Carlson writes:
“Harry Robinson’s account of literacy being stolen from Coyote by his white twin conform to all the standard criteria associated with a genre of Salish narratives commonly referred to by outsiders as legend or mythology with one exception – they appear to contain post-contact content” (Carlson 56).
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).
In a previous blog post, I addressed Wickwire’s “reasons why our abilities to make meaning from first stories and encounters is so seriously limited” (Patterson). In answering this week’s question, I hope to dig a little deeper into some of the issues I brought up in this previous post.
Photo Credit: Ridpath, Debbie. “Cat and Dog Editors”. Web.
Carlson and Wickwire both address how editing has affected ‘our’ (Read: the outsiders’) perspective of Indigenous stories. Both would agree that this process occurred in order to edit stories so that they would fit with a Western perspective. Carlson helpfully expands on these ideas. Carlson states that a Western perspective attempts to categorize stories according to their relative historical accuracy (which is “measured in relation to verifiable evidence”) (57). This results in dividing stories into two categories: reality or imagination.
Western Criteria: Authentic (reality) vs. Inauthentic (imagination)
Since most Indigenous stories encompass both reality and imagination at the same time, Western scholars consider these stories historically inaccurate. Therefore, when anthropologists determined that Indigenous stories were “‘legends’, ‘folk-tales’, and ‘myths’ set in prehistoric times,” they were essentially labelling all Indigenous stories as historically inaccurate (Wickwire 22, emphasis added).
So when a story, such as “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England,” suggests that Indigenous stories are not just from “prehistoric times” nor are they without ties to reality, Western historians are forced to decide whether to (a) revisit their formula for historical accuracy or (b) sweep the stories aside into “the dustbin of scholarly interest” (Carlson 56). From our readings this week, it is clear that Western scholars have chosen option (b): to ignore “…stories that do not meet [their] criteria for historical purity” in order to maintain “ideologically driven” views of history (56, 58).
Photo Credit: Heine, Ben. “Pencil Vs. Camera 48”. Web.
In direct contradiction to these categories, Indigenous stories allow imagination and reality to co-exist. Indeed, neither is assumed to negate the other. In this way, Indigenous stories simply do not fit with the preconceived categories prescribed by Western Criterion. Instead, Indigenous stories are categorized according to an alternative perspective based on time (Carlson 56). According to Carlson, “[l]ike Western scholars, Salish people distinguish between at least two genres of historical narratives, but authenticity is not a criterion used in making that distinction” (56). Salish stories are divided into (a) stories about the distant past, such as first stories or stories of origin, and (b) stories about recent happenings, such as contact stories, stories about living people or about recent generations (56).
Indigenous Criteria**: Distant Past vs. Recent Happenings
Under this model, the validity of a story is not measured according to its historically verifiable evidence (as suggested by Western Criteria), but rather according to how well a story is “conveyed and remembered” (57). Interestingly, in this way, accuracy and historical purity are still viewed as important, but are measured with a different yard stick (Carlson 57). It is here that we find one of the “intersections” that Asch talks about (Patterson). Although measuring accuracy with a different scale, both approaches view accuracy as extremely valuable—indeed essential—to the validity of the story. So valuable, in fact, that both approaches carry with them strict penalties for relaying information that is inaccurate or untrue.
In Western academics: If a scholar’s “historical interpretation” is not consistent with “historical evidence”, they risk their reputation and career; are often placed under academic probation; and/or are banned from publishing (57).
In Salish culture: If a story-teller’s narrative contradicts the “previous renditions or versions” as remembered by the listeners, the story-teller risks their “status and reputation” as well as the well-being of their community* (57, 59).
As we can see, both ideologies of historical accuracy suggest that it is dangerous to construct reality (59). From this discussion, it would seem that the shared value for accuracy provides a starting place for finding “common ground” (Chamberlin).
Photo Credit: Clipart.com. “Agreement”. Web.
In the business world, finding “common ground” is an essential practice if a working partnership is to be achieved. In business, the party looking to engage “the other” in a business transaction studies the target culture and adapts their practices in order to meet the needs, expectations, and values of that culture (see video***). However, in the case of opposing ideologies, the transaction is infinitely more complex.
Unfortunately, just as language can cause miscommunication, so too can a difference in ideological approaches. So while these groups seem to share a common respect for accuracy and credibility, their different forms of measurement is problematic. The best example of this being that Indigenous history and culture, in the form of stories, has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and—consequently—disregarded by most Western scholars. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of one side adopting the practices of another culture for one simple transaction (as in the case of a business transaction), but of both cultures accepting both ideologies as equally valid—equally true.
My question to you is:
Is this even possible? (Both philosophically AND in practice, or only philosophically?) What would this compromise look like? More importantly, what are the implications of this compromise for both cultures?
Notes
*According to Carlson, in Salish culture, stories from the distant past are preserved by the belief that the spirits of characters in the story come to life while the story is told and will retaliate if the story is told inaccurately (59).
**In this blog, I am referencing Carlson’s work and equating his observations about the Salish people with other Indigenous groups. This seems to be consistent with his thesis, although I cannot affirm the accuracy of this assumption.
***I apologize for the generalizations made in this video. However, the video itself provides a helpful example of how business relationships work across cultures.
Works Cited
BVO. “Daniel Goleman on the Collectivist Cultures of the East.” The Business Voice: World Leaders at Your Desk. 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 June 2016.
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines, 2011. 43-72. Print.
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf. 2003. Print.
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books, 2005. Print.
sean sturm
July 4, 2016 — 11:12 am
Hi Janine,
Once again I find myself drawn to your post, and of course have a response to your questions. To directly answer your question, i believe that it is both philosophically and physically possible, but it is not an easy fix. It will take an incredible ‘mind-shift’ in Western thinking in order to create this. One needs to recognize that even ‘modern western’ peoples still practice their own oral traditions. They are on display almost daily when recounting past events/experiences to friends and family. Very rarely do we second guess this act, and even more scarce is the thought that this is the very same practice, in First Nation traditions, that we claim is false. Literary histories often remove the human element from the stories that they are trying to tell, and the static nature often leads to false interpretations and a very rigid way of thinking. The blending of both traditions, at least in my opinion, would lead to a much richer, if not more complete and accurate, historical record. This class is a good micro-example of the mind-shift that I am talking about. I have even found my self re-assessing my position on oral histories, even though I have always been open to the idea of oral histories, and have been intrigued in the rules about getting them ‘right’ when relaying them. I am sure that I am not the only one having this experience, this information needs to be shared, and this philosophy on blending various histories needs to be implemented throughout the school systems. If this is done, than I believe we will see a general shift in both relations, and understanding between western and first nations people, and their respective ways of recording/sharing history.
janine fleming
July 6, 2016 — 3:11 pm
Thanks for your reply, Sean! I always appreciate your posts!
I appreciate your opinion and I really liked your point about how oral histories pervade current Western thinking even if most of us are unaware of it and how we can use these points of connection to create a “richer” record of history.
While writing for this post, I thought about my question quite a bit and decided that integrating these two methods for recording history would be easier in philosophy than in practice. And after much thought, I decided that “blending various histories” (as you so eloquently put it) would be impossible.
The trick is, for this blend to take hold on a practical level, we would have to accept two histories that tell two very different stories about ownership and rights.
A practical acceptance of the two histories would require us to respect/uphold current land claims and resource holdings while simultaneously reclaiming land and re-distributing resources to their rightful owners. In my eyes, this is a practical impossibility.
For me, a mere philosophical acceptance of both historical narratives only pays lip service to reconciliation. However, a practical acceptance in a democratic and highly capitalistic society would require each individual to forego their rights under current laws in favour of accepting the truth of a historical tradition that may or may not be their own.
I struggle to see how this could work in reality.
That being said, I don’t think it is something that we just give up on. I think there are ways to work around these problems through systematic case-by-case steps towards compromise.
I’m hopeful, but not optimistic. (Hopefully that makes sense).
Linda McNeilly Purcell
July 4, 2016 — 6:17 pm
Janine,
Thank you for blog post and analysis. I enjoyed reading your description of “Authentic” (reality) vs. “Inauthentic” (imagination). Under the two models you outlined – one for Indigenous Peoples, and one prescribed by Western Criterion – the Western approach does not have room to accept the Indigenous historical evidence. You also showed how each group has a common respect for accuracy and credibility.
To answer your question, is it possible for the two different cultures to accept two different methods of recording historical evidence? I would say that philosophically and in practice it is possible to accept both methods. This could be done under the understanding that both approaches have equal proof of accuracy and credibility. However, before this could be put into place both sides would need to be able to clearly show how and why this is possible. This could be done through the evidence provided, that the oral history is in fact accurate, due to the accepted Indigenous scale of accuracy that you mentioned. Conversely the Western evidence would also need to be proven as accurate, through the Western scale of accuracy. However, before anything could happen, first there would need to be a mutual understanding. As to if it could actually happen, time will tell. Things are changing, and by keeping dialogue going I feel it is possible.
