Postcolonial Imagination and Postcolonial

Theory:
Indigenous Canadian and Australian Literature
Fighting for (Postcolonial) Space
Iva Polak
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb
_____________________________________________________________________
The paper focuses on the shifting and problematic term of postcolonial literature
when applied to indigenous writing in Canada and Australia. iscussion offers a
whole range of versatile definitions of postcolonialit! and postcolonial theor! from
the publication of The Empire Writes Back "#$%$& onwards rel!ing on the works b!
the authors such as '. Ashcroft( ). )riffiths( *. Tiffin( +. ,ishra( '. *odge( -.
-lemon( etc.( as well as the reactions and alternative solutions coming from
Indigenous writers such as Thomas .ing( /ee ,aracle and ,arie 'attiste in Canada(
and ,udrooroo and Ian Anderson in Australia.
_____________________________________________________________________
The term postcolonial has definitel! avoided some of the problems of its
terminological
predecessors "Commonwealth literatures and 0ew /iteratures in 1nglish&( but has
created
problems of its own. The ver! simple 2uestion ma! be when was the postcolonial(#
and
whether the postcolonial is too universalist a categor! which tends to swallow starkl!
different histories and places of utterance.
'oth the prefi3 post and the root colonial seem to be loaded with ambiguities.4
Colonialism in 51 is defined as a settlement in a new countr! 6...7 a bod! of people
who
settle in a new localit!( forming a communit! sub8ect to or connected with their parent
state
"/oomba 499#: 4&. 5bviousl!( the definition does not mention the possibilit! of an!
other
people apart from the coloni;ers who might have been living in that new countr! and(
conse2uentl!( a ver! complicated process of forming a communit! e3cludes such
people for
their invisibilit! is legitimised b! this definition. The sole process of forming a
communit!
lies at the ver! core of the great discoveries of the world from the #<th centur!
onwards and
has been a continuous mark of human histor!. 'ut this mark has also left a rather blood!
trace
behind( because forming one=s communit! meant forming a primaril! white communit!
in a
Theory and Practice in English tudies ! "#$$%&'
Proceedings from the Eighth (onference of British, )merican
and (anadian tudies. 'rno: ,asar!kova univer;ita
*va Polak
#><
new countr! b! appl!ing a wide range of practices including trade( plunder(
negotiation(
warfare( genocide( enslavement and rebellions "/oomba 499#: 4&. Practices such as
plunder(
warfare( genocide and enslavement would not have been necessar!( had the coloni;ers
not had
somebod! to plunder( fight against( put to genocide or enslave.
Another problem stems from the word settlement and the agent settler which led
to a t!pe of 1uropean colonies usuall! known as settler colonies. Alread! in the mid
#$<9s(
.1.-. ,a3well introduced two broad categories of 1uropean colonies which have been
accepted( albeit also criticised( b! the scholars: the so?called settler colonies and the
invaded
colonies or colonies of occupation "Ashcroft et al+ #$$#: 4<&. 5ne of the differences
between
these two t!pes stems from the fact that in the invaded colonies( indigenous people
remained
in the ma8orit!( but were administered b! a foreign power "Ashcroft et al+ 4999: 4##&
whereas in case of the settler colonies( the first peoples were overwhelmed and
dispossessed
b! 1uropean colonists and following the 1uropean arrival( ceased to represent a
ma8orit!
group. There is a rather unclear distinction between the settler in the settler colon! and
the
invader or occupier in the invaded colon! or colon! of occupation. )iven the fact that
scholars have started using the term settler?invader colon! for the first group( both
categories are drawn together and overlap( because the white settlers in settler colonies
were
invaders to the people alread! residing on the locations discovered b! white colonists
such
as Indians in Canada and Aborigines in Australia. -o( settling immediatel! implies
invasion
or occupation.
As regards the prefi3 post in postcolonialism( it seems that the slippage of the
concept of colonialism becomes even greater following this prefi3ation since post can
alwa!s denote a possible postness or posterit! in relation to colonialism. This
becomes
particularl! poignant when the label postcolonial is applied to the literature of
settlerinvader
colonies such as Canada and Australia( countries where coloni;er@coloni;ed
relationship can also be multiplied from colonialism within. In other words( the colonial
sub8ect "e.g. Anglo?Celtic Canadian and Australian& can be both oppressor "with
respect to
the indigene& and oppressed "with respect to the metropolitan coloni;ing culture&
")riffiths
#$$<: #AB&( whereas( in the same token( indigenous peoples "of e.g. Canada and
Australia&
can be either once or twice oppressed.
This brings us to the definition( or rather a whole variet! of definitions and even
spelling solutions( with or without h!phen( of the term postcolonialism. In the
beginning(
the term was used to denote the post?colonial state which had a clear chronological
meaning
and referred to the period following independence though such post?colonial nation?
states
have usuall! been coterminous with the boundaries of the colonial administrative
units
"Ashcroft et al+ 4999: #$>& or remained economicall! dependent on the mother countr!.
'ut
from the late #$A9s critics have been using the term postcolonial to discuss various
cultural@political@linguistic effects and e3periences triggered off b! coloni;ation which
gave
rise to the so?called colonial discourse theor!. To that effect( the term( as ambiguous as
it is(
became the site of disciplinar! and interpretative contestation. The authors of the
groundbreaking stud! The Empire Writes Back "#$%$& offer a definition of
postcolonialism as
covering all the culture effected b! the imperial process from the period of
colonisation
on,ards "Ashcroft et al+ #$$#: 4( emphasis mine&. *ence( the post in postcolonial(
notwithstanding the application of the h!phen( does not impl! posterit! in regard to
colonialism( but is a product of it. 5n the other hand some authors( primaril! those into
colonial discourse theor! such as 1dward -aid( *omi .. 'habha and )a!atri -pivak
insist on
the h!phen to distinguish postcolonial studies as a field from colonial discourse theor!
per
se( which formed onl! one aspect of man! approaches and interests that the term
Cpostcolonial=
sought to embrace "Ashcroft et al+ 4999: #%A( emphasis in the original&.
Postcolonial *magination and Postcolonial Theory' *ndigenous (anadian and )ustralian -iterature
Fighting for
"Postcolonial& pace
#>A
It seems that both spellings and both concepts often collapse one into the other which
has motivated +i8a! ,ishra and 'ob *odge to come up with the third possibilit! D
post"?&colonialism( with the significant h!phen in brackets( which can be used in plural
as
well. As the! claim( this form of postcolonialism is not a marker of something
following
something else( but is rather implicit in the discourses of colonialism themselves
",ishra
and *odge #$$>: 4%E&. The reason for accepting the plural form of postcolonialism is
that this
field comprises a set of heterogenous Cmoments= arising from ver! different historical
processes "4%B&. -imon uring has concluded the same when he stated that the
postcolonial
Caffect= is specific to each e3?colon!. 5bviousl! 0ew Fealand postcolonialism is not
the
same as Australian postcolonialism( is not the same as 0igerian( is not the same as
Indian and
so on "uring #$%B: ><$&.
,ost importantl!( both ,ishra and *odge( and uring as well as scholars such as
1lleke 'oehmer( )areth )riffiths( -tephen -lemon to name a few( have tried to tackle
the
problem of naming the te3t of the 5ther in the conte3t of postcolonialism( or whether
the term
postcolonialism can rightfull! carr! a load of the postcolonial hierarch!. As Ania
/oomba
has noted( in the framework of postcolonialism there is a hierarch! of oppression and
one=s
e3perience of colonial e3ploitation depended on one=s position within this hierarch!
"/oomba 499#: %&.
To show the potential of the term postcolonialism ,ishra and *odge suggest that
there are two kinds of postcolonialisms: oppositional postcolonialism which can be
identified
in post?independent colonies at the historical phase of Cpost?colonialism=G and the so?
called
complicit postcolonialism which is an alwa!s present Cunderside= within coloni;ation
itself
",ishra and *odge #$$>: 4%E&. Hhereas the former cannot be readil! applied to the
indigenous te3t since indigenous peoples are still Cat the far economic margins of the
nationstate=(
so nothing is Cpost= about their colonisation "/oomba 499#: $&( the latter makes space
for such te3t. -imon uring comes to a similar conclusion identif!ing two forms of
postcolonialism. The first refers to the so?called postcolonising forms which include
those
communities and individuals who profit from and identif! themselves as heirs to the
work of
colonising "uring #$%B: ><$?A9&( and the second to the so?called postcolonised forms
impl!ing those who have been dispossessed b! that work and who identif! with
themselves
as heirs to a more or less undone culture ">A9&. Indigenous te3t can fit into the second
group
of postcolonising form. -tephen -lemon also deconstructed so hotl! contested load of
the
term postcolonialism b! claiming that we should distinguish the post?colonial state( or
the
post?colon! from the post?colonial condition. Accordingl!( indigenous te3t is
embedded
for better or worse in the post?colonies( but does not share the same kind of post?
colonial
condition. Hhereas the white postcolonial te3t has been operating in the sphere of the
coloni;er@coloni;ed( the indigenous te3t has been operating in the field of
coloni;ed@twicecoloni;ed
condition.
