Why is it, according to Carlson or/and Wickwire, that Aboriginal stories that are influenced or informed by post-contact European events and issues are “discarded to the dustbin of scholarly interest”? (56).
According to Carlson, these allegedly post-contact stories are not of scholarly interest because they are viewed as inauthentic. The dictionary definition of authentic is “not false or copied; genuine; real.” Assuming we believe prophecies are not real, post-contact myths are inauthentic because they claim to be pre-contact when they must in fact be post-contact, being informed by the events of the Europeans’ arrival. The Salish prophecy about white men bringing literacy is a perfect example of this type of inauthenticity. What’s interesting is that the typical pre-contact Aboriginal myths should also be considered inauthentic by this definition. They are fictional stories pretending to be non-fiction, so they would be considered false. It’s easy to prove that myths are at least part fiction because we see so many variations of the same stories. Logically, they cannot all be 100% accurate. So what is the difference between these two scenarios?
I believe that it comes down to the idea of cultural authenticity, rather than story authenticity. Culture is a set of traditions, behaviours, and beliefs shared by a group of people. To mix one’s culture with another often comes with a sense of impurity; that it has been contaminated by another culture. So these post-contact myths are not seen as authentic because they are “less Native” than pre-contact myths. This is essentially a racist way of thinking and promotes the divide between “us” and “them”. Furthermore, it exacerbates the situation of mixed-race children who often don’t feel accepted by members of either race, rather than being accepted by both. The reality is that Europeans have spent enough time on the same continent as Aboriginals to become a part (although certainly not the whole) of their identity. Often Aboriginals define themselves in opposition to Europeans, as in the myth of Coyote and his paper-stealing twin, yet that still marks Europeans as a reference point. It is not realistic to think that two cultures could have so much contact, and not be influenced by each other. We certainly have been influenced by their culture. Moreover, outsiders do not get to determine what parts of Aboriginal culture are “more Native” or “less Native”. If they accept post-contact myths as an authentic part of their identity, then that is their right. That is their truth.
–
Works Cited
“Authenticity.” Dictionary.com. 2 Mar. 2016. Web.
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2011. 43-72. Print.
Connolly, Colleen. “Examining the Aboriginal influence on Western Canada.” The Cord. WLU Student Publications, 30 May 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
Heath, Joseph. “How to beat racism.” National Post. Postmedia, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.