“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.