do, hence this intervention. The psychological impact I hope is not harmful to any groups, but like we learned in this course, we have to listen deeply to the Indigenous and diasporic groups. What do they think? If there is any pushback or disagreement about the way mainstream media embarks on telling these stories, the media also should stop, listen, and re-think what they are doing. Perhaps providing more avenues and opportunities for the Indigenous and diasporic population to tell their own stories in whatever medium they choose.
LikeLike
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for your comment! I agree with your point where you said that stories should be integrated into our current landscape, which allows for Indigenous stories to have a better chance of being heard today than any other time. As much as it may be the “right” thing to do, telling the stories of Indigenous peoples through traditional means can no longer serve to capture the interests of a mass number of people in this digital age. We are far more infatuated in having all of our senses engaged and entertained rather than having the patience of sitting down for a good old story time. That being said, while there is a necessary for stories to be integrated into the current landscape, there is also a necessity for us to make sure that we do not alter the stories. In the article, Hearne stresses on the problematic label of “fairy tale” and “folktale”. These words suggest a falsehood to the stories which are told by Indigenous peoples, and in a sense takes away the credibility and the importance of their belief. As an example, Hearne makes a comparison to the creation story in Genesis in the bible. Although people have different religious beliefs, Genesis has never been called a folktale:
For example, under most circumstances we would not say that Genesis is a folktale, wonder tale, or story of enchantment (as has been done at times with Indigenous sacred stories), especially to an audience of the faithful, out of respect for the work of multiple truths and the distinctiveness of certain kinds of stories that create, lend spiritual access to, or fundamentally explain reality within specific cultural traditions. (Hearne 130)
If we shy away from calling Genesis a tale of enchantment out of respect for “the faithful”, and for “the work of multiple truths” that explain reality within Western cultural traditions, it is important that we also do so for Indigenous stories as well. I appreciated your point about needing to “provide more avenues and opportunities for the Indigenous and diasporic population to tell their own stories”, and being able to stop and re-think about the understand of their stories. It will no longer be acceptable to brush aside Indigenous stories—oral or written—as tales that were simply written to entertain. For them, the tales are very much realities which shape their identities, just like our stories do for us.
– Anna (Maple Leaf Igloos)
LikeLike
Hi friends!
I’ve been so intrigued reading through everyone’s bibliography entries, as they all are so diverse, yet tie into our exploration of changing the literary canon through Indigenous representation. Through my research, I had personally decided to focus on looking at mediums in which such representation became distorted, or misrepresented. In one of the entries, I touched upon the controversy that erupted when a non-Indigenous author decided to write a work of fiction about the Indigenous community of the Kootenays. I noticed through the bulk of the research conducted, the consensus was that Indigenous stories need to be told by Indigenous people. I have so many questions bubbling in my mind though – In your opinion, when is it acceptable for non-Indigenous authors to tell their stories? Is it acceptable if members of other diasporic communities speak out for those within communities that do not belong to their own? What binds these people together? How does this affect the literary canon?
-Katrina
LikeLike
Hi Katrina, it is Dana from the MP Igloos, I appreciate your question.
As Chamberlin teaches us, storytelling traditions tell different truths about religions, sciences, histories, and the arts; these truths are the answers to our questions about where we came from and why we are here. In the light of this statement, I believe that when we talk about members of other diasporic communities speaking out for those within communities other than their own – we are actually talking about intersections, a close contact of two different story-telling traditions, culture and mythology woven into those stories.It is acceptable as long as it is consensual, non-demeaning and without a hidden agenda, and as long as it is in the name of celebrating each other’s diversities.
Dana
LikeLike
p[loiushybsj
LikeLike
Another thought –
Looking at the “I am not a fairy tale” article, I was interested with the idea of adapting Indigenous stories into mainstream media. Often times, stories based on real events are warped to fit a more Colonial narrative, or even just to romanticize the story and shy away from its truth. Through such mediums, there are often stereotyped characters that exist, such as the “athlete,” the “nerd,” etc. I think that these tropes can still exist, but in Indigenous stories. I was scanning through this https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/iamindigenous/, which made me wonder why these stereotypical tropes that are commonly found in North American literature are often scrapped when it comes to addressing the Indigenous community. Although authors may wish to portray a more “known” image of Indigenous culture, such as chiefs and tribes, do you believe that they could add some layer of complexity to show a hybrid Canadian and Indigenous identity? Can’t we have a scene where Indigenous friends go to buy Timbits?
