Writing Prompt: “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.

In Carlson’s article, “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History”, he describes the importance for Western academics in identifying the historical accuracy of Salish narratives. However, this can be tricky to identify at times, because of this distinction – while Westerners’ assess historical accuracy based on hard evidence, the Salish people determine historical accuracy as it relates to people’s memories of how the narrative was previously told (Carlson, 57). This does not make historical accuracy any less important for the Salish people. One of the reasons historical accuracy is considered so important is because of the ways that a story relates to the spiritual world. When the Salish people tell a story about the past, the Spirits of the historical actors convene (Calson, 58). As well, if they find that their story is being mistold or abused, the Spirits may cause bad things to happen to the teller and the audience. This demonstrates the importance of authentic storytelling for the Salish people. To question the authenticity of their narratives, then, is also to imply a lack of respect towards their ancestors –  by deliberately altering a narrative, you are also knowingly challenging the Spirits.

Further, stories such as those about the transformers and Coyote, which give the history of literacy for the Salish people, are sacred narratives. The tradition of oration is also sacred to the Salish people. By questioning the authenticity of those narratives, you are diminishing the sacredness that those stories hold for the Salish people. Further, as well as removing the sacredness of those narratives, you are also confining the Salish history of literature to a colonial context, which imposes Western history onto the Salish people.

Carlson’s point is that we must be respectful when questioning the authenticity of Salish narratives by our own Western measures. This is important in the larger, historical context, in which colonialists and non-natives have repeatedly imposed their own ways of knowing onto Indigenous groups, and dismissed Indigenous knowledge. In the past, First Nation’s oral history has been regarded as unreliable. In the historically famous Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia court case (par. 9) which argued whether or not First Nations groups had occupied Canada for thousands of years, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en’s people provided their oral history as evidence, and were dismissed and told they were a “people without culture” who had “no written language”. Indigenous history has been questioned and belittled in the past, and it is important when looking at the authenticity of narratives such as the Salish history of literacy, that a relationship similar to the colonial one is not recreated. In this court case, what the First Nations people believed to be true was not considered authentic enough to stand as legal proof, because it did not conform to Western ways of knowing. If we must continue questioning authenticity, then we must learn to shift our view to accommodate various ways of knowing, potentially with “different measures of historical accuracy and different definitions of what constitutes an historical actor, as Carlson suggests (60).

References

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

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, par. 13

Erin Hanson. “Oral Traditions” First Nations and Indigenous studies. Indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca