babble book club discussion 'The Inconvenient Indian' by Thomas King

I read it in the fall. It's next to my bed waiting to be re-read in the week of the 13-17. I am currentlt reading Margaret Atwood's Maddadam and The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking.

The nice thing about Maddadam was that Atwood gave a small summary of the first two books for those of us with short memories.

So... I'm ahead of Caissa lol?

That poses a good question. If you had to write an autobiography, how many pages would it be?

[Sorry for the thread drift.]

I read Inconvenient Indian back in  September/October, when my hold came in on it at the library. Didn't quite finish it though, I only got to about page 200 or so before I had to return the book. I thouroughly enjoyed the read. Though not having the book on hand means I'll only be able to make more general comments during the discussion and won't be able to refer to specifics that would require having the book on hand.

KenS wrote:

Five pages.

OK, I am now 50 pages into The Inconvenient Indian.  All good so far, though I am starting to wonder whether the narrative voice or "tone" King adopts (repeated use of irony, humour, sarcasm) which would be great in a magazine article might wear a little thin over the long run of a full book.  We shall see .... 

Uh-huh. By the end of Chapter 2, I was getting a little tired of King's repeated use of paragraph-long lists (wars with Indians, Indians on postage stamps, Indian actors, etc) when he notes in an aside:

"Helen, in her helpful way, suggested that I should cut all the lists in this chapter in half, suggested that no one likes to read lists, suggested that lists are, by and large, pedantic. She's right, of course. I just wanted to see the names, and I wanted to make sure that you saw them too." 

I agree with Helen. But its a nice narrative device, I grant you.

Re-read the first 200 pages yesterday. Enjoying it this time as much as I did the first time.  I think King is using his lists to prove the pointbthat these events are not isolated occurences. My academic background is in history so I really appreciate his more causal approach to the past. I have read far too much dry pedantic stuff in the past.

Caissa wrote:

Finished the book for the second time last night.  My copy includes a discussion guide with 16 questions.

Send me the answers by PM.

The discussion is tomorrow at 2 p.m. EST.

T 4 2.

I'm typing out question 11 from the discussion guide in my copy of the book. "King enlists humor and satire througout The Inconvenient Indian. Does this make you consider things differently than you would in reading the same sentiments in a traditional history book? Why might maintaining a sense of humour be important to King in writing this book and persuading his readers? Is it an effective tool?"

Absolutely the humo(u)r and satire are vital to the book. Effective? My guess is yes. Litanies of versions of little-known or better-known historical events don't draw much blood, either from an academic or a lay crowd. The most important part of the humour, I think, is that much of it is directed at the author - self-poking fun. That leaves the impression that while being determined to correct the historical record and set the real context rigorously, the author isn't dogmatic, he's open to argument, to different sides. That's refreshing and I think crucial to persuasion. From my observations, it's also a significant part of the "national character" of at least some First Nations. Maybe it helped them survive against overwhelming odds.

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

Hmm, regarding the audience -- let's humour the discussion (I guess) and say he wrote it for Whites because as he says in the book, (paraphrasing) -- The question has been what do Natives want, but really, the question has always actually been, what do Whites want.

Yup, and the answer to both is: LAND.

I don't believe that was his sole reason for using it. We'll have to disagree on the motivation. Often when King was getting to an intense issue he would use some humour to soften things up. Here is what he says in an interview with Sheila Rogers when she mentions that his use of humour pervades the book.  King: "Yes, it's the only way to deal with tragedy. ... I think you have to draw them in, you have to give them some respite, you have to allow them to see the humour in a very bad situation. And  I think they are more willing to listen to you if you are reasonable.... But I think you have to work with your reader, and not just brutalize them with facts.... And sometimes a liitle satire goes a long way. Sometimes looking at a tragic moment through a particular angle provide  bit of humor and deepens the tragedy at the same time. Makes it more powerful."

Christina Turner wrote:

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

Hmm, regarding the audience -- let's humour the discussion (I guess) and say he wrote it for Whites because as he says in the book, (paraphrasing) -- The question has been what do Natives want, but really, the question has always actually been, what do Whites want.

 

Yup, and the answer to both is: LAND.

Yup, that appears to be his answer. And it may be very important to emphasize, even over-emphasize, the LAND issue. But it doesn't explain many of the struggles being waged by Indigenous people today. There's grinding poverty, unemployment, cultural genocide, discrimination in education and jobs and housing. There's self-determination beyond just the land question. King's account is convincing as to the White delusions about Aboriginal folks and their history - but his 4-letter answer is too abrupt - I wasn't convinced. While LAND may be at the heart of what Whites want, and while dispossession may be at the heart of how the Indians were historically dispossessed, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's at the heart of the solution today.

ETA: I don't mean to start a discussion about what the crux of Indigenous struggle is about - I'm not qualified or well-placed to pronounce on that. I'm merely talking about King's account. If LAND is the ticket, I'd at least like to understand how that relates to the struggles of Indigenous folks (not just First Nations) who have lived in urban areas for generations now. Just as one example. I know it's not a treatise and not intended to be one, but I think King succeeds more on the level of historical description than on prescription.

I think the quotation from Sheila makes it pretty clear it was for his White audience but we can disagree. Obviously, I'm reading the book through a my white lens while others would read it through their particular lens.

I thought his taxonomy of live Indian, Dead Indian and Legal Indian was quite helpful in framing the material.

re. Land- I thought King was arguing that in general Europeans and Indiands relate to Land in different manners.

Caissa wrote:

I thought his taxonomy of live Indian, Dead Indian and Legal Indian was quite helpful in framing the material.

Me too!