The compromise would be both sides being open and willing to see, hear, and understand the other’s position.
My question to you is, do you think it is possible? If so what do you feel the compromise would look like?
I look forward to your response,
Linda
janine fleming
July 6, 2016 — 3:29 pm
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your post and reply! 🙂
I appreciate your response and I agree that a philosophical and practical acceptance of both methods of recording history would be ideal. However, as I mentioned in my response to Sean, I don’t really have faith that this could work on both levels.
Let me explain:
Even in your post, it would seem that the focus is on accepting the credibility of both approaches at a philosophical level. In other words, it is a matter of acknowledging that the ideas of another group/individual are just as worthy of consideration as our own.
The problem, for me, comes down to: What do we do when the acceptance of these two ideologies leads to a practical conflict?
If an oral history places a clear claim on land or resources that conflicts with a claim on land or resources attributed to a written history, who wins out? One could argue that we approach the problem from a chronological stand point: giving the land/resources to its first owners.
However, the practical problem is that “ownership” means something different to the different cultures at play here (Carlson).
In Western society, land/resource ownership are granted through governmental laws to individuals or companies. In Indigenous society, land/resources are not owned but *used* by groups according to history and tradition (Carlson).
So, what do we do when two groups hold “rights” to the same land/resource? Do we toss a coin, do we “give” the land to the original “owner”? What happens when the resources on the land move (i.e.- Salmon stock)? What happens when the land itself is compromised (i.e.- pollution, contamination of water resources from land upriver, etc.). There are so many logistical issues with this process that I just don’t see a practical solution.
So, yes. I believe we can accept these histories on a philosophical level, but unless there are dramatic changes to the way Western society views land and resources, there is very little possibility of reaching a practical solution.
Hope that makes sense. I’d love to hear more thoughts on this. It is such a tricky subject.
J
Linda McNeilly Purcell
July 6, 2016 — 7:30 pm
Hi Janine,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I now understand what you mean by compromise.
I would like to add that if it came to down deciding whose land is it. I feel the answer would be both. In which case it would not be fair to tell the current landowners that they needed to give up their land. Nor would it be fair to tell the original landowners that they have no right to the land. Instead a compromise would need to be determined, and the original landowners would need to be compensated for their loss.
Just a few thoughts,
Linda
janine fleming
July 19, 2016 — 11:02 am
Great point, Linda. This is echoed by Heather’s post, below, and my reply. Unfortunately, the whole situation is looking a little bleak in practical terms.
J
HeatherJames
July 18, 2016 — 3:25 am
Hi Janine,
Sorry for the late response! Just playing catch up over here
I just finished answering the same question for 2:6 and am so surprised how different our answers turned out! I really enjoyed reading your post as it brought up a whole different side of this conversation for me.
But to answer your question, I think it’s impossible for the colonial Western society to acknowledge Indigenous ways of knowing as authentic because it means that they must affirm Indigenous oral histories that articulate land theft and genocide. We can hypothesize about what it would look like, or how we could “make things right,” but the unfortunate truth is that colonialism is systemic and continues to oppress Indigenous groups without most settlers blinking an eye. It’s so normalized that before most settlers can acknowledge Indigenous ways of knowing as important, they would have to acknowledge they even exist.
Truthfully, I’m not sure what a realistic approach is to developing criteria for both Western and Indigenous knowledge as they oftentimes seem so binary.
-Heather
janine fleming
July 19, 2016 — 11:01 am
Hi Heather,
I completely agree. Acknowledging the validity of both ways of knowing is a possibility in theory, but in practice, I’m not sure how this would actually function.
The systems that led to colonization and the marginalization of Canada’s First Peoples are so entrenched in Canadian law and society, that there is little hope of much ever changing. I feel that in a way, we are looking for ways to go back in time and undo the damage that has been done; however, this is impossible. The damage has been done, and is continuing to plague communities of First People all over Canada, and indeed, many other colonized countries.
I think this is where the model of the TRC comes in:
By first recognizing the atrocities and injustices that we are responsible for (as Canadians), and then listening to the stories of those who have been harmed, we begin a process of acknowledging the past. Once we have a mutual understanding of and grief over the past, we can begin to move forward.
We can together, forge new ways of knowing that can incorporate an acknowledgement of the past and a compromised approach to the future. Unfortunately, this involves a lot of humility and consistent leadership: both of which are factors that are impossible under the current model of democracy in this country.
So, yes. I agree with you. Reluctantly, I have to admit, I’m not very optimistic about finding a solution.