Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Negotiating home : subtitle four children’s experiences in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program Wright, Darrell Ian 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-0609.pdf [ 5.79MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055552.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055552-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055552-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055552-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055552-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055552-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055552-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Negotiating Home: Four Children's Experiences in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. by D A R R E L L I A N WRIGHT  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R S OF ARTS in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Educational Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L l ^ M B I A October, 2002 , © Darrell Wright, 2002  UBC  Rare Books and Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form  Page 1 of 1  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  9/14/2002  ABSTRACT This study is an examination of the experiences of four people who, between September of 1967 to June of 1968, were involved in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. Two of the participants were First Nations children who, at the ages of eight and ten, were participants in a program that involved leaving their home Haida village on Haida Gwaii-Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia to live in Mormon homes in Alberta for ten months. The other two participants were Mormon children of the families who sponsored the two First Nations children. The primary goal of the study is to understand how these people place the experience of being involved in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program within their lives. Using primary research gained from interviews with the four subjects of the study, I have created a thesis that explores several topics within the context of their stories. First, I explore an array of relevant secondary literature to identify important gaps that are in need of investigation within the history of childhood, especially as it pertains to First Nations children. I then use the memories of the subjects to describe their experience with the program and to describe how they make sense of that experience thirty-four years later. Finally, I argue that memory is a valid and rich historical source and that the differences in memories between subjects are significant to an understanding of the experience as a whole. I argue that family was the prime mediator of the experience for the First Nations children and that within the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program, regardless of the intentions of the families with whom the children were placed, the structure of power was such that the children were very much powerless. The result was that the children necessarily needed to negotiate their space within the family. I argue that negotiation is a key concept, since the experiences of the children involved in the program were characterized and differentiated by their ability to negotiate their own self-definition within the differing power relationships. These power relationships were based on racial, gendered and religious understandings.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  I would like to first acknowledge Paul, Ann, Sally and George (you know who you are) who so openly shared their stories with me. Without your openness, time, and honesty, I would not have been able to help share this important story. I realize that it was a difficult thing to do at times. Thank-you.  I would like to thank Michael Marker, Jean Barman, Mona Gleason, Nicci Wright and Penney Clark for their help in focusing the thesis and for helping me develop it to a satisfactory level. Thank-you.  Finally, I would like to thank my family. To Nicci and Jayne for putting up with my absences from home, to the rest of my family for their encouragement - 1 could not have done it without you. Thank-you.  iv T A B L E OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  iii  T A B L E OF CONTENTS  iv  INTRODUCTON  1  SECTION ONE: T H E M E S , RELATIONSHIPS A N D GAPS F O U N D WITHIN T H E ACADEMIC LITERATURE ..5 CANADIAN SOCIAL POLICY REGARDING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 7 PAST ASSIMILATIVE PRACTICES INVOLVING FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN: RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING AND THE SIXTIES' SCOOP 13 MORMON DOCTRINE PERTAINING TO FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE AND THE MORMON INDIAN STUDENT PLACEMENT PROGRAM 16 MY LOCATION WITHIN THE RESEARCH 21  SECTION TWO: M E T H O D O L O G Y  29  SECTION T H R E E : THE STORIES - MEMORIES OF P A U L , A N N , G E O R G E A N D SALLY ...35 PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF GROWING UP IN MASSETT, B.C 35 PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF EARLY EXPERIENCES WITH MORMON MISSIONARIES, OF LEAVING MASSETT FOR ALBERTA AND OF THEIR SEPARATION IN ALBERTA 37 ANN AND SALLY: MEMORIES OF MCGRATH, ALBERTA, SEPTEMBER 1967 - JUNE 1968 42 PAUL AND GEORGE: MEMORIES OF CARDSTON, ALBERTA, SEPTEMBER 1967 - JUNE 1969  49  GEORGE: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  60  SALLY: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  63  PAUL AND ANN: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  65  SECTION FOUR: A N A N A L Y S I S OF THE DISCOURSE OF T H E E X P E R I E N C E INTRODUCTION  75  GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE STORIES  77  MEMORY  80  FAMILY POWER AND SELF-DETERMINATION: THE DISCOURSES OF RACE, GENDER, RELIGION AND RESISTANCE  86 89  SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS A N D A R E A S IN N E E D OF RESEARCH  106  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ill  IV  T A B L E OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  iii  T A B L E OF CONTENTS  iv  INTRODUCTON  ..1  SECTION ONE: T H E M E S , RELATIONSHIPS A N D GAPS F O U N D WITHIN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE  5  CANADIAN SOCIAL POLICY REGARDING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES .7 PAST ASSIMILATIVE PRACTICES INVOLVING FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN: RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING AND THE SIXTIES' SCOOP 13 MORMON DOCTRINE PERTAINING TO FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE AND THE MORMON INDIAN STUDENT PLACEMENT PROGRAM 17 MY LOCATION WITHIN THE RESEARCH 21  SECTION TWO: M E T H O D O L O G Y  29  SECTION THREE: THE STORIES - MEMORIES OF P A U L , A N N , G E O R G E A N D SALLY 35 PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF GROWING UP IN MASSETT, B.C 35 PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF EARLY EXPERIENCES WITH MORMON MISSIONARIES, OF LEAVING MASSETT FOR ALBERTA AND OF THEIR SEPARATION IN ALBERTA 37 ANN AND SALLY: MEMORIES OF MCGRATH, ALBERTA, SEPTEMBER 1967 - JUNE 1968 42 PAUL AND GEORGE: MEMORIES OF CARDSTON, ALBERTA, SEPTEMBER 1967 - JUNE 1968  49  GEORGE: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  60  SALLY: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  63  PAUL AND ANN: THE PLACE OF THE EXPERIENCE  65  SECTION FOUR: A N A N A L Y S I S OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE E X P E R I E N C E INTRODUCTION....  75  GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE STORIES  77  MEMORY  80  FAMILY  85  POWER AND SELF-DETERMINATION: THE DISCOURSES OF RACE, GENDER, RELIGION AND RESISTANCE  89  SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS A N D A R E A S IN N E E D OF RESEARCH  106  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ill  1 INTRODUCTION First Nations children have been the focus of assimilative policies since the time of European contact. From the proselytizing of missionaries to residential schools to social welfare policies to dominant cultural practices within Canadian school systems, First Nations children have been immersed within the discourse of colonization. That children have been the focus of assimilative attempts is not a surprise, for the powerlessness of children has, throughout history, been recognized by those who have created the policies. Assimilative policies have been based on the understanding that children rarely have the ability to control their own lives, to direct their own experiences, or to choose their own paths. As a result, First Nations children have often been trapped in colonial experiences that they are unable to understand. Yet, the process of colonization is more complex than an understanding of assimilative policies. Children have not been passive acceptors of the assimilative experiences that have been created for them. Within these experiences, they have found themselves resisting imposed values and practices and negotiating their place within them. As a result, the colonial experience has been, for children, one typified by resistance and acceptance, by conflict and conformity, and by power and powerlessness. As a second year graduate student, I learned of a topic that would very likely contribute to an understanding of how First Nations people make sense of, both as children and as the adults they become, a program designed to colonize. A colleague of mine told me of a relative who had, as a child, been involved in a program that was run by the Mormon Church. I had known this person, for whom I have used the pseudonym Paul, for several years through a mutual friend and decided to ask him about the experience. Paul told me that he had grown up in Massett, British Columbia and that, at  2  the age of eight, he had been involved in a program which brought First Nations children from Massett to live with Mormon families in Alberta from September to June. Paul went to Cardston, Alberta from September of 1967 to June of 1968. The program was called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Indian Student Placement Program. During my initial conversation with Paul, we both agreed that his experience, and the experiences of others that were involved in the program, would be tremendously informative with regards to an understanding of how children, who were placed in a setting distinguished by its religious and non-First Nations characteristics, made sense of the experience. Paul agreed to help me contact other people he knew who had been involved in the program. After a subsequent discussion with Paul, I learned that his older brother and older sister had also gone to Alberta as participants in the program in the same year. They had gone to different homes and he and his older sister had stayed for ten months. His older brother had gone three subsequent years (September through June 1967, 1968 and 1969). Each of Paul's siblings had been fostered to different homes and Paul told me that, as a result, each of their experiences were very different during their time in Alberta. I was studying family and childhood history at the time and became intrigued with the idea that a study of the experiences of these three siblings would be an excellent opportunity to see how these adults made sense of the different experiences within their lives. Paul contacted his siblings for me. His older sister, for whom I have used the pseudonym Ann, soon agreed to be involved in the study. His older brother was not available. Paul also contacted his "foster brother," for whom I have used the pseudonym George, and he expressed a willingness to discuss his experiences with the program. As well, the foster  3  sister of Ann, for whom I have used the pseudonym Sally, expressed interest when I contacted her through a letter. As a result, I decided to narrow the study. I wanted to describe the experiences of the four children and to see how they made sense of these experiences later in their lives. The study became more complex as I began my research. I began to realize that their story had to intermesh with me as a researcher. I had to locate my place within the discussion of their story and examine how my involvement in studying and writing about these experiences affected how the story would be understood by anyone reading it. The result is a multi-layered study. One layer is their story. Another layer is the way in which, during my investigation, I have come to realize that it is impossible not to make their story, in some way, my own. I have tried to grapple with the intrinsic difficulties of studying someone else's personal history. I wanted to tell the story in a way that reflected their understanding, but I also wanted to look critically at the discourse that emerged for me as a result of studying their experiences. I was fearful of appropriating their story, of changing the story from one that reflected their understanding to one that reflected my understanding. In the end, I have come to formulate a personal understanding of what the study of history involves. It not only involves the need to tell the story in the words of the participants, it also involves the need of the researcher to analyze the discourses within their experience - discourses which are found when the researcher constructs meaning from the participants' memories. What follows, then, is a format that reflects this understanding. Section one is dedicated to using academic literature to describe important themes, relationships and gaps that the study will, on a microcosmic scale, address. It discusses Canadian social policy regarding children and families, past  assimilative practices involving First Nations children, Mormon doctrine pertaining to First Nations people and the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. As well, it describes the way in which I have located myself within the research. Section two is a discussion of methodology. Section three describes the experiences of the participants using their words and the notes I took during the interviews. Finally, the fourth section is dedicated to the analysis of the discourse within the experience. When considered as a whole, these sections describe both the experiences of the participants, as they related them to me, and analyze the discourse within the experience. A l l contribute to a larger understanding of how people experience cultural negotiation within a colonizing process and how people make sense of that process later in life.  5 SECTION ONE: THEMES, RELATIONSHIPS AND GAPS FOUND WITHIN T H E ACADEMIC LITERATURE  When I first decided to investigate the experience of Haida children who were fostered to Mormon families in Alberta, I decided that it was necessary to develop an understanding of social welfare policy within Canada. I felt it was imperative to have a clear understanding of the policy that existed in British Columbia, and Canada as a whole, because it seemed likely that the experience was closely related to child apprehension and historical assimilative strategies. Descriptions that my initial informant used included "fostering," "adoption," and "being taken from my family." I saw this experience as possibly falling both within the motivations and effects of residential schools, which have been widely discussed within academic literature, and the less discussed "sixties' scoop," which was a historical period beginning in the mid-sixties and lasting until the mid-eighties, that involved a tremendous number of First Nations children being fostered and adopted into non-First Nations homes. As a result, I decided it was necessary to ask myself where the phenomenon was likely to fit within the history of Canadian social policy regarding children and families and where it was likely to fit within the general history of childhood and families within Canada. However, as I began to read and theorize about the experiences of my participants, I realized that I had two inherent problems in identifying literature that would help me gain insight into the experience. First, there is no literature written in Canada on the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. As a result I had to make connections between the literature and my topic that were not direct. The review of the literature is, therefore, lengthy and  6 convoluted. It relates the topic of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program to the academic literature which discusses Canadian social policy, to the experience of residential schools and to the "sixties' scoop." It will become evident that relating this literature to the experience of the participants in this study is both informative and difficult. This is due to the fact that many themes are connected — yet the policy that drove the federal and provincial Canadian systems was not the policy that drove the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. The second problem was that I found myself deviating from what was important as I delved into the academic literature on Canadian social policy and First Nations experiences within that policy. I was thinking about how the experience fit within the Canadian context and forgetting to focus on the importance of the story itself. Thus, this section also demonstrates how I began to focus my research. It is the standard fare when it comes to theses with respect to understanding the themes, relationships and gaps within the literature. It shows the important gaps I found within the historical understanding of the development of the social policy system in Canada. It shows that the experience of Haida children (and First Nations children in general) with the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program in Canada is significantly absent within academic literature. It shows that much of the literature describing the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program (which discusses the historical development of the program in the United States) has significant difficulties with respect to methodology and fails to consider racial, gendered and religious discourse within the experience of children involved in the program. These are important gaps that the study, in a small way, will attempt to address. However, the literature review also discusses my recognition of how easy it is to lose the voice of the people who lived the experience,  when a researcher attempts to place that experience within the larger context of historical theory. While it was clearly necessary to investigate the context of the experience of the children in the program (in order to understand what is, and is not, understood within the literature), the story, and where the adults who were involved in the program as children place that story within their lives, became the focus of my research.  CANADIAN SOCIAL POLICY REGARDING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES  Two works are widely referred to in the literature pertaining to the history of childhood and families within the context of Canadian social system development. They are also excellent examples regarding the affects of gender and class on children in Canada. These books are Private Lives, Public Policy: One Hundred Years of State Intervention in the Family, by Jane Ursel and Children in English-Canadian Society, Framing the Twentieth-Century Consensus by Neil Sutherland. Ursel (1992) examines the changing relationship between the family and the state in her historical analysis of family, labour and welfare policies in Canada from 18841968. Using the concept of "patriarchy," Ursel argues that the change in the family's relationship with the state can largely be understood by distinguishing between periods of history which involved the transition from familial patriarchy (in which power over women is exercised in the home) to social patriarchy (in which power over women resides in law, institutions and the state). Thus, over time, Canadian families have become increasingly dominated by a state social welfare system which holds a centralized authority over the family and which emphasizes support and regulation of the  [  8 family. This has been largely reflected and understood as what we commonly refer to as the welfare state. More interesting, and more provocative, however are Ursel's arguments that consider why this transition occurred. Ursel argues that state policy and law were largely guided by the state's desire to organize two fundamental processes — production and reproduction. Ursel locates the creation of state welfare policy of Canada as a mediator between the needs of these two processes that are fundamentally at odds. The process of production is in opposition to the process of reproduction because a production-based economy demands cheap labour; but reproduction demands a certain standard of living, which is largely reflected in wages. A successful economy is resistant to high wages. Ursel argues that the trend from World War Two onward has been for the government to offset the conflict between the two processes by the creation of the welfare state. With respect to production, state policy has bolstered economic production with the cheap sale of corporate interests, by creating pools of cheap labour through open door immigration policies, by facilitating the employment of women and by containing unionization. The cost of this with respect to reproduction has, of course, been profound. The result has been a trend by government to offset the social cost of the facilitation of production by displacing the cost of reproduction from the family to the nation state. Indeed, this theory may appear to be Marxist on the surface. However, when one considers the concept of patriarchy within the theory, it becomes apparent that Ursel's argument considers gender and class to be interdependent factors. As social patriarchy becomes the means of organizing reproduction, the subordination of women occurs; the system itself develops into one that controls women's access to the means of their  9 livelihood. Ursel argues convincingly that both systems, the productive and reproductive, make women's access to subsistence contingent on either entering into