 |
 What Is Authentic Native Tourism?04.20.10 at 1:35 pm by Mark ShipleyWhile in the Baggage Check phase of a tourism branding project for the Chickasaw Nation, an interesting discussion has been sparked about authenticity as it relates to native cultural tourism. If they dress-up, is it authentic?When creating a native tourism destination, is it authentic to follow the Williamsburg There are a number of problems with this model as it relates to native tourism, in addition to being disrespectful to the native people represented. To be considered a native American, each tribe sets their own standards. In the case of The Chickasaw Nation, a person must be no less than 1/16th native by blood. As a result, while you would expect native Chickasaws to look "native", more often than not they look like you and me. If they dance for you, is it authentic?Hollywood westerns and Brady Bunch re-runs have given non-natives a twisted view of what to expect from native cultural tourism in the United States. The vast majority of Native Americans have successfully assimilated into American Society. Among their cultures walk visionary leaders (including a number of US Congressmen and Senators), members of our armed forces, successful business people, school teachers, lawyers, surgeons and ordinary people, too. They have served both their tribes and America well and they have certainly earned our respect. Which begs the question: What exactly is authentic cultural tourism?What is its role and what are cultural tourists really looking for? Experiences that meet expectations by reinforcing (and profiting from) stereotypes? Or experiences that are sensitive to the native populations, and by doing so, exceed expectations by surprising, educating and enlightening tourists? Related Content: If you're interested in further reading on the subject of authenticity in destination branding and marketing, you might want to check out The Wanderlust Report: Brand Positioning for Tourism Marketing |
Speaking Engagements
September 20-22 Bolton Landing, NY
November 13-17 Montréal, Québec
 |
model: creating a village and populating it with “natives” who wear traditional war paint, head dresses and tribal clothing? Is it authentic if you use re-enactment and role play to give visitors the “native experience?” 
While the stereotype is that natives are pure or near pure blood, live on reservations in teepees, wear traditional head dresses and war paint, make things with beads and dance around the fire for the enjoyment of non-native tourists, the reality is something quite different.
Mark,
You're asking a really interesting question, and I'm not sure there is a clear answer. My first thought was to wonder how much of the destination you're working with for the Chickasaw Nation is historically driven. I think this is an important distinction to make when evaluating what is authentic, because it depends upon what you mean by authentic--authentic to *whom*, to *what*, or to *when*.
I think that when history is distilled into an experience (i.e. Colonial Williamsburg, as you mentioned, or Mystic Seaport, Sturbridge Village, and the like), it can't help but be stereotyped, and it certainly can't help being anachronistically inauthentic. Contemporary people making a living by spending the majority of their days clothed in "period" dress and doing work that is no longer necessary (traditional milling, blacksmithing, etc.) is, in a way, bizarrely inauthentic, but our culture has embraced that as a means of teaching history. The same concerns would probably apply to the Chickasaw Nation, regardless of any other cultural sensitivity.
So the question now becomes, what experience are you trying to communicate? Contemporary Chickasaw experience, or something from the past? How clear is that experience and how likely is it to be clearly expressed without becoming too stereotyped? What do the contemporary Chickasaw Nation want to say about their past, or their present?
It seems like those questions have to be answered before you can truly evaluate whether the answers are relevant to tourists--whether they match with the desires and expectations of cultural tourists, and therefore whether they'll pay to experience it.
Anyway, bravo for asking the tough question. I was excited to see something a little different on the blog, and I think you've struck on something worth talking about much more!
Chris
Bingo Chris. You can't really answer the question of "what is authentic" without understanding the place in time you're talking about. And as important as history is to different cultural groups, Native American tribes included, sometimes framing the culture and heritage in the present is the best representation of that culture: This is who we are NOW.
Colonial Williamsburg is a snapshot in time, and helps educate us as to how things were done in the past. But that culture is gone. Modern day residents of Williamsburg probably don't share much heritage with the residents of the Colony.
But a Native American culture lives and breathes in the present, and historical portrayals might miss what's important about them now. I suspect that seeing a living, breathing culture and experiencing them in the present will blow the minds of the cultural tourist more than seeing them "as they might have been" in a historical vignette. We've even heard that some Native American tourist destinations have left visitors seemingly disappointed because the folks used in the historical vignettes didn't look like what they had seen in the ads. That just goes to show you that authenticity will probably always mean different things to different people, and you need to carefully help them set expectations.
Patrick,
Interesting. So, if the destination is going to portray contemporary Chickasaw culture, how is it going to do it without it *actually* being voyeuristic? If the activities and events are contrived, but representative of what life is actually like, it's not exactly authentic. But if it's really authentic, meaning that the tourism involves looking upon actual day-to-day life, it does become a bit Truman Show-like. What ideas have you had that can bridge the gap between contrivance and voyeurism with this kind of tourism?
Chris
On a recent trip to Greece, many of the tour guides mentioned that it is an ongoing struggle culturally as to whether to restore (i.e. rebuild with new materials) archeological sites, or to preserve them "as found". Obviously restoration appeals more to tourists, as they would need to use less of their imagination or historical knowledge to envision ancient life- vs preserving relics that have meaning to the Greek people as part of their culture. There was great concern about not wanting to become "Disney-like", and maintaining cultural integrity. None of the guides were costumed- they were all adept at painting a picture with words, and more than managed to capture the attention and imaginations of our group of 13 adults and 33 teenagers!
Hello Marc,
Thats a great article. I am from BC and I live in Whistler - between two of the largest first nation communities in the country. Social Media - and especially the mobile web - provides huge potential for those people to market their services and local businesses.
BUT, there would be even more. 10 times more opportunities with a free wi-fi access for travelers OR a 'pay-as-you-travel' mobile phone plan from ROGERS, TELUS, etc.
I wanna start the discussion with a powerful article on my blog:
Why I LIKE NEW YORK is better than I LOVE NEW YORK.
http://bit.ly/9Hy3IA
How do you think about this topic? I would love to hear from you.
Regards,
Marc-Oliver . Digital Brand Strategist
http://blog.flip-digital.com
Marc-Oliver,
Thanks for the compliment. There are huge opportunities for tourism marketing and customer engagement using wifi and mobile, to be sure. I've been a big critic of pay as you go models, myself, because wifi is pretty inexpensive to deliver as a value add and mobile should be ubiquitous. A previous post you might be interested in can be found here: http://www.createwanderlust.com/wireless-internet-access-chicago
As far as the why I like vs. I love new york, I can see your point but would have a real hard time tinkering with one of the most successful tourism lines in history. I am a New Yorker, and I love it (at times I also hate it, as well as a number of other emotions). I Heart NY captures the in your face, tell it like it is sensibility most New Yorkers possess. It's more honest than hyperbole.
However, the idea of a WHY I HEART NEW YORK social media component is a great idea. Maybe someone in the New York State Tourism office is listening and will do it. I'd participate.
BTW, great post on your site, as well. http://blog.flip-digital.com/2010/04/why-i-like-new-york-is-better-than-i-love-new-york/ And if you're ever in New York, give me a shout. I'd be happy to share with you why I love it here.
Thanks for the compliment Mark. I will definitely give you a shout, once I am in NY. Would be my first time. Prob till then - Facebook NY will print one of those shirts ;-)
your comment about being 1/16 or more to be considered Native American with the Chickasaws is inaccurate. There is no blood quantum for our tribe.
You're absolutely right, Toni. My mistake. The Chickasaw Nation has no blood quantum. Thanks for the clarification.
Google defines Authenticity as:
"The quality of being genuine or not corrupted from the original; Truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, and intentions".
When we follow this definition, I would describe authentic cultural tourism genuine or not corrupted from the original. That does not mean an old world but at least genuine!!
Last year I was in Perm (Ural/Russia) and had my first Russian bath somewhere deep in the forest. That was really genuine and a lifetime experience.
Good points, René. Our discussions have revolved around the concepts of living in the present, as opposed to living in the past as it pertains to native cultural tourism. Is it authentic if it is a recreation of a time gone by and not representative of native culture as it is today?
What tourists want to see and what tribes showcased, certainly in the past, parallels Hollywood stereotypes -- feathered bonnets, tipis, the great Plains horse culture and other elements common to Plains tribes. Thankfully, much of that has changed recently as tribal groups cling to their traditional material culture and other unique practices. However, a huge educational gap exists with the general US population partially because of Hollywood's success and failings of our educational system. Educators, while sensitive to other ethnic groups, still treat American Indians with blanket generalities and an almost characature approach -- look at the folly of school activities near the Thanksgiving holidays and witness the same "Plains" cultural elements used to portray the natives.
