A Red Girl's Reasoning By Emily Pauline Johnson

1331 Words3 Pages

The story, “A Red Girl’s Reasoning” revolves around the cultural differences between the white North Americans and Native Indians. Author Emily Pauline Johnson writes about how the young Charlie McDonald is abandoned by his Native Indian wife due to his narrow minded beliefs. The story also plays the role of an allegorical representation of the trials and turbulences of cross cultural marriage in the 17th century. Around this time the Natives and Europeans did not accept each other’s cultures and deemed each other’s practices as illegal. The passage chosen highlights how the incompatibility between the two cultures ends up ruining the relationship between Christine and Charlie. This essay will argue that the ideologies and cultural values regarding …show more content…

(Johnson, 117-18) The author reveres Indian values as desirable however considers them as heathens. By calling Christine uncivilized and uncultured, the author implies that European North American cultures are the basis by which people should be universally critiqued. This further strengthens the implication of the Marxist theory to the story. The passage chosen exemplifies the conflict between the two classes, Natives and Whites, in a personal manner. “There was no such time as that before our marriage, for we-are not married now-. Stop.” She said outstretching her palms against him as he sprang to his feet (133). As Christie talks in this passage, her entire character is altered from frail, little and weak to a fierce and strong woman. More so, the character displays a sort of euphony. Despite the grim context, Christie continues to present herself in a harmonious and beautiful manner further providing depth to her character as a strong woman who carries herself with grace and beauty. This line also darkens the tone for the remainder of the story. Marriage carries great weight and plays the role of master status in story. By nullifying their marriage, Christine threatens to erase both her and Charlie’s societal …show more content…

Why should I recognize the rites of your nation when you do not acknowledge the rites of mine” (133)? This relates to Marx’s theory of class conflict. During the 17th century, neither of the classes fully accepted each other’s laws or customs. Christie questions Charlie’s Christian values as a consequence of rejecting hers and, doing so, implies they are not married. She then continues by telling Charlie that there is no sanctity in marriage through Church to her people if he feels the Indian marriage was not considered legal to him and his people. This is seen in the line “my parents should have gone through your church ceremony as well as through an Indian contract; according to_my_words,_we_should go through an Indian contract as well as through the church marriage” (133). The positioning of the church and Indian contract make a bold statement. When reiterating Charlie’s words, Christie said church ceremony then Indian contract as if the contract were the less important, secondary option. She then said “according to my words” the contract then the church marriage, treating the contract as the more valid and more important form of

Open Document