particular reproductive relations or by restricting their ability to access sufficiently substantial wage labour. Thus, control, by the state, of both production and reproduction, becomes the "essence of patriarchy" (Ursel, 1992, p. 22). Ursel approaches the policy which created the "sixties' scoop" from a primarily gendered perspective. She sees that the inverse relationship between women's employment and birth rates, increased labour strife, increased divorce rates, as well as abortion becoming a central issue, as leading many to conclude (in the 1960s) that the welfare state was not, in fact, doing what they had wanted it to do ~ upholding the nuclear family ideal. The result was a new wave of state intervention, much of which involved First Nations children (Johnston, 1983). Thus, beginning in the mid-1960s, a new "crisis of the family" was feared and the state reacted to that fear by the creation of many new social policies. On the heals of this "crisis of the family" came tremendous surges in social reform — including a 129% increase in welfare expenditures from 19611971 (Ursel, 1992, p. 272) which coincides with the increased state intervention within the families of First Nations people. Yet, in spite of the fact that First Nations children were apprehended in tremendously disproportionate numbers (Johnston, 1983) as a result of the policies created in the 1960s, the notion of race is never discussed by Ursel. Ursel attributes the fear of a "crisis of the family" to the clear appearance of family characteristics that were not valued by the middle class of Canadian society. However, the causes of those circumstances are very unlikely to be understood within the framework of a discontinuity between production and reproduction. The question is, do  10 the experiences of those who were removed from their families by the system reflect a gendered understanding of the removal or do they reflect a racial understanding? The argument of public policy being driven by the social patriarchy of the state is a complex and well argued one. However, the fact that the role of race is largely ignored within the argument is problematic. Was this omission due to the fact that the policy largely disregarded First Nations people during its creation, as has been the historical tendency (Barman, 1991)? Or is this omission due to the fact that the lived experiences of the people affected by the system were not, in fact, part of the study itself? The study of the lived experiences of the people affected by these policies may create insight into these questions. This study has the potential to inform us as to whether, on a small scale, the experiences of children reflects gender, class, race or, in fact, all three. A second question that must be raised is with respect to the difference between social policy and the action produced by the policy. Ursel notes that social policy changed the role of caseworkers in the 1960s from the role of "moral entrepreneur to family advocate" (Ursel, 1992, p. 259). Clearly the "sixties' scoop" demonstrates that this social policy did not necessarily create advocates for the family. The main reason for apprehensions during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s was poverty and the governments' lack of willingness to deal with the real issues that created the poverty (Fournier and Crey, 1997). It becomes necessary to deconstruct the discourse within the experience of individuals in order to gain an understanding of the policy, the practice of policy, and the effects of these policies. In order to place a history of any social welfare policy (whether the policy was created by the federal government or, as in the case of this study, by the Mormon Church) in the lives of individuals, it is important to gather  11 memories from those involved. A n understanding of the effect of policies on individuals may lead to a better understanding of the difference between a policy's goals and its effects. Another important work that discusses many assumptions with respect to Canadian social policy regarding children and families is that of Neil Sutherland (2000). Sutherland argues that, during the period of 1880-1920, there was a shift in EnglishCanadian cultural perceptions as to what constituted childhood. This shift largely surrounded adults within the public realm taking "charge of growing up" (p. 228) through a series of reform movements directed at the areas of health, youth crime and education. The result of these reforms was the formation of a new, twentieth-century consensus which guided action and policy by defining how children should be reared, yet which paid little attention to individual circumstance. Several important aspects of the reform movement are considered. First, the reforms were all pervasive. Few Canadian children were untouched by the reforms instituted by the early 1920s. The discourse surrounding these reforms persisted to the time the book was written. Second, reformers were largely Christian, white, urban, middle class adults. However, this faction of society, which started with a series of unconnected reforms and acted as private citizens, consolidated its control by creating professional associations that were controlled by professional (paid) workers. Thus, these reforms, and the professionals who implemented and continued them, were largely white and middle class. Third, eventually the reformers applied these reform concepts to all of what they saw as "English Canadian society." The reformers were clearly trying to assimilate all groups by applying a general definition of "family" (these groups included First Nations, third wave immigrants and Francophones living  12 outside of Quebec). Fourth, and finally, Sutherland argues how persistent these reforms were. The reforms formed a new definition of "childhood" and this definition guided policies aimed at creating the conditions needed to foster a proper childhood. This new "consensus" has been largely unchallenged since its inception and was the accepted assumption that drove public policy throughout the period in which the children of this study were involved in the Latter Day Saints Indian Student Placement Program. Sutherland's work demonstrates many critical characteristics that I knew I needed to consider when researching the child and family history of this study. First, he criticizes the "consensus." He demonstrates that the reformers (and those who succeeded them) had an overwhelming "confidence in the rightness of what they were doing" (p. 231) which led to very little re-evaluation of the efficacy of the various programs, policies and assumptions they created. Professional reform advocates increasingly spoke with an "authoritative voice on behalf of all children" (p. 230). This trend ties in with Ursel's theory as well. Social policy (as both Ursel and Sutherland demonstrate) has been driven by the assumptions and goals of Christian white middle class English speaking people. When I applied the ideas and theory of Ursel and Sutherland to this study, I found several of their findings problematic. Most obviously, the Mormon Student Indian Placement Program was not a federal or a provincial program. It was an initiative of the Mormon Church itself. Thus, the program cannot be seen as falling within the confines of the social policy that Ursel and Sutherland discussed. However, the all-pervasive nature of social reforms within the Canadian context suggested that I needed to consider the place that these motivations held within the experience of the participants of this  13 study. As well, two other aspects of their analysis were problematic for this study. Firstly, neither author considered the place of race within their studies. Secondly, the difference between policy and practice needed to be addressed. Both of these problems led me to focus more specifically on the significance of race and to gain a better understanding of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program.  PAST ASSIMILATIVE PRACTICES INVOLVING FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN: RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING AND T H E SIXTIES' SCOOP  The issue of race is most widely discussed amongst the literature regarding "Indian" residential schools and the literature surrounding what has been widely referred to as the "sixties' scoop" (Johnston, 1983). It was helpful to consider residential schools because I gained a better understanding of a system characterized by disparate power relationships, where power was largely held by non-First Nations adults over First Nations children. Haig-Brown (1988) looked at the experiences of thirteen First Nations people who, at different times, attended the Kamloops Indian Residential School. She discussed the oppressive nature of the system and analyzed how this oppression played out in the lives of the students themselves. She found that oppression was wielded through the practices of breaking family ties, forbidding non-English language use and discounting life experiences. This resulted in students creating various means to resist the oppression, which largely took the form of defiance and the creation of countercultures. Haig-Brown concludes that the discourse surrounding this oppression was aimed at assimilation. The resistance to the oppression was resistance to assimilation. I found this study important because it demonstrated two things. First, it looks at the  14 experience of the participants and analyses the discourse that emerges from it. Second, the resistance of the participants to the oppression within the school is considered resistance to the entire oppressive system when considered as a whole. I knew then, that by focusing on the participants, a larger understanding of the discourse of the experience was within the realm of possibilities for this study. A n understanding of the "sixties' scoop" was also important because I needed to know why First Nations children were being removed from their homes at the time the participants of this study were enrolled in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. It is clear that, particularly in the 1960s, the 1970s and the early 1980s, there was a tremendous overrepresentation of First Nations children within the foster and adoption systems of Canada. The statistical picture is astounding. Although varied between provinces and complicated by gaps in data, the picture creates indisputable evidence that, in all provinces, First Nations children's chances of being "in care" was approximately one in four, that they were largely adopted or were in care of non-First Nations families, and that they were far more likely than non-First Nations people to stay in the system of care (Johnston, 1983). The question is, why? McKenzie and Hudson (1985) examined the role of the child welfare system which propelled the "sixties' scoop" from a theoretical perspective that recognizes the historical significance of colonialism to First Nations people. In general, they maintain that arguments which reflected on the practices of the child welfare system and its interaction with First Nations people (up to the time they wrote) failed to consider the significance of the process of colonization on the models and theories of neglect. Approaches to child welfare (as reflected by policy, and which were based on various  15 theories of the causes of abuse and neglect) did not critically examine the institutions responsible for extending child welfare services to First Nations people. Thus, in considering the institution of child welfare at the time, it becomes clear that the system, in an effort to perpetuate the definitions of the colonizer, created policies, laws and practices which did not reflect the needs of First Nations people or communities. The question of interest to me was, what were the effects of this perpetuation of colonization? A n understanding of the breadth and impetus of the sixties' scoop in British Columbia does not really inform us of the consequences of the phenomenon. Some of the effects of First Nations children being fostered and adopted into non-First Nations families have been documented by Fournier and Crey (1997). Fournier and Crey do a great service to their informants and to their readers by letting the participants' stories be the real focus of what is to be said. The stories are organized in such a way that we understand that the policies that took place on a grand scale had an effect on individuals. Without this, one would be left without feeling the effects and empathizing with those who experienced the events. Stories of how a child felt when he saw his sister at a bus stop and she did not recognize him, of a boy getting lost while, at the age of eight, trying to go home to his mother, of a woman who struggled to keep her family hidden from social workers because she knew they would take yet another one of her children away if they were found ~ these are the real lessons of the book. I could truly understand how the experience had a lasting impact on the people who were removed from their homes. Fournier and Crey conclude that the overall effects of First Nations peoples' experience with residential schools and the child welfare system have been "spiritual  16 estrangement" [and] "a cycle of loss of children" (1997, p. 43). With respect to "spiritual estrangement," the authors argue that being taken from home communities has resulted in children growing up without a feeling of connection to any community. The result has been estrangement - having no sense of belonging. The authors refer to the "cycle of loss of children" when they speak of the fact that children were taken from their parents, grew up feeling dislocated, abused alcohol to cope with their lack of belonging and, in the end, as parents, lost their own children. As well, the authors conclude that the effects of this period were all pervasive. They cite many important sources that demonstrate that very few First Nations families were left untouched by these policies. While reading this account, it became clear to me that I needed to focus on how people placed the experience within their lives. Did the people in the study perceive the program as having long-term effects on their lives? Looking at the residential school experience and the "sixties' scoop" resulted in my need to look at the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program more carefully. I knew that the First Nations children had gone to live in Alberta ten months at a time. They returned home for the summer. This was similar to the organization of residential schools. However, children in the program were "fostered" individually to non-First Nations families. This was similar to adoption and fostering practices of the "sixties' scoop." Yet, the experience was neither. Thus, a better understanding of the program itself was needed.  17 MORMON DOCTRINE PERTAINING T O FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE AND T H E MORMON INDIAN STUDENT PLACEMENT PROGRAM I investigated the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints with respect to First Nations people more thoroughly. I found the literature to be extremely informative and interesting with respect to the goals of the Indian Student Placement Program and with respect to the special place First Nations people have within Mormon scripture and doctrine. Using my access to an American listserv called H-Amindian based at the University of Arizona, I was able to discover that the people in my study were part of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program (J.H. Buckley, personal communication, January 20, 2002). I found that the Mormon Church, based in Cardston, Alberta, ran a program focused on Massett in 1967 (Bishop, 1967). This program was part of a larger program in which the Mormon Church recruited First Nations children, ranging from as young as six to eighteen years of age, for fostering to largely non-First Nations Mormon families (Allen, 1998). The program was widespread and ranged from the central Mormon administrative hub in Utah to southern Mexico and north into Canada with its centre in Cardston, Alberta. The program's policies were consistent throughout this wide geographic area due to the fact that the administration of the Mormon Indian Student Placement program did not involve federal, provincial or state authorities - it was a program administrated by the Mormon Church alone. The goals of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program have been stated in the policy and the literature discussing the policy as "to increase educational attainment, to learn the social skills to augment family life and adjustment in both Indian and white societies, to teach youth Latter Day Saints doctrine, and to adopt a Mormon lifestyle" (Chadwick and Albrecht, 1994, p. 292). From the description of the people I interviewed, I surmised that they were part of this  18 program, although no official record of the participants could be found. As well, my participants have no recollection of the name or goals of the program. That having been said however, it is certain that they were part of the program based on their description of the experience. I believe it is important to understand the doctrine of the Mormon when considering why the program existed. Mormon scripture demonstrates a belief that many of the First Nations in North America descended from a few bands of Israelites who had migrated to the Americas (Chadwick and Albrecht, 1994). The Book of Mormon describes this as happening around 600 BC. These Israelites then broke into two factions, the Lamanites and the Nephites, who later fought a war, resulting in the annihilation of the Nephites. Thus, the Lamanites were the last surviving members of the House of Israel. It was prophesied that they would reemerge as a political power and claim their place based on the promises of Abraham. Not all First Nations people are considered Lamanites however, as the Mormons believe that others migrated to America as well. The result has been that Mormons have, traditionally, felt an obligation to seek out the scattered Lamanites, share their message with them, and assist them in gaining a position of influence in American society (Chadwick and Albrecht, 1994). The Mormon Indian Student Placement Program was born out of this doctrine. A critical understanding of Mormon doctrine pertaining to First Nations people, from which the Indian Student Placement Program evolved, is informative within the discussion. Thomas Murphy (1999) deconstructs the beliefs of the Mormon Church and explains, in more critical terms, the historical place of First Nations people, as Lamanites, within the church. Murphy notes that First Nations people are portrayed as the "dark  19 skinned barbarous Jewish antithesis to a civilized Christian Nephite" and Mormons are charged with the duty to "restore the Christian gospel and thereby 'equality' of the Lamanites" (p. 453). He demonstrates that Mormon discourse with respect to First Nations people surrounds the placement of First Nations people within the hierarchy of the church. First Nations people are seen as inferior to Mormons, but they rank higher in God's favour than the gentiles. This special place and status within the doctrine has resulted in a long history of Mormon missionaries attempting to convert First Nations people because of a "divine obligation to civilize the Lamanites" (p. 459). Thus, Murphy argues that the place of First Nations people is special within the Mormon Church — but it is not equal. Mormon scripture and interpretation has called for church members to raise up First Nations people. This is of critical importance because there is a clear power relationship between Mormons and First Nations people within the Mormon doctrine. The question is, did that power relationship play out in practice? Research into the experience of the participants in the program has been conducted in the United States. Chadwick and Albrecht (1994) investigated the efficacy of the program and its short and long-term consequences for one hundred and five students who participated in the program in the United States. They concluded, using telephone interviews and a quantitative evaluation of the survey data, that the program had a "modestly positive, long term influence on the lives of Indian young people" (p. 309). However, the evidence of the study is somewhat flawed on several levels. The data collected was based on closed response questions that supposedly correlate to measures of success in life. One example of the many questions that are flawed surrounds the concept of "Indianness." The questions included "In the way that you  20 think and act, do you feel that you are more Indian or white?" "How do you fit in with most Indians?" and "How do you fit in with most whites?" (p. 302). These questions were followed by a series of ratings (i.e. totally, mostly, not at all, et cetera) which the authors use to draw conclusions about the success of the program for the individual and whether or not the subject feels culturally dislocated as a result of being in the program. The flawed nature of the study is produced by the methodology, due to the fact that the researchers themselves chose the questions and it is impossible to draw any conclusions with respect to how the participants place the experience of being involved in the program within their lives. The researchers conclude that the program was a modest success without actually giving the participants a chance to verbalize their beliefs. The need for more rich data was evident. A second study that was recommended to me originally by Jay H. Buckley, of the History/Native Studies department at Brigham Young University (J.H. Buckley, personal communication, January 20, 2002), and then by many others from the listserv H Amerindian, is an article-length history of the Indian Student Placement Program. The author (Allen, 1998) argues that, from the beginning, the Indian Student Placement Program was an opportunity for First Nations children "to break out of the poverty and ignorance they saw around them and to begin to make more positive contributions to their own people" (p. 92). He also argues that from the outset, the "motives of the church were generally selfless" (p. 92). However, notably missing, once again, are data gained from those who lived the experience. The only personal story used as evidence is from a former student of the Indian Student Placement Program, and current member of the Latter Day Saints social services, who relates a positive experience with the program.  