-Katrina
LikeLike
The article “Canada Has Gone Mad” really caught my attention as it is the type of topic that really interests me. I feel like cultural appropriation and cultural representation are always balanced atop a feather scale, where you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
You have one side criticizing that white (the majority) artists need to start representing more cultures in their work, then you have another side that yells that if you are not of the culture, you don’t have the right to talk about it. Although I love the ideologies rooted in these statements, people are currently just hunting heads because they show no compromise. The defenders of this situation will always say that it’s up to the author to do the proper research and gain proper respect for the culture they are writing about. Which is a very true statement, but they hide behind this hypocritical statement to attack even the authors that have done their due diligence, while they have not even read the book they are criticizing.
So much of our current culture revolves around recreational outrage, we are seeking for a reason to be mad, to lynch some person as a collective and gleefully celebrate as we see a small author’s work or even their careers burn down in flames. The worst part is that the small artists are most vulnerable to this because they don’t have the fanbase (people that have actually read the book) to defend them. So everyone just piles in. How are we supposed to make systemic changes if we are crippling our emerging artists while letting the problematic popular books, that make up the majority of the sales, go untouched?
I’m not saying that there aren’t racists or people that do culturally appropriate, but the way we are opening a book to simply find reasons to hate someone’s writing so we can flame them on social media is wrong. No wonder more and more people are shying away from writing POC, it’s just not worth it right now. How could we start fixing this problem? How could we start to encourage people of other culture to start embracing and writing about Indigenous people without scaring them away?
LikeLike
Oh, also an interesting link that reminded me of this situation. I do believe Niedzviecki did overstep his boundaries here saying that there is no cultural appropriation, but I think he did it with a good heart. In further interviews, he said he meant only within literature that cultural appropriation doesn’t exist, which I still disagree with, but he is trying to establish a similar frustration here. He is just trying to get people to write about what they are passionate about without worrying about all the stuff going on right now, which is a brutish solution. He was obviously trying to rustle some bushes, but chose his words poorly, showing, yet again, the power of words.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-15-2017-1.4112604/i-invoked-cultural-appropriation-in-the-context-of-literature-and-writing-only-hal-niedzviecki-1.4112618
LikeLike
Hi Tony!
Thanks for your comments. Honestly, I don’t think I can adequately answer this question as, like you said, it’s one of those subject areas that are extremely difficult to approach. Through what I’ve seen through researching for this conference, the consensus appears to be that if an author’s content reflects and internalizes the thoughts and values of the general population of which the work is concerned, then in theory, it should be okay. However, people are diverse, and there is always dissonance even within a supposedly homogeneous community itself, so really, I think the best way for such narratives to be considered valid is if they are made by those who live and breathe these stories as part of their heritage and identity.
-Katrina
LikeLike
In the article “Stereotypes of Contemporary Native American Indian Characters in Recent Popular Media (2012)”, Mclaurin explains that stereotypes were historically used “against Native people where Native populations were not only geographically close, but were perceived as presenting some threat to the non-Native population” (McLaurin 15). Native threat was considered the equivalent of “Native success – military, economically, or even culturally” and when settler-colonizers reacted with violence against perceived Native threat, settler-colonizers would use negative Indigenous stereotypes to justify violence post-fact and assuage guilt (McLaurin 11).
When colonizers first settled on unceded Indigenous land, they stereotyped Natives as “war-oriented” and “savage” (McLaurin 10). These stereotypes are false; the Natives were actually in favor of peace (McLaurin 10). Even when tribes such as the Pequot had to take on war activities, they were often reluctant and coerced into action because the Europeans “were not responsive to their calls for peace and equitable treatment”. Conclusively, the “war-oriented” stereotype is disingenuous. However, settler-colonizers believed in the negative stereotype. For this reason, when curious/scared Native peoples looked at the new settler houses from afar at night; settler-colonizers shot them dead. In the morning, stereotypes which alienate Native peoples as the other enabled the perpetuation of killing Natives by “justifying” and thereby assuaging guilt. Even when they found the bodies of the curious, young Native children whom they shot dead in the night (McLaurin 11).
There is a historical need for intervention in the way that Indigenous peoples are represented, because stereotypes against Natives used to falsely frame them as primarily violent and barbaric in nature, for the purpose of assuaging guilt and justifying settler violence done against Natives post-fact.
