This dissertation is both an analytical life history of Stó:lō Elder Archie Charles (1922-2010) as well as an academic reflection on the process of collaborating to record and write this told-to narrative. Grand Chief Archie Charles left a profound social, political and cultural legacy within the Stó:lō community. He is broadly acknowledged as one of the community’s most respected modern leaders. My examination of the way Archie strategically accepted and rejected elements of the teachings of his ancestors and the lessons learned from newcomers serves to enrich a growing body of post-colonial scholarship that challenges long-standing assumptions about what it means to be Aboriginal. The agency revealed through his life experience alerts us to the dynamic way in which Archie and certain others of his generation balanced innovation with tradition. This study of Archie’s life therefore, contributes to an emerging scholarship that challenges still lingering racist myths and faulty dualisms that position Native people as either “assimilated” or “resisting”. Through Archie’s story, I reveal the way in which he applied knowledge and skills he gained via the acculturation process (and his lifelong reflections on this process) to foster particular cultural continuities within areas of Stó:lō life. Archie successfully did this by enacting his own personal ethos of “protection through inclusion and education”. This research chronicles and interprets the genesis and evolution of his leadership strategy by tracing it back to his adaptive interpretations of his ancestral and familial teachings and highlighting key times in Archie’s life history when he worked to find a balance between innovation and tradition. Thus it foregrounds his formative experience with Xwelítem (newcomers) and Stó:lō society and cosmology, particularly his adoption, time spent attending Kamloops Indian Residential School, and involvement as a soldier and veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces. It highlights how he derived meaning out of these experiences, which in turn guided his actions in the public sphere and shaped his policies as a community leader –in particular as elected Chief of his community of Seabird Island British Columbia and as a Sia:teleq (a hereditary caretaker) of his family fishcamp in the Fraser Canyon. This research draws upon my own sustained dialogue with Archie Charles and his immediate family, secondary and primary sources, and previous oral history interviews conducted with Archie and his family members. It explicates Archie’s role as a man who was known more for his actions than his words and the ways in which silence may be interpreted and made meaningful in the told-to genre. In terms that reflect the subtleties of collaborative dynamics that play out in told-to narratives, it likewise examines his role as narrator and authority of his life experience and my role as chronicler, then interpreter. As such, it provides glimpses into specific time periods and aspects of Archie’s life, but does not seek to be fully chronologic and comprehensive. As a result, I seek to contribute to collaborative historiography by sharing the way in which my collaboration with Archie shifted from a dialogue, particularly following his death in 2010, to a “polylogue”: an engagement of multiple voices of family and extended community members to support this telling of his life narrative. Moving from hearing to a more engaged form of “listening” as we did – the kind which allows for silences to exist – reinforced for me that knowledge, expressed through words, gestures, actions as well as silences are not things we can go into a community or individual’s life and “get”. Rather, they are shared as gifts, and as such come with obligations of reciprocity. This dissertation aspires to reciprocate the sharing that Archie did with me by providing his community and my scholarly community with not only an account of his life, but with an assessment of what his life reveals about pertinent issues in Aboriginal and Native-Newcomer history – and through this process to hopefully contribute to the ongoing efforts at building reconciliation between settler and Indigenous societies.

University of Macau / Faculty of Arts and Humanities. / Department of English

Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study comprises a comparative visual analysis of three picture books, illustrated by Steven Kellogg, Posy Simmonds and Edward Gorey. The illustrators reinterpret the cautionary tale, Matilda, who told lies and was burned to death by Hilaire Belloc (1908). Not only does this study present a brief historical overview of the genre but it also interrogates the manner in which different styles of illustration underscore the pedagogical didactic narrative. The visual interpretations of these three illustrators are compared in order to establish whether or not they have succeeded in sustaining the subversive or grotesque elements of this cautionary tale. Belloc’s narrative as well as the illustrations are analysed in terms of gender. I discuss my own version of Belloc’s cautionary tale as a parody of this tale that serves to exaggerate the sometimes overt gendering of girl characters in cautionary tales. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie skripsie behels die visuele analise van drie verskillende prenteboeke, onderskeidelik geillustreer deur Steven Kellogg, Posy Simmonds en Edward Gorey. Al drie illustreerders bied ʼn visuele herinterpretasie aan van die vermaan-vers Matilda, who told lies and burned to death deur Hilaire Belloc. Die skripsie bied nie net ʼn geskiedkundige oorsig oor die genre nie, maar ondersoek die manier waarop verskillende illustrasie-style die opvoedkundige, didaktiese narratief onderstreep. Die illustreerders se prenteboeke word vergelyk en daar word vasgestel of hulle daarin geslaag het om die subversiewe en selfs groteske elemente in hierdie vermaan-verhaal te behou. Belloc se narratief en die illustrasie daarvan is ook in terme van gender geanaliseer. Ek bespreek my eie weergawe van Belloc se vermaan-verhaal, wat ek aanbied as ʼn parodie om die soms duidelike “gendering” van meisie-karakters in vermaan-verhale te oordryf.