21 The article uses the Chadwick and Albrecht article (1994) discussed above as evidence of the success of the program as well. Such is the pitfall of historical inquiry at times. Researchers using flawed data from another study as evidence to further explain their data and argument further compounds the problematic nature of the historical inquiry itself. The author not only fails to look at the data critically, but also presents the data as "truth" without exploring his relationship to his subject in any meaningful way. Thus, both the Chadwick and Albrecht (1994) article and the Allen (1998) article demonstrate the lack of participant voice regarding the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program and the need for a more critical perspective regarding the discourse within the program. By improving my understanding of the Indian Student Placement Program, and of the special place of First Nations people within the doctrine, it became even more clear to me that I needed to gain an understanding of the program from the participants who lived the experience. A larger, more critical history of the entire program is obviously not possible within the confines of this study. However, a smaller, microcosmic study will inform my readers and myself as to whether or not, in the case of the people I interviewed, the findings of other research applies. More specifically, it became clear to me that the role of the Mormon beliefs within the lived experience of the people in the program was an important aspect to address.  M Y L O C A T I O N W I T H I N THE RESEARCH  At this point, my literature review was pushing me toward the gathering of the stories of those who lived the experience and away from a more prosopographical inquiry into the policies and practices of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program on  22 Haida Gwaii. I had to consider methodology at this point because I was very fearful that, by relying on the oral histories of the people who experienced the program, I was in danger of appropriating the story - of using the story for my own purposes, of directing their story, of losing the purpose of the story as defined by the storyteller him/herself. I had to locate my position, as a researcher, within the research. I have found some solace in the fact that other researchers have discussed the very same issues and have considered them in a way in which I am comfortable. The first concept that I found important when considering the topic was that of negotiation (Cruikshank, 1997). The concept of negotiation stems from the idea that in any oral storytelling situation, the very act of telling a story to an audience who is foreign to the storyteller (not of their culture or experience) changes the way in which the storyteller narrates their stories. Thus, the concept of negotiation is a well chosen one because it eludes to the fact that there is a reciprocal affect between the storyteller and the audience. What I found important about this article was that I could come to accept that I was going to affect the story. The fact that I am not of the culture or experience of the participants was going to change the way that the story was told. I believe this is a pitfall of all gathering of oral history. As a researcher I had to realize that I was not getting the story, I was getting a story. I still struggled with appropriation however. How could I make sure that I was not taking a story and using it for my own purposes? The concept that I found helpful was that of "speaking for others" (Alcoff, 1992). I struggled with the following questions: Can I speak of (or write a historical account of) members of a group to which  23 I do not belong? Can I somehow limit the extent to which my own location mediates the stories of my subjects? With respect to whether I can speak of members of a group to which I don't belong, Alcoff (1992) argues that it is extremely flawed logic to assert that speaking for others is only acceptable if one is speaking for others within one's own group. She argues that a group will never reach a consensus that could come to terms with a basis to which it can demarcate and define its membership. Thus, asserting that one has the right to speak for a group to which they feel they belong is ignoring the great variation within the group. For example, a researcher could claim that they have the right to speak for others on the basis of being a woman, but many of those within that group would say that the researcher does not represent them (i.e. women of colour). In the end, people are so diverse that claiming the right to speak for them on the basis of being a member of their group becomes a greater flaw than locating oneself outside of that group and understanding that the process of telling another's story is a process mediated by one's own location. For someone to claim group membership as a basis for being allowed to speak for others means that they must ignore the fact that there is no way to separate the experience of the researcher from the story of the researched. In the end, the story is, for Alcoff, one of power, not of group membership. If one finds oneself in a situation of power differentiation, one must understand that all aspects of speaking are a political act. Thus, some relationships, which are imbalanced to the point that it is impossible to overcome roles of domination and subordination, make it impossible for one to speak for another.  24 This is a very important argument for me. I am neither a Haida nor am I a Mormon. I was in a methodologically tricky situation. But i f I was a member of one of those groups, would that necessarily create a better history? I would have to argue, especially after reading Alcoff s article, no. It might create a different history, but not a better one. The important aspect of this situation was to understand that I am located, to understand where I am located, and to understand that this location means that I cannot maintain a neutral voice. M y location is relevant, but not determinant. In fact, as Alcoff argues, my location was mobile. The important and distinctive differences between myself and my interview subjects varied greatly. The fact that I cannot relate to growing up on a reserve was important in one interview, that I am an atheist and had very little regard for organized religion was important in another interview. That I am a male was important in all interviews. The fact that I am a member of, and was raised in, a dominant culture — and questioned very little the assumptions of my upbringing — affected all interviews. Clearly, my location was ever-changing. But the question is, methodologically speaking, -- was I in a position of power? I would argue yes and no. Yes, I was ultimately the one who decided what would be written about whom. However, I was also the one who inevitably decided on the methodology that could result in the least amount of speaking for others. I am the one who tried to make every effort for subject input. I am the one who used others as sounding boards in an effort to counteract my own location. You, the reader, will have to be the judge with respect to positions of power. The next question was, could I somehow limit the extent to which my own location mediated the stories of my subjects? Alcoff argues that we can limit the effects  25 of speaking for others if we strive to create conditions for dialogue and to speak with and to, rather than for, others. Thus, the effects of speaking for others can be limited i f anyone who is doing so goes through a concrete analysis of the particular power relationship and discursive effects involved. She suggests we need to consider the following (p. 15): 1) Fight against the impetus to speak. 2) We must interrogate the bearing of our location on what we are saying. 3) Speaking for others needs to carry with it accountability and responsibility for what one says (we need to be open to criticism). 4) We need to analyze the probable effects of the words on the discursive and material context - Who is saying it? Who will hear it? What will it be used for? Consideration of these points was extremely helpful when I was able to apply them to this study. First, as far as fighting the impetus to speak, I see this as being the most difficult challenge. On the one hand, I wanted the story to be the story of my subjects, yet I felt I needed to analyze the experiences of my participants for it to be more meaningful to me, to those who read it and, hopefully, to those who participated in the study. Thus, I needed to speak. I needed to speak about, and to, and for, the people in the study. Second, with respect to interrogating the bearing of my location on what I am saying (and doing), I needed to constantly reassess how my own perceptions and experiences were affecting my analysis. The act of editing is the case in point. I had to edit. But the act of editing was an act of me using my perception of what is valuable to determine what to cut and what to keep. It was a covert act of speaking for others.  26 Although my voice is not found within the text of the participants' stories overtly (they appear as though it is one of the subjects speaking) my voice is literally embedded within the text due to my decisions as to what stays and what goes and due to the fact that I created the questions to stimulate the discussion during the interview. I decided that this cutting and keeping process had to be a collaborative one. I needed to be sure to include the interviewee in the process. I discussed what they said, what my interpretation of what they said was, and whether or not I was cutting out anything that they felt was important to the story. They read it, critiqued it and decided, for themselves, if this was their story or mine. In short, I followed my subjects' lead. I worked collectively with my subjects and advisors to constantly question the effects of my location. The above considerations bring me to Alcoff s next point ~ that we, as researchers, need to be accountable and responsible for our work. I could easily claim that this is covered by ethics and the academic restrictions of the thesis process. But, in truth, the ones I needed to be accountable and responsible to were the subjects of my study. I needed to react to their criticism. Finally, the question of analyzing the probable effects of my work on the discursive and material context was a very positive one for me. The fact that no one has written on the subject I am studying is a testimony to the fact that it has been ignored long enough. I cannot find any academic literature that discusses the Mormon Indian Placement Program and the Haida people, nor can I find anything written about the Indian Student Placement Program in Canada. The worst-case scenario is that my work may be ignored or buried in the microfiche of the University of British Columbia's special collections. The best-case scenario will be that my work raises interest among  27 others to consider this program within the larger sphere of social history. Alcoff tells us that we need to ask "will it enable the empowerment of oppressed people?" (p. 24). I believe that a careful study which is cognizant of the issue of speaking for others can do this. I believe that this study has the potential to encourage dialogue. In the end, I hope it is clear that this literature review is, in many ways, a discussion that I have had with myself regarding the conflicting motivations of the thesis itself. One of the motivations is to tell the story in the participants' own words. The other is to deconstruct the discourse of the experience through an analysis of the meanings that the subjects of the study have associated with it. I would not have felt prepared to tackle the subject without a good knowledge of the historical context and theory that Ursel (1992) and Sutherland (2000) provided me. It was during the reading of these works that I began to problematize the difficulty of analysis of social policy without a clear and thorough understanding of the lived experiences of the individuals that the policy affected. With this learning, I knew that I had to gain an understanding of the lived experiences of those involved in Indian residential schools and the "sixties' scoop." I found that the gaps in the literature, once again, involved the lack of representation of the lived experience of those upon whom the policy had acted. As noted above, the studies of Haig-Brown (1988) and Fournier and Crey (1997) were refreshing exceptions. However studies of the residential schools experience and of the "sixties' scoop" raised the question as to whether or not the experience of children who were involved in the Latter Day Saints Indian Student Placement Program were similar to those who were removed from their homes by agents of the various Canadian social services. This led me to a stronger desire to understand the doctrine of the Mormon Church and more  28  specifically to understand the goals and literature regarding the Indian Student Placement Program. I realized that the gaps in the literature were formed by the lack of voice on behalf of the individuals who experienced the program and by the lack of critical evaluation of the location of the researchers themselves. I had to ask myself, at this point, am I being hypocritical in criticizing the researchers' methodology and conclusions without looking carefully at my own assumptions and location? I needed to evaluate, for myself, the place that I hold within the stories I was collecting. This, in turn, made me pay careful attention to my methodology and to consistently evaluate the purpose, accountability and probable effects of the research. I realized that the story of the participants themselves was the most important part of my study and that learning how they placed the experience within their lives was a valuable and valid approach.  29 SECTION TWO: M E T H O D O L O G Y  As a result of my review of the literature, I knew that I wanted to focus on the experience of the participant. This led me to follow a phenomenological approach to understanding the historical experience. The central question was this: how do these people place the experience of being involved in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program within their lives? More specifically, what do they remember and how have they made sense of it all? Thus, the entire study was about perception. I wanted to gain insight into each of the individuals' perceptions of his/her presence in their world during the experience and I wanted to understand how they perceived the experience to fit within their lives (Morse and Richards, 2002). Three of the four people I interviewed were contacted by the person who originally told me the story. The other contact was made by letter. A l l expressed an interest in sharing their experiences and all wanted to tell "their side" of the story. Prior to the interview, I discussed my interest in using memory as a historical source and my interests in using their memories, and the memories of others, to gain an understanding of how children make sense of an experience which involved First Nations children being fostered into a Mormon, non-First Nations home. A l l of the participants agreed that their understanding of the experience was important to share because the differences in their location within the story (being a First Nations child fostered into a Mormon, Non-First Nations home or being a child from a Mormon, non-First Nations home to which a First Nations child was fostered) would inform us of how that location mediated the experience.  30  A l l subjects signed consent forms that stated their rights as outlined by the University of British Columbia's Office of Research Services and Administration. As mentioned in the introduction, two of the people I interviewed are brother and sister and lived in a town called Massett located on Haida Gwaii-Queen Charlotte Islands. They are both members of the Haida Nation and both were participants as children in the Indian Student Placement Program from September to June in 1967-1968. The woman, for whom I have used the pseudonym Ann, was ten when she started in the program. The boy, for whom I have used the pseudonym Paul, was eight. The other two people I interviewed were children who were part of the families who received Ann and Paul as foster children for the ten months. The person I have called George was the "foster brother" to Paul. He was eight at the time. The person I have called "Sally" was "foster sister" to Ann. Sally was eleven when Ann arrived. It must be clearly understood that the siblings, Paul and Ann, did not go to the same home, they were not fostered to the same family, nor were they placed in the same town. I use the term "foster" because this is the term the participants used when referring to each other. A chart of the people involved in the study may be helpful:  Paul Ann George Sally  Haida from Massett, brother to Ann, went to Alberta at the age of eight. Haida from Massett, sister to Paul, went to Alberta at the age of ten. Mormon from Cardston, member of the family to which Paul was fostered, eight years old when Paul arrived. Mormon from McGrath, member of the family to which Ann was fostered, eleven years old when Ann arrived.  I followed a phenomenological style of investigation in that the focus was on the lived experience of the participants. No pre-existing categories were created for the stories. The study was emergent in nature and, thus, the questions were very general.  31 Since the study was, obviously, focused on the experience that these children had with the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program, I wanted to be sure to see where they placed the experience within their lives. I asked Paul and Ann the following questions: 1) What was life like for you growing up? What do you remember most about growing up? 2) What do you remember about the time you spent in Alberta? 3) What was life like after you went to Alberta? What do you remember most? 4) After reflecting on the experience, what thoughts do you have about it (feelings, emotions, etc)? I asked George and Sally the following questions: 1) What was life like for you growing up? What do you remember about growing up? 2) What do you remember about the period between September - June of 1967-1968? 3) What was life like for you after Paul/Ann left? What do you remember most? 4) After reflecting on the experience, what thoughts do you have about it (feelings, emotions, etc)? I did not want to lead the subjects by using loaded statements such as "what were the effects of the experience on your life." I asked the questions listed above because I wanted to get a sense of what life was like before the experience, of what it was like during the experience and of how they placed the experience within the larger context of their lives. The interviews lasted from one to three hours. A l l interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The interviews with Paul and Ann were face-to-face. Unfortunately, the  32 interviews with George and Sally had to take place over the phone since they both live in Alberta and I live in Prince Rupert. The lack of rich data and its possible connection to the use of telephone interviews is discussed in section four. Once the stories were transcribed, I sent the participants the transcripts with a letter that explained how they had been transcribed and that also asked them to add, delete or change anything that they felt was inaccurate. They were asked to contact me with any concerns. After receiving the final copy of the transcripts, I coded and organized the stories and memories. I grouped and labeled them according to topic, description and analytical themes (Morse and Richards, 2002). Coding itself was a theorizing activity and thus, from the coding process, I had to grapple with the various goals of the study. I wanted to tell the story in the words of the participants and to analyze the discourses within their experience that were found in the meanings the subjects had created as they placed the experience within their lives. In the end, I decided on a format that would reflect a division between what I gained from the interviews (their stories and my observations during the interviews) and the analysis of the experience which was solely my own. The result of this organizational strategy has been to address the stories in two distinct sections (section four and section five). Section four is a description of the story based on the memories of the participants and my notes from the interviews. I found it would be much more informative and clear to the reader i f I grouped the stories according to the social space which the participants occupied at the time of the memory. The stories did not organize themselves in a clear temporal fashion. In fact, they clearly divided only around one time space - September  33 to June 1967-1968. When the people I interviewed spoke about their lives when growing up, they spoke in general terms about the things that were important to them, memories of relationships and so on. When participants spoke about their experience from September to June in 1967-1968, the only temporal divisions Ann and Paul made were in reference to leaving Massett in September, arriving in Alberta in September and leaving again in June. George and Sally referred only to the arrival and departure of Paul and Ann in a temporal fashion. A l l participants' reflections on the experiences they had during the period, on how they placed the experience within their lives, on the emotions that they felt regarding the experience, and on what life was like after the experience was over, had no real temporal landmarks. It became clear to me that the memories that they had of the experience were largely organized based on social space - who they lived with during the experience. As a result, I found that, when reflecting on the story, it was most suitable to break the actual experience into sections that were based on social space within the experience - who the participants were with during the time of the memory. Section three, then, divides into six parts. The first is the story of the siblings Ann and Paul within the social space of their family growing up in Massett. The second is the memories that Ann and Paul had regarding Mormon missionaries in Massett, leaving Massett and arriving in Alberta. The third is the story of Paul and George who were foster brothers from September to June in 1967-1968 within the social space of George's family in Cardston, Alberta. The fourth is the story of Ann and Sally who were foster sisters from September to June in 1967-1968 in McGrath, Alberta. The fifth is the story of Sally and how she has reflected on and placed the experience within her life. The sixth  34 is the story of George and how he has reflected on and placed the experience within his life. The seventh is the story of Ann and Paul and how they have reflected on and placed the experience within their lives since arriving back to live with their family in Massett. Section four involves my analysis of the discourse of the experience. It is solely based on the themes that have emerged - my perceptions of what their memories, stories and experiences reflect. Finally, section five discusses conclusions regarding the program, limitations of this study and areas in need of further research.  