New Historicism Critique of “The Colour of Walls”

In this blog post I will provide a new historicism critique of Thomas King’s “The Colour of Walls” from the short story collection A Short History of Indians in Canada. In this critique I will discuss what systems of meaning were available to the author at the time the text was produced, how cultural concepts changed over time, how contemporary events, assumptions and perspectives shaped the reading and how the text influences reconsiderations of history. However, prior to doing the above I will briefly discuss what I think the story is about.

            “The Colour of Walls” appears to be a battle between assimilation and resistance to assimilation. Harper Stevenson, the white man who wants his office walls to be white at any cost represents the colonizing Europeans and his efforts in the story represent how Europeans tried incredibly hard to assimilate all First Nations people into European culture and ways of life. Harper’s office walls that refuse to be painted completely white represent Indigenous Canadians and how throughout history they did whatever they could to resist full assimilation into Euro-Canadian culture. The fact that the Harper was never able to make the walls completely white, despite his best efforts shows that Indigenous Canadians have in-fact been successful in resisting full assimilation and were able to keep their culture alive. Eurocentrism is also a common theme in the story and it is displayed throughout when Harper constantly talks about how he wants white for his office wall colour (clearly denoting that he views white as superior) and when Harper takes matters into his own hands to make the walls white, even going so far as to dry wall over the old walls (showing that he will do whatever it takes to make the walls and hence Indigenous people white because he views white as superior).

            When discussing the systems of meaning that were available to Thomas King at the time that the story was published in 2005, it is important to note the role that culture played in this area. What I mean by this is explained below. So, since Thomas King is Native American and had an insider perspective of what Indigenous people went through in terms of colonization and by extension assimilation he knew and viewed events related to the above as negative and negatively impacting Indigenous people. While many outside of Indigenous cultures and in mainstream Euro-Canadian society viewed events related to colonization and assimilation as positive both for Europeans as it gave them access to vast amounts of land and resources and Indigenous people as through colonization and assimilative policies they were ‘civilized’ and learned the European ways of living. This Eurocentric perspective was also the one that was most commonly reproduced throughout Canada during this time period, so it is the one that children most commonly learned in schools and as a result the one that many people, especially those from the dominant Euro-Canadian group believed in. So, in a way how Thomas King wrote the story (with Europeans as being aggressive, unrelenting and overall acting negatively) ran counter to what many people thought or believed in, as many people romanticised European colonization and considered it a good thing. In essence King had two conflicting systems of meaning to work with when he was writing “The Colour of Walls” and he chose the one that he believed to be true and aligned with his culture and cultural views.

            Over time many people’s cultural concepts have began to change and more people have come to view colonization and assimilative policies as being negative. This has largely had to do with what has occurred in the last 15 years (since the novel was published) and what resulted from it. In the last 15 years events such as the approval of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the creation of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the launch of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the establishment of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, as well as various court cases and news stories have highlighted how and why colonization and assimilative policies were bad for Indigenous people. These events have led to many non-Indigenous Canadians understanding or realizing why colonization and assimilation were negative for Indigenous people. It has also let to more people supporting Indigenous people and their cultures, views, and rights. Also, in the curriculums of many provinces there has been an emphasis put into adding Indigenous content in all subjects (to help students understand Indigenous cultures and why it is important to learn about their values and traditional ways of knowing, among others things) and getting rid of learning content from a wholly Eurocentric perspective (so students understand Indigenous views and perspectives on historical events). This has led to students and teachers alike understanding why colonization and assimilation were bad for Indigenous people and their culture and why they must fight against assimilative policies for the betterment of society. So, essentially as a society in the last 15 years Canada has generally acquired more knowledge about Indigenous experiences within the country and has generally come to value Indigenous people and culture more as a result.

            When it comes to how contemporary events, assumptions and perspectives shaped the reading, it all depends on the individual. Some people who read the story will still consider colonization and assimilation to be good things and still hold largely Eurocentric views despite hearing or knowing of counter evidence to this. So, if this is the case they probably won’t like or agree with the stories’ portrayal of Europeans and assimilation. However, I think that for the most part people who read the story will know of and understand contemporary events such the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and understand why colonization and assimilation were bad and why the story is an accurate portrayal of them and Indigenous people’s resistance to them. So, essentially contemporary events have shifted many people’s perspectives from being Eurocentric to more open and understanding of Indigenous people and their history. When it comes to assumptions many non-Indigenous people who read the book when it first came out would have assumed that King due to being Indigenous was biased in his telling of history and inaccurate because it didn’t align with what they learned or believed. However, based on the new information that has come to light and many peoples’ changing perspectives I think that most would no longer hold these assumptions and instead applaud King for his work and telling of historical truths.

            The text influences us to reconsider history in a variety of ways. First, with the way the story is structured it makes us reconsider European colonization of North America and assimilation of Indigenous people. It influences us think of colonization and assimilation from an Indigenous perspective and as a tale of successful resistance instead of from a European perspective where Europeans were successful in conquering Indigenous land and ‘civilizing’ them (assimilating them into their culture), as it has commonly been told in the past. The story also influences us to think of Europeans as being aggressive and brutal in their pursuit of colonizing North America and assimilating Indigenous people, instead of us viewing Europeans as being noble and well intentioned in their pursuit colonization and assimilation, as it was commonly believed in the past. The text also influences us to realize through Harper Stevenson’s comments and actions that Canada has historical been incredibly Eurocentric and that Indigenous peoples’ views and culture have historically been ignored or oppressed. This will influence some people to think that Canadian history has largely been about forcing European views and culture on those who did not want it (Indigenous people) and Europeans (colonial governments and other people of power) doing whatever it takes to ensure that Euro-Canadian culture is the most dominant and what is viewed to be the most ideal.