Orenda
Yesterday I forced myself to sit on the couch and read the final 40 pages of Orenda by Joseph Boyden. Usually, if I linger at the end of a book, it's because it's so good I don't it to end. This book, however, was different. I didn't want it to end not because the story was so well-told (although it was), but because the end of this book signaled the beginning of total domination of Aboriginal people's across Canada by the settling Europeans, which is a fact of history that breaks my heart on a daily basis as I watch my Aboriginal students struggle against nearly insurmountable odds, many of which are remnants of 400 years of colonial rule by those in power; indeed, that is still active policy today in many cases (although I'm not going to get into that here).
This book has been quite controversial in Canada: it has scenes of unbelievable violence, it paints portraits of various characters of history (fictionalized, but based on real people) in stereotyped ways (some claim), but mostly, I think, it deals with a time and sequence of events that is uncomfortable for Canada: both for those who came here as part of colonialism, and those who have always been here.
This is the part where I write a disclaimer that I'm not going to edit this as much as would be necessary to make it flow, so I'm switching to point form; and some of these ideas might be contradictory, and that is ok, because that is real life.
- Obviously I need to acknowledge my own lens: white, educated, professional, part of the colonialist settlers who benefited (continue to benefit) from the removal of Aboriginal people from their land.
- That said, I work every day with teenagers who remind me starkly of the cost that Canada continues to pay for the systemic racism and unjust policies that govern the relationship between the government and Aboriginal peoples' to this day.
- The more I learn about Aboriginal culture and spirituality, the more interested I am in learning more.
- I feel very strongly that Canada as a nation owes much more than anyone has ever admitted to its Aboriginal people.
This book will stick with me for a long time for a number of reasons:
- The description of the assumptions the French Jesuits and the Huron people made about each other before they could communicate continued to colour their interactions even after they could communicate, even as they both developed respect for each other. How much would have been different if they had asked each other questions instead of making assumptions?
- The rivalry/tension between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and Wendat (Huron) broke my heart over and over; not because the descriptions of ritualistic torture were graphic (which they were), but because I wonder what would have been different in our history if the Aboriginal people had been united against the settling forces.
- I read a review that said that the book portrayed the Aboriginal people in stereotyped 'Savages' ways and thus was not helpful, but I didn't take that image away at all. I think the humanity of the Wendat (and by extension the Haudenosaunee, who were acting as foils to the Wendat) people was striking: they knew much more about respect for self and each other and the land than the Jesuits did.
- What I appreciate most about Joseph Boyden (his other books are FANTASTIC) is that he writes in 1st person narrative, which has the impact of making the Aboriginal perspective the dominant perspective in the story. This is a point of view that isn't seen enough in literature. I hope he writes a teen book next so I can teach it.
- The enduring strength of Aboriginal peoples is something that the Canadian government can't seem to wrap its mind around: I am excited to see what the future holds for Canada. I feel that we might be in for a bit of a ride. I hope that the non-Aboriginal people of Canada can open their hearts and minds for what will be coming in terms of self-determination and the results of that.
Time will tell, I guess.
EDIT:
A conversation with a friend and then again with my in-laws helped me solidify this next bit, which I need to add here so I don't forget.
The torture scenes are probably one of the more controversial aspects of the book. It's what contributes (some say) to the idea that the Native people were 'savage' - this tradition they had of ritually torturing the warriors from opposing tribes that were captured during battle. However, I think to dismiss this ritual as 'savage' is missing the point entirely. The torture is brutal, yes. Horrific to read, yes. Terrible to imagine, absolutely. But it was performed with utmost respect for the strength of the one being tortured. People captured during war were not tortured indiscriminately, or for fun. The women and children were adopted by the capturing tribe and integrated into their society (which, incidentally, means there was not much difference at all between the people who were Haudenosaunee and Wendat, since the groups exchanged members regularly). The ones who were tortured were the fighters, the warriors. On both sides, warriors prepared themselves for this eventuality. Everyone knew the score: capture = torture and your job as a captured man was to be as strong as possible for as long as possible; in this way, you honoured your own people and gained respect from your captors. There is no manipulation or games, simply a way of doing things that is equally understood and participated in from all sides.
In contrast, the Europeans engaged in what I would liken to the 'torture' - they tried to 'break' the Native people by humiliating them, making them dependent, and manipulating them with things they had never seen or had no experience of: things like clocks and the ability to write and read language. There was no equality in this relationship, no respect. The Europeans held themselves above the Native people and although they didn't necessarily inflict physical pain (torture), they did go about inflicting all kinds of mental anguish which I have to say, is not better.