35  SECTION THREE: T H E STORIES - MEMORIES OF PAUL, ANN, GEORGE AND SALLY  This section is focused on describing the experience through the words of the participants. This description is supplemented by the notes that I created during the interviews.  They are, as discussed in section two (methodology), organized according  to the social space that the participants shared during the memories. The limited richness in several areas of the participants' stories is discussed in section four.  PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF GROWING UP IN MASSETT, B.C.  The following memories involve what Paul and Ann discussed regarding their life prior to leaving for Alberta. The first aspect that both Paul and Ann reflected on, and which ties together the other characteristics that Paul and Ann remembered about growing up, is the concept of family. Both Paul and Ann remembered a strong sense of family that extended beyond the realm of the house and applied to the community as a whole. When Paul reflected on what family meant to him, he said: It doesn 't really matter where you go for a Native person, the Native way of life is so different than the white way. You know, even to come, for us to have friends, my wife and I have lots and lots of white friends, obviously everybody does nowadays, just in that, but our Native way and Native beliefs or way of living just never changes. We always, we 're such a tight knit family, and like it's nothing for a mother and father in law to be living with us, or a brother can come in and set up his bed downstairs here for a month or so, and you know, so when I went to Alberta, that was a shock, not having my family around. I had a big family and it didn't just include who was in the house. You know, the whole village was my family.  36 A n n also reflected on growing up in Massett and the fact that she had a strong sense o f community. So that was a great experience, my mother and my grandparents, they accepted people into their homes and made them feel very welcome. You know the sense of feeling like I belonged in the community and like a big family. The role o f the grandparents was strong within the lives o f both A n n and Paul. A n n reflected on who influenced her most in life as being her grandparents. That probably had the most influence on who I am today. Having that positive influence from my grandparents. You know, there were people that were very, extremely important and stuff in our community. My grandfather being chief of the Massett Village and he being the traditional chief was born into this position, and so he was born around 1880. He comes from an era of matrilineal heritage and they were the most incredible people to grow up with. And there were many, so I got to grow up in a very traditional environment. There are people that just don't have any of that way of life, it's just not there. So anyway, that to me is very important but I mean I could say a lot about that. Paul as well, reflected on the good memories o f his grandparents when he said "Yeah, they were always there for us and my grandfather taught ma a lot about being Haida and whatnot. " The memories clearly show that both A n n and Paul largely focused on remembering the strong ties o f family within their childhood. Life was not complete happiness for either o f these subjects though. Several memories were particularly highlighted when reflecting on their lives as children. The first was the fact that their mother had a difficult time in some aspects o f her life. A n n reflected on her mother's loss o f "Indian Status." The fact that my mother lost her status before she even had any children. She married a white man, they never had any children but because of that she lost her status. So anyway, she never even got to live in the village. But what she would do to be with us, for example, is work in the cannery, and so she was able to buy her own home. And you know it wasn't just her, there were many that had that experience, losing their status that way. Before that she rented. But then when she lost her home to a fire, so they lost everything.  37 Another aspect Ann remembers is that her mother, who had ten children, had to work a great deal to help support the family My mother was, I mean I don't remember her being around a lot, because she worked so much. Paul remembers ways in which his mother coped with the stresses of her life. His mother was "drinking heavily" and the day that he left for Alberta, his mom was "passed out" The point here is that it would be unfair to paint their life as one without its problems. Overall, however, it is clear that both Paul and Ann reflected on the positive nature of their life in Massett. Paul said "Sure, we were poor, but we didn't need money, you know. We always had enough to eat. I never left the islands before that trip when I went to Alberta for a year. We were happy" In the end, the amount that Paul and Ann discussed their life was limited. It would be remiss to paint the perfect picture because life was not perfect for them. Their mother struggled to cope with many difficulties and the children surely noticed. But their memories also demonstrate that this is not what they most strongly associate with their childhood. The positive nature of their childhood and the relationship to the family and community as a whole is clear.  PAUL AND ANN: MEMORIES OF EARLY EXPERIENCES WITH MORMON MISSIONARIES, OF LEAVING MASSETT FOR ALBERTA AND OF THEIR SEPARATION IN ALBERTA  Once Ann and Paul turned their focus to the story of their experience with the Indian Student Placement Program, their memories became much more specific. The first thing they reflected on was the means by which the Mormon missionaries recruited children for the program itself. Paul said:  38  There were no adults in Haida Gwaii that were Mormons. It was just a kids' thing. It was just a, get the kids out, like a daycare, Sunday school, get the kids out of the house for a couple of hours basically was all it was. It was just the Mormons recruited, they may have thought they were recruiting adults in Massett, and the adults might have been courteous and kind to them, and respectful, but they weren't church goers. None of the adults went to their church. It was all just Sunday school and kids. Or they came to our home and set up the projection screen and showed us slides, and then we had the prayer, holding hands and prayer together and all that. The whole Mormon religion thing, as much as I was involved with it for about three or four years of my life, I never really got into it. But no, it was just the kids. They focused on the kids in Haida Gwaii, and it didn't even work. That is why I guess we went away. It was because they wanted the kids and they knew that the adults weren't all that interested. A n n as well had specific memories with respect to missionaries coming to recruit.  I remember the missionaries coming to the house. Yeah, we were targeted. They were pretty much promoting the program. You know, telling you that they needed boys and girls, kind of like camp or something. I kind of remember them, they were kind of dancing around the house, really happy, and I kind of had this image of uniforms but we didn't have uniforms. I guess that is just how they were dressed. They looked different. And just like sitting around, you know, that they promoted strong families and all that. It seemed to happen quite often. I don't know, I think they talked about the Bible. Anyway, it calms down in the end. That's part of their thing, promoting family values and stuff. Missionaries kind of did the same thing. They would come around and they would kind of get a family grouping. But I do remember them coming around. Yeah, sit around and talk, read the Bible I guess. Paul remembers the extent to which the recruiting took place as profound.  They were at our home in Massett at our grandparents' house all the time. I don't know, they really swarmed the Haida Village, the Mormon Church. There were three to four of them, Elders, they called themselves Elders. They were always there, always. For about seven, eight years they took a group offorty or fifty kids out of the village each year. They were from Utah and all over the place, and they came and lived and rented in Massett. Me and my younger brothers and a couple of friends of ours, we were always, after school, we would go by the Mormon's apartment and play around there and stuff and we got quite involved with the Mormon thing. And then you know they used to come to the house, and like with all the kids here, we'd all go into the room and set up a slide screen, and they would show us slides of, you know, animation of the church. They would have stories of Jesus and all that you know. And they came to the house and did that quite often. We'd get the neighborhood kids, there would be about six or seven or eight of us on the floor, watching these slides of stories of Jesus. It was big. They drilled it into us quite heavily.  39  What is clear to both A n n and Paul is that the M o r m o n missionaries were recruiting children for the program and that the focus was on promoting the M o r m o n religion. For A n n , as well, the memories o f the missionaries promoting the program as a positive choice are clear. It is important to note at this point that participation in the program was, with regards to A n n and John (Ann and Paul's older brother), a choice made by the family itself. The family decided to send A n n and her older brother John. However, as we shall see from the following comments, the choice to send Paul is a point around which there is some debate. Well the real story, I don't know, it is quite funny. It's kind of different, there is a whole bunch of different views of it. Because the Mormons were coming, they came to our home in Massett, in the village there, almost daily, trying to sign us up. I guess they were going from house to house to house, signing up kids to go on this trip. And my mother and my grandparents, we lived under the same roof, my mother and all us kids and my grandparents. And my grandparents and my mother, I think they discussed it and they agreed that Ann and John would go, the two older ones, they were like twelve and eleven I think. I think there was, the Mormons, talked them into letting them go. And I cried and cried like whining, because I wasn't getting my way, I wanted to go. And not having a clue what I was getting myself into. I cried and cried and cried. And then the day the bus came, made it to the village, Haida Village, is one long road, that's all it is. So the bus came down and made its turn around at the end and started back up and started picking up, at each house picking up the kids that were going. And then my mother was drinking at the time, she was passed out, so I packed my bags and I went and got on the bus with John and Ann, and I was on my way. There was no going back once I got to Prince Rupert, that was it. Ijust went, yeah. On my own. It was my own choice. But then when my brother Joe got home, he tells me that he was real angry at my mother for letting me go, and everybody was mad at my Mom, but she didn't really have any control of me, Iforced my way to go. I cried and cried and cried andfinally packed everything and Ijust went, and I think she just got tired of hearing me arguing and crying with her. I don't think she even tried to stop me. I don Y really recall the exact moment, but I know she didn't want me to go, and then maybe she thought I was going to go so far and then come back or something, I don't know.  40  Why Paul, at the age of eight, was allowed to go is unknown. Ann has no recollection of the specific reason, but Paul certainly sees his actions as being of his own volition. He clearly wanted to go and, in the end, he went. Ann did not share her recollection of the journey to Alberta itself, but for Paul the journey was positive. He remembers being surrounded by people he knew well - his brother, his sister and all of the children he knew from Massett. The tone with which he expressed this memory conveyed how exciting it was for him and that it was, for this eight year old boy, a real adventure. Once we got going, we got to Rupert, and it was fun. It was a real gas, a real picnic. The trip going there was real fun. We flew to Rupert, we had a half day in Rupert, and I remember I needed a new pair of shoes, or runners, mine were real beat up. So one of the Mormons took me to Woolworth, I guess my grandparents or somebody gave money for me to get a new pair of runners, so they bought me a new pair of shoes. So I had on new shoes and I was all excited, and then we were down to the train station, and we all, all the kids there, everybody was running and jumping and playing, and it was so much excitement. We were getting on the train to go to Edmonton. So we went onto the train and that was fun. It was so much fun on the train, my brother John and my sister Ann were there, and it was just running around, playing, like the kids are playing here tonight, and it was just fun, eh?. Indeed, the tone of the trip is important to note, because it was after that trip, after that experience of excitement which Paul remembered, that a clear disjuncture in experience occurred. A l l of the children were gathered in a gymnasium and the reality of what was happening became grossly evident to Paul. And then we got to Edmonton, and a bus picked us up at the train station and drove us to this building, I don't recall what the building was, but everybody there was unloading the bags and everything off the bus, and then there was all these people there, all of these white people nobody knew. And all of a sudden, one of the Mormon guys has a list of everybody's names, and he was calling out names and the kids would put up their hands and he's calling, and then you 'd see him introduce them to people and then away they 'd go. And then the group started getting smaller and smaller, and then I'm looking and then my name is called and not my brother and sister. So, I go . . . (participant cries, pause) actually it gets  41 me emotional, you know. Yeah, it was unreal, and then all of a sudden, boom, they 're dragging me away and I'm screaming out for my brother and sister. That was the hardest part of the whole trip, was that. Clearly, the above passage was emotional. It is important to note that Paul told this story in a very emotional way. Clearly, the emotion of that moment continues to be a part of the memory. Ann remembered a different feeling once she arrived in that gymnasium. She remembered this event as the beginning of a feeling that what was happening to her was just not right. She felt demoralized within the first Alberta experiences. It wasn 't until we arrived in Alberta and, I think it was Lethbridge, and then I knew that this was kind of something that you know, it wasn't right. I really felt demoralized, because Ifelt you know like we were kind of herded into the big gymnasium, and literally what they did was, we had to get treatedfor lice. It's not like we had anything on us, it was like they were delousing us. They literally washed our hair with stuff, you know, and we had a shower, and I remember this woman inspecting my body, and that, to me, that was the first day we arrived. So I mean I was just like, horrified. I don't know why my brother doesn't remember that happening to him. I mean it wasn't just me there, it was all of us, right? You know, none of us ever had any lice ever, and then when I got to the home they continued to do it for, I don't know, it was like a week or something. For both siblings, the time in that gymnasium would be the last that they saw of each other for ten months. At this point, the stories collected demonstrate a clear parting of experiences between Paul and Ann. They went to live in separate towns with different foster families. As a result, I have organized the stories in a way that reflects the fact that they became two very separate ones at this point. Following this are the memories of the experience of Ann and of her new foster sister Sally. After the section regarding Sally and Ann, the memories of Paul and of his new foster brother, George, are discussed.  42  ANN AND SALLY: MEMORIES OF M C G R A T H , ALBERTA, SEPTEMBER 1967 - JUNE 1968 Ann arrived in McGrath early in September of 1967. She spent the next ten months with a family of which Sally was a member. Ann was ten at the time and Sally was thirteen. It is important to note that, as I am sure will become evident as you read on, that Ann and Sally wanted to have very little to do with each other over the ten month period. Ann reflected on the relationship with her foster siblings as "they didn't like me and I didn't like them " and Sally remembers the relationship as "being strainedfrom the beginning. We didn't really get along to tell you the truth. " Thus, this story for Ann and Sally is at once together and separate. They both reflected that they were not close and spent time together on a limited basis. When reflecting on the whole experience, Ann described the time as simply traumatic. When I think about leaving to Alberta, well, I guess the only word I can think of that would work is traumatic. Very traumatic, yeah. Sally described it in a similar vein. Well, the whole time is one that was pretty much turmoil, you know. It was like we knew she wasn't interested in being part of the family and so we sort of tried to ignore each other. Certainly Ann remembers being emotionally apart from the family as significant. She remembered the loneliness she felt. For the most part I was just very bored. I spent a lot of time by myself. They had a, well it wasn't really a farm, well they had a farm but they didn't live on a farm. Somebody had it. But they had a piece of land with a big kind of a field behind it, they had a horse there. So, Ijust spent a lot of time by myself.  43 On the whole, it was clear from the interviews that Ann remained separate from the family emotionally. As well, Ann described the separation from her brother, who was living in the same town. / was in the same town as my brother. It's close to the town that John was in. So yeah, we were both in the same town. I didn't see much of him. No. It's interesting because that bothered me a lot. I didn't really understand because, I'd see him in school, but of course you can't really talk while you 're in class and stuff though, and then at church of course. The loneliness, yeah, I don't think you can get away from that. It's too traumatic. Especially when you think about the fact that we weren't allowed to see one another either. Clearly, for Ann the feelings of loneliness and separation were profound. Why this separation occurred was very clear to Ann. The first thing I remember about the house is, well, it was all just very strange. I guess because I was just kind ofpretty well overwhelmed with my experience with just arriving, during the weekend, you know because after coming from my culture, with my grandparents, you know a person with a lot of pride, and then just feeling really degraded. So that just kind of carried over. You know, there wasn't love there. Like even when I arrived, I had this really old suitcase that my grandmother had wiped, I remember her wiping it down. I was from a poor family in a Native community, we didn't travel either, but they went through my suitcase and they just kind of took all of the clothes out but pretty well got rid of everything I owned, and the suitcase, they just got rid of it. And you could tell, they were looking at this suitcase like, you know like, it was a real embarrassing type thing. In many ways, then, Ann felt that her arrival was not a welcome one. She remembers the great lack of acceptance expressed towards her and that she felt clearly separated from the family with respect to her treatment. Her reaction to this feeling was very defiant. She remembers reacting to their coldness with coldness. She remembers finally just ignoring them as much as possible. It was a very coldfamily. The father was like, he was a professor, I think. But he was never there. And the mom was a stay at home mom. And then there was like three girls, and two boys. I was kind of in the middle of the age group. And a very small house. So as soon as I arrived I shared the bedroom with the girls. And  44 then there was a brother that was a year older than the oldest girl. And I guess the bottom line was they just, they didn't like me and I didn't like them. And I knew it. They didn't try to hide it I guess. Nothing serious happened. It was just more of a mental thing. I don't know why, what they thought they were proving, but maybe it was just an experiment for them and that's it. The mother was very cold. So . . .? I don't know what they expected, but I think, they probably didn't expect me, because I think I was just as defiant as they treated me. If they were cold, I was cold. I mean, I'm not even a cold person actually, you know I'm not, to me, my being cold is avoiding I guess, that's what I was doing. Like, I would walk into the kitchen, and then the mother was looking right at me and not saying anything, and you know I guess that obviously builds up to where somebody doesn 't greet you, andjust kind of looks at you, and I think Ijust probably quit saying hello so I would just walk right by and go to my room. So yeah, I think it kind of just progressed. Yeah, they weren't treating me good, so I thought, why should I try to respond to them or something I guess? I was probably defiant. Yeah. Sally remembers the defiance that Ann exhibited very well. She just downright refused to do things. And Mom, I know she was frustrated too. She would get her to clean and then have to get her to do it again. She would do it eventually, but you know with a real look on her face. I think that look was pretty much on her face the whole time she was there. I don't blame her though, I mean she didn't want to be there right? Of course I didn't think that at the time because at the time I thought this kid is scary. Sally remembers trying to help Ann out as much as possible at first. She said: We tried to include her in everything at first. Like she came to church and stuff. But you give up pretty quickly when someone refuses to take part, right? In general, Ann saw that taking part came on the terms of the family and not hers. She remembers a clear disregard for anything that she felt was important. Specifically, Ann felt that they wanted her to forget where she came from and who she was. She said: They never, ever, were interested in who I was or where I came from. Never, ever " and that " they didn't like me being Native. " One experience Ann specifically remembers was a phone call from her grandfather. For the family, Ifelt like they didn't like me being Native. Well, it's just, I don't know, it's just a feeling. To me that's, you know, if you are a person, you know, if you are a Native, there are certain white people that are going to abuse anybody of colour that way. One time, I think it was my grandfather that phoned, that was  45 one of the few phone calls that I received, but when I turned to look at them, you know they could all hear me talking, and it almost looked like they looked ashamed or something, you know that's the sense I got. They certainly never ever talked to me about my family, or who was my family, or anything. Sally actually remembers not being allowed to talk about Ann's family or background. We tried to talk to her, but I remember that we weren't supposed to talk about her family or home or anything. I think it was so she didn't feel homesick. But when you can't talk about the past experiences of a stranger, what else is there to talk about? Several things struck Ann as being very different with respect to day-to-day activities. She equated these activities with a constant attempt to discipline her. The first thing Ann remembered were the chores she had to do. I was telling a friend about my experience, about how I really resented the things that I had to do as far as chores. Well I guess it's kind of twofold because I came from a matrilineal culture, where I don't know, it's not like we didn't have to do anything, we did things like chop wood probably and do the dishes and laundry and whatnot, but you know the things that they were getting me to do like dust, for example, you know the back of a chesterfield, you know the small little wooden legs, I mean dust those and that kind of thing. I mean, all I kept doing was just remove the polish from the last time. It was stupid and useless and, so, I really felt humiliated. I mean, I really didn't see the other kids having to do a lot of stuff, but I had to do it. So the purpose of all of those chores is, well, to me, it was like they were testing my defiance. Like I probably, I mean I did it, but I didn't do it happily. You know, I was, well just not happy about it, and to me, I knew it wasn't' right, but it was like, yeah, I always felt like they were testing me, and they made sure that they were always disciplining me in that sense. As well, Ann remembered food being an issue. Like even with food, I mean I wasn't used to the regimen or schedule, I mean, breakfast, lunch, and supper, and you 're not allowed to eat in between, and you 're not allowed to eat in the evening time. I mean, it seemed like I was always hungry, but even when you sat down to eat, it was like you had to finish everything on your plate, and all of those kinds of things were, these were rules that Ijust wasn't used to. You know, we were never treated that way. I mean, my grandmother cooked, we ate breakfast, lunch and supper, but if we didn't want to eat, we didn't have to. That type of thing, and then of course we could always eat in between. And even that, to me, like I would say, I remember one time "I don't want to eat this. " And they pretty well made me.  46 Church was also something that Ann remembered as a regimental activity. Of course, we went to church like I don't know how many times a day it seemed like, every day anyway. It seemed like that. We were always in church. And of course, twice on Sundays or something. And then you know that prayers at every meal. I mean it's not that it was a problem to be religious, I grew up with my grandparents praying too, that was part of the culture. But, religion was never imposed on us while we were growing up. I mean, I think I went to Sunday school when I was small, but you know my grandparents never ever imposed it on us. But with this, it was a way of life. You didn't do anything, certainly didn't do anything that was bad, no drinking coffee, wearing of skirts too short, there were just different things that, they were pretty straight. The strict regimen of life was also discussed by Sally. When reflecting on what it was like to grow up, Sally said: Well, my family is very devout, so we followed our scripture very carefully. As well, my mother was very strict with us, you know manners and how to behave. Yes, we had a strict upbringing, but it was a good one. We are Mormons after all. I remember Ann, that is her name right? It's so hard to remember, but yes, she didn't like the routine too much. She was very, I don't know, just different and difficult I guess. I think it might have been the age mostly. One of the few things that Ann remembered as resembling Massett was school. Yet, even though the daily regimen of school was similar, Ann remembered only one thing specifically. / remember the school, we had a home room, and I always remember the teacher. You see my brother remembers the little things and Ijust kind of block all of that stuff out. But, the home room teacher, it was interesting because he really liked me. And I sat in front. And there was, in our home room, there were three boys that were from the Blood reserve, and a couple of them were quite heavy set and you know their appearance, they were very dark and that. And the homeroom teacher made no bones about letting them know that he despised them, hated them. And he just treated them so awful. And he was, you know, of course I guess everybody was a Mormon? But I remember being just kind of overwhelmed with how he treated them. They sat at the back of the class and, yeah, he just always belittled them and stuff. But I always remember that he used to use me too, as a way to try to set an example or something. Like he would always say something like, I remember one time he said something like "why can 'tyou be like Ann" or something you know, and it was just like . . . ? But I remember that about school. But nothing, yeah, that is probably the biggest thing, is the homeroom teacher and how he treated people, and these particular boys. But other than that?  47  Sally remembers very little of Ann at school. Ann was in a different grade so I didn't see her much. I don't think she was really friends with any of the kids as far as I remember, not even the other Natives. Undoubtedly, the memories of the experiences of Ann and Sally were very much different, yet very informative of one another. Both remember Ann as having been very much separated from the emotional space of the family — in the home and outside of it. Sally commented on this directly. Well, Ifeel really badly for the fact that Ann didn't really fit in with us, you know. She didn't seem to be interested in us right from the start until the end. Ann shared this sentiment, yet defined it in a different way. Like I didn't feel, like you know, when you first meet people, strangers I mean, it is easy, you know to see whether they are loving people or not. And I guess Ijust picked up on it right from the beginning. So it just stayed that way. It's amazing, right from the first day to the end. Even I remember when I was waving at them, when I was getting on the bus leaving, even then there was no feeling there. It was nothing. Going home, I was just really, really, excited about it, of course. You know, and I certainly didn't feel any sorrow or regrets or anything for leaving. But I remember going back home and just feeling like I was a new person, I think. The strength of Ann, as a child, was something that struck me as quite clear. The experience to her was negative, yet she sees it as having been positive with respect to the development of her strength as a person. Early on Ann reflected on the fact that she could have left had she wanted to. Yet she chose to stay. But 1 think I always knew that I had the option that I could leave if I wanted to, but I think that is part of my character. I decided I wanted to stick it out even though it was really, really, like I said, traumatic, and I always felt, the whole time I was there, loneliness like I was going to never see my family again. Not one part of that year was anything happy. You know, it wasn't a positive experience, but I think part of it, I stuck it out because I wanted to make it an experience, as part of my life. Because I think, as young as I was, I wanted to see if I could make something positive out of it, for me as a person. When I was really, really, young, I was always very, very, intrigued by becoming a strong person.  48  In the end, when I compared the memories of Ann and Sally, it became clear to me that they defined the entire experience in very different ways. Ann's actions and memories indicate a strong sense of resistance. Right from the start, Ann felt that the experience "wasn't right. " Her memories largely surrounded the fact that she felt that the family did not value her as a person and that they did not value all that she was - her family, her culture, her personal history. She saw her foster family as trying to force her to accept the things that they believed to be normal - from chores to food to church. As a result, Ann resisted in several ways. She resisted by separating herself from the emotional space of the family. She resisted by doing, begrudgingly, what she was told to do. She resisted within her personal thoughts. She thought "why should I respond to them. ? " She resisted by deciding to "stick it out. " This resistance is discussed in section five. As for Sally, she remembered the actions of Ann in a different way. Her memories define Ann's actions as simply refusing to fit in. To Sally, this refusal was, as a child, impossible to understand. She remembers "being shocked by the way Ann was " and saw her defiance as something to do with "age mostly. " To a child, seeing someone come into the house and refuse to act in accordance with the rules of the house must have been impossible to understand. Sally stated "that was the way we were and the way we are. Ann couldn't understand that. " Clearly, then, my notes indicated to me that the memories of those ten months were intertwined with the prior experience of both Ann and Sally. Sally knew what was right. So did Ann. The definitions of right were vastly different. Ann knew that she had  49 to resist and Sally couldn't understand why she would resist. The result was a very difficult and trying experience for them both.  P A U L A N D M E M O R I E S  O F C A R D S T O N , A L B E R T A ,  G E O R G E : S E P T E M B E R  1967  - J U N E  1968  Once Ann and Paul had been separated, Paul joined George's family. Paul stayed with this family from September of 1967 to June of 1968. This section describes the experience of Paul and George while Paul was in Cardston, Alberta. It uses the stories gained from interviews to try and describe the experience of both boys who were eight years old at the time. Again, the memories of both individuals have very little temporal reference. They remember only Paul's arrival and Paul's departure in terms of time. As for the rest of the memories, they are largely those which reflect on changes within the social space of the foster family. Both Paul and George remember leaving for Cardston, Alberta. Paul remembers the trip to Cardston as one of fear and bewilderment. They put us in the back of a pick-up truck, and they made a bed in the back, and I remember laying in there from Edmonton to Cardston, crying all the way, looking up at the stars that night driving. It was a real star fdled night, wondering where Massett was. George remembers the fear displayed by Paul as well. We have always been a very close knit family. I remember when we went to get Paul, all we had was a Sixty-six Chevy pick-up and we all loaded in the cab and one kid laid across the floor and one across the back window and that is how we mainly traveled. When we did pick up Paul, Dad put an old tarp in the back of the truck and me and Paul and my younger brother all rode in the back of the truck from Calgary home. And Paul was petrified. He didn't say a word to us for two or three days.  50  Paul's early experience with the family demonstrates that he did not know quite what to make of the situation. George remembers an experience that Paul had on the way back to Cardston. Dad has always been quite the teaser and he said, "Gee if we go to a restaurant, you eat everything and you drink everything" and I remember it was so funny. Paul never left a glass of water on the table and every time the waitress filled the glass, well Paul figured he had to finish it. And of course you know what happens on the way home when you got a two hour drive in the back of the truck. Paul had to go. Well he went and he was embarrassed that he gone himself andfrom that day on, it kind of broke the ice. The poor little brown eyed, brown haired kid, roundface, looking at my Dad, drinking water after water after water. Clearly, Paul did not quite know how to read his new family. He remembers early experiences with George's father as well. Well the family was great though, you know. They tried to help me feel better. I think before my wife and I went back and met the father of the family, I was unclear on him [the father] because he was a big man. And I was afraid of him. Yeah, he used to try to grab me. And I remember, I used to try to sneak by him, he'd be pretending to ignore me, and then he 'd lash out to try and grab me, and I was so scared. Like I said, all you had to do was look at me the wrong way and I'd cry then. He was just playing around but I was always thinking I didn't want him to grab me, and I remember I used to be petrified of him I guess. However, both Paul and George both remember the great extent to which the new foster family went to in order to make Paul feel comfortable. George remembers that his family generally tried to ease Paul's apprehension. To make Paul comfortable we just, it was more I think the sports and the outgoingness of all of us that he just fit right in. He was kind of shy at first but we just treated him like one of us. Paul gives a great deal of credit to his foster family with respect to the care that they gave him. And then I know Andy (the father of the foster family) told me that I was one scared little kid. That's the father's memories of me. Because I was so emotional and I think ifyou just looked at me the wrong way I probably started crying. So that was Andy's memory of me. But I remember him always trying to get me to  51 relax and he was being real kind and gentle all the time. They all were. They were very nice people. I never, I don't recall any incidents where I am angry that they did something to me, that stuck with me and to make me, 30 years later, remember. I could never remember a bad thing about them scolding me or any bad things about it. Paul remembers George really helped him with any friends who might have picked on him. George, my foster brother, he sort of took me under his wing. He was the same age as me but he took care of me. I sensed that from him even when we were kids. At that time I remember him standing in front of me and telling three of his friends, "don't even try picking on Paul or you 're going to get it from me, " you know, he stood up for me all the time. And that felt real safe when he was around. In fact, Paul remembers George doing more than his share of helping at times One of my memories about that was George would always get in trouble and not me. He would always look at me when he was getting scolded and he was wondering, why weren't they saying my name too eh? When I know they couldn 't take that chance because I would probably just start bawling. George remembers it similarly. He recalled that "I always took the brunt for anytime we got into trouble, I am still like that. " Paul's ties with the family were also a major part of both his memory and that of George. George remembers how Paul had a special relationship with George's younger sister. As far as my family, Paul and my sister had a bond. My little sister was so small at the time they just clicked like night and day, just automatically hit it off and they were more really goodfriends and she needed somebody other than just brothers that were just mean to her. And Paul come along and took her under his wing. Other ways in which Paul remembered being supported were more general. And then they had a grandmother, George and them, their grandmother was still alive then too. We used to go visit her, and her house was between our house and the church. We would stop in there on the way home after Sunday school and she would always have cookies in the cookie jar, and she would give us a cookie, and then back home and play. We played Little League baseball. We played on teams,  52  / don't know how many teams they had, but George and I were on the same team. We used to play that. Not all was smooth sailing. Sibling rivalries did not leave Paul out. Both Paul and George remember this well. Paul remembered: My foster brother, George, yeah, George was in the same grade and everything and he really helped me out. He had a younger brother, Rob, who sort of looked up to me and George and it was funny, because I can see it happening with my boys, there is about afiveyear gap in their age, the younger brother, he was probably six I guess, and George and I were eight. But the younger brother always wanted to be with us. And George didn't, he was, it was his natural brother and he didn't want him around. But, so I would take Rob and let him hang with me, so he grew real attached to me. It's quite funny. It was an interesting time. And then they had a younger, the oldest one in the family was a girl, her name was Karen. She was probably eleven or twelve, and she was the one who we, George and I, she was mad at us all the time, chasing us around, trying to kick us in the ass. George also recalled the occasional rivalry. Well as far as sibling rivalry, there was a few times we had our little feuds and that but it wasn't like some families you know, like some of them never talk to each other, but I am sure that there was times where we flipped the tables up and I remember we were always arguing about who should wash the porridge pot you know. It wouldn't be a normal sibling rivalry unless we fought at times. Sure we went toe to toe and wrestled with each other. His headlock was usually the end of me. But you know, we got along really well - like brothers. Both George and Paul recalled the memories of rivalries with fondness. For me the tone of the interviews reflected that it was a natural thing for boys who lived together. In fact, all of the memories with respect to both Paul and George describing the relationships within the family were positive. Paul felt that the family did their best to make him feel welcome and cared for. George remembers his family making every effort to do so as well. Feelings Paul has for George's mother and father reflect nothing but fondness and gratitude. I think Paul would agree with the sentiment that George expressed when summarizing his family's role.  53 As far as the program goes, like what it was for, we were never told very much about why Paul was coming. We didn't know if it was because his parents had passed away, or what the scoop was. We were just there to try to make this little guy to feel as welcome at home, at school, everywhere, as anybody else. That is what we were always taught, to treat everybody equal and be friends with everybody and we definitely have gained a great friend from it, eh? A l l of the positive things that George and his family did to care for Paul, to make him feel welcome, were not enough to make the experience a positive one for Paul. Primarily, Paul's interview indicated that his foster family did their best to make a poor situation sufferable. As an eight-year-old boy, Paul remembers the most enduring emotion he felt was that of loneliness. Paul put this feeling in this way: Overall though, I bet ifyou were to interview half a dozen or ten kids that went through the same experience as me, I bet you any money the most negative part you are going to find about it is loneliness. I mean, that's inevitable to have that when you pull a sibling that far away from a family, let alone not just across the street, I mean damn near halfway across the country. And then you mix in the young age. When I was first there, I would be watching cars going by and thinking somebody in there is going to know me and stuff like that. I remember doing things like that, eh? But that was my side of the story, my feelings and emotions. George remembers the loneliness that Paul felt as well. He was so quiet andfriendly and never said much unless he was asked. I mean he was kind of scared. Wouldn't you be? Loneliness manifested itself in many ways for Paul. One way he expressed loneliness was by frequently wondering where home was. The only thing is the loneliness, it was just, like at my birthday, Christmas, just thinking, sitting there aimlessly looking out at the sky, looking up at the sky, wondering where Massett was. There was a road, I remember when I was a there, I used to always go stand up on that road and look off into the horizon, and wonder how far Massett was. At least probably once a week I used to do that. I really missed it, you know, my family and whatnot. Loneliness also resulted in a great deal of crying.  