Authenticity

 There are quite a few different things that came to mind this past week during the discussion with Susan Courtney. Some of the issues that came to mind were the problems with authenticity and representation. I will try and limit my comments, since both the classroom discussion and Jerad Brown's earlier blog post (Nov 14 2009) touched on this subject. When referring to "authenticity," are we referring to the verisimilitude representation, the authoritative position of the author, or a combination of the two? Geography, experience, community, and class can all play a factor in determining "authenticity," whether it is referring to accurate representation or the legitimacy of the author. As was illustrated in class, even in the South itself, there are varied opinions about what is the "true" South. For instance, the South I grew up in (middle Georgia) was a small town that still divides race by the railroad tracks in the middle of town (as sad as it is, there is a street called "Project St."---the name should speak for itself). Along with the racism, there was also an air of mystery--in exploring the woods behind my house, my friends and I stumbled upon an old slave graveyard; at night, the sounds of bobcats, whippoorwills, and a local auction echoed through the trees.  In short, the definition of "the South" can vary from state to state, and even from town to town. How can anybody determine what is possibly "authentic" about any depiction of the South? Is it the people that live there, is it outsiders idealizing it, or what?

This leads right into the topic of regional identity. Daniel Loría brought up some excellent points in his post (Nov 18 2009) about the way regional identity gets complicated, especially when dealing with third world and developing countries. The reason this idea stuck out to me is because of the way it relates to historiography. With my limited life experience, how can I claim an authoritative position on a particular era or region in a historical context? If I didn't live through that time, or if I didn't live in a particular place, how can I "accurately" make claims about the context? And does it matter? I mean, if I study an era that occurred long enough ago, nobody will have experienced it--so who could refute those claims? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but I think the principle is to conduct the research in such a way that you don't have too many preconceptions about an era or region---you just might be wrong.