Hugh Garner is widely regarded in the eyes of the literary community as one of the most prolific Canadian authors of the twentieth century. With upwards of one hundred works of short fiction, along with novels, television and film adaptations, and journalistic pieces, he has cemented himself as one of the pillars of Canadian culture, his writing distinctly Canadian in both feeling and place. Garner himself was not born in Canada, but in Yorkshire, England. In 1919, his family immigrated to Canada, where his father would abandon the family shortly thereafter. Garner spent much of his childhood in Toronto’s poorest neighbourhoods, which would form the social vision that would shape many of his future works, one hard to come by among writers of his time. Having experienced poverty and living in the lower class, Garner’s works characteristically focus on the plight of the working class, seen in some of his most successful pieces such as Cabbagetown, a novel depicting the victimization of workers, as well as “One, Two, Three Little Indians”, one of his most impactful and controversial short stories from the collection The Yellow Sweater. Garner’s attitude towards writing and literature err on the side of “anti-intellectual”, as he once stated that a writer’s duty is to entertain. This attitude drew flack from literary critics, such as Doug Fetherling, one of Garner’s biggest critics, who felt his work was uninspired and lackluster. This being said, much of Garner’s work has been the subject of high praise, as his collection Hugh Garner’s Best Stories merited him the Governor General’s Award in 1963. Number thirty in this collection is “One, Two, Three Little Indians”, which offers a profound look at what being Indigenous was like in Canada in the 1950s. While Indigenous people were not a subject of Garner’s work all that often, this particular work falls in line with Garner’s typical story of a mistreatment of the lower class. In fact, Garner’s use of social realism in this story offers a frank social commentary on the racism experienced by the Indigenous population of Canada, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Indian Act and the residential school system. This approach to writing will be examined through close analysis of the story and its literary elements.
In order to examine Garner’s use of realism, and social realism more specifically, a clear definition of realism in the context of literature must first be established. Realism in a literary context can be best defined as an approach to fiction writing that gives the impression of an exact portrayal of what is real. This picture of reality is not, in fact, an unlimited reality, but one that is limited, depicting the qualitative limitations of the average individual. Often found in visual art, social realism takes this depiction of what is real one step further in order to make a political or social statement. In the case of literature, this political or social commentary can be made through the telling of the experiences of a marginalized group, as Garner does in “One, Two, Three Little Indians.”
It is also imperative to understand the historical context that applies to this work when examining the realism involved in its conception. In 1876, the Canadian government introduced the Indian Act, a statute meant to govern Indian status, First Nations government, First Nations territory, and communal monies. This statute at its inception was oppressive, and designed to assimilate the “savage Indians” by stripping them of their language and culture, essentially making the Indigenous people of Canada wards of the state. This act was still very much in effect at the time this piece was written and published, and the first amendments to the more oppressive sections did not come until 1951, a year after this piece was first published. “One, Two, Three Little Indians” is reflective of the hostility of the colonial population toward Indigenous people and the mistreatments the Indigenous experienced and continue to experience at the hands of colonizers. It is equally important to acknowledge Garner’s use of the term “Indians” in the title and in his work, as although no longer considered appropriate, the term “Indian” was widely accepted as the more politically correct term at the time of publication.
“One, Two, Three Little Indians” is told from a narrative point-of-view, in which the narrator details the life of Big Tom, an Indigenous man living in a trailer park in a First Nations community, and his little family. He and his wife Mary work on the trailer camp in exchange for the right to live there, and have a son who remains unnamed throughout the narrative. The story’s first three pages serve to set the scene, describing the family’s daily life. Tom undresses his son, speaking to it in their native language. He tells the “story of Po-chee-ah and the Lynx,” soothing the boy who had been fussy all day. Garner takes the time to introduce the conditions the family live in, “the cracked and dirty supper things,” alongside the “church-donated patchwork quilt” he covers the baby with. Tom is characterised as being soft, and gentle. He cares for his people’s traditions, he worries for his baby, that he may have transmitted his own nagging illness to his newborn child. He leaves the house for a moment, stopping to take in the smell of summer, savouring the feeling of freedom it brings to him, a freedom he does not truly have anymore, taken from him when “the mining towns brought him pain and distrust, and a wife who learned to live in gaudy imitation of the boomtown life.”
Tom’s wife, Mary, pregnant with their second child, works doing odd jobs for people staying in the trailer camp. She was pretty in her day, but no longer, as Big Tom describes how “the squalor of their existence seemed to follow them.” Most recently, an American has promised her a dress if she cleaned out their trailer, she describes the dress wistfully. “It’s a silk dress,” she says, to which Tom replies that a silk dress is no good around their camp. He was angry that she would even accept such an offer, that she would show so little shame, but she seemed not to detect this. She has the impression that she might get to attend the dances in this dress, but Tom is quick to shut her down, “A lot of dancing you’ll do,” he says, “You’d better learn to stay here and take care of the kid.” This further proves that her dream to be young and pretty again, cannot be realized due to circumstance.
The end of this introductory piece of the story introduces the reader to the tragic conflict that will soon unfold, by alluding to the fact that they must take the baby to receive medical treatment for its cough. Mary declines, stating that she has to work the next day, to earn the dress, and Tom knows it’s best not to reason with her. This leaves the reader reflecting on what may happen next.
The following day, Tom tries to collect enough money to take the child to a doctor. He takes baskets he’s weaved and sets up a stand on the side of the road, setting up the perfect trope of what a tourist expects an “authentic Indian” to look like. His ensemble is complete with “ bedraggled band of cloth, into which a goose feather had been sewn.” He is well aware that when the feather sticks up like it does in the movies, tourists are more likely to buy his baskets. This is a troubling reality, but Tom is a victim of exploitation of tourists. He may be a victim, but he turns the public’s biases against them in order to turn a profit, proving he will not be a passive victim. On the other hand, Garner depicts the tourists as being ignorant, something that most Canadians would not recognize in this time period. The American tourists are portrayed as being of low intelligence, as recognized in their use of slurred English vocabulary in the form of words such as “picshus,” “somep’n,” and “Gawd,” and phrases like “they was.” This low-level vocabulary serves to accentuate the rudeness of their comments, while they continue to speak as though Tom is not even present.
Tom’s next search for extra income comes as he goes out fishing with some of the other men from the camp. He goes to Mr. Cooper to ask if anyone is going out, and with a voice filled with “the amused kindness of a man talking to a child,” he answers yes, noting that Tom is anxious to go out. Tom explains that the baby is worryingly ill, only to be shut down with a simple “no need to worry, it’s as healthy as a bear cub.” Cooper’s racism towards Tom is much more subtle compared to the brash commentary from the tourists. While his comment about Tom staying home to take care of the child may seem sympathetic on the surface, deep down it shows a lack of regard for the family’s financial situation, which does not allow for either parent to simply stay home. This depicts the Americans’ lack of concern for the well-being of their Indigenous neighbours, rejecting Tom’s status as an adult, well in line with the ideology presented in the Indian Act.