54  I was trying to think of a few more things about this roller coaster ride I went on, because I went through a year, probably the first three or four months I cried lots. One of the reasons for this loneliness was the lack of contact Paul had with his grandparents, his mother and his siblings. But I know, my mom called quite a few times I think. Gina (the mother) was telling me, my mom used to call quite a bit but they wouldn't let her talk to me. That probably made her real mad. And then, I don't know, I think mom thought they were going to keep me forever probably. I think that was one of her thoughts. So the thing was, to me, was the lack of communication we had with my family at home, but I think they probably thought it was every time I did, the two or three times we did talk, after that I was back to day one again, just real lonely and crying all over. So they probably thought it was for the best that we don't communicate, eh? Apparently my mom used to call all the time but they wouldn't let me talk to her. So Ifelt real bad hearing that, for my mom, because she missed me probably just as much as I missed her, you know. So it was strange. It was unreal. It is hard to understand why that lack of contact occurred. Neither Paul or George explained it in any concrete way. It is possible that the explanation that Paul gave was a feasible one. This explanation was supported by another reflection. The few, I mean a couple times I talked to my Mom on the phone, and I wouldjust leave right from the phone and head up to my room and be crying, you know. So, I imagine it was just as tough on my Mom too. Paul remembers other forms of contact with his mother however. My Mom would write letters to me once a week, and Gina would read them to me. It was real nice of her, she actually saved them and gave them to me, just when we were there. That was great, because my Mom has passed away since then. So to get those letters, it was kind of neat. It is clear to me, then, the foster mother did not try to stop all communication between families. His foster mother made an effort to encourage the contact in this instance. George remembers talking about Paul's family with Paul as a way that they used to connect as children.  55  One of the things is all of us boys were all in one bedroom and we would sit there at night and talk and ask him lots of questions like how many brothers you got and stuff like that. George remembers other ways that the family tried to foster contact. This was with respect to Paul's older brother who was also a participant in the Student Indian Placement Program and who lived in a town nearby named McGrath. We made him feel welcome and then his older brother being in McGrath really helped because we went to McGrath quite often so they could see each other. It might have been only three or four times in the year, but it was better than no times at all. Paul remembers very little contact with his brother or anyone else familiar to him. In fact the only time he remembers visiting his older brother was somewhat of a negative experience for Paul. / only saw my brother once the whole time I was there. Yeah, we went to a school basketball tournament in McGrath. McGrath is only about thirty miles away from Cardston. So it was Saturday I think and we had this trip planned. We were going to go watch a basketball game in McGrath and I was so excited about it, I couldn't even sleep the night before because my brother was in McGrath. So I couldn't wait to get there to see him. I was like, just jumping around, chomping at the bit to get there. Then we got there, and we got into the gym, and we 're sitting in the bleachers, and I'm not even watching the game, I'm looking through the whole crowd, trying to find my brother. And then I spot him, and I couldn't wait to run over to hug him and talk to him and that. So I go see him, and he's nonchallant, just laid right back, just almost you know, just "hi, how you doing", and then he was leaving the game, going home, and I'm going, I didn't want to leave him. I tell him now, I say, remember when we were in Alberta and you didn't want to see me. And I criedfor months I said after we got there, and I couldn't wait to see you that night, and you didn't even care that I was there. He doesn 't believe me when I say that. He has no memory of it for some reason. So we went to go by his place and of course he had some girls there wanting to come and see him and stuff so he told me I better go back to the gym. So I had to go back to the gym to my foster parents. That was my visit with my brother John, who I hadn't seen all year, and we were both away from our home, and he thought two minutes with me was enough. I don't know what it was. It was kind of funny. But I don't know. Maybe I wanted more as a kid. I probably wanted to stay with him. I think if I had my way, I probably would have packed my bags and moved right in with him where he was. Ijust remember it seemed too short. But I remember leaving  56  McGrath, heading back to Cardston that night, and I was crying all over again. Every time, there were a lot of things that rekindled my emotions. A n important aspect of Paul's experience is demonstrated from this memory. Whether Paul saw his older brother only once or whether he saw him several times as George remembers, Paul's loneliness and his desire to see and surround himself with the people he remembered from home is the clear memory here. This desire was also illustrated by another common activity Paul remembers doing. But one of my main pastimes was riding the bike. I used to ride up, there was one other kid from Massett, the one that went back for eight years in a row. I don't know what the heck he did, or where he went. You'd think that him and I would have hung out together but we didn't: But I used to ride, I knew where he lived, and fd ride up to his house and stop outside and see if I could see him. But I rarely, rarely saw him. He never would come out. I know him quite well today, I don't know how much older he is than me or what, or why we never got together when we were there. George remembers Paul reflecting frequently about Massett as well. In particular, Paul often spoke of his grandfather. George recalls that Paul "always talked highly of his family and especially of his grandfather — always. " Clearly, Paul sought, throughout his time in Cardston, to find anything that was familiar to him. This was due to the fact that many things Paul found in Cardston were strange and unfamiliar to him. Paul aptly put it in the following way: But there were some things that really struck me as different too. It was a culture shock to go there. This living with my foster family, living in a white household, it was you know, washing your hands and all that before dinner. It's stuff that we don't practice. I know you should, a person should, but just doing all these things, in that aspect, was culture shock. It was sort of set in, things I had to do routinely that never even entered my mind up to that stage of my life. Although washing your hands before dinner is not, in the minds of some, a significant difference with respect to what Paul had left in Massett, it does demonstrate that the little things, the routines of his new household, were very different. Paul also said:  57  And after school we would have to go home and change, we weren't allowed to play out with our school clothes on. They were quite strict to the way we were with chores, and changing, there was no way we could play out with our school clothes on. If we did and we got them dirty, we were in trouble eh? It was funny, I remember all the time going home, right away, and our bedroom was upstairs, right upstairs and change and fold the clothes and put them on the bed and put on our playclothes and back out the door and play around until supper time and then, we never watched TV either. We never got to watch TV, and we were in bed quite early, seven or eight or whatever, I can't remember how early it was, but I know we were in bed quite early, by our Native standards, a Native way of life. George reflected on this as well. [It was] a lifestyle. I think that is the best way to put it because at home they were freelanced and they got to do and go wherever they wanted, eh? There was no discipline and stuff like that. Paul never had a chore to do in his life, I don't think, before he came here and had to do morning dishes or supper dishes and the lawn or whatever, eh? Paul clearly found things different. The tone of the interview reflected that he saw many of these differences as neither positive nor negative. Some aspects of the differences that he encountered were seen as negative however. Yeah, the one thing that really jumps out at me in terms of being different is going from riding the school bus to school with all my Native friends - now I'm walking to school and going to a class and it's all white kids, you know, and I was the only Native in the class that I was in, and that was probably the scary part and different part, and the part where I really was alone. It was different going to school at first. I was unusual to the other kids. I remember, being introduced in school my first day, as a foster child of my family, eh? That's what they called me, a foster kid. And it was like, standing up in the front of the classroom and that, and everybody saying hi to me, and they pointed me out right away. Instead of just letting me come in as a class member, they had to make this big issue. It sort of embarrassed me I remember at the time. I didn't really like it. But after that I didn't really get any special treatment I don't think from the teacher. Interestingly, George did not remember it that way at all. Well where we live it is the largest Indian reserve in the North American continent, the Blood Reserve, and I was friends with every kid in the class. Like mom asked me who my best friend was and I named every kid in the class. I think with the Natives living there, Paul knew he wasn't the only one and he just fit right in and became goodfriends, eh?  58 Other routines that Paul found different were with respect to several practices surrounding the Mormon religion. He did not remember these experiences as traumatic. He just remembered them as different. Then every Tuesday night, George and I had to go to, Iforget what they called it, it was one of their services at the church, and then once a month we had to fast. That was hell. Once a month, there was no eating grub all day. We had to fast. It was the first Sunday or something, Iforget, George told me, Iforget what day it was. We weren't allowed to eat no food until suppertime. But we used to go out and raid the carrots out of the garden, big fat suckers, big fat carrots, real juicy, I remember eating those. We must have been so hungry that they tasted good. They were sweet and they were juicy. But we used to get caught eating them and Gina would come out screaming at us, and the carrots were all flying, and George wouldjust get in trouble eh, she wouldn't get mad at me. She knew how fragile my feelings were, I know that was it. But I know by her getting mad at George, she was getting mad at both of us, because I was right there doing it with him eh? I bet George didn't like that, he was probably glad to see me go. Because he would get double the trouble. It was funny. I remember that a lot. So we would go to school, church every Sunday, shirt and tie and the whole bit on when I was that young with the shirt and tie on and we were on the way to church. George remembered Paul's demeanor with respect to church in this way. As far as going to church and all that, he fit right in. It was three hours long and that was Sunday and he never said much about it except that is what the family did and we did it together and we went. I have never heard Paul complain about anything, he was so happy. Paul's reflections indicate that these religious routines were definitely tied to the family wanting him to become a Mormon. Both Paul's and George's memories see that this was an underlying theme in all of the daily life of the family and of Paul's experience. However, neither Paul or George felt any bitterness toward this practice. George reflected on the place of Mormonism in his household in the following way. I know that part of the program was to convert these kids to be Mormons but really, our family was there to give him a good home and that was mostly it. There was never ever religion pushed on him at all. Or anybody, for that fact, in our family. When we got to be sixteen, seventeen years old and said we don't want to go, that was our own prerogative. They brought us up trying to show us that that was the best way to go and to be religious and everything like that. But  59 when we got older we decided we weren't, they never forced us to. They loved us no matter what we did. Paul's thoughts reflect this way of thinking as well. They were really trying to convert me. Oh yeah. If I kept going back and staying with them, I had visions of us going, and George and I, becoming Elders. As much as that is what they wanted, I know that Gina would have liked that had that happened, but it didn't. But I know for a fact as long as we lived under their roof we would have had to keep going to church and doing all the Mormon things. The Mormon way of life. So they were really good to me, that's for sure and they wanted me to be a Mormon. You know, to them, being a Mormon is a really important thing. In the end, my notes on the experiences of Paul and George informed me of many ways in which their memories interconnected. George's recollections of the period largely surrounded the family's attempt to make Paul feel like one of the family. Paul also reflected on this with a clear demonstration that he grew very close to the family. However this closeness was not enough to negate the fact that the entire experience was a very lonely and difficult one for Paul. The duel manner of the experience — of care and acceptance on the one hand and of loneliness and isolation on the other -- can be seen in the memories of both Paul and George pertaining to Paul leaving to go home in June of 1968. George remembered it in this way. / remember him leaving. It was hard because we had really grown to love him and mom and dad loved him very much. But there was always that thought that, in the back of our mind that, I wonder if he will ever come back? Because through that church foster program there was so many kids that came for a year and never came back. And there was so many kids that came and stayedfor eighteen, twenty years. But I remember him leaving and it was tough because we had to take him back to where he was leaving from. Paul didn't return. I think why he didn't return is clear from the following memory. And then I remember Gina, I'll never forget it, when it came time to come home, it was the same scenario. They drove us back to Edmonton, and then all the kids, it was a real fun day again, because all of the kids, everybody started showing up there. And then all of a sudden there were like fifty, fifty-five of us Massett kids all  60  there, and again, I started, we all just started thinking. And I still wasn't, I wasn't real happy, until the train actually started rolling. I still kept thinking maybe they were going to change their minds. But I remember Gina and Andy and the kids, standing there and giving me hugs and everything, and then before I went to get on the train, and I looked at Gina and she was crying, the mother. So it was tough on her, too. Paul definitely had a deep and profound connection with the family. Of this there is little doubt. However, that fear that someone was going to "change their minds " reflects what Paul really wanted - to be home. No matter what the family that he was fostered to did, they did not replace his real family. He wanted to be in the surroundings that were familiar and that he had grown up with - his family, his culture, his home.  GEORGE - T H E PLACE OF T H E EXPERIENCE For George, the experience was very important, yet it did not have traumatic effects on his life. As demonstrated by the memories concerning Paul's and George's year in Cardston together, when George reflected on the experience, he reflected entirely on the positive aspects. Unlike Paul, George saw this experience as having entirely positive consequences on his life. It is important to note here that the difference between George's reflections and Paul's reflections are crucial to this study. They demonstrate the importance of family, culture and general surroundings upon childhood memory and how that memory is placed within reflections on life experiences. When Paul didn't return the next year, George understood it to be due to Paul's grandfather passing away. As a result, George came to grips with Paul not coming back by seeing that his lack of return was unavoidable. The next year Paul didn't return again and so on. The end result was that George lost touch with Paul. George put it in this way.  61 We lost touch. He was always going to come back. He was going to come back the next year and stay with us. Except his grandfather, which he worshipped the ground that he walked on, passed away. And then I have never really asked the question, I believe his mother was an alcoholic. It just never worked out that he came back. I know that his older brother came back the next year, but Paul never came back and he just never got the opportunity to come back. We tried a few times and the last we heard he lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands, well then he'd gone to Prince Rupert and so we had no way of contacting him anything like that. And of course our family, working andfarming like that, we never had the opportunity to get in the car and go on a holiday and go to the coast and look. Throughout the years there was guys like we knew from Massett that came back and I always asked and they said, oh yeah, we see Paul all of the time when we go home and I'd say well say hi and have him write a letter. Well, when you are twelve, fourteen, sixteen, writing letters . . . what are you talking about? Like you don't want to do that. And then we just totally lost touch. He is the one that reunited us and I am sure that if I had ever got to Prince Rupert, I would have looked him up if I had known that was where he was. George expressed the fact that he thought about Paul a great deal. These thoughts indicate that Paul held a special place in his childhood memories. I thought about him a lot. Yes often. Wondered if he was still alive, what he was doing, if he had gone totally Native on us or whether, you know. Paul and George reunited three years ago. Much of both Paul's and George's interviews focused on this reunion. Both see the reunion as having a positive effect on their lives since it occurred. Paul initiated the reunion in 1998. George remembers it this way. Well, when he came back as an adult, that was something. I was working and was pouring a basement about three or four houses away from my house and one of the kids I had working for me said your phone is ringing so I went over to answer the phone and it was my wife who works at the hospital. Paul could remember that my mother worked there so he thought that is a good place to go to find out where we were. So he went to the hospital and my wife was at the front desk and he says do you know George XXXX and she says that he's my husband and he says "how can I get a hold of him? " She called me on the cell phone and she says there is a guy standing here, Paul XXXX, do you know him? I said, "by heavens do I ever!" And so I came over to the hospital and there he was. I was there in five seconds. I walked in and he hadn't changed one bit other than gaining a hundred pounds. And we reunited there with a big hug and "right on good to see you," stuff like that. Then I believe from that point he says, "where is your Mom and Dad? " And I says "well they 're at home right now. " So we  I  62 walked over there and my Dad had dealt with Natives all his life. And we walked in there and I said, well Dad used to make us clean cattle trucks all of the time and I think he'd give us a dollar a truck or a dollar for three trucks at a time or something, and we walked in there and I said "do you guys know this guy" and he said "nope, hell no. " Paul piped up and said "well you owe me twenty bucks from about thirty years ago " and he said "bullshit I have paid everybody I ever owed money to" and he is going on like this and I said, "you don't recognize him do you?" And he said "no. " I said "well this is Paul XXXX."  And he just jumped up  and they hugged each other and my mom was just ecstatic. She just couldn't believe it and they stayed for a couple of days. So we had a great big barbecue and that is where it started.  The way that the family received Paul is no surprise considering the way that the family felt about Paul as a child. The reunion helped George to make sense of the time he had spent with Paul and has resulted in a newly kindled friendship. Since the initial reunion, Paul has visited George and his family three times and George has visited Paul once. George had lost his younger brother, and he places the return of Paul within the concept of finding a long lost brother. Its like, you know, we lost one brother and we've gained the other one back and we are a whole total four of us again. He just kind of took over and replaced my younger brother, not that he replaced him, but he is like a brother to me for sure.  