Question 5: “To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing “(Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson, and explain why it is important to recognize this point.
In his article “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History,” Carlson once again draws our attention to the familiar dichotomy of orality and literacy that has been so prominent throughout our discussions during this class. He offers us a new perspective, one that steps away from looking at literacy’s effect on orality or visa versa, but instead looks at “orality about literacy” in the Salish tradition. He presents us with a number of Salish stories that incorporate notions of literacy, whose storytellers believe that knowledge of literacy existed before contact. However these stories are often dismissed by historians, as it is difficult for people to fathom that knowledge of literacy could have been possible before first contact.Thus stems the question of authenticity.Carlson decides to look at these stories through a lens of truth in order to give a new perspective to debate of literacy and first -contact.
Though the historical accuracy of these stories is seldom called into question (simply because non-native people tend to see them as fictitious), the authenticity of such stories is often interrogated; that is origin or purity of the narratives. Yet Carlson states that, “Neither reality (in the Western meaning of the term) nor authenticity is part of the indigenous criteria for assessing them [stories]. There is no authentic or inauthentic swoxwiyam, only better remembered/conveyed or less well remembered/conveyed swoxwiyam… Only more or less reliable sources of historical information” (Carlson 56, 57). Carlson argues [that] “To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing “(Carlson 59).
Carlson suggests that First Nations and Westerners hold very different “ways of knowing” (Carlson 45). He explains that Salish people value historical accuracy as much as Westerners, but they simply have a different way of assessing this accuracy. He states that for Westerners, historical accuracy is “measured in relation to verifiable evidence” and that “Within the Salish world, by way of contrast, historical accuracy is largely assessed in relation to people’s memories of previous renditions or versions of a narrative and in relation to the teller’s status and reputation as an authority” (Carlson 57). So it is not so much that the story is authentic that matters, but rather, that the integrity of the story is preserved from telling to telling. In both Western and Salish cultures, inaccurate historical narratives are dangerous. Indeed, in Salish culture the consequences of a poorly told story can be deadly.
For this reason, Carlson argues that Salish culture had measures in place to ensure that a story’s integrity and truth remained in place. Specifically the storyteller was evaluated by its audience and held to very high standards. Anything that was changed too much made the storyteller less respectable and they were no longer allowed to tell the story—in this way only the “better conveyed” stories were preserved and passed on. This is not to say that the stories never changed. Of course they must have over time, but the gist of the story remained the same. Essentially a story evolves in order to suit the needs of the listeners. This is accuracy to the Salish people. Yet, it is not pure by Western standards. Carlson states that “[W]e have grown so accustomed to associating authentic Aboriginal culture with pre-contact temporal dimensions that we have dismissed or ignored Native stories that do not meet our criteria for historical purity” (56). This perspective does not allow for change and it takes agency away from First Nations people, which ties into question 6 and the idea that post contact stories cannot be authentic.
Carlson does not mean to “suggest that outsiders should not ask about authenticity, just that they should be alert to the significance and implications of their questions” (Carlson 59). I believe that understanding the implications of one’s actions is a crucial element here, as people need to realize the consequences of judging things they do not fully understand. I believe the argument that Carlson is making about authenticity is important to recognize because it reminds us that there are unique ways of knowing. It has definitely made me question what it means for something to be “authentic” and how, by questioning the authenticity of something we do not understand we can actually do harm. Westerners have inserted their own values of what it means for into something to be “authentic” into the stories of Salish peoples. This is not only a limiting perspective, but it also undermines their way of knowing. By interjecting into the story and questioning its authenticity the questioner actually inserts him or herself into the story, thus changing it without the consent of the Salish people and in turn damaging its truth. I believe that by looking at these stories of pre-contact literacy amongst the Salish people as true, Carlson acknowledges the agency of the Salish people to create their own stories that cannot (or should not) be touched by Western ways of knowing. He also reminds us of the fact that written and oral culture are not so distinctive, that they overlap and that literacy is not necessarily a gift, nor a tool of colonialism, but rather belongs to everyone.
***
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.
