Dave's Discussion Questions

Historiography: Raibmon centers her work around the idea of "authenticity". In the eyes of what she calls "colonial rule" culture, a false dichotomy is created between authentic and inauthentic. Does she effectively argue this point--especially considering that on a number of occassions, she points out that this dichotomy is disregarded by the non-Aboriginal in the interests of economic incentive or territorial gains? For example, pp.97 and 134. Both instances discuss the "muting" of her authenticity model by whites in the name of profit. How do these instances help her case or do they help to lessen its effectiveness?

History: Building off the same idea of "authenticity" in the previous quesiton: If whites had a static view of authenticity, what was the Aboriginal idea of authenticity? It seems that in certain situations, Aboriginals had a similar static view. For example, on p.104, Raibmon points out Aboriginal chiefs are questioning the authenticity of other tribespeople because they're prioritizing their wage earning (modern) above participating in a potlatch (traditional). Is the battle between the whites and Aboriginals not between conflicting views of authenticity, but rather between conflicting efforts at economic incentive or supremacy or something else?