Other aspects of this extended reunion indicate that the feeling of family is within this new-found social space. Our kids and their kids, they just clicked like they were the best offriends forever. Paul's kids call my mom and dad Grampa, Gramma, stuff like that, it's Uncle George, Aunt Sandra.  Thus, the reunion, just as the experience of Paul coming to Cardston at eight years old, has been a very affirmative experience for George. Indeed, the following reflection for George shows how positive the entire experience has been for him. As far as effecting my life, I think it gave me a different caring outlook because as a young child to take somebody in like that, you remember that. Like I said to my wife, I always wanted to adopt a couple of kids after our kids were a little bit older because I was adopted and had the chance to have good parents and always wanted, if I could do that, to leave that impression on somebody else. As a good  63 parent. It gave me the input to be a caring lovable person for everyone, not just your kids or anything like that. We never had any other kids stay with us. No, Paul was the one and only. I think they would have the next couple of years but we always had that thought at the back of the mind, that Paul might just come back. And the reason he didn't come that second year was that his grandfather had died and we thought it was so tough because he always just talked so much about him and we'd always thought that the next year he would probably come because he'd be over it — and we never seen him again for thirty years.  In the end, the reflections of George can be seen as entirely positive. This, I think, suggests that, in so many ways, George was always within an environment that was, generally speaking, safe and happy. Unlike Paul, George would only experience the positive rewards of the situation. In fact, George's reflections demonstrate, although not formally expressed, an understanding of the difference between Paul's experience and his. George saw Paul's shyness, fear and loneliness. He also saw that Paul did, on many levels, appreciate the experience the family afforded him. Most of his memories were with respect to Paul and not himself per se. He focused on the aspects of Paul's life that he remembered and not the effects Paul, or the program itself, had had on his life. I would argue that, based on the tone of the interviews and his memories, the experience has had profound effects on George — those effects have been entirely positive. This experience largely demonstrates the fact that George was never placed within a social space that was unfamiliar to him. A l l of the childhood memories that George reflected on took place within a social space — his culture, his family - with which he was familiar.  SALLY - T H E PLACE OF T H E EXPERIENCE For Sally, the experience of the period between September 1967 and September 1968 was largely seen as negative. In her words, "the experience was an unfortunate one. " I was unable to gain a great deal of insight that would allow me to understand how  64  she placed the entire experience within her life. To me, this is telling in itself. I think it demonstrates the fact that she saw the experience with Ann as an unsuccessful one that benefited no one. Sally expressed this sentiment in this way: Well, you know, I don't think anyone saw the time that Ann stayed with us as good. She didn't want to be there and after a while, I have to say that I didn't want her there either. She was miserable and we were miserable and that was it, you know?  The miserable ten months was not without its effects on Sally. She has many guilty feelings surrounding the memories of the experience. We should have just arranged for her to go back home because I think that is where she wanted to be. I think about it and I feel guilty about the whole experience. I mean, as a child, I don't think Ifelt guilt, Ijust felt like it was her fault. But really, it wasn't and the fact is that it just wasn't anyone's fault. It was just not a good thing for us or her.  It is just really sad actually. It is just sad to  think about that she was obviously not happy the whole time. I don't know . . .  When I asked Sally about how she placed the experience within her life, she put it in the following way: Well, you know, when I started to think about it, getting ready for this interview, I tried to think about the feelings I have had over the years. I hadn't thought about it for a long time and actually, I don't think I had thought about it at all when I was a child after she left. But once I was an adult, yeah, I thought about it sometimes and the way I guess I think about it now is that it was just really too bad. I think that she probably looks on it as really negative too. So, you know, the whole thing was just too bad.  In the end, I think the memories demonstrate that the effects of the experience on Sally have been largely ones that have occurred as a result of reflection after the fact. She definitely feels a sense of guilt, but that guilt is largely placed on the situation itself and not the family. And how could it be any other way for Sally? As a young teenager, her experience, as demonstrated above, is remembered as one that involved Ann coming to the family and not really fitting in. I don't feel, based on the interviews with Sally, that  65 blame can be placed on the doorstep of Sally's family. They were doing what they felt was right, what they thought was in keeping with the purpose of the experience. Their assumptions were all that they knew and the turmoil that resulted was the product of the differences between what the family wanted and what Ann wanted. Sadly, it was Sally, and more profoundly Ann, who suffered the consequences of these disparate goals.  PAUL AND ANN - THE PLACE OF T H E EXPERIENCE  I found this section problematic because it does not entirely reflect the organization of all previous sections. Paul and Ann returned to Massett in June of 1968. They shared the same social space for some time afterward. However, when one considers the way that memory works, and the way that these two individuals reflected on their time in Alberta, it becomes apparent that they both shared, and did not share, the same social space which has served to organize the previous sections. Upon returning as children, Paul and Ann lived together with their family for a number of years. However, as I think will become apparent, the process of making sense of the experience itself was a very individual one. Although they shared the social space of the family, as children they did not share many of their thoughts and feelings about the time in Alberta. In fact, the sharing of their thoughts and experiences pertaining to the time in the program largely began after Paul's reunion with George. The significance of this is discussed below. The only temporal reference that Ann and Paul used with respect to the experience was regarding their arrival home. Paul expressed his happy feelings and the feelings of being back among familiar surroundings.  66 When I got back it was great in most ways. What we got when we got back from Alberta, there was almost like, they almost damn near had a concert band meet us. There was a big group ofpeople. And we got off the bus and everybody was there, hundreds, everybody was there to pick up their kids, and it was quite an event. I remember getting off the bus and there were so many people there, holy cow, and everybody was just grabbing onto their kids. Clearly this memory indicates that the feelings of separation were not limited to the children involved in the program. The reception that Paul remembers indicates that the parents were just as excited to see the children as the children were to see the parents. Paul then reflected on what it was like to be around his family again.  It was funny, but I came and had a younger brother who was just a wee little guy, and I remember taking him by the hand and walking around Massett with him. A nice sunny day when I was back in June some time. It was real nice out. I was just so happy to be in Massett, and I remember walking around Massett with my little kid brother, holding his hand walking around. I remember all my friends that I hadn't seen for the year, coming around and it was real neat, it was almost like I was a celebrity for a week or so. When you get home eh, everybody wanted to be around me and all that, my friends and my family, everyone was all real happy to see me. It was a real good feeling, I remember that, coming home. And being the center of attention at that age for a week is quite something. But I, even if I had to sleep on the floor when I got home, I didn't care. I was just so happy to be home. I remember, it sure made you appreciate home. That's for sure. Ann reflected on the experience of coming home in a more general way. She could not remember her actual arrival home, but her comments are still very telling.  I think why I can't really remember much about coming home is that there was some continuity between what happened before Alberta and what happened after. The Alberta thing is just a break in the better times. What is evident to me with respect to these memories is that the arrival back home was seen as an arrival back to what both Paul and Ann saw as normal and important. I would have thought that a discussion of the differences between Alberta and Massett would have been a topic that Ann and Paul would have shared. It was not however. Ann reflected on this.  67  My family, my brothers and me, we never, ever talked about it, not even as adults. Only recently for some reason, I guess because of Paul's experience, with connecting up with his family. No, none of us ever talked about it. Well, I think it was just too painful, and probably I think we all, because of the fact that the feeling was so strong that we know that it wasn't right. I think it was because it was so traumatic to us that we pretty much wanted to just forget it all, forget the whole experience, I know I did. We didn't talk about it with anyone else we knew that went either. No. I mean, it's almost like, the ones we know, I mean we know each other that were there. But nobody talks about it. And then, if I have, I have talked to a couple ofpeople, and it was always about the negative aspect of the experience.  Ann also reflected on why she, personally, did not talk about the experience. This came up as a result of her recollection of a conversation with a friend about the experience.  / try to think of positive things to say. I mean I try to, it's like thirty years later. What's interesting is only up to a year ago, it hasn 't even been a year, and I was walking with a friend, and one of my professors. And Vm not quite sure how this even came about, but I actually admitted that I was part of the program, 'cause you know she brought it up, and I thought, wow, I can't believe I admitted that. Because Pve never wanted to discuss it with anybody. Ijust feel like it's not something Ifeel proud of. I actually would feel, I don't know if it's shame, embarrassed. Yeah, it's like because there is nothing to be proud about. Ijust, I had never admitted it to anybody. To me, I see it as something that just wasn't right. It shouldn't have happened. You know, when I look at my own family life.  Paul remembers the lack of discussion about the experience between he and his mom as well. My mom didn't bring it up much. My mom was, that's where I get my emotions from is my mother, she was quite an emotional person, and I am. My mom didn't bring it up much at all. I think she, it was probably something she regretted all the rest of her days, after. There was no way she was ever going to let something like that happen again, I know that. That was her fill. I mean, out of ten kids, I don't know, you 'dprobably think she treated us all the same, but after that, I was one of her most precious kids. I think she was traumatized and quite hurt, and effected by what happened, by what she put me through. She regretted it for the rest of her life. I didn't have no bad feelings against my Mom about it.  68 Personal reflections by Paul and Ann are very telling with respect to how they place the entire experience within their lives. Ann reflected on the nature of her experience in both a personal and a general way. Yeah, when you compare the cultures, you know a family that was so proud, and then suddenly not interested and didn't even ask you no questions. So I mean, my experience, all three of us, it was very different. Paul, I mean, when I compare myself to Paul's, I think mine was probably the most bleak, because I really don't have anything positive to say. Ijust don't. Because I think even though everybody, I know, will all agree that definitely it shouldn't have happened, but I think a lot of them, well at least the ones that I have witnessed, it seems to me like they were, at least they were with families that treated them as part of their family, right? In different ways they were happy.  To Ann, then, her negative experience had to do with the family she was placed in and the entire functioning of the program itself. She saw the experience as negative because the family did not make her feel valued and because the program itself "shouldn't have happened. "  In fact, Ann reflected on the family's role within the program and wondered  why they had even chosen to take a foster child in. For them, though, the family I went to, I think it was just their way of saying "we 're going to be a role model in our church, we 're going to do the right thing", you know, do this and help save an Indian. Because I think that they did it and they didn't even like it.  Luckily, Ann is a very strong person. Her way of dealing with the obviously impossible situation was to look on it as a way in which she could grow as a person. / was eleven. I turned twelve that year. So I mean it wasn't a positive experience with them per se, but I wanted to make it a positive experience as far as myself as a person who wanted to grow in experiences and that. You know, as young as I was. Yeah, and I don't know what, I mean, the kind of skills that I acquired that early, I mean that's still me today, everything I do is the same and Ifeel the same and it's no different today, when I think back on it, that's exactly how Ifelt way back then. So, it is amazing. But I was really a lot more mature than eleven or twelve year olds. But, I mean, it's not unusual.  69 I found this statement both impressive and telling. A n n was able to place the experience i n a way that she sees as improving personal strength. She struck me as an amazingly powerful person. A n n is studying anthropology at university and her discussions o f this made me understand that she is proud o f who she is and where she is from. This personal strength made me think o f one thing — what i f she had not been so strong and confident? I w i l l leave the reader to consider this thought.  Paul's feelings about the experience have changed over time. Paul was angry about the entire experience initially. These angry feelings intensified when Paul's children reached an age similar to the age he was when he went to Alberta.  So that's where, for years after that, I had nothing but hard feelings about the whole thing, eh. When we got, there was one time, I'll give you an example: one time I was here, carving, or no I wasn't even carving, I was watching hockey or something, I was having a couple of beer upstairs watching the hockey game, and I was in an ornery mood, and the doorbell rang, and the kids come, "Dad, it's for you", and I go to the door, and there's two Mormons standing there in their suits, the same way they used to do when I was a kid eh? So I go, "I want to talk to you guys. Come on inside. " I called them in. I wanted to tell them, and I had my oldest son, he was eight at the time, and I was saying, "Look at this, " I said, "if you had a boy this age right now, would you let total strangers just take him for one year and you can't see him, just take him away? That's what you guys did to me. " There were so many negative feelings and thoughts about that whole thing. And then it really changed after I went back and met the family again. Because it wasn't their fault, you know, I don't think. But myself all I remember, that's the only part that hurts me and bothers me about the memories of that, is all the crying I did. And then I think back to my age, and that has a world of reason why Ifelt that way. And then it even hit home more so after I had my own kids, and then they turned eight. I've got three kids, seventeen, thirteen and seven now. And when the first, my oldest daughter, when she turned eight, I remember on that day saying to my wife, "Imagine that, when I was this age I was in Alberta, " andfeeling real blue about it. And then the same thing again when my oldest son turned eight. I went through the same emotion.  70  Paul couldn't imagine his children leaving and experiencing the same things he had experienced. However these feelings changed a great deal once Paul reunited with his foster family in Cardston. The way I thought about it, how angry Ifelt, changed when I went back to Cardston, I was quite shocked when I went back, at how small it was. But it seemed big to me, you know, just because of the paved roads andjust the different layout. There was downtown, and it was funny when we were there, Cardston is actually quite small. I was shocked at how small it was when I went back. Gina, my foster mom, told me about when they went on an Alaskan cruise and they went right by the Queen Charlottes, and they were out on deck wondering what I was up to. It was funny, we never kept in contact or anything, but we were always thinking about each other. She said she never, ever stopped thinking about me. And I always wanted to go back there, always, I always told my wife, some day I'm going back to Cardston. And then she knew it was something that I had to do. And it was, so I did. I didn't know what to expect. I didn't phone anybody or anything. I didn't tell anybody we were coming, we just did it. And they could have moved away, it had been like 30 years since I'd been there, they could have all been gone and moved away or whatever, I mean I might have gone there and found nobody. So Ijust went there without telling them....  What he found has largely been discussed through George's memory of the reunion. Paul and George both remember the reunion and its effects in similar ways. The feeling that it was like a family reunion was expressed by Paul. So as soon as we arrived, the family welcomed us. They went out and got steaks and corn on the cob, that famous Taber corn, it was great, we had a great dinner. It was unreal. It was a real good reunion. Our kids, and their kids got along great, and Gina and Andy. My wife's heart just sinks, we have gone back twice since, and they are standing on the lawn waving goodbye to us, and she just feels so sorry for Andy, the old man, when we are leaving, because you can just see he doesn't want us to go eh? And it's a real good feeling. They really welcomed us with open arms. And it's almost like having another set ofparents, to me it really is. So it turned out for the better, after all these years, as negative as my feelings were towards the whole ordeal. The reunion helped to clarify for Paul his feelings about the entire experience. However, his feelings that it was an "ordeal" as he expressed above are still a fair expression of how he places the entire experience.  71 There are emotions, that roller coaster ride that I go on when I think about that trip. And I was, well Ijust wanted to go back there and see what the heck Cardston was all about and what this family was like. And it really changed my feelings towards them, it hasn't really changed my feelings about the whole trip. I mean, they are good people. George, the boy, George is a good friend of mine. The mother and father are, they are really happy that I introduced my family to them and we are a part of their family, and so we got real good friends in Cardston now. And they really love our little kids. We had them there last summer, playing in their house, running around, and they treat us like family. So it's, I guess if I was ever mad at them, that trip back erased it all, you know, and I understand now it totally wasn't their fault. But I think eight years old is a little young to be doing something to kids like that, you know.  Clearly, then, the reunion with the family has allowed Paul to express his gratitude for all of the things that they did to try and make it a bearable experience. The place of the program, however, still lies at the heart of his feelings about the trip. This was expressed when Paul discussed the place of the family within the program itself. I think the family was caught up with what the Mormon Church wanted to do. Yeah. I'm not too sure. You know, I think the, the Mormon Church tried to grow in population, any which way or means they could, and I bet you they, if you were to really find out from behind the scenes, that was probably one of their ways, thinking they could do it. Like telling them, "If we all hop out and go out worldwide and bring people here, and would you be willing to let them stay in your home to become a member of pur church? " I always think about that - why did they do it? I was angry. I was mad at them for years for what they did to me. They took me when I was eight years old. So I don't know. On the one hand I feel I want to give somebody heck about it, and then on the other hand if I ever did give anybody heck, I don't want the my foster family to hear about it, you know? Because today we are such good friends with them and I am not mad at them at all. Just the Mormons. It's just the thing that happened to me when I was eight years old. That's all I'm mad about. And I'm not mad at anybody in particular about it I don't think. When I was very young, I always spoke down on them, because of that issue. Yeah. More so, after we had our own kids though, because like I was saying, nobody would ever take my son away from me at eight and do that to him. I would never let that happen.  