Sorry my discussion questions are so damn long.

I have noticed that each week in class (especially the last time I offered discussion questions) that the questions start off at a fairly abstract point, which Professor Herzberg then boils down to get to the more central topics of the text. In efforts to get to the meat and potatoes of the text right away, I was hoping to start my historiography question by flushing out the core themes of the text, rather than the details of it.

Historiography Question
What argument and theoretical position is Raibmon taking regarding the ahistorical cultural purity and the existence of “two inadequate possibilities… of authenticity’s false dichotomy” and how they are so deeply embedded in the understanding of Indigenous cultures?
In conjunction with this question and without either falling into the binaries that Raibmon critiques, identity politics or an essentialization of the subjects of the text, I want to pose a simple question that could have a very complex answer. Can this sort of position regarding the issues of authenticity be taken by a non-native scholar? Would that be problematic, why or why not? Can we truly address issues of authenticity through the gaze of the colonizer/Western academic or must the issues only be addressed from a native perspective? In a question that seems to pervade all aspects of subaltern studies, one could ask if we see a strong enough Native presence in Raibmon’s text to make the claims she is making? Can Native scholars be given a free pass from criticism in cultural studies of Indigenous peoples? What role do insider/outsider dichotomies play on such research?

History Question
First, I would like to note that I really valued those contributions that this text was offering. I found that its integration of both indigenous and non-indigenous sources particularly beneficial to Native Studies, as it created a complicated narrative of the way that authenticity played out in this complex region. Therefore, I found a strong historical question a bit harder to formulate.
One thing I would like to point out is in reference to the time period of the text. Raibmon focuses on a relatively brief period of colonial/indigenous interaction, about thirty years surrounding the turn of the twentieth century. How do we feel about this time frame and why do we think Raibmon focused on it? In attempting to avoid making Indigenous peoples into an ahistorical group, would it have been more effective to follow the negotiation of authenticity over a wider period of time? Does her focus here frame the complex ways that authenticity was utilized by both Native and non-native actors into to specific a time period, thus showing this process as specific to the turn of the 20th Century rather than one that is constantly in flux? Would it have been more effective at creating an evolving idea of authenticity that was employed by native peoples to broaden the focus of the study? Is her short time period inherently limiting in this regard? For example, rather than focusing on a trip to the Chicago World’s Fair by the Kwakwaka'wakw people or a brief period of Tlingit hop picking, would it have helped to focus on a longer history of acculturation of these peoples?