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: