Assignment 2:6 – Authenticity
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.
When one questions the authenticity of a narrative, they are simultaneously questioning the beliefs of the people to whom that story belongs. Carlson says that “we 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.” (Carlson: 56) By questioning whether or not a story is authentic, you are questioning the legitimacy of a peoples history. As Carlson says on page 57, there is no authentic or inauthentic stories, just better remembered or less well remembered that come from reliable or less reliable sources. The way in which “authenticity” is defined is subjective and differs across cultures. Westerners tend to require physical proof as a means of verifying a stories authenticity. Whereas, for example, in the Salish culture as Carlson points out, “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) Therefore, where one group see’s literacy as a key aspect of their society and culture, written texts are evidence that points towards authenticity. People that have oral traditions as prominent aspects of their society, take the story-tellers reputation and status into account when deciding whether it is authentic. I believe this point is important, both in general and to Carlson, because it challenges ethnocentric views about the “truth”. Ways of knowing differ from culture to culture, stories are passed on in different ways and different versions of stories are told and retold. Questioning authenticity is not only reinforcing ideas that there can only be one true history, but it is putting into question the legitimacy of both the story and the ways of knowing of that particular culture. By looking through the Coyote stories and poems on the Indigenous Network, it was clear to see that there are many different stories being told and remembered. The way in which these stories are remembered is different, yet to each teller, they are equally important and essential in building their people’s history and preserving their culture and beliefs. Carlson’s point takes the practice of accepting more than one perspective one step further; by this I mean that once one knows and accepts that there is more than one story to be told on any given matter, they can then accept that there is more than one way to tell and preserve the story in a way that does not in-authenticate it or diminish it’s value or importance. Carlson talks about how Western history books have footnotes to cite credible sources in which the information was found, as well as how in Salish culture a sort of “verbal footnote” is used where the teller cites their credible sources in which this information was told to them. The only difference between the two is the mode in which it is carried out, however the principle and process are essentially the same. By understanding this, and accepting the authenticity of these stories, it is creating “new starting points for cross cultural dialogue” (Carlson: 45) that will open new doors of communication and sharing between groups that have long suffered a cross-cultural divide.
Works Cited
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: Uof Toronto P, 2011.
Hello,
I found your blog post quite captivating. I think that it is interesting to look at the differences between the two stories and how they are comparable. Do you think that one is more true than the other? I know that is a personal question, but just interested to hear what you have to say about this matter!
Thanks so Much
Talk soon,
Laryssa
Personally, I believe there are true and untrue elements to both. Not due to either side making things up or lying, but due to the changes in perspectives. There is no truly objective history, which is something I find fascinating when looking at different stories and seeing where they line up and where they differ!
Hi Danica,
I really like the observation that you dredged out in the final paragraph; the issue of credibility when it comes to historical reporting. I have always had a pointed interest in First Nations legends, and until recently I believed them to be just that. After this previous unit, and finishing “Green Grass Running Water”, I must admit that my opinions on the matter have changed significantly. In a country that was formed out of colonization, and being of the heritage of the colonizers, I was of course taught that the Euro-centric train of thought was the right one, and that oral renditions had more to do with morals than history. After reading the stories of Robinson, and the various academic critiques of western ideology, that I have been mistaken throughout most of my academic life. Both examples, literary and oral are based on the same premise: tradition. First Nations’ history depends on the accuracy of key aspects of the tale, and this is achieved by accurate recitations of key concepts. The deviations in the individual renditions is irrelevant, as the core message/event is always told in roughly the same manner. In contrast, the western method of documenting everything in text, though it appears to be more “credible”, is prone to the same deviations that oral traditions are. In both cases, ‘history’ changes as opinions shift, and new information is ascertained. A good example of this is in my field, that of Classical Studies (ancient Roman and Greek histories). Most of us have been raised on the concept that the Greeks were a united people broken up into individual city-states, but otherwise in possession of a common identity. This concept has been captured in print since the beginning of academic written text. Although, there is a new theory, equally as viable, that is emerging. The Greeks did not view themselves as a united group, though they allied with each other on occasion, but as autonomous entities with unique practices and identities. From the Western point of view, the original history would be invalid, and in many new books it is being treated as such. In First Nations oral traditions, this new information would have been neatly folded into their oral traditions, and a new fluid narrative would be created. The point here is that both cultures have gone through a similar curve in their historical reporting, but only the First Nations peoples have the ability to adapt their history to change with more current information, which exposes a serious flaw in the the Western literary tradition. Until this gap is bridged, Western and First Nations ideologies will continue to be at loggerheads.
Thanks for your comment Sean! I’m glad to see we are in somewhat similar boats with regards to the perspective we had coming into this course. I also really enjoyed your last point about the differences between Western and First Nations traditions, pointing out how there is a flaw in Western literary traditions – something not often pointed out or acknowledged.
It’s great how you bring up the notion that Westerners require proof and how they also rely on reputation in the same way as Natives do. However I find that it’s easier to question Western ‘proof’ simply because so many people put so much hard faith in it. I don’t know if you watch John Oliver but he has a segment on Scientific Studies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw) and he points out that these studies that are gaining spotlight are at times based in the capitalist idea that scientists need to gain funding and only by proving something ‘statistically right’ are they able to do so. Because of this, scientists will claim something from their findings based on minor outcomes sometimes of conclusions they hadn’t even set out to determine. Western society justice systems tend to rely on past precedence which doesn’t always work out in favour of contemporary justice. While Native methods of authenticity may not be in line with notions of ‘proven fact’ I wonder how these ways of thinking could improve the current Western notions? What are your thoughts on this?
I think that is an interesting idea and something worth looking into. Although there is no perfect solution and everything does have its flaws, I do agree that something needs to change in our society – our justice system is a great example. As I’m writing this I am having troubles thinking of solutions, however I feel like this is the type of thing that needs to be mulled over before anything viable can be thought of.
Thanks for the wonderful post dear one. The problem with the westerners as you have noted, is that they gauge Aboriginal literature and history using western standards of authentication. According to Grace Dillon, “Aboriginal sustainable practices constitute a science despite their lack of resemblance to taxonomic Western systems of thought…It is botanical knowledge, knowledge of the land, but it is also knowledge itself, teachings and ways of living. Storytelling was the medium of choice for transmitting and preserving traditional knowledge.” From the above assertion, we can clearly see that Aboriginal stories are authentic in their own right, which you apparently agree with. You go ahead to cite Carlson by stating “By understanding this, and accepting the authenticity of these stories, it is creating new starting points for cross cultural dialogue that will open new doors of communication and sharing between groups that have long suffered a cross-cultural divide.” Do you think that introducing Aboriginal studies in educational curriculum at all levels of study can help create new starting points for cross cultural dialogue?
Yes I do. I think if we start teaching more than one side of the story, and more than one type of history from an early age, children won’t be growing up with such a Eurocentric view of both history and ways of living. I know I myself have lived in Northern B.C. my entire life, and it wasn’t until my second year of University when i took FNHS 100 that many of these perspectives and stories were shared with me. I was shocked that I was learning so much about issues and people that were, in some cases, a part of the community where I grew up. So I think the education needs to shift from a Eurocentric point of view to a more wholistic approach, teaching people right from the start that there is more than one story and Canada is built on multiple histories.