1) settler-colonizers historically stereotyped Indigenous peoples to be violent/threatening to “justify” the unprovoked violence perpetrated by settlers against scared Native peoples, even Native children
2) settler-colonizers used stereotypes to distance Indigenous peoples as the other, which made it easier to steal their land and attempt genocide
Native stereotypes have become deeply ingrained in our Canadian literary canon. I will make the argument that even if Native stereotypes have changed in form, they are still a colonial tool used to justify stealing land. Historically, colonial conquests have oft been justified by post-fact portrayals of Indigenous peoples as “savage/violent”. Today, we are familiar with the stereotype of Natives being “close to nature” and the stereotype of the “Dying Indian”. Both of which perpetuates the framing of land-stealing and marginalization against Indigenous peoples as “natural evolution.”
These oversimplified archetypes are perpetuated in literary tropes today and pervasively work to continually “justify” a horrific colonial history. Today, we still have issues of land claims but people would rather buy into idea of the “dying Indian” because refusing to see Indigenous peoples as very present and not strictly existing in the past, means that Canada has to acknowledge not only a need to apologize to Indigenous for past wrongdoings, but a need to settle present injustices.
– Alexis Long
LikeLike
An excerpt from Virginia McLaurin’s article which speaks to the historical and present need for intervention against the decidedly stereotypical representations of Natives in the Canadian literary canon:
“When a stereotyped group is mistreated by an individual or a dominant group, the dominant persons’ moral dilemmas are often soothed by the insistence that “they” are fundamentally different than “us.” The harmful results of this kind of social distancing are of serious concern to those interested in equal rights among humans, social justice, the wellbeing of children, and peaceful interactions between culturally different groups” (McLaurin 13).
LikeLike
Like Andrea, I was intrigued by “I Am Not a Fairy Tale”. For me, it seems like a nonsensical thing to worry about because it’s somehow assuming that if Indigenous stories are transformed into mainstream media, the original ceases to exist. I understand the sentiment, and I think it brings up a lot of good points about the medium of storytelling and the challenges in adapting Indigenous stories for wider consumption, but the fact is, the original story will still be there and if someone wants to tell it the “proper way” nobody is going to stop them.
In my opinion, the adaptations are a great thing, even if they don’t get the full effect across. Besides, there must be something we can do to incorporate some Indigenous storytelling techniques to bridge that gap, that’s something worth working on. Art is about improvement, no artist is going to make their magnum opus on their first try, and we sure aren’t going to get there if we don’t take risks. We should not condemn failures and look at them an avenue to improve all our works and praise the artist for experimenting with something different.
So my question is, what do you think would be great ways to adapt Indigenous stories to mainstream forms without losing so much of their meaning?
LikeLike
Hi Tony,
Thank you for your insights! As I have replied for Andrea’s comment, the problem is not the fact that stories are being adapted into current media, but the fact that they are undermined by labels which suggest falsehood and diminishes credibility. However, I think with adaptations, there are certain elements that can be problematic as well. I completely agree with you that adaptations can be a great thing, since art is about improvement, but there are also adaptations which take away from the stories and are destructive to their legacy. For example, an adaptation can lead to misrepresentations of the Indigenous community due to lack of knowledge of their culture. If this adaptation is spread through mainstream media, the audience’s consumption of it can be harmful to these stories that were told for a different purpose. We should praise artists for being willing to take risks, but I think we also have the need to be aware and critical of those who do not have the cultural understanding to produce such adaptations. To answer your question, I think one way to prevent Indigenous stories to lose their meanings while being adapted into mainstream media is to have workers with Indigenous background, or those who have true appreciation, respect, and knowledge of these stories that were passed down through time.
– Anna (Maple Leaf Igloos)
LikeLike
Denise Lajimodiere’s journal, “American Indian Females and Stereotypes: Warriors, Leaders, Healers, Feminists; Not Drudges, Princesses, Prostitutes, Multicultural Perspectives” expresses how Native stereotypes reflect the historic dehumanization, sexualization and colonist disregard for lives and right to life of Indigenous women. Lajimodiere says, “The Native women’s’ roles are clearly defined: if they are not being raped or murdered, they are usually shown as slaves, household drudges or bodies en masse in camps and caravans” (46).
I will argue that there is a historical need for intervention against stereotypical representation of Indigenous women. Because this colonial stereotype which sexually objectifies Native women has historically led to the rape, violence and murder against Indigenous women and girls by colonial men.
Another strong source is : “Representations of Aboriginal women and their sexuality” by Amy Humphreys
Colonist discourse framed Indigenous sexual activity as something “other”, purporting that Indigenous women were “sexually promiscuous and inherently available” (Humphreys 11). Humphreys explains how non-Native men used stereotypes of the “lurid, savage, promiscuous Native woman” to ‘justify’ rape and sexual coercion by holding basic needs against Native women (11).
