“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.
Truth is a difficult concept to work with. There’s its conventional definition of factual adherence, which sounds irrefutable but is really far from it, and then there are all those other meanings that people ascribe to it, resulting in a mass of confusion whenever discussion is attempted. It’s no surprise then that this confusion is exemplified in the cross-cultural context. When people who speak the same language have so much trouble agreeing on what truth is, how do you think people who speak different languages will handle the same issue?
For the sake of a coherent discussion, I will give a (rather bad) working definition of the word truth as Carlson uses it in the quotation above. It is as follows: Truth is the moral and/or spiritual significance of a story, which justifies the story’s authority in prescription. So when Carlson states that “non-Natives have generally not been overly concerned with the historical legitimacy of Aboriginal legends and myths” because “they assume them to be fiction,” he is stating that non-Natives think of those Aboriginal legends and myths as untrue, not necessarily because they are not factual (which they are in no position to verify), but because they are not morally/spiritually significant and therefore not authoritative sources of prescription (56). In other words, non-Natives do not believe that Aboriginal legends and myths should influence their behavior–that’s what their bible is for.
So what does authenticity mean? Well, to the Natives, it doesn’t mean anything: “[N]either reality . . . nor authenticity is part of the indigenous criteria for assessing” their stories (56-57). What it means to the non-Natives is the real question, and the underlying assumption of the term is that there are two kinds of Native stories: authentic and unauthentic. Pre-contact and “post-contact” (56). Now, the optimist might say that in seeking out so-called authentic Native stories, non-Natives are attempting to study a unique culture in an effort to gain more understanding and respect towards that culture; the skeptic, on the other hand, might say that in seeking out so-called authentic Native stories, non-Natives are seeking more so-called evidence for their so-called superiority.
Let’s try the skeptic route. In claiming that stories such as Robinson’s story of the twins are unauthentic, or influenced by “post-contact European events and issues,” non-Natives are insinuating that those stories cannot dispute non-Native assumptions about pre-contact Native cultures (56). The most important non-Native assumption being protected thus is that of pre-contact Native illiteracy. By claiming that a Native story describing pre-contact literacy is an unauthentic, post-contact-tainted story, non-Natives can maintain the stance that pre-contact Native cultures did not have literacy. In other words, they can still claim that they brought literacy to the Natives.
To return to the prompt questions, the idea of authenticity challenges the truth (as badly defined by me) behind Salish ways of knowing by ignoring the significance–the truth–that the Salish culture attributes to their stories. Carlson states that the “sacred historical narratives” of Salish historians are “sacrosanct” (59); they are too powerful to be interfered with. That which might be a matter of good or bad scholarship for non-Natives is a matter life or death for the Salish culture: “And shortening myths would shorten the lives of all listeners” (59). In throwing around labels of authentic and unauthentic, non-Natives are asserting an assumption that they are superior authorities on matters of truth. The consequence of this assumption is that non-Natives “not only close a door on another way of knowing, [they] potentially insult the people who share the stories and thereby reduce the likelihood of their generosity continuing” (56). Recognizing this point then is important for two reasons. The first reason is so that non-Natives can recognize that they are very likely insulting Natives and so can stop doing that before it is too late. The second reason is so that they can expand their understanding of truth rather than remain ignorant of its many facets.
Works Cited
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print.
Pardi, Paul. “What is Truth?” Philosophy News. Philosophy News, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 19 Jun. 2015.
Hi Kevin, I think the great points you brought up are similar to what I explored in my last week’s post (https://blogs.ubc.ca/licharmaine470/2015/06/12/a-multiplicity-of-stories-and-values/). There, I brought up the thought that we non-Native westerners tend to forget that our myths, legends, and stories are just as mythological, unbelievable, and illogical as other cultures. We just elevate them, somehow, as “true-er” (using your definition!) than other cultures’ stories because they are ours.
A lot of it, I think, depends on identity. Westerners identify with Genesis. Native Canadians identify with Charm (the story Thomas King tells in his Massey lecture series). For Westerners, Genesis explains how our world works, such as why for most of Western civilization women have been relegated to second-class citizens. Even though most Christians would not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, they still identify with the values of it: the idea of sin, betrayal, and love and care despite betrayal.
I think the question to ask, then, is “How do First Nations people identify with—and thus deem ‘authentic’ and ‘true’—certain stories and not others?” I think if we knew the answer to this question we’d understand First Nations cultures and values a whole lot more. As for the Charm story, I think it has to do with how First Nations traditionally value the land and environment more than, say, Westerners. And how they see the world as “a world determined by co-operation” (King 25).
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2003.
P.S. When I say First Nations value the land and environment a lot more, I’m only making an assumption based on slight mentions in the books we’ve read in this class and rhetoric/narrative I’ve grown up with, such as Native groups fiercely protecting their treaty rights—I admit I still don’t quite understand exactly what’s at work here, but I think this is a public assumption made by many.
🙂
Hi Charmaine. There are two points that I’m aware of in response to the question you raised. The first point, as Carlson states, is that “[t]here are no authentic or inauthentic swoxwiyam, only better remembered/conveyed or less well remembered/conveyed swoxwiyam” and that “[t]here are no authentic or inauthentic sqwelqwel, only more or less reliable sources of historical information” (57). What I take away from this is that the Salish do not use binary labels, but rather gradients of credibility. So it is not then that “First Nations people identify with . . . certain stories and not others,” but rather that they identify with certain stories more than others.
The second point is, as I’ve noted in my blog, that stories are too powerful to the Natives to be intentionally edited by them. I assume because of this that Native stories carry a standard of credibility to Native people that non-Native stories do not to non-Native people, simply because non-Native people are (I assume) unlikely to believe that intentionally editing a story will have supernatural consequences. This is not to claim that no Native would ever intentionally edit a story (and unintentional edits are of course still a concern), but it does show the degree to which Natives value their stories, and it seems to me that they would trust each other’s stories more as a result.
Hi Kevin,
I agree in your taking the skeptic’s side in this discussion. The amount of ethnocentrism and hubris in the authentic/inauthentic argument is absurd. Are we really supposed to believe that Western culture is so much more logical or “truer” that the First Nations immediately discarded their old culture to embrace it on contact, and that this makes any First Nations’s attempts to tell new stories post-contact are somehow false or illegitimate representations of that culture? The mind boggles.
I’m thankful for Wickwire’s attempts to present a more “unfiltered” version of Native storytelling and for this course for introducing me to it; it has changed and expanded my views on Native storytelling in ways I never expected. At the same time, it’s hard to come to terms with the idea that so much of Native culture has been altered or lost based on questions of “authenticity” by the people who were trying to preserve it.
Thank you for the comment Max.
🙂
Hey Kevin!
I found it interesting with your approach to this topic. About giving a “bad” definition of truth and authenticity. Truth and authenticity I found were very hard concepts to be able to explain on a basis that everyone could agree with. In truth, this is something that no one can really do and come to a consensus on. Also, for people to believe something that they have never hear before or if there is no explanation about what is going on is very hard for some. They are just not able to open their minds to understand there is more than the history they hold dear to them.
I really liked your blog! Can’t wait to read more 🙂
-Kathryn
Thank you for the comment Kathryn.
🙂