Having worked with some tribal groups, it's interesting seeing the differences in approaches, even by natives. Some opt for "cultural purity" while others lean toward commercial successes, realizing the economic benefit of selling what the public's buying, The traditional cultural approach is more common now, mainly from necessity and preventing complete assimilation into the greater culture and loss of traditional language, arts, ceremonial practices and dances.
There's a "tourist market" for real Indian America but be careful defining it. Intertribal powwows have their place as enjoyable gatherings for natives and significant cash generators for host tribes and organizations. But the powwow culture isn't traditional among most tribes and is more readily considered a pan-Indian, contemporary practice today. But it has its place.
But just as Indian culture shouldn't be easily defined with feathered bonnets and tipis, it shouldn't be defined by powwows either. It's far deeper, more expansive and more complex than that.
We see the movies to go back in time and be in the story-line of history and walk through preservations and "historical villages". Like all kids, we immerse ourselves into the FUN and history. But this is usually where education meets entertainment - "Edutainment". This occurs when nonprofit need income to support the facilities or organization unless there is a massive grant or gift that allows for pure authenticity (which is rare). But even Williamsburg VA, some native American tribal gatherings and other places where they are strict about historical facts, has a gift shop. Or, there is some presentation devise that is the only way to tell that part of the story and artistic representations occur. This can dis-spell the illusion or make it. But most audiences are forgiving and play along. I'm sure others have unique thoughts and ideas to carry this vis-versa for sure. But true authenticity means we can only observe as interaction means interference of history. Capt. Pickard states this on Star Trek the next Gen. HA!
The essence of this discussion has been a focal part of my Master's thesis. With lineage to two Native communities, officially recognized as a member of one, it is a topic I take to heart. Why? It is about representing our lineage and cultural practices in a respectful fashion that is palatable to the non-community member. U'Mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay is an great example.
Regarding the perpetuating of stereotypes- there is a fantastic new documentary that was produced in Canada called "Reel Injun".
Kukstemc.
Racelle,
Thanks for your comments. We concur. And thanks for the heads up on "Reel Injun." We'll definitely try to see it.
I just wanted to add that albeit that Native Elders may not use the latest jargon, they are quite clear on how to represent themselves honourably in a way that is relatable/ palatable to the non-community member. I also believe that "authenticity" is like beauty- in the eye of the beholder- what is their cultural bias as they are invited to gaze into the heart of another's lineage? What makes us interesting and what I have found makes the most impact in our tourism products is when we are allowed to clearly share our unique world view~ outside of the construct of the colonial mindset.
Kukstemc
Racelle Kooy
Aboriginal Tourism Specialist and First Nation Economic Development Advocate.
You can find me on Linked In
This is an important and sometimes contentious issue. Having worked a long time in Hawaii tourism including at the islands' leading attraction, the Polynesian Cultural Center, I have often had to deal with the challenge of cultural authenticity.
The problem is that cultural purists will never be satisfied with tourism-focused cultural presentations because, by definition, they cannot be 100% authentic. However, tourists are aware that the indigenous cultural experiences they have in destinations include inauthentic elements in order to make them accessible. So it is intuitively understood that, while it is generally impossible to provide a completely authentic cultural experience in a tourism setting, the experience is genuine enough to effectively transmit a unique cultural identity that results in learning and respect.
This relationship necessarily requires a reasonable compromise on both sides of the cultural equation. Are the purists or tourists satisfied that the experience is completely genuine and authentic? No. But if a culture is sincerely and sensitively presented, the indigenous peoples are economically rewarded, their unique identity is preserved and promulgated, and the tourists are entertained and edified in a way that broadens their appreciation for different cultures. A win-win.
In the end, this is less about authenticity and more about identity. Sensitively preserving and portraying unique cultural identity should be the goal of cultural tourism. Here is a link to an excellent academic paper on the subject, followed by the abstract. Enjoy.
http://ictlconference.googlepages.com/35.Caneen.Prideaux.PAR.pdf
Abstract: The relationship between tourism and culture has heretofore been discussed primarily in terms of authenticity. This paper reviews the debate and contrasts it with the anthropological focus on cultural invention and identity. A case study of the Polynesian Cultural Center is used to propose a model illustrating the relationship between tourism and cultural identity. This paper concludes that authenticity is too vague and contentious a concept to usefully guide indigenous people, tourism planners and practitioners in their efforts to protect culture while seeking to gain the economic benefits of tourism. It recommends, rather that preservation and enhancement of identity should be their focus.