If white academics are rather cautious and enter into heated debates in relation to this
umbrella term that can cover a whole set of heterogeneous positions( then it should not
come
as a surprise that native literati( scholars( public intellectuals cannot turn a blind e!e to
the
assumptions this term makes in relation to the indigenous cultural production.
According to the 0ative Canadian novelist( poet and anthologist Thomas .ing( the
term postcolonial purports a method for anal!sing literatures which are formed out
of the
struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor( the coloni;ed and the coloni;er which
can
impl! that the initial point for that discussion is the advent of 1uropeans in 0orth
America
".ing 499E: #%E?B&. As .ing notes( when interpreted in this manner( this method
neglects the
fact that before the arrival of 1uropeans( in other words notwithstanding coloni;ation(
there
were pre?e3istent traditions@cultures in Canada "or in other former colonies&. This in
turn
means that postcolonial( though striving to find new centres( remains( in the end( a
hostage to
*va Polak
#>%
nationalism "#%B& D in .ing=s case( Canadian nationalism. Though .ing is ver! much
aware
of the multi?la!ered application of postcolonial methodolog!( he rightfull! claims that it
is
unfortunate that the method has such an albatross D the term 6itself7 D hanging around
its
neck "#%B&. This seems to be the reason wh! he remains sceptical that postcolonial
could
describe a non?centred method which can indiscriminatel! include ver! locall!
identified(
marginal and( once( twice muted voices. Another problem that he perceives lies in
appropriating the term postcolonial literatures to suggest specific development stages(
a
notion of progress in a given literar! corpus of a former colon!. In case of native
literatures in
general( this would most fre2uentl! impl! transition from oral into written( or
appropriation of
the 1nglish "or Irench& language or Hestern genres. 5f course( obvious problem arises
from
the notion of progress inscribed into development( as if primitivism has given wa! to
sophistication which is natural and desirable. As .ing claims( 0ative literature has
become
written while at the same time remaining oral( and it has e3panded from a specific
language base to a multiple language base "#%B& which is wh! new descriptors should
be
found which avoid privileging one culture over another( which do not erase the former
imperial centre 8ust to construct a new one. *ence( .ing replaces the prefi3 postcolonial
for
the 0ative literar! production and offers terms such as tribal( interfusional( polemical
and
associational to describe the range of 0ative writing. -uch terms( according to the
author
avoid the notion of centreG the! do not impl! progress but render possible a cultural and
literar! continuum for 0ative literature. At the same time the! do not function as tags(
but
specific vantage points from which we can see a particular literar! landscape "#%<&.
According to .ing( tribal literature would impl! literature produced within a tribe or a
communit! that is shared among the members of that communit! and which is
presented and
preserved in a 0ative language. As such( it is not e3posed or is e3posed in a ver! limited
manner to the outsiders. Polemical literature would be that written in a 0ative language
or in
1nglish or Irench that focuses on the clash between native@non?native cultures
emphasising
the importance of preserving native values. This literature would also reveal struggle of
native
people against the attempts "social( political( scientific( linguistic( etc.& of the non?
natives to
subdue their culture. It would function as a specific historiographic literar! chronicle of
white
hegemon! over various native communities. Interfusional literature( on the other hand(
would
impl! that part of 0ative literar! production which is a blending of oral and written
literature. In other words the language of mediation would be 1nglish whereas the
patterns(
metaphors( structures as well as the topoi and characters would come from oral
literature. The
e3ample for this( according to .ing( a rather limited corpus of 0ative writing in Canada(
would be *arr! Jobinson=s Write *t on .our /eart' The Epic World of an 0kanagan
toryteller "#$%$&. Its counterpart in Aboriginal writing in Australia would be Padd!
Joe=s
stories in 1ularabulu' tories of the West 2imberley "#$%>&( a masterful collaboration of
the
'roome stor!teller( Padd! Joe( and the invisible editor -tephen ,uecke. In both cases
the
authentic voice of the stor!teller recreates an oral s!nta3 evoking the rh!thm of the
spoken
phrase with lines of uneven length( repetitions( etc.
Iinall!( associational literature( according to .ing( would impl! the native literar!
corpus written b! contemporar! 0ative writers "e.g. 'asil *. Kohnston=s *ndian chool,
#$%%(
or Jub! -lipper8ack=s /onour the un, #$%A&. This writing describes non?0ative and
0ative
communities( but does not focus the narration on the former. Jather( it concentrates on
ever!da! 0ative life( e3poses a continuous discrepancies in the relationship between the
non?
0atives and 0atives( and still focuses on the group rather than on the single isolated
character.
Though .ing=s terms tribal@interfusional@polemical@associational avoid ambiguities
surrounding the term postcolonial( one cannot but wonder whether his tentative
ta3onom!
can include all 0ative literar! works( especiall! those( and there will be a growing
number of
them( which rel!( to a certain e3tent( on the so?called Hestern literar! genres or
techni2ues of
Postcolonial *magination and Postcolonial Theory' *ndigenous (anadian and )ustralian -iterature
Fighting for
"Postcolonial& pace
#>$
writing. .ing himself admits that his terminolog! cannot be readil! applied to the work
of
such 0ative writers as )erald +i;enor=s novels 3arkness in t+ -ouis Bearheart "#$A%&
which
he labels a postmodern novel( and Craig .ee -trete=s The Bleeding 4an "#$AA& or *f )ll
Else
Fails "#$%9&( which he identifies as collections of surreal speculative fiction. Though his
terms more rightfull! include precolonial heritage of the Iirst 0ations in Canada( the!
cannot
include comfortabl! a ver! important bod! of 0ative works which create a ver!
significant
0ative continuum D not that of the 0ative form( but that of the 0ative content wrapped
in
white forms. This writing which uses readaptations and transformations of the
established
genres( the 8u3taposition of st!les( numerous te3tual interpla!s even though being
absorbed b!
0ative content can also be read as instances of postmodernist pastiches and shiftings of
literar! forms whereas the ungrammaticalities of the te3t which threaten language as
mimetic
representation( the glossing over the te3ts claiming to present ob8ective realit! can be
read as
markers of postcolonial te3ts and as such can easil! fit into the term established b!
primaril!
white scholars D that of postcolonial literatures. Another problem arises from his claim
that
his terms do not depend on the arrival of 1uropeans for their raison d56tre ".ing
499E: #%$(
emphasis in the original&. Lnfortunatel!( polemical literature( as he terms it( does not
depend
on but still is a product of the arrival of 1uropeans and their mechanisms of
coloni;ation(
otherwise the basic theme( that of the clash of cultures( would not be in the focal point
of such
narratives. The same can be applied to the so?called first generation of Aboriginal
Australian
writers such as 5odgeroo 0oonuccal or .evin )ilbert who produced the poetr!
engag7e.
.ing ultimatel! admits that it ma! come out that his terms will not do in the end at all(
but still( he re8ects the term postcolonial because at its heart( it is an act of
imagination and
an act of imperialism that demands that he imagines himself as something he did not
choose
to be( as something he would not choose to become "#$9&.
The 0ative Canadian writer( /ee ,aracle claims that postcolonial presumes that
Indigenous people have resolved the colonial condition at least in the field of literature.
-he
asserts that even in the field of literature 0ative writing is 8udged not b! the standards
set b!
the 0ative writing( but b! the Hestern one even though the 0ative writers themselves
have
criteria for their literature. As she continues:
Hith conditions as the! are( it is a lu3ur! for me to wander into m! dreamspace and
conceive of post?colonial. A multitude of faces( all white and too numerous to name(
gather around the edges of m! dreamspace. 6M7 And still I imagine new words to deal
with old dilemmas that still stand on the wa! to freedom. ",aracle 499E: 49B&
5bviousl!( what she has in mind is what -lemon has identified as postcolonial condition
which is not the same for the 0ative and non?0ative Canadians. This implies that the
sole
term postcolonial as a prefi3 to literature incorporating indigenous writing blurs social
hierarch! which is a direct conse2uence of colonial e3perience.
-imilar concerns regarding incorporation of Aboriginal writing in Australia into a
wider field of Australian "postcolonial& literature is shared b! Australian Aboriginal
writers.
The! also feel the sneaking suspicion that the term postcolonial has been framed b!
nonindigenous
scholars in wa!s which can still leave out indigenous peoples as well as conceal
the fact that neo?colonial and imperialist practices still have not been dismantled in
former
colonies( now democratic( even multicultural countries "'oth Canada and Australia
introduced the polic! of multiculturalism in the late #$A9s&.
5ne of the ma8or Aboriginal literar! critics and writers( ,udrooroo( whose identit!
was placed in the limelight in #$$<>( wrote two e3tensive studies in which he tried to
name
that area of Australian postcolonial discourse that refers to literar! production of
Australian
Aborigines. The collective denominator he came up with was either Aboriginal
writing(
*va Polak
#E9
writing from the fringe or Indigenous literature of AustraliaE( but nowhere did he
use the
term postcolonial in relation to Aboriginal te3ts. ,oreover he reserved the term
postcolonial for new Hestern te3ts ",udrooroo #$$A: A<& thus re8ecting an!
possibilit! of
labelling an! kind of Aboriginal writing with this prefi3.
Interestingl! enough( a new collection of contemporar! critical writing b! Indigenous
Australians entitled Blacklines "499>& re8ects the term postcolonial all together. It is
onl!
mentioned once in the Introduction to a specific segment of Aboriginal critical writing
in
which Ian Anderson e3plains in brief the reason for re8ecting the mere mentioning of the
term:
0evertheless( in the conte3t of settler colonial states( such as Australia( colonial
structures have never been dismantled. Colonial wa!s of knowing are not historical
artefacts that simpl! linger in contemporar! discourse. The! are activel! reproduced
within contemporar! d!namics of colonial power. Net this fundamental observation
does not reall! seem to have penetrated mainstream postcolonial theor!. "Anderson
499>: 4E&
It seems that Indigenous authors believe that the term postcolonial when used in
relation to
indigenous cultural production attempts to take 8ust another t!pe of 1uropean theor! of
criticism and place it like a grid upon indigenous te3t thus creating a specific
postcolonial
inferiorit! comple3.
Iinall!( what can be done in this game of perpetual naming of native@indigenous
literar! publications which themselves def! simple categori;ationO 0aturall!( the sole
attempt
of naming the te3t of formerl! muted voices perpetuates bovarysme collectif( a t!pical
colonial trope of being fated to obe! suggestion of an e3ternal milieu( for lack of an
autosuggestion
from within "Kules de )autier in )ates #$%E: %& if it does not include native
scholars( and@or writers. Hithout their contribution in the sphere of literar! criticism we
will
never be able to move further awa! from the stage in which indigenous literar!
production
remains the black monolith of -tanle! .ubrick=s #$$8' ) pace 0dyssey+B In order to
reveal a revealable segment of this literar! -ignif!ing ,onke!( ma!be it is
worthwhile
telling the stor! of the elder=s bo3 told b! an Indian educator. An Indian elder presented
him
with an empt! bo3 and asked:
*ow man! sides do !ou seeO
5ne( I said.
*e pulled the bo3 towards his chest and turned it so one corner faced me. 0ow how
man! do !ou seeO
0ow I see three sides.
*e stepped back and e3tended the bo3( one corner towards him and one towards me.
Nou and I together can see si3 sides of this bo3( he told me. "Ptd. in 'attiste 499E:
4#9&
The 2uestion is whether and how these si3 e2uall! valuable perspectives can be blended
into
one. Lltimatel!( we ma! ask ourselves whether this 2uest to name is necessar! at all
because
there is alwa!s a possibilit! of supporting generali;ations about a supposedl! universal
colonial or postcolonial condition of all indigenous te3ts. The good thing( though( is
that
indigenous literar! production that has become ver! prolific owing to numerous less
literar!
conditions has not lost its heterogeneous nature. It has not become a transferable and
marketable discourse because one thing is sure: Indigenous writing throughout the
world can
hardl! be appropriated and swallowed b! the mainstream which ma! bear the prefi3
Postcolonial *magination and Postcolonial Theory' *ndigenous (anadian and )ustralian -iterature
Fighting for
"Postcolonial& pace
#E#
postcolonial( because as the 0ative Canadian poet( pla!wright and anthologist aniel
avid
,oses concluded( mainstream is prett! wide but it=s spirituall! shallow. 6M7 If we
become
part of that mainstream we=re going to be the deep currents ",oses #$$%: 33i&.
Endnotes
# Puestion appropriated from *all #$$<.
4 -ee similar points raised in -lemon #$$<.
> This issue goes be!ond the scope of this paper. Ior details see Annalisa 5boe "ed.&
"499>&
4ongrel ignatures' 9eflections on the Work of 4udrooroo,&( Cross@Cultures <E(
Amsterdam@0ew Nork: Jodopi( especiall! essa!s b! Adam -hoemaker and Cassandra
P!bus.
