Christopher
L. Bennett
Western
Native American History
Ethnography vs. Historiography in the Study of Tsimshian History
In attempting to understand Native American agency, is it better to apply a conventional historiographic approach or to address their past in their own terms? Ethnohistorian Jay Miller and historian Peggy Brock have both applied themselves to the study of the Tsimshian people of Northwest Canada, writing papers that cover partly overlapping periods and themes. It is worthwhile to compare their respective approaches.
Though there are great differences between Miller=s ATsimshian Ethno-Ethnohistory: A >Real= Indigenous Chronology@ and Brock=s ABuilding Bridges: Politics and Religion in a First Nations Community,@ they have an underlying point in common: that Tsimshian (and more broadly Native American) history cannot be understood by the assumption Athat Aboriginal peoples were either reacting or accommodating to the newcomer presence,@[1] but requires recognizing that the events of their encounters with Euro-Americans took place in their own pre-existing cultural context, and from their perspective were merely an extension of that context. As Brock puts it, AThe Tsimshian... were not the timeless >traditional= societies imagined by classic anthropology. Instead, they responded to changing circumstances, absorbing and using religious, economic and social innovations@ within their own evolving value system.[2]
This point is more implicit in Miller=s work, the goal of which is to codify the Tsimshian=s own oral history, the adawx, for the benefit of Western readers, and to illustrate its very non-Western approach to defining time and history. But Miller=s rationale for this undertaking is that Aany truly Native (ethno) history must focus on the tribes= own profound sense of these events as both spiritually and temporally informed.@[3] The implication is that a more conventional approach based in Western historians= assumptions about linear chronology, written documents and the like cannot show what the events of history, including the history of contact, actually meant to the Tsimshian. Miller presumably would not have seen much merit in Brock=s approach, which relies on conventional, written primary sources. Brock=s main Tsimshian source is the English-language diary of a Christian convert named Clah, which she cross-references with the diaries of Anglophone missionaries and other historical records. Miller instead presents the events of European contact in purely Tsimshian terms (or rather his interpretation thereof, guided by the work of Susan Marsden), as merely the latest few phases of an evolving generational narrative.
Does Brock=s approach therefore fail to show the Tsimshian=s independent perspective toward and agency within the events of contact? It is true that she does not go into depth in exploring what Tsimshian culture was like before contact. She does acknowledge indigenous customs such as the xgedem halait, a symbolically Acannibalistic@ secret society, as well as traditional feasts and gift-giving ceremonies. But her emphasis is on the syncretism and occasional tension between these customs and adopted Christian customs. Her work is not as successful in giving a strong sense of the prior Tsimshian history and worldview.
However, a comparison of their respective comments on specific events is revealing. The accounts overlap in the mid-1800s with the events surrounding Clah, the missionaries William Duncan and Thomas Crosby, and the communities of Fort (or Port) Simpson and New Metlakatla. Miller=s presentation reads: A...in 1857... Duncan arrived from England and spent a year learning to speak Tsimshianic from [Clah] before he began to preach and to convert. By 1862, he led fifty converts, soon joined by two hundred more, back to ancient Metlakatla to found one of the most successful cooperative Christian communities in the world.@ Miller adds that AChristianity fit quite easily within the template of the traditional culture,@ but does not elaborate.[4] Miller=s account basically gives Duncan the sole agency in the missionary effort. Brock spells out the process in more detail, making it clear that Amissionaries were the conduits for this change, but the Tsimshian initiated and managed it.@[5] Clah used his missionary ties to advance his own status and reinterpreted Christian teachings to suit his and his people=s needs. The Tsimshian who moved to Metlakatla were responding to events in their own community, specifically a smallpox outbreak, rather than purely religious zeal. Further, by moving to Duncan=s community and giving up non-Christian rites, these converts lost prestige in Tsimshian terms.[6] Miller=s characterization of the community as Asuccessful@ is oddly Western-oriented given his insistence on approaching history on Tsimshian terms.
Miller goes on: AIn 1874, Methodists began a mission at Port Simpson which became the base of Reverend Thomas Crosby for twenty-three years.@[7] This statement unambiguously places the initiative for the mission entirely in Methodist hands. But Brock presents a very different picture: the initiative came from Alfred Dudoward, aka Chief Skagwait, an ambitious young chief who was engaged in a power struggle with Clah. AFinally, Dudoward achieved his goal of becoming the predominant power at Fort Simpson by aligning himself with the Methodists and inviting a permanent missionary to come to the village under his patronage.@[8] Oddly, Miller=s Tsimshian-based approach grants the Tsimshian less agency for their own history than Brock=s more conventional historiography based on English-language documents.
To be fair, Miller=s article is only a brief summary, necessarily lacking in detail. Still, a different choice of words could have made a great difference; for instance, he could have said AIn 1874, Chief Skagwait invited the Methodists to build a mission at Port Simpson and used it to consolidate his spiritual power.@ Furthermore, although Miller states that AChristianity fit quite easily within the template of the traditional culture,@ it is Brock who actually demonstrates this rather than merely asserting it. Indeed, she rejects the very concept of a Atraditional@ culture versus an outside one, recognizing that it is quite normal for a culture to evolve by adopting external influences.
Does this mean that the standard historiographical approach is more effective than granting an audience to a people=s own worldview? No. Historiography is limited by the availability of historical sources, and must be supplemented by ethnography. But relying on ethnography alone is insufficient as well. Perhaps what matters most is simply the care and perceptiveness which the scholar brings to bear.