A Red Girl's Reasoning By Emily Pauline Johnson

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

love, marriage and acceptance are highly subjective to external factors and how it applies to the Marxist theory.
Marxism provides a theory of society where classes struggle to play as the dominant role in the development of society. In his theory, Marx discusses class conflict stating the class that gains most benefit from the status quo, in this case Anglo-Saxons, dominate as the capitalist class. This causes a disproportionate share in wealth, power, and privilege and squeezes competing classes out. During the story’s time, Natives and Whites were in competition to achieve status quo thus the resentment towards one another.
The lonely young Englishman’s heart had gone out to the girl who, apart from speaking a very few words of English, was utterly uncivilized and uncultured, but had withal that marvelously innate refinement so universally possessed by higher tribes of American Indians.

(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

identity. Throughout the passage darker connotations are applied, all revolving around the sanctity of their marriage.
“I tell you we are not married.

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

marriage.
When the priest came with his notions of Christianizing, and talked to them of re-marriage by the Church, my mother arose and said, “Never-never-I have never had but this one husband; he has had none but me for wife, and to have you re-marry us would be to say as much to the whole world as that we had never been married before. You go away; I do not ask that your people be re-married; talk not so to me. I am married, and you or the Church cannot do or undo it. (Johnson, 131)
Christie, like her mother, found that the key ingredient for a marriage is a mutual love for one another. She believed that, no matter the type of ceremony, once a bond is made, it shouldn’t be questioned based on legalities set by capitalist classes. This leads to the next section of the passage:
How do I know when another nation will come and conquer you as you white men conquered us? And they will have another marriage rite to perform, and they will tell us another truth, that you are not my husband, that you are but disgracing and dishonoring me, that you are keeping me here, not as your wife, but as your—your--_squaw_. (Johnson, 133)
This is a prime example of how the Marxist theory functions. Classes provided with the most sources are often provided excessive power thus become the ruling class. As the ruling class, they can moderate norms such as the process of marriage and enforcing their own “truths”. Doing so allows them to control who enters the capitalist elite class as they usually aim to strengthen their own while weakening others. Like Karl Marx, Christie is more diplomatic and aims for the formation of a bourgeoisie while Charlie is headstrong on sustaining Whites as the upper class. Christie does an amazing job at providing an analogy for Charlie to relate to her situation however, headstrong, Charlie is still blind to her cry for equal acceptance of both laws. “She was simple-minded and awfully ignorant to pitch those old Indian laws at him in her fury, but he could not blame her; oh, no, he could not for one moment blame her” (Johnson, 136). The author, like Charlie, tells the story as a White North American who, like Charlie, negates the “pagan” laws that the Natives follow.
“She snatched off her wedding ring and tossed it across the room, saying scornfully, “That thing is as empty to me as the Indian rites to you” (133). The ring is used as a symbolism for their marriage through Church. The passage, like their marriage and life together, comes to an end.
The passage chosen can be related towards modern situations such as interracial marriage, cultural acceptance and LGBT rights. In eastern cultures, it is very uncommon for interracial marriages to take place. If married, it is commonly expected for one of the partners, often the wife, to forfeit their beliefs. This is similar to Christie’s situation. Much like the eastern cultures, she is expected to follow colonial traditions rather than her Native culture. LGBT rights and acceptance play a similar role in Marx’s conflict of classes as well. The dominant social class in the given area tend to determine the level of acceptance towards the gay community. Canada’s dominant class of middle class working people accept and endorse gay rights while states such as Alabama hold state laws that are strictly against homosexuality. The “truth” varies based on the decisions of the leading class.
In conclusion, the conflict of class and close-mindedness of Charlie ultimately ruined the relationship between him and Christie. Charlie was incapable of looking past the conflict between the Whites and the Natives and was head strong in believing that White laws were irrefutable. Christie, on the other was accepting and adapted well to both cultures. If Charlie hadn’t been so headstrong about negating Native culture, they would still have been married.