Keith Carlson writes about the difference in the ways that Western scholars and Salish peoples assess the accuracy of historical information. Western academics use already known and verifiable historical evidence in order to assess the accuracy of newly discovered historical information. On the other hand, the Salish people traditionally determine the accuracy of a story with respect to others’ memories of the particular narrative to which this new information is to be appended, as well as the authority and status of the storyteller as a source of historical information (Carlson, 57). It thus follows that questioning the authenticity of a story is also different by these contrasting standards.

Determination of accuracy of information may be similar between Westerners and the Salish in that they rely on a collective knowledge, may it be text inscribed in history books, discussions among Western scholars, or personal perspectives on the same narrative from Native elders.

The difference is that modern Western history has been inscribed on paper while most Salish histories were passed down by tongue. Thus the difference lies in whose authority one is challenging when they question the authenticity of a story in either of these contexts. By Western standards, one would most probably be consulting a written work from the government library or such. In contrast, by questioning the authenticity and reliability of a Salish story, because the Salish assess accuracy of historical accounts based on the authority and reputation of the teller, one is inherently questioning the very authority of the storyteller. Moreover, as it is most likely the case that Salish histories were passed down by tongue, one would also be inherently challenging the method by which the Salish preserve their knowledge, which is to pass down their stories orally.

This hearkens back to a previous lesson which discusses how writing a story down halts its evolution and preserves it in the exact form it was written, forever. In contrast, a story that is passed on orally has the chance to evolve as each version of the story is connected to the time, place, and mood of and people present at its telling, all of which influence how the current listeners may tell the same story to pass it on in the future. By questioning authenticity of a story, one also disputes the storyteller’s authority and the reliability and truth of the very method that Salish people have chosen to preserve their knowledge is also challenged.

Not only does questioning authenticity challenge Salish ways of knowing because of the (oral) nature of how their knowledge is preserved, and thus the reliance on the authority of a storyteller to verify accuracy, but also because authenticity has never been used by the Salish as a criterion in assessing accuracy of historical narratives (Carlson, 56-57). Thus we must be cautious before we dismiss a certain narrative simply because it might have been influenced by post-contact events. As Carlson points out, by refusing to listen to narratives that do not meet our criteria of Indigenous culture being authentic only if unblemished by post-contact experiences, we hold ourselves back from a new path of potential learning. More importantly, we run the risk of insulting the dignity of the source of the story, especially given the how the Salish value storyteller authority and credibility, and make this source less likely to share their experiences and knowledge with us in the future (Carlson, 56).

Works Cited

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy.” Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.