Similarities Between 'Coyote And Pine Nut And The Big Fish'

Group 1, Question B
Stone Mother describes the tale of a mother of four children who, in an attempt to disassemble her children’s fighting, separates them. She instructs the siblings to light a fire, one from the north and one from the south. The siblings directed to go to the south ultimately never lit a fire causing the Stone Mother to cry enough tears to form a lake out of worry for her children. The origin story of Stone Mother describes all the criteria mentioned in “Native American Traditions.” For example, Stone Mother ties in ecological aspects with moral characteristics (Stone Mother’s tears that form the lake) and emphasizes the importance of both sibling harmony and mother-child bond (Stone Mother separating her children because

of their conflicts and crying over her children). Additionally, “Native American Traditions” also explains that origin stories (or creation stories) are stories that “explains the origins or emergence of something.” In this case, the “something” would presumably be the formation of the lake.

Group 2, Question B
Both “Coyote and Pine Nut” and “The Big Fish” have similar characteristics.

For starters, both stories centralize on animals and these animals are somehow related to the creation or “beginning” of something. In “Coyote and Pine Nut,” the story explains the existence of juniper trees in Northern California and pine trees in Nevada (Origin Stories 3: Coyote and Pine Nut). Likewise, “The Big Fish,” story provides an explanation to the abundance of fish in June Lake, Gull Lake, Silver Lake, and Grant Lake (Origin Stories 4: The Big Fish). Both animals are given a huge role to play in the ecological aspect of the land. Conversely, the moods of both stories are starkly different. Whereas the tale of Coyote and Pine Nut is told in a light-hearted and joking manner, the tale of the Big Fish takes on a more serious tone as the narrator explains how the Big Fish stands for unity and familial bond amongst the Northern Paiutes. Perhaps this stems from the fact that the coyote in Native American traditions is a figure associated with tricks and jokes rather than

purposefulness.

Group 3, Question B
Immediately, Columbus establishes a sense of superiority and claim to the Native Taino people by stating in the very first paragraph that “[he has] taken possession of [the Native Taino] for [his] Highnesses” (Columbus). Columbus’ description of the Native Taino people contradicts itself at certain points. Columbus does not hesitate to mention the Taino people’s positive characteristics such as their strong physique, generosity, intelligence, and resourcefulness. However, the tone of Columbus’ letter portrays the Native Taino people as god-worshippers and followers, stating that although the Native Taino people believed him to be of divine status, “this belief [was] not the result of ignorance… [but] of a very acute intelligence…” (Columbus) emphasizing that Columbus himself believes that in comparison to the Native Taino people, he himself truly was a god. Furthermore, Columbus attempts to convey a sense of peace and unity with the Native Taino people but also explicitly states that upon arrival, he “took some of the natives by force, in order that they might learn and might give [him] information of whatever there is in [the islands]” (Columbus). The stark contrast between the admiration Columbus shows for the Native Taino people and his perception of them as lower beings ultimately appeals to the Spanish royalty that he writes to. Should Columbus show too much appreciation to the Native Taino people, both his status and his loyalty may come into question – however, this is negated by his references to the use of violence, force, and establishment of a sense of authority through the rights of the King and Queen.

Group 4, Question C
Though Columbus mentions the positive characteristics of the Native Taino people he does this in a manner that emanates intrigue rather than adoration and demonstrates his superiority by emphasizing his use of force and dominance over the people.

This is further emphasized when he explains that the Native Taino people “were very firmly convinced that [he], with [his] ships and men, came from the heavens” and that “[t]his belief [was] not the result of ignorance, for [the Native Taino people], on the contrary, [are] of a very acute intelligence…” (Columbus). In comparison to Columbus’ manner of speaking, the native Americans accentuate respect and reach out for equality rather than superiority. While Columbus only believed in appealing to his own people, the native Americans in the Alcatraz Proclamation attempt to appease every single party involved. This is shown when they state that “[they would] give the inhabitants… a portion of [the] land…” (Alcatraz Proclamation), pay money that is of greater value in comparison to other purchases of islands, and even “guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living” (Alcatraz Proclamation). The stark difference in how each convey the other comes from the notion of superiority and inferiority. Columbus believed he was of greater status than the Native Taino people, therefore his behavior towards them and his manner of speaking about them was inherently crude and unfiltered since he had no reason to believe that he had to tread on his

words carefully, while the native Americans in the Alcatraz Proclamation are careful with how they speak and are very comprising with their declaration which shows the higher respect that they have for the “other”” – which in this case is the white men, as they refer to them.