5] \u201cTo raise the question of \u2018authenticity\u2019 is to challenge not only the narrative but also the \u2018truth\u2019 behind Salish ways of knowing \u201c(Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson, and explain why it is important to recognize this point.<\/p>\n
When we question the authenticity of Salish stories and knowledge by comparing them to European ones, we devalue Salish ways of knowing just as we devalue oral culture through comparison to the supposedly more\u00a0civilized<\/a>\u00a0western literacy. Why is ‘accuracy’ the criteria on which we base the worth of an entire culture’s wealth of knowledge? And why is western culture and story considered more accurate than Salish ways of knowing? Western accuracy involves evidence-based reasoning, documentation, etc- but to say Salish ways of knowing are invalid because they do not involve these elements is to ignore the different ways in which we measure accuracy, none more valid than the other.<\/p>\n Salish “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). Just as First Nations storytelling is largely dependent on context- the who, what, where, when and why of the story- so too is historical accuracy. Note that historical accuracy\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>important to Salish narratives. Carlson notes that Salish storytellers who fail to establish credibility through the use of “oral footnotes” will experience diminished reputations as poor storytellers within their communities (57). This community self-policing is one way to ensure accuracy within storytelling, and the consequences of poor storytelling are\u00a0understood by Salish communities just as they are within European ones (Carlson, 58).<\/p>\n The problem with this challenge of ‘authenticity’ within Salish and other First Nations narratives is that it values western literacy over orality and assumes that literacy brings legitimacy while orality is regressive and primitive. The belief that a culture evolves<\/a> from orality to literacy places oral stories at the bottom of a hierarchy. There is a “historical purity” (Carlson, 56) associated with literacy and impurities are thus assigned to First Nations histories\/stories that do not conform. Stories that are “informed by post-contact European events” are assumed to be based on post-contact European information. This ethnocentric view results in a fundamental misunderstanding of the workings of Salish\/First Nations culture and ways of knowing and devalues the truth of their stories.<\/p>\n To challenge the truth of Salish stories in this way is to assign a higher value and meaning to western\/European stories. In “Living by Stories,” Wendy Wickwire talks about how academics choose which First Nations stories to pay attention to. Academics ignore recent stories in favour of stereotypical, mythic stories, despite the fact that many of the modern stories held important insights about land and origin. When we choose which stories to assign value to, we miss the important ones and “close the door on another way of knowing” (Carlson, 56). But, as Carlson notes, “there is no story that is more or less authentic, only ‘better remembered\/conveyed” (57).<\/p>\n How do we decide which stories are ‘accurate’? How do we decide which stories are worthy of meaning and value? I think we need to move forward from the western model of accuracy, or at least be able to acknowledge the different ways in which we can assign and police accuracy within stories. If we don’t, so many important truths, stories, and ways of knowing will be left behind.<\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n
\n