Historical discourses framed Indigenous societies as brutal and characteristically physically violent against women. Colonists took on the belief that they are superior in their more ‘humane’ treatment of Indigenous women, thus, believed that Indigenous women would be more “willing to enter into sexual arrangements” with colonists who don’t beat them during sex (Humphreys 11).
Humphreys wrote a section which is particularly relevant to the theory that sexually objectifying stereotypes are linked to disproportionate sexual abuse against Native women, under the heading: “The promiscuous and vulnerable victim in colonial discourse”. “Colonists subsumed their understanding of [Indigenous] sexual traditions into their own cultural context as prostitution, which devalued the status of [Indigenous] women within colonist society” (Humphreys 12).
White society considered colonists taking advantage of Native women as normative in the absence of settler women. However, colonists were discouraged from “prolonged personal and sexual relationships with [Indigenous] women” (12). Colonial discourses framed relations with Native women as “consorting with prostitutes” and rejected colonists who prolonged relationships with Natives, as “morally degraded individuals” (12). The sexuality of Indigenous women was consequently “degraded and debated within a colonial Christian discourse that claimed perversion whilst enjoying the benefits of their dispossession and resultant poverty” (14). This enabled non-Native men to “access [Indigenous] women without ongoing responsibility” (12).
This historical colonist narrative is positioned to devalue Native women. This problematically frames Indigenous women to be thrown away, used, but sexually available on basis of race.
There is a historical need to intervene in sexually objectifying and “other”-ing stereotypes of Indigenous women. Because that sort of dehumanization and encouragement to use Indigenous women for sex but also not respect or value them as people, on basis of race, leads to disproportionate sexual abuse against Indigenous women.
– Alexis Long
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Maple Leafs Igloos,
I watched the TedTalk video and read through a few of the annotations. I mentioned on another blog about stereotypes and sports nicknames. Tara Houska mentions in the talk that she lived and worked in Washington, DC where the popular football team is named the Red Skins. The name is plastered all over shops and billboards. The slur that degrades indigenous people based on the colour of their skin is horrible. Unfortunatly, Washington is not the only team that bears a slur as their nickname. Cleveland calls themselves the Indians in Major League Baseball. There have been plenty of pleas to change the name and the hateful logos that accompany them. These sterotypes tell the public, “it is ok to refer to Indigenous people as ‘Red Skins’ and ‘Indians'”. The representation of the Indigenous people will never change in many minds of Americans and Canadians if we allow the teams to continue to disregard native voices in favour of their own.
It would be interesting if there is any reason, or specific stories that allow these teams to think they can justify using these names. There must be stories that include how Washington and Cleveland have have been able to maintain these identities rather than just citing history. What do you think of these teams saying that they are “celebrating” Indigenous people rather than having racial names.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Maxwell,
Thank you for your question, it is actually an eye-opening one and something that we have not “touched” yet in this quest for the Indigenous aspect of the Canadian literature. It made me do research and I came across this website that, in my opinion defines well the use of Indigenous terminology, please have a look: https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guidelines-for-usage. As you will see, the use of “Indian” is allowed only within the terms determined by the Indian Act and refers to legal status. I do not see how this can be applied to sport names and agree with you that this must have been in disguise of celebrating the culture, which is so ironic that deserves a place in King’s literature. I would not even discuss “Red Skins” term, because in my opinion it has an openly racistic tone.
LikeLike
Thank-you for your question Maxwell! In response to your question, I found this very interesting read about why the offensive Cleveland Indians logo has survived for so long: https://qz.com/quartzy/1194171/a-design-historian-explains-why-the-cleveland-indians-offensive-logo-survived-for-so-long/
17-year old draftsman Walter Goldbach created the mascot emblem with the intention to “convey a spirit of pure joy and unbridled enthusiasm”. While the Team certainly does not have a justifiable reason for keeping the mascot so long, the likely reason why changing the mascot was met with resistance for so long is simply nostalgia. “Some diehard fans have expressed grief about the loss of such an iconic character from their childhood”.
Another reason is the quality of art style, something hand-painted from nostalgic times. The Cleveland Indians logo has been championed in comparison against “most contemporary logo design now, all done in Adobe Illustrator and it looks like it was drawn by a corporation. There’s no brush and ink and actual life in the actual drawing.”
