I would like to focus on "Martha's Joey" in today's journal and relate it to my prior discussion with deleted text from Klee Wyck by Irwin. Firstly, it would be a crude, yet in my eyes, a valid comparison to equate Irwin publishers to that of the European missionaries and us, the audience, as the victimized aboriginal peoples. Upon consultation with John Jervis's Exploring the Modern, modernity as a project seeks to create novel perceptions of identity, action, and history. By erasing the whole of "Martha's Joey," and tamper with "Tanoo," is Irwin not rewriting history by altering our perception of Canadian history? Are they not using Carr's language as a vehicle to erase the ugly treatment of Natives?

In this view, "Martha's Joey" utterly threatens to undermine the European notion that First Nations peoples are heathens who need to be saved. Quite the contrary, the abandoning of one's child would in no doubt be frowned upon, especially if white settlers were relying on the "backward" and "inferior" aboriginal (gasp!) woman to care from their child. Not only is Martha shown as caring and tolerant of otherness (by her treating Joey as her very own), the missionaries are portrayed by Carr as cruel form lack of consideration of Martha's emotional ties to the child, and vice versa. Who is to say a white child must be educated by whites? Carr is blatant in her criticism, exclaiming, "It's beastly of the priests to steal him from Martha."

As an aside, I observed that Carr's father is also sympathetic towards the Natives. I wonder what his experiences are, both in interactions with Natives and him potentially having to deal with criticisms of his actions/beliefs by fellow whites. If Carr is before her time in rejecting the discourse regarding indigenous peoples at her time, criticisms may/must have been even stronger for her father.

There is a discrepancy between the actual treatment of Natives and the edited writings of Carr. Irwin has romanticized the conduct, marginalizing certain events and has Carr's writings perpetrate the idea that Europeans peacefully coexisted with Natives and only wanted to "civilize" them.

It cannot be said that the Europeans have had an entirely negative influence on the Natives. I certainly stand with feet firmly planted that, with respect to culture, it was genocide. However, with the development of technology and industrialization, education became increasingly more important. By having aboriginal children learn English and other European customs, they became equipped with a certain kind power. Previous Native-owned lands were converted to a westernized society. The assimilation process made the Native transition to the New World easier.

Jon, my friend, is currently taking an Aboriginal Studies course. His class had a guest lecturer come in last week to speak to them about Native culture. He told me the guest really opened up his eyes to his ignorance about his own culture. Jon had asked many questions and the lecturer asked him why, if he is so interested, he never has taken the opportunity to find the answers himself; he chooses not to know, to be ignorant. I sense this is similar to the "banana" effect.

"If you find anything out," I tell him, "be sure to tell me all about it." He gave me a smile that wondered aloud why I would be interested in Native culture. "Yea, for sure. For sure."