The question I have chosen to answer is question 6:
“Harry Robinson’s account of literacy being stolen from Coyote by his white twin conform to all the standard criteria associated with a genre of Salish narratives commonly referred to by outsiders as legend or mythology with one exception – they appear to contain post-contact content” (Carlson 56)
Why is it, according to Carlson or/and Wickwire, that Aboriginal stories that are influenced or informed by post-contact European events and issues are “discarded to the dustbin of scholarly interest”? (56).
According to Carlson one of the reasons Aboriginal stories that are influenced by post-contact European events are discarded because people think that they lack authenticity. Many people associate authentic Aboriginal stories with pre-contact events and ways of life, and disregard the culture changes, and the stories that come with that after European settlers made contact with Aboriginal people in Canada. By doing this, it is said that people are closing the doors to more learning, and more information regarding Aboriginal people and their way of life. I think that one of the reasons people could see the post-contact stories as being “non-authentic” because they do not want to listen or realize some of the negative effects that European settlers had on Aboriginal morals, values and ways of life.
When looking at other stories associated with heritage, it is not common to come upon any that are deemed to be not scholarly because of settler contact. It is difficult to distinguish between what can be considered “myth” or “legend” as someone who does not have any relations to a culture that prides themselves in verbal stories. However, I do see that by having post-contact information that makes a story seem more believable and that it should be considered scholarly when looking at the impacts, and the ability the stores have to tell a different side of past events. Because Aboriginal people tell stories by mouth this should not impact their credibility in my opinion.There are many different cultures where stories and how they are told are what makes a culture and past events “stay Alive”, just because there is post contact material does not mean that the stories are any less accurate.
I can take myself and look at the other side of what Carlson and Wickwire are trying to get across. Works that are deemed scholarly need to have viable evidence to back up claims that are made. It is very hard to do this with regards to Aboriginal stories because many of them are just told by mouth and that is how they are passed down. This does leave a lot of room for human error in my opinion. It makes me think of the game “telephone” that I used to play as a kid, where someone is told one sentence and it gets told down a line of people and then the last person says out loud what they think the sentence was at the beginning. I understand that telling historical stories is not the same as a little game played by children however it does make me think about what could have changed over time with stories that are only passed down by mouth in the ways that different people talk and how other interpret them.
Works Cited:
“Is My Source Credible?” Is My Source Credible? – UMGC Library, sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/credibility.cfm.
Buxton, Richard G.A., et al. “Myth.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 3 Jan. 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/myth.
Hi Megan,
I think you make good points in your post. I admit to having a bias of the kind you mention, a feeling that aboriginal stories that are altered post-contact with European settlers are, in a way, “less authentic” than the ones that came before. I’m not sure I could guess the reason for that feeling, but it seems to me to be like if Europeans altered the Genesis story after coming to the Americas. Inasmuch as the Genesis story is a piece of history, altering it in that way and for that reason would almost be like destroying an artifact in a museum. I’m sure that’s an unfair way of looking at it, but that’s how it seems to me. What do you think?
Cooper
Hi Megan,
I think you did a great job of breaking down why “post-contact” Aboriginal stories are often dismissed, especially within scholarly discourse. You mention how “authentic” Aboriginality is often only associated with pre-contact culture and stories. I think this is very true and is highly interconnected to the idea of the “Vanishing Indian”. (The abstract of this paper does a great job out outlining this idea: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1421061).
Do you think that the lack of consideration of post-contact stories and cultural changes is a result of this trope or a contributor to it? (This is a bit of a “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” question but I’m interested to see what you think!)
Thanks,
Eva
Hi Megan,
I really enjoyed reading your post, and I think you raise a few insightful points! I appreciate how you took into account your perspective to explain why Carlson and Wickwire discredit Aboriginal stories. I like the connection you raise between the childhood game telephone relating to the oral storytelling tradition of Aboriginals, which could attribute to why their stories are not of scholarly interest.
Do you think it’s fair to “categorize” Aboriginal stories as just stories, or do you think they should be considered by scholars as providing essential historical insight, especially concerning colonization by the Europeans?
Hi Megan,
This was an interesting perspective that I enjoyed reading! I think we can examine Carlson’s ideas through our beginning articles on orality and literacy from Ong. I think the argument between authentic, scholarly, real (the list goes on…) is one that is always so controversial and hard to grasp. My question, however, is would you personally believe something to be more authentic or “scholarly” if it was written down? Would you regard a First Nations story as more factual if there was a “sacred text” that the stories were presented in?
Interested in reading your response!
Grace