Dowd, an Indigenous activist hopes that in designing a new mascot, the Cleveland Indians might instead “study the visual language of the historical tribes of the Ohio valley such as the Chippewa, the Miami and Delaware Indians. ‘It’s very emblematic, it could be transformed into something satisfying graphic’.” Down goes on to say, “If you say you want to honor the American Indians, then look seriously on how to do that.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Guys.
I absolutely loved the article you provided on Shakespeare’s The Tempest, being reimagined on Haida Gwaii.
The reimagining of classical theatre for a modern audience is critical. That is partly the success of the play, is that it’s words can be unaltered and yet remain so relevant. The issue is one must be aware of the stories they are telling when trying to recast something to shed light on indigenous representation
The Tempest is a questionable choice for this sort of adaptation, as Prospero has enslaved Caliban, who is a native of the island to do his bidding. This relationship aptly shows English Canada’s dominion over The Haida. If that is the point of the production’s casting then fair enough, however, what makes this unsettling, is that Caliban is written as a horrible person as well. Yes, he has been subjugated to slavery, which is horrible, but several times throughout the play, he talks of how much he would like to rape Miranda. This kind of portrayal, has the opposite effect one might want to highlight. If we want to show that Canada’s domination of Haida Gwaii is wrong, we need to show the indigenous population with strength and dignity, not portrayed as wronged and violent Caliban.
I think that locally here in Victoria, and in Vancouver, there are many more inclusive theatre pieces starting to take root. Bard on the beach did a wonderful adaptation of “Lysistrata” an ancient greek play, but was re imagined to take place in Vancouver with Bard on the Beach actors putting in on, in the middle of rezoning applications for Vanier Park. The production highlighted sexism toward women, but also colonisation of Vanier park, and gave the audience history as to the indigenous stories that surround the area.
Do you think we should be adapting classics to fit with an indigenous narrative? Do you think we should be striving for new works representative of indigenous stories and history? What do you think is accomplished by staging The Tempest in this way? Was it worth it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, thanks for commenting!
I agree that the explicit depiction of Caliban was a rather controversial choice. I believe Baumander had originally intended for this particular casting to exploit Indigenous stereotypes and bring to light the negative connotations surrounding such depictions, however, ultimately one could very well argue that this worked to only further such stereotypes, instead of debunk them. It’s quite the double-edged sword, but effect often outweighs intent. “Lysistrata” is such a great text to be readapted! It’s so incredibly cheeky yet full of social commentary, and I can see how it would have translated well into a Bard adaptation. In response to your question, I do think that we should be adapting classics to fit with an Indigenous narrative, but there is a fine line between positive and negative connotations being depicted, as exhibited by Baumander’s rendition of The Tempest. In order to draw people in, we must appeal to them with something that is familiar, which is why popular works such as Shakespeare’s can be adapted to such narratives. However, it can be tricky as these narratives are often written with heavy implications of anti-minority attitudes, which reflect the time of publication. One should be careful as to how they are translating these attitudes into a modern day adaptation that is aiming to heal and not harm the Indigenous agenda. In my opinion, staging The Tempest in this way had its pros and cons. Although its contents could be perceived as harmful, Baumander has good intent going into the project, and it allowed for audiences in the theatre sphere to be more aware that Indigenous representation in theatre exists – or should exist, at least. It was a good learning experience overall.
-Katrina
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wanted to touch on the article about indigenous poetics. The article didn’t put much in the way of argument so much as stated that Indigenous poetics are important to remind us of our colonial history, as well as offer insight into aboriginal way of thinking, which i agree with. I know that poetry has significantly different meanings when translated into different languages. Some languages do not hold meaning well in their translated form.
Do you think it is important for Indigenous Poetics to be represented in their original language? Do you think it is more helpful to be presented in English to help speakers of non indigenous language the opportunity to experience this work? Do you think new indigenous works should be written in both the original language and in English? What is the sacrifice of writing in English or is there one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, it is Dana from Maple Leaf Igloos , thank you for your question.
I thought it was important to diversify our response to the topic we have chosen and I believed it was interesting to touch on the question of the indigenous poetics as related to the language.
Yes, I strongly believe that the Indigenous Poetry should be represented in its own language. We have discussed at large in this course the meaning of the first contact stories and how it was not possible to ascribe them the meaningfulness, exactly because they were not told in the Native languages, but instead were told in English, by using European symbolism and mythology. I thought that it was important to include this article because the author concludes that, in poetry, as well as in literature the first step toward “decolonization” is in re-acquisition of Indigenous languages. The cosmology and mythology, and the cultural tissue that lies behind the Indigenous poetry, would be impossible to translate properly in English without deep understanding and familiarity with the same.
Dana
LikeLike