Cette thèse remet en question le soupçon pesant sur les catégories de « classique » et « classicisme ». Centrales dans les manuels, ces notions sont pourtant renvoyées par les spécialistes à de purs anachronismes, et jugées impertinentes pour caractériser le XVIIe siècle et sa littérature. Marqués par la rhétorique et la sociologie historique, les travaux actuels écartent l’opposition idéologique entre classicisme et modernité. Mais l’analyse de l’antagonisme chez Barthes, et l’étude des querelles impliquant les Classiques de 1898 à 1966, permettent de donner un contenu inattendu au classicisme, très éloigné de l’irénisme dont on l’a accusé.La notion, son antonyme et ses parasynonymes (antimodernisme et post-classicisme) circonscrivent d’abord, pour la littérature, différents « régimes d’historicité » dont débattent les polémistes. Le terme reste également associé à l’élaboration d’un « dispositif » utopique, où écrire, critiquer et enseigner iraient de pair : cette configuration, essentielle au XVIIe siècle, est sans cesse « remise sur le métier » dans les querelles postérieures entre Anciens et Modernes. De 1666 à 1694, semblent surgir en réalité la plupart des questions que les critiques continueront de poser à la littérature. C’est le cas, notamment, chez Barthes, Gide et Valéry, quand ils cherchent à en déterminer les fonctions et les prérogatives. Parce que le concept d’autonomie n’est pas pour eux détaché de toute exemplarité, il s’avère utile, bien qu’anachronique, pour lire les textes du XVIIe siècle. L’art de la « disponibilité », que Barthes reconnaissait chez Racine, serait alors l’autre nom de la littérarité, le nom d’une littérarité autre – non formaliste – que les Classiques auraient bel et bien inventée et qui autoriserait leur lecture « vivante, concernée ». / This dissertation interrogates the scepticism that falls on the categories of “classics” and “classicism”. Though they are considered key concepts in textbooks, these notions are viewed by many specialists as pure anachronisms, and declared irrelevant in defining the 17th century and its literature. Drawing influences from rhetoric and historical sociology, recent work dismisses the ideological divide between classicism and modernity, but an analysis of this opposition in Barthes’s corpus, supported by a study of the quarrels involving the Classics from 1898 to 1966, endows classicism with an unheralded substance, far from the irenicism for which it has been condemned. The notion of classicism, its antonym, and its parasynonyms (anti-modernism and post-classicism) first and foremost delineate, as far as literature is concerned, different regimes of historicity that are debated by the polemicists. The term ‘classicism’ is continuously associated with the establishment of a utopian apparatus within which writing, criticism and teaching go hand in hand. This blueprint was essential in the 17th century and is revisited again and again in the subsequent quarrels between Ancients and Moderns. In fact, most of the questions that critics continue to ask literature seem to arise between 1666 and 1694. Case in point, Barthes, Gide and Valéry all sought answers to these age-old questions in their attempts to determine both the functions and the prerogatives of literature. According to them, the concept of autonomy in literature cannot be separated from exemplarity. Thus, it proves useful, although anachronistic, in the reading of 17th-century texts. The art of “availability”, which Barthes recognized in the works of Racine, would then be the other name of literariness, a distinct – non formalist – literariness that the Classics have invented which allows their “vital, concerned” reading.