Can one possibly gain insight without considering the looking glass used to analyze a document? Can one dissect an article to benefit their own intellectual desires while discarding anything that values the opposing side of the argument? Prior Knowledge plays a large role in the way we interpret articles. From what you learned when you were three to what you learned just yesterday contributes to the way you understand and interpret any literature. The historical context of the two articles British Columbia First Nations and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919 and This Last Frontier: Isolation and Aboriginal Health takes opposing views when interpreting the core problem that contributed to the influenza pandemic. This is largely due to the bias of the authors and ultimately reflects on the opinion the reader leaves with. If indeed, one can discard certain facts of a document to benefit their own opinions, does this not ultimately shape the way a population will view a problem? Sources, authorial intrusion and a reader’s cultural background assist in the interpretation of an article.
The difference between Mary-Ellen Kelm’s article and that of Mary Jane McCallum are the sources each author chose to use. Kelm chose a variety of articles from churches and hospitals as direct documentation of the illness as opposed to selecting scientific research on the topic (*). McCallum took a more scientific approach in that she accurately portrayed both sides of the argument with supporting studies and documentation from “studies and surveys made by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Nation Health and Welfare, anthropologists, historians, and medical professionals all seeking to describe and analyze Aboriginal health” (104) (*). The major flaw in Kelm’s choice was that her sources are strictly from a European standpoint in that the organizations were used to make Aboriginals conform to assimilation. These sources would ensure that they went out of their way to protect the glorious image of European settlers and to dispose of any information which may credit innocence to the Aboriginal people. It is as though the culture of the Aboriginals is swept under the rug in order to protect an optimistic image. McCallum takes the opportunity to view every angle of the debate surrounding the cause of Influenza. She begins by crediting the Europeans for trying to help the Aboriginals but concludes on a note that suggests they failed to observe a minute detail, civilization (*). I feel the sources are also representative of the Author’s train of thought, this could pose a problem when it becomes authorial intrusion.
Authorial intrusion is when the reader can see bits of interpretation or opinion of the author shining through a document. Typically in a document that is the point of the thesis statement, to communicate some opinion or argument towards a subject. The argument which seems prominent among the two selected readings is the cause of the influenza pandemic. Kelm takes the pro European standpoint and is sure to denounce the importance of Aboriginal rights. She does so by speaking of Aboriginals as objects rather than humans; she does so in this line “The Indian does not understand how the air can become polluted and deadly…” (*Kelm) which announces an aboriginal as “the Indian” suggesting they are objects or primal as opposed to human beings. McCallum (who clearly holds a pro Aboriginal standpoint) justifies the action of the Aboriginal people and speaks with a respectful with distasteful tone towards the European settlers and their ignorance. The concluding line of her paper clarifies this by stating “…Medical and health professionals to impose notions of space, race, health, and medicine on Aboriginal people while they ignored the real impacts of colonization on their health” (118*) From statements the Author makes you can gather that they have a preconceived notion of what is incorrect in all documentation, could this be due to the cultural backgrounds of both the writer’s and the readers. Suppose that the article written by Kelm was written with the intention of providing insight to Europeans on the topic, would it not be considerate of her to glorify their culture? Catering to the reader is a common side effect of articles. I consider McCallum to be quite brave in that she challenges the typical opinion of the influenza pandemic to justify her own opinion (impressive considering the population is largely European). The confidence in the author can either propel interpretation or conflict with beliefs in which case may cause the reader to change their initial interpretation.
The reader’s interpretation solely lies on what they have been taught by their society. If a child grows up in a predominantly European lifestyle, they’re bound to feel it was no fault of their ancestors that Aboriginals were hit so hard by the influenza pandemic. If a child were to grow up in an Aboriginal community, they would be subject to several historical accounts of disadvantages and neglect the Europeans have inflicted. It comes down to segregation, if society continues to remain segregated by race, opinions will consistently conflict. Part of resolving this dispute is to introduce a method in which both parties can feel that what happened to their ancestors may have been unjust or necessary but we live in a more modern society. We need to reflect the advancement in society and unite our intelligence to prevent drastic episodes such as this from occurring again. The author’s segregation promotes segregation amongst the readers which encourages major differences in interpretation. It cycles racism. Could this then justify the looking glass we use to interpret literary documents?
It is absolutely possible that our past experiences and those of our ancestors largely reflect the way we choose to interpret a document. Do sources help to shape these ideals? They do on a very large scale. Authorial intrusion is the last leading cause of segregated interpretation in that it reinforces or contaminates what the reader already knows. It’s human nature to have a difficult time coming to terms with error. It is therefore plausible that everyone will at some point in their life try to discard information to rally for their cause. This is what cycle’s racism and causes oppression. The articles are to be viewed from the perspective of an outsider but that is difficult considering the bias of the author always bleeds into the work.