Assignment 2.6 Answer to Question 6
by EmilyHomuth
First and foremost, I promise to work on my titles.
Secondly, thank you for reading my blog despite my horrible titles!
In his article, Carlson argues that scholars dismiss Indigenous stories that contain post-contact elements because the stories are no longer viewed as authentic. Authentic in this case does not mean lacking in historical accuracy, nor does it mean that historians cannot verify the source of the story. In this case, the stories are authentic if they aren’t “influenced or informed by post-contact European events” (Carlson 56). Historians use of authenticity as the measurement of legitimacy, as opposed to considering the source or the history, is harmful because Indigenous people do not view authenticity as a proper way to examine their stories and it arbitrarily dismisses certain stories.
Carlson argues that the use of authenticity as a measurement bias’s scholars to Indigenous stories that contain elements that are viewed as post-contact. In Harry Robinson’s story of the twins “part of the deal struck with the younger twin…was that his descendants would one day travel to the home of the elder twin’s dependents” (10). The story of the twins predicts the eventual colonization of Indigenous lands. The appearance that the story is based on the foreknowledge of this event makes it appear to be inauthentic. The argument for inauthenticity is based on the belief that the story was created or altered to fit real life events. The story appears inauthentic but in reality, Indigenous people had many experiences with visitors off the coast estimated as early as 1,000 a.d., who did not always make contact. These visitors may have inspired the stories. Further, our modern society has the same stories of unknown people visiting and/or colonizing earth.
Carlson makes this point about his fellow scholars and their analysis of Indigenous stories to highlight the harmful bias that is present in the resultant opinions and scholarly theories. Modern scholar’s use of authenticity as a measurement of Indigenous stories is a colonial way to view Indigenous stories. This bias has caused scholars to pick and choose Indigenous stories to label authentic, with the rest being tossed aside and labeled as tainted by contact. In reality, their method of analysis is tainted by colonial norms and bias.
Carlson does not argue against the study and analysis of Indigenous stories, he instead proposes that they be considered from the Indigenous perspective and with Indigenous criteria. The genera of the story of the twins is referred to “in Harry Robinson’s Okanagan Salish language as shame-ma-ee” (Carlson 56). Shame-ma-ee stories are not analyzed for authenticity they are considered within an Indigenous context and history. History and story telling are very important to Indigenous people as stories are a record of their past. Stories also have power to call spirits and hand down knowledge. The use of authenticity as a method of analyzing Indigenous stories is in direct conflict with Indigenous stories which are all considered special and deserving of respect. Carlson highlights this point in his article and warns of the danger and harm of Indigenous stories being haphazardly “discarded to the dustbin of scholarly interest” (56).
In summary, Carlson believes that scholars consideration of Indigenous stories from their colonial perspective causes them to unjustly, and to their detriment, dismiss Indigenous stories on the grounds of authenticity. This is damaging because it results in studies of Indigenous stories that are based on a colonial bias and from a colonial perspective. It is impossible for studies of this nature to result in meaningful interpretations of Indigenous stories because any conclusion drawn will be due to a problem in the method of study not the result of the study.
Work Cited:
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The Black and White of Salish History” ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, and Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. University of Toronto Press, 2011. 43-72
Datta, Ranjan. “Traditional Storytelling: an Effective Indigenous Research Methodology and its Implications for Environmental Research” Sage Journals, 9 Nov. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1177180117741351. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020.
Klein, Christopher. “The Viking Explorer Who Beat Columbus to America” History, 24 Sept. 2018, https://www.history.com/news/the-viking-explorer-who-beat-columbus-to-america. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020.
Robinson, Harry. “Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory” ed. Wickwire, Wendy. Talonbooks, 2005.
Hey! I really liked reading your blog post it actually made me think of a course I took before called AFST 250A. In your blog post you discuss the historians having a problem with the authenticity of stories that have been “influenced or informed by post-contact European events” (Carlson). This statement reminded me of a discussion I had in my African studies class as we were discussing how many European historians had a problem with early African history. For example a historian named Hegel famously said that “Africa is not historical pat of the world it has no movement or development to exhibit” (Hegel). In class my professor exclaimed that the reason why Hegel was saying this is because he wanted to justify the racial prejudice that had happened during the Transatlantic slavery and Hegel denouncing African history was just a form of ethnocentrism. I started thinking and I wanted to ask you if you thought that the historians disregarding Indigenous post-colonial stories could be similarly a form of ethnocentrism? Also I was wondering if maybe the historians were questioning the authenticity of stories because they were trying to cover up some of hardships experienced by the indigenous people caused by the Europeans?
Typo
Africa is not *a* historical *part*
Hi Sidney,
Thanks for reading!
Yes, I absolutely think that historian’s evaluation of Indigenous stories using colonial values is ethnocentric. The idea that a culture as rich as the Indigenous culture can be evaluated from an outside European perspective is incredibly damaging. Not just in the ways we have discussed above but more generally in our relationship to Indigenous people today. I do think that historians are questioning Indigenous stories because they are trying to hide or disguise the hardship of indigenous people. I also think that they are studying Indigenous stories this way to lessen the Indigenous claim to land. Their methodology treats indigenous stories as myth and legend and authenticity as an evaluator removes most references to Indigenous day to day life especially those during and after contact. This makes the Indigenous claim to land appear to be weaker and based off of myth and legend which would not have much clout with European society.
Thanks again!
Hi I really enjoyed reading your blog post, as I did not answer this question, and it definitely enlightened me on the topic. I wholeheartedly agree with you, that it is damaging to disregard Indigenous stories that have colonial values incorporated in them. It reminds me of even current politics in our everyday lives. Obama had once famously said that we must be willing to talk about the hardships, and difficult topics, otherwise we will not learn from them. Difficult topics in the sense of racism. unconscious racism, prejudice, concepts that are still prevalent. “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism” by Robin DiAngelo, is a great book to read that discusses why so many people have difficulty talking about things such as racism, because it acknowledges that it is still there, and white privilege is very much still a thing. Ignoring Indigenous hardships after colonialism, and labeling them as “inauthentic” blatantly ignores the issues prevalent.
it is honestly a gross to me that colonial influenced Indigenous work would be considered inauthentic, because it is glorifying their culture as “untouched and exotic.”
It also reminds me of the retort to “Black Lives Matter” movement, with “All Lives Matter” protest. It disregards the daily issues that Black people face in social situations, including law enforcement.
Anyways, it seems that colonialism affecting many things, including Indigenous lives, is something that still seems to be hard to acknowledge.
Hi Sashini,
Thank you for providing those great resources!
I really liked your point that rejection of Indigenous stories with elements of colonialism reinforces the stereotypes of Indigenous people as uncivilized. It is so damaging that colonial bias is not influenced especially when it is inherent in scholarly studies. Academics are supposed to work to identify and address their biases but that does not seem to be the norm.
Thanks again,
Emily