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.

When two communities disagree over historical occurrences, they might appeal to a common pool of evidence as a way to resolve the disagreement. This is understood as a relatively straightforward (albeit rare) debate over the facts with the winner being the side with the strongest factual support. However, what happens when two communities disagree over what constitutes evidence? How are they to resolve disagreement if neither side agrees with the others’ evidence used to support their views? This problem is seen with the debate over the origin of the first inhabitants of North America. The scientific view argues that the first people migrated from Europe whereas the Indigenous view understands the first people as either originating in North America or migrating here through supernatural means. The problem is that neither side agrees with the others’ type of evidence used for supporting their views.

Carlson provides some insight into the Salish epistemic understanding of historical accuracy. He argues that for a story to be considered historically accurate it need not be considered authentic in the sense that it lacks any post-contact knowledge. So if a story that tells of the first people in North America contains things like paper, kings, and white people, it is no less a real historical description than a story made up entirely of “pre-contact temporal dimensions” (56). Carlson also goes on to claim that reality is also not a criteria for assessing historical accuracy. Does this mean these stories are true but not real?

Instead of reality and authenticity being criteria for historical accuracy, the Salish appeal to consistency and authority. If the teller changes the story from one telling to the next, the story is seen by the listeners as being inaccurate. And if the story is challenged or doubted, the speaker must appeal to his or her family for credibility.

Prima facie, outside perspectives such as the scientific community might outright reject these claims of truth on the ground that consistency and authority are neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for tracking truth. They might argue that it is more than possible to retell a historically inaccurate story over and over again, and that a person’s family lineage has nothing to do with whether what they say is true or not.

By restricting the criteria for historical accuracy to eliminate Salish ways of knowing, outside communities shut off the possibility of having a meaningful dialogue with the Salish. To avoid this, outside perspectives need to understand the importance these historical stories have for the Salish. The Salish views stories as being powerful for changing the world. For example, the Salish believe that one must be careful when telling stories about deceased people for if the story is altered or abused it could cause their spirit to be taken away. They are also keenly away of the power interpretations of the past have of shaping the future. Thus, for them, there is more at stake when telling stories than there is for outside communities. It can affect their spirit and reality.

For the Indigenous communities, the debate over historical occurrences and origin is more than just a debate over inert scientific facts. It is a debate over the indigenous way of knowing history since the scientific view largely dismisses the oral tradition as a reliable means of attaining truth. It is also a debate over identity, where some believe that migration “cleaves our link to our homeland and erases our identity” (“B.C. Indigenous people react to the resurfacing of 2 migration theories”, 2018)

Works cited:

First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?

When King tells two factually incompatible creation stories, he is trying to show is that we have a reciprocal relationship with the stories we tell, and this relationship is coloured by our human needs, wants, and values, rather than our desire to express and believe truths.

“The truth about stories is that that’s all we are” (2).

We are our stories in the sense that we create them just as much as they create us. He uses the story of his father to show us that his need to understand why his father abandoned him and his family, and his anger he felt by this led him to construct a story that is meet these needs.

“Yet this is the story I continue to tell myself, because it’s easy and contains my anger, and because, in all the years, in all the tellings, I’ve honed it sharp enough to cut bone” (25)

Although the story of meeting his father in a bar is not true, this doesn’t matter because that is not what the story is for. He is motivated by anger and confusion when creating the story, and through years of telling the story, it has been pruned down to reflect those feelings and needs. He is the story, and the story is himself.

King extends this idea to religious beliefs. Many empiricists would argue for a copy principle of belief formation in that we experience the world in a particular way which leads us to form beliefs that correspond to these experiences. Our beliefs track truth. Therefore, the stories we tell that are constructed from these beliefs also reflect truth. Yet King argues that our motivations and emotions feed into the stories we create which is a version of social intuitionism. This view states that the evaluations we have of the world are largely based on gut reactions, and the reasons we often give for having these evaluations are largely confabulated. So King, like the social intuitionists, argue that religious creation stories are not told so much as an expression of believe – as beliefs are merely superficial in this sense – but rather, they are envincements of our motivational sets and emotional proclivities.

“Do the stories we tell reflect the world as it truly is, or did we simply start off with the wrong story.” (26)

For King, starting off with the wrong creation story involves approaching existential and moral issues will unsavory motives and emotions. The desire to dominate and justify this domination has fed into the Christian story of creation, and has been honed as these motives and emotions have been expressed throughout time. The Native story, on the other hand, reflects interdependence and harmony. Choosing between this story and the Native one is not really a matter of choosing between different versions of truth-telling. Rather, it is a choice between identities.

Works Cited:

Read at least 6 students blog short stories about ‘home’ and make a list of BOTH the common shared assumptions, values and stories that you find and look for differences as well; look to see if you can find student peers who appear to have different values then yourself  when it comes to the meaning of ‘home.’ Post this list on your blog and include commentary please.

I’ve read through over six of your blog posts with the aim of trying to understand your assumptions and values about home. Although I know on an intellectual and superficial level that we are so very much different, experiencing this difference through your writing brings this understanding to a depth far deeper than any intellectual understanding can do. Yet we all share a common humanity. We all strive for belonging, close bonds, and a stable sense of identity.

All of you have experienced some degree of homelessness. On the one end is Rachel, who felt it when she changed rooms in her family home. This new room had not yet been turned into a home by creating memories with people she cares about. For her a sense of home “is found in human interaction and community.”

On the other end is J.T. has never felt connect to a place either here in Canada of back in his home country Korea. His homelessness comes from the alienation and disconnect he has feels. He has never felt valued by his peers in Korea or his family growing up. “I never felt like I belonged home, or anywhere else”

This theme of belonging was common to all but one. Lexis and Alexis have felt unbelonging because of how others’ view and treat them based on their ethnicity. For both of them there is disconnect between their multigenerational roots here in Canada and their “exotic” or Asian appearance. For Tamara and Suzanne, this unbelonging came from traveling and moving. Neither has stayed in one place enough to gain a deep sense of belonging. Tamara, like Lexis and Alexis, struggles with having consistent sense of identity given her complex historic ethnicity.

Yet we are all so different. Our experiences and relationships are what give us our individuality. Although it is our memories that either connect or disconnect us from our homes, each of our memories are so very different. Suzanne’s fond memories of her mother define her, just as J.T. painful memories of his father define him. However, the way they are defined by these memories are far more different than anyone can know.

Some of us have experienced racism while others’ have not, and the racism felt by those so unlike is unique and incommensurable. Sure we all share a sense of injustice, either directed upon ourselves from others or upon others by others, the emotional tones of this felt injustice is so very different because our experiences that make us who we are are different.