2:6 What does authenticity mean to you?

In response to prompt 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.

I wanted to draw attention to the following text presented in our lesson,

“Contrary to scholarly orthodoxy, the Native people did not lose their land in large part because they were non-literates who could be easily duped and manipulated by nefarious literate settlers and mendacious colonial government officials, but, ironically, precisely because they were literate! (54).”

In Carlson’s article, we’ve learned that the Salish had proved to be literate. This obviously isn’t the argument of the article, as all cultures are indeed oral and literate, and the case in question is about the “authenticity” of their (the Salish) truth. 

One thing I wanted to mention was how this question reminded me of a blog question from lesson 1:3. In that lesson we were asked in question #1 about cultures that can be either distinguished as “oral culture” and “written culture”. Though I didn’t focus on that question myself, I read and replied to some peer responses of that topic. From that lesson, we’ve been really able to dive into the understanding that oral and written culture do not have to be in competition with each other. By that notion, really different written and oral cultures can not be placed above nor below one another on matters of complexity (no such thing) or age. In a similar nature to that discussion, once again it seems like there’s a debate of how “authenticity” can be presented and/or evidenced. 

Moving on to matters of authenticity from the perspective of the Salish people, it seems that Carlson has resonated that the Salish community have had an “obligation…maintain the integrity of sacred historical narratives” and that these Salish informants have been described as “compulsive about telling stories ‘right’” (Carlson, 59).” I think what’s important to draw upon now is to remember the culture that the Salish people have about their storytelling. Whether or not their recounts of post-contact stories are documented in the same sense as stories like Moodie, it’s too simplistic to discredit the stories over method of content. I can see how some in the Western society might have questions of absolutes or details. Frankly, it seems that in this current society everyone cares to poke holes in stories in order to find the truth or the “authentic”. What we have to realize when interpreting these stories are how these stories interact with the Salish peoples’ culture. Carlson also recognizes that retelling stories is not casual play in the community, that it “is dangerous to omit scenes or shorten myths” (Carlson, 59). Though it seems like a regular occurence to challenge (and sometimes encourage to challenge) stories that arise from the social media outlets or even politicians, most of our frames surrounding storytelling do not identify with the serious gravity as the Salish do. Thus before we challenge stories we need to understand how the story came about, as the birth of the storytelling might be just as important as the story itself.

Works cited:

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print.

Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/