While reading Red Sun, I've noticed that Thompson combines a variety of sources to tell the story of Gabriel Dumont. These range from oral interviews with Indigenous Elders and Dumont family members to newspaper articles and sacramental documents. My own research has so far also comprised of several different types of sources.
This observation led me to ask the question: what makes a credible source? Are Indigenous oral histories treated the same in research as written sources?
I brought this question to Brenda's attention, and she guided me towards the case of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.
For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have passed on their culture and history through oral tradition. Most communities have knowledge keepers who are trained to pass important information on to the next generation. One distinction between oral histories and written sources is that oral histories do not contain the colonial concept of precision of date. For example, an Indigenous story may include the season in which the event took place and other observable details about that particular point in time, but won't say the event occurred "Friday November 16, 1962". However, oral traditions can still be as detailed and precise after several generations, even without the concept of date or calendar year.
Since European settlement, First Nations on the west coast (the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en, in particular) have fought the government of British Columbia to have their right to title (ownership of territory) recognized. Efforts to negotiate between the two parties were ignored for years, so in 1984, the hereditary chiefs of both First Nations filed a land title action with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Elders testified about their longstanding relationship with the land in their own languages using oral histories. In 1991, Judge Allan McEachern ruled that they had no title and that it was lost when BC joined Canada in 1871, essentially dismissing the basis of their evidence (oral history) as a sham.
The case made it to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. This time, the court deemed oral history as an important and valid form of evidence that must be treated equal to other types of evidence in court.
Despite the outcome of the Delgamuukw case, it still seems common in our current society is to dismiss oral histories as hearsay, or poor evidence in research (or to think of it like the game of "telephone" we used to play as kids). After all, that belief is what led me to ask my initial question in the first place. The rise of the evidence-based approach in scientific research is a large contributing factor to this belief.
But if oral history is to be treated equally with other forms of evidence in court, does this hold in research? It depends on the research.
What I've learned from my findings so far is that we must critically analyze ANY source we encounter, regardless of whether it is an oral history, a written document, or a randomized clinical trial. The development of critical thinking skills and an understanding of different research methodologies are essential in determining the credibility of sources of evidence.
To learn more about Delgamuukw v. British Columbia: