I have chosen to answer question 6 for lesson 2.3, concerning Wickwire and Carlson’s opinions on why Aboriginal stories that don’t conform with the ideal of ahistorical Aboriginal narratives were “chucked in the dustbin” by scholars, among others.

Carlson discusses the importance of “authenticity” in historical narratives, for both Aboriginal and European cultures, noting one significant difference between the two: European’s used written accounts to justify the authenticity of their narratives about “history”, while Aboriginal peoples used previous oral retellings to verify their stories (Carlson, 57). In addition, the consequences for inaccuracies in European histories were generally visited on other peoples, not the Europeans themselves, while Indigenous peoples feared drastic consequences being visited on themselves by the spirits (Carlson, 58). If one goes back to the old divide of orality vs. literacy, and situates these two differing views of authenticity in the context of orality vs. literacy, orality holds Indigenous peoples accountable to relaying an “authentic” narrative, while Europeans can fudge the truth by supporting their written accounts with other “authentic” written accounts of “history”.

Just as Bertha Peter’s describes the Indigenous peoples losing knowledge of medicine because they didn’t write it down (Carlson, 48), Europeans’ such as Franz Boas are able to write an “authentic” history which suits their own image of Indigenous stories and history, by discarding those accounts which don’t suit their purposes, and publishing those that do, cementing a particular historical perspective through literacy. As Wickwire points out, Boas’ seemingly casual dismissal and suppression of “hundreds” of Aboriginal narratives which challenged Levi-Strauss’ ideal of “”cold” mythic societies”, an ideal Boas was eager to conform Indigenous peoples to, had “serious long term consequences” for Aboriginal peoples (Robinson, 22). Carlson suggests that a raised awareness is starting to exist in scholarship of the dangers of writing an “ideologically driven history”, perhaps due in part to the marked change in western anthropological scholarship in the recent decades. However, the damage has been done, both within scholarship(due partly to Boas’ prevailing influence, mentioned by Wickwire as influencing her own selection of stories, over half a century later) and without. Indigenous peoples were relegated to ahistorical relics by Boas and others, a culture that had to be improved and “enlightened” by the superior Europeans, a culture which epitomized Levi-Strauss‘ ideals of “cold” mythic societies.

This “ideological writing of history” served a specific purpose for the European colonists, justifying their colonization by legitimizing the marginalization of Indigenous peoples because they were “destined” to be “pressed back into the wilderness”(Moodie, ch.15). Mrs. Peters’ story about the prophetic paper which justified “white man’s” superiority and conquest of the land, which ironically falls into the taboo model of narratives which incorporate post-contact elements, shows the purely rational and scientific way in which such stories were suppressed. It was a black and white application of censoring and “ideologically motivated history writing”(Carlson, 54-58). As Moodie’s stories demonstrate, suppressing any evidence that Aboriginal stories could adapt, were more than just ahistorical myths, directly enabled the marginalization of Indigenous peoples, and the prevailing “myth” of European superiority, due in part to their “superior” literate culture.

One is perhaps called to question the definitions of orality and literacy here, much as Carlson does in subtly questioning the implicit assumptions that orality comes before literacy, and that any return to orality from a literate state would “signal a culture’s decline”(Carlson, 46). While these assumptions may seem largely accurate or historically verifiable, such categorizations perhaps inform European ideals of superiority, by maintaining the idea that literacy is somehow better than orality, somehow superior. Literacy and written accounts are held up as verifiable and authentic, implicitly championed by stories such as those of Mrs. Peters, or Harry Robinson’s account of the “white paper”, as holding some “special knowledge” beyond the understanding of oral societies. While this attitude has enabled the suppression of Indigenous culture and stories, what it overlooks, or dismisses as unimportant, is the “special knowledge” contained in orality, which is lost in a prioritization of literacy over orality. By drawing a distincition between the two, rather that even entertaining the possibility they might not be mutually exclusive, a dichotomy is maintained, holding the status quo of “them and us” undercurrent in “orality vs. literacy” all the firmer.

Works Cited:

Boas, Franz. “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology.” Science. 4.103(1896): 901-908. Web. June 27, 2014.

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print.

Harland, Prechel. “Exchange in Levi-Strauss’ Theory of Social Organization.” Mid-American Review of Sociology. 5.1(1980): 55-66. Web. June 27, 2014.

Moodie, Susanna. Roughing it in the Bush. 2nd edition. London: Richard Bentley, 1852. Digital Library, UPenn. Web. June 27, 2014.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.