It is our set of societal values that colour our perception of how we understand these two ways of interacting with the 'other'. Once you take the taboo of physical pain away from the equation and look at the intent with which treatment was doled out, I think it's pretty clear that of the two groups, the Europeans were much more 'savage' than the Native people.
So that's what I think. Read it (skip the torture scenes, if you must, but if you do read them, look for the respect for the 'other' - it's there, in spades) and tell me what you think.
This book has been quite controversial in Canada: it has scenes of unbelievable violence, it paints portraits of various characters of history (fictionalized, but based on real people) in stereotyped ways (some claim), but mostly, I think, it deals with a time and sequence of events that is uncomfortable for Canada: both for those who came here as part of colonialism, and those who have always been here.
This is the part where I write a disclaimer that I'm not going to edit this as much as would be necessary to make it flow, so I'm switching to point form; and some of these ideas might be contradictory, and that is ok, because that is real life.
- Obviously I need to acknowledge my own lens: white, educated, professional, part of the colonialist settlers who benefited (continue to benefit) from the removal of Aboriginal people from their land.
- That said, I work every day with teenagers who remind me starkly of the cost that Canada continues to pay for the systemic racism and unjust policies that govern the relationship between the government and Aboriginal peoples' to this day.
- The more I learn about Aboriginal culture and spirituality, the more interested I am in learning more.
- I feel very strongly that Canada as a nation owes much more than anyone has ever admitted to its Aboriginal people.
This book will stick with me for a long time for a number of reasons:
- The description of the assumptions the French Jesuits and the Huron people made about each other before they could communicate continued to colour their interactions even after they could communicate, even as they both developed respect for each other. How much would have been different if they had asked each other questions instead of making assumptions?
- The rivalry/tension between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and Wendat (Huron) broke my heart over and over; not because the descriptions of ritualistic torture were graphic (which they were), but because I wonder what would have been different in our history if the Aboriginal people had been united against the settling forces.
- I read a review that said that the book portrayed the Aboriginal people in stereotyped 'Savages' ways and thus was not helpful, but I didn't take that image away at all. I think the humanity of the Wendat (and by extension the Haudenosaunee, who were acting as foils to the Wendat) people was striking: they knew much more about respect for self and each other and the land than the Jesuits did.
- What I appreciate most about Joseph Boyden (his other books are FANTASTIC) is that he writes in 1st person narrative, which has the impact of making the Aboriginal perspective the dominant perspective in the story. This is a point of view that isn't seen enough in literature. I hope he writes a teen book next so I can teach it.
- The enduring strength of Aboriginal peoples is something that the Canadian government can't seem to wrap its mind around: I am excited to see what the future holds for Canada. I feel that we might be in for a bit of a ride. I hope that the non-Aboriginal people of Canada can open their hearts and minds for what will be coming in terms of self-determination and the results of that.
Time will tell, I guess.
EDIT:
A conversation with a friend and then again with my in-laws helped me solidify this next bit, which I need to add here so I don't forget.
The torture scenes are probably one of the more controversial aspects of the book. It's what contributes (some say) to the idea that the Native people were 'savage' - this tradition they had of ritually torturing the warriors from opposing tribes that were captured during battle. However, I think to dismiss this ritual as 'savage' is missing the point entirely. The torture is brutal, yes. Horrific to read, yes. Terrible to imagine, absolutely. But it was performed with utmost respect for the strength of the one being tortured. People captured during war were not tortured indiscriminately, or for fun. The women and children were adopted by the capturing tribe and integrated into their society (which, incidentally, means there was not much difference at all between the people who were Haudenosaunee and Wendat, since the groups exchanged members regularly). The ones who were tortured were the fighters, the warriors. On both sides, warriors prepared themselves for this eventuality. Everyone knew the score: capture = torture and your job as a captured man was to be as strong as possible for as long as possible; in this way, you honoured your own people and gained respect from your captors. There is no manipulation or games, simply a way of doing things that is equally understood and participated in from all sides.
In contrast, the Europeans engaged in what I would liken to the 'torture' - they tried to 'break' the Native people by humiliating them, making them dependent, and manipulating them with things they had never seen or had no experience of: things like clocks and the ability to write and read language. There was no equality in this relationship, no respect. The Europeans held themselves above the Native people and although they didn't necessarily inflict physical pain (torture), they did go about inflicting all kinds of mental anguish which I have to say, is not better.
It is our set of societal values that colour our perception of how we understand these two ways of interacting with the 'other'. Once you take the taboo of physical pain away from the equation and look at the intent with which treatment was doled out, I think it's pretty clear that of the two groups, the Europeans were much more 'savage' than the Native people.
So that's what I think. Read it (skip the torture scenes, if you must, but if you do read them, look for the respect for the 'other' - it's there, in spades) and tell me what you think.
Comments
Post a Comment