E The first two terms are found in ,udrooroo 0arogin "#$$9& Writing from the Fringe'
)
tudy of 4odern )boriginal -iterature, ,elbourne: *!land *ouse( and the third one in
,udrooroo "#$$A& *ndigenous -iterature of )ustralia' 4illi 4illi Wangka( ,elbourne:
*!land *ouse.
B The term is appropriated from Adam -hoemaker which he uses to stress m!stif!ing
nature
of Aboriginal traditional production. -ee -hoemaker "#$%%: B>&.
or!s cited
Anderson( Ian "499E& Introduction to Blacklines' (ontemporary (ritical Writing of
*ndigenous )ustralians( ,ichele )rossman "coordinating ed.&( Carlton: ,elbourne
Lniversit! Press: #A?4E.
Ashcroft( 'ill( )areth )riffiths and *elen Tiffin "#$$# 6#$%$7& The Empire Writes
Back'
Theory and Practice in Post:(olonial -iteratures, /ondon@0ew Nork: Joutledge.
Ashcroft( 'ill( )areth )riffiths and *elen Tiffin "eds& "4999& Post:(olonial tudies'
The 2ey
(oncepts( /ondon@0ew Nork: Joutledge.
'attiste( ,arie "499E& CLnfolding the /essons of Coloni;ation= in -ugars( C!nthia "ed&
Unhomely tates' Theori;ing English:(anadian Postcolonialism( ,ississauga:
'roadview Press: 49$?#A.
uring( -imon "#$%B& CPostmodernism or Postcolonialism= -andfall >$: >: >><?%9.
)ates( *enr! /ouis( Kr. "#$%E& CCriticism in the Kungle= Black -iterature and -iterary
Theory,
*enr! /ouis )ates( Kr. "ed.&( 0ew Nork@/ondon: ,ethuen: #?49.
)riffiths( )areth "#$$<& CThe Post?colonial Pro8ect: Critical Approaches and Problems=
in
.ing( 'ruce "ed& <e, <ational and Post:colonial -iteratures' )n *ntroduction(
53ford: Clarendon Press: #<E?AA.
*all( -tuart "#$$<& CHhen was CThe Post?colonial=O Thinking at the /imit= in Chambers(
Ian
and Curti( /idia "eds& The Post:colonial =uestion' (ommon kies 3ivided /ori;ons(
/ondon@0ew Nork: Joutledge: 4E4?<9.
.ing( Thomas "499E& C)od;illa vs. Post?Colonial= in -ugars( C!nthia "ed& Unhomely
tates'
Theori;ing English:(anadian Postcolonialism( ,ississauga: 'roadview Press: #%>?
$9.
/oomba( Ania "499#6#$$%7& (olonialism>Postcolonialism, /ondon?0ew Nork:
Joutledge.
,aracle( /ee "499E& CCThe Post?Colonial= Imagination= in -ugars( C!nthia "ed&
Unhomely
tates' Theori;ing English:(anadian Postcolonialism( ,ississauga: 'roadview Press:
49E?%.
*va Polak
#E4
,ishra( +i8a! and 'ob *odge "#$$>& CHhat is Post"?&colonialismO= in Hilliams( Patrick
and
Christman( /aura "eds& (olonial and Post:(olonial Theory' ) 9eader( 0ew
Nork@/ondon@Toronto@-!dne!@Tok!o@-ingapore: *arvester Hheatsheaf: 4A<?$9.
,oses( aniel avid and Terr! )oldie "eds& "#$$% 6#$$97& CPreface to the Iirst 1dition:
Two
+oices= )n )nthology of (anadian <ative -iterature in English( 4nd ed.( Toronto:
53ford Lniversit! Press: 3i3?33i3.
,udrooroo "#$$A& *ndigenous -iterature of )ustralia' 4illi 4illi Wangka( ,elbourne:
*!land *ouse.
-hoemaker( Adam "#$%%& CCIiction or Assumed Iiction=: The -hort -tories of Colin
Kohnson(
Kack avis and Archie Heller= Essays on Black -iteratures' (onnections, 1mmanuel
-. 0elson "ed.&( Canberra: Aboriginal -tudies Press: B>?$.
-lemon( -tephen "#$$<& CPost?colonial Critical Theories= in .ing( 'ruce "ed& <e,
<ational
and Post:colonial -iteratures' )n *ntroduction, 53ford: Clarendon Press: #A$?$A.