Paul clearly sees the family as caught up in the program itself. His anger is directed at the Mormon Church because he sees the program as the place to lay fault. His memories  72 and the memories of George indicate that the family goal was to give Paul a good home and to help him feel accepted. Ann speaks about the program and the actions of the family in terms of assimilation. Well, I mean, aside from just the loneliness, I guess that's part of it? But you know, you 're in a totally different environment and different culture, and I think in my Haida culture, having our own foods and things like that, and then you go to a place that is so foreign, you know from the west coast to the plains, and never having any of our food from the coast. So all of that, you know, and not having them even question our family or our life or who I was really.  'Cause I think it's  one thing to go away, but I mean as long as you have something, it's almost like going to a foreign environment, everything is so foreign, and that was done deliberately. I mean, for example, when you think about somebody that is raising a child to learn and to teach them the culture. That kind of thing is good, whereas Ifeel like what happened to us was like being in prison or something.  The assimilative aspects of the program itself were clearly felt by Ann. Indeed she compared the program to residential school. Well, to me, I find I am able to relate a lot to the whole residential school experience. To me, over the years of studying, especially in anthropology, and whatnot, you know, actually studying it, to me it was exactly the same experience. Being forced to go to a school. Not being allowed to practice any part of your culture. And then their experience of such loneliness andfear.  You know, when  you are not allowed to speak your language or when you 're beaten and all that, you know what is that going to do to your soul? And it's just a real terrible thing. It's like a real crime. When you imagine trying to do that to somebody else's cultures, and yet it was allowed to happen to us. I mean, you know, the residential school. And to me, in a different way, in that year. That's how I relate to it.  Both Paul and Ann have clearly reflected on the assimilative nature of the program itself. When reflecting on the success of the goals that they perceived the programs to have, they answered in both personal and general terms. Paul said "As far as effects that the Mormons had on me, none really"  and his experience shows that as he  grew older, he was able to assert his agency to a larger degree with respect to his  73 involvement with the Mormon Church itself. With respect to the place of the Mormon Church in his personal life he said: /just, I don't know. Maybe it was something in the back of my mind, that I despised the Mormons or something and I didn't realize. And the older I got and I started being able to make my own decisions and speak my mind and what not.  Paul reflected on the effects of the experience of the Mormon program on his home community as well. I think a lot of people were really misinformed, or they didn't know. It took a lot of people by surprise, when reality set in and the kid was actually gone. I think a lot of people were probably going, what the heck am I doing? And then it was too late. There was no turning back, so they went through with it, I guess. I don't know. But I think it seemed, 'cause I know, well after I went through it, there was no way I would volunteer to do that again, and then there was no way my mom was going to, my mom wouldn't even let them come in the door for a while after that, the Mormons when they came around the house. She didn't want them even talking to us. It almost worked to the point where, I'm meaning some kids stayed there for a long time. And Ifigured, holy, they've recruited these guys. But no, now they 're back. They quit. I thought they got them, the Mormons got them, but they didn't. I don't know why they came back. There is this one guy who went to Cardston for twelve or fourteen years or something like that. That's quite a long time, and then he just quit. Like he's got to have more friends there than he does in Massett. You know, you would think. Because he was in Cardston.  He's back  home in Massett now for probably the last seven or eight years now, but he 'd been in Cardston for like twelve or fourteen years straight, so I'm thinking, I wonder what the heck he did? I don't know.  Ann believes the programs' goal of conversion was unsuccessful as well. For the most part I am not aware of any Haida Mormons that came from the Alberta program.  So it didn't work. No, it was definitely a failure.  A final comment of Paul's creates a good summary about the experiences of both himself and Ann. It's unreal. I don't know how the heck the Mormons ended up in Massett, I mean out of all places. I don't understand that. They want your life I guess, but it didn't work for them. The Mormons, what they did in Massett, it didn't work. I'm sure it might have changed a couple, a few lives, but that's about it. That's not what they  74 expected out of it I don't think. But there are kids that were sent away. I don't know any names offhand, but there are kids that were in abusive homes when they were off in Alberta.  I was just lucky I guess.  There were several consistencies in the Interviews of Paul and Ann. Neither of them felt ready to discuss the experience after returning to Massett. For Ann it appears that this was due to feelings of guilt and shame and from the desire to forget the whole experience. Paul found the experience confusing and that confusion manifested itself in anger. It was not until he reunited with his family that he was able to understand where he wanted to place that anger - on the Mormon Church in general and on the program specifically. Both Ann and Paul saw the profound influence that the specific families had on the situation. However, whether looking at the feelings of Ann or Paul, it becomes clear that they both feel the program was aimed at creating Mormons out of the participants. The attempts of the program to create this assimilation process is suggested by both Paul's and Ann's thoughts about the success of the program. They both feel it failed because it did not create Mormons and it did not result in the abandonment of the culture and values of the people who participated.  75  SECTION FOUR: AN ANALYSIS OF T H E DISCOURSE OF T H E EXPERIENCE  INTRODUCTION This section o f the thesis involves me looking at the stories and analyzing the discourse o f the experience o f the participants as a whole. I think it is important to first discuss the implications o f the format I have chosen to use in this section o f the thesis and to make some general comments on the how much each person shared with me and on the type o f stories they shared, before moving on to my analysis o f it. I decided on a format that would separate the stories o f the participants and my analysis o f the experience because I wanted to be sure that the reader could clearly separate my thoughts and interpretations from the story o f the participants themselves. Y o u may have noticed that the previous sections, which told the stories o f A n n , Paul, Sally and George, focused on telling the story through the words o f the participants as opposed to my words. Wherever possible, I tried to focus the section on the participants' words. I did editorialize, with the permission o f my participants, in order to make the story more clear to the reader, to try to give the reader a good idea o f what the various participants remembered about the experience, and to give the reader an understanding o f the tone that was apparent to me during the interviews. Obviously A n n and Sally were interviewed separately, as were George and Paul, but the stories were told together by me because the experience was a shared one and participants who shared experiences remembered them, for the most part, in a similar way. A s a result, I think section three demonstrates a good understanding o f the experience as a whole with respect to the participants.  76 This section is not about the understanding my participants had of the experience however; it is about the understanding that I have about their experience. What follows are the interpretations I have gleaned from the memories and a discussion of the overall meaning I made from their experience. This is an important point for me because I want to be sure that the reader understands that I am moving away from the interpretations the participants have had and into interpretations that I claim as solely my own. The evidence I will use for the various arguments I will make stems from the stories gained from the participants in this study. This does not mean that the participants necessarily share the interpretation of this evidence. It will become clear that the ways that I interpreted the discourse of the experience are very much different, at times, to the ways that the participants interpreted them. Some may say that I am "selling out the story" and appropriating it for my own means. I have had these thoughts myself. In fact, I would agree with this to a certain extent. But I have been caught between two motivations for this thesis. My first desire is to tell the story in the participants' words. My other desire is to analyze the discourses within their experience that are found in the meanings that the subjects have created as they placed the experience within their lives. I hope this analysis will help open to scrutiny otherwise hidden power centers and assumptions within the experience and that it will help others (and myself for that matter) understand the way in which these experiences can inform past, present and future practices of society within the discourse of memory, family, power and resistance. As a result, I have decided on this format. It is not perfect by any means. This imperfection demonstrates the conflicting motivations of the thesis itself.  77 GENERAL COMMENTS ON T H E STORIES When reflecting on the memories and stories, I found that two important aspects to consider were their general richness and their general focus. The first characteristic that I noticed about the stories was that they largely surrounded the experience of Ann and Paul and did not reflect the variety of experiences that I had thought they would. From the outset, what I wished to do was to have the participants discuss their lives in general and to relate the experience of being involved in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program to their lives. What became clear was that my participants automatically focused on the experience of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program and made only brief and general comments on their lives before the experience. This is most significant in three areas of the interviews: all participants' recollections of life before the experience (What was life like for you growing up? What do you remember most about growing up?), Sally and George's recollections of the period between September 1967 and June of 1968 (What do you remember about the period between September - June of 1967-1968?) and Sally and George's reflections about the entire experience within their lives (After reflecting on the experience, what thoughts do you have about it (feelings, emotions, etc)?). I think that the lack of richness in these areas can be explained through the concept of negotiation (Cruikshank, 1997) discussed in the literature review. A l l participants were clearly aware that the interview was regarding the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program and their experience within it. I believe the result of this understanding led them to focus on the experience itself and not other parts of their lives that they did not associate with that experience. I could have directed the interviews in a much more obvious and controlling way with the result being  78  that I would have had much better idea of what life was like for these participants before the period in question. However, I decided to let them take the interview where they wanted to for one specific reason. I judged that the most important purpose of this study was to find out where they placed it within their lives and if I skewed the stories by means of directing them to reflect more purposefully about their lives before the experience, I feared that they would conclude that my motives were to compare and contrast their lives before and after the experience. I let them guide themselves because I did not want the stories to reflect a false connection (or false disconnection) between their lives before and after the experience which may have resulted from my questioning and not the thoughts and understandings of the participants themselves. Thus, I let my subjects negotiate the interview's focus for themselves. I let them decide what they felt was important to tell. Their stories reflect this. The result of this has been a pool of stories that are not terribly extensive in some areas. However, I think the richness in other areas is due to my avoidance with respect to guiding them. I let them focus on what they associated the experience with. I also believe that the conclusions that I will draw from the stories are more reliable because they are drawn more from the thought patterns of the participant's themselves and drawn less from the organization of my own questions. In a sense then, I let them tell me what was important and tried to avoid me telling them what was important. A second aspect of the memories that is important to discuss is regarding the focus the participants had. Ann and Paul focused, by and large, on their personal experience in Alberta and what they thought of the entire experience. George and Sally, in contrast, did not focus on themselves. They focused on Paul and Ann respectively. I  79 believe that this is significant because it reflects what the participants defined as the purpose of the study. The subjects were told that the study was about their experiences within the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. However, the memories they shared demonstrate that they interpreted this to mean that the study was focused on the experience of Paul and Ann. George and Sally believed that they were not really part of the program. They were not enrolled, they were not listed as participants and they were not who the goals of the program were designed for. The discussions I had with them reflect this understanding. The interviews, then, reflect a negotiated focus for the participants. A l l participants chose to focus on Paul and Ann. As a result, all of the analysis below largely surrounds Ann and Paul, which was not the original goal of the study. This reflects the way in which the study is largely emergent in nature. The participants themselves, to a large extent, decided on the focus of the study. A third aspect of the stories, which is connected to both of the above points, is important to consider as well. The sheer volume of stories gained from Paul and Ann was considerably larger than from George and Sally. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this due to the fact that I interviewed George and Sally by telephone. It may very well have been the lack of face-to-face contact that led to the difference in how much the participants were willing to share. However, the extent to which Paul and Ann remember specific memories may reflect a different interpretation. Ann and Paul remembered many more specific details about the time that they spent in Alberta, yet their reflections regarding their lives before the experience were more general and thus, similar to those of George and Sally with respect to detail. This is, I believe, due to the fact that the experience was much more significant, and its effects were more profound, for Paul and  80  Ann. This is not to discount the experiences of Sally or George. But the fact is that the experience of being in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program was a traumatic one for Paul and Ann and it involved a lifelong disruption. The result, I believe, is that their memories are more profound than are those of Sally and George. In the end, then, I felt that a general discussion of the stories and memories discussed was necessary because it is important for the reader to understand how they will be used, how they were gathered, and the gaps that are apparent, before a careful look at the discourse of the experience can be useful. The method and meaning created by the participants and the researcher led to the stories that were shared. The richness of the stories in some areas and the lack of richness in others is, I think, reflective of the experiences the participants had regarding the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. When all of the intricacies of the stories are considered, almost all of them surrounded the experiences of Paul and Ann. This has resulted in the discussion below that largely centres around the experiences of Paul and Ann and the meaning I have made of those experiences.  MEMORY  The role of memory is important to consider within the stories as well. I chose not to interview people who were adults at the time of the program because I was most interested in limiting my study to the experience of children. The lived experiences of children have not received enough attention in social history. As well, I think that age is an important aspect of historical experience because children so often have very little agency afforded to them while growing up. This thesis attempts to address these gaps by  81 paying attention to what children experienced, what they remember about that experience, and how, as adults, they make sense of that experience. I believe that the stories gained from the interviews reflect several important aspects of the use of memory (or personal stories) for historical inquiry. One aspect of memory that the study demonstrates is that the process of remembering the experience, and speaking about it, can affect the way a memory unfolds. The reunion between Paul and George resulted in a change in memories for Paul. Paul described being "angry" about the whole experience prior to the reunion. The anger was not directed in any clear way. He didn't know where he should place the blame. This anger intensified as his own children grew to an age similar to his own when he went to Alberta. Once the reunion occurred, however, Paul said, "the way I thought about it, how angry Ifelt, changed when I went back to Cardston. "  This demonstrates that memory is  not a static entity. It changes as our experiences change. The dialogue between Paul and his foster family resulted in a clearer place for Paul to direct the anger he had surrounding the experience and, as Paul said, "erased any anger " he might have felt toward the family itself. It allowed him to relive the positive experiences he had, in spite of continuing to reflect on the negative aspects of the "whole ordeal. " Thus, for Paul, memories changed ~ and with them so too did personal interpretations of experience. In contrast, Ann described "intentionally blocking out the little things. " This may be regarded as the antithesis of the dialogue that occurred between Paul and George. The effects of trying to block out the little things are impossible for me to gauge. I do know that Ann remembered a great deal once she started to discuss the experience which was, in itself, a form of dialogue.  82  A second intricacy of memory that this study demonstrated to me had to do with aspects of accuracy. Several times I noticed that all of the participants I interviewed disagreed about what the "facts" were. For example, none of the participants agreed on which city Ann and Paul had been picked up from. Ann remembered it as Lethbridge, Paul as Calgary, George as Edmonton and Sally didn't remember picking up anyone at all - she thought "no, they just all came separately on the Greyhound I think, no they  didn't travel together. " Paul said that he didn't remember the names of any of his friends, but George distinctly remembered Paul coming back to Cardston as an adult and wanting to see his old friends whom he could remember the first names of. I found this interesting because it brings up questions of accuracy. Can memory be accurate? Indeed, the question may be this - is memory, with its obvious fallibility, a valid source for historical inquiry? Based on this study, I would argue that it is. As all sources for historical inquiry, memory is biased and involves perception. There is no true depiction of what was; there is really only what was perceived. Thus, memories, as with any historical source, must be weighed, confirmed and considered against other sources. As much as I could, I have done this by comparing the memories of individuals who occupied the same social space at the time of the memory. The incongruence between individuals was evident only with respect to small specific details (as in the example above). The stories that were corroborated by the participants of the study were largely general routines and simply ways in which the people involved in the experience reacted to each other. Ann said that the experience was "traumatic, " that she was "defiant" and that, although she did participate in the family routines of chores and church, she "didn't do it happily. " Sally corroborated these memories when she said Ann was "defiant" and  83 that "you give up pretty quickly when someone refuses to take part, right? " Paul said that his foster family always "tried to make me feel better" and that the overall feelings that characterized the experience were "being scared" and "being lonely." George remembers it in a very similar way. He said that Paul was "one scared little guy" and that "he was kind of shy at first but we just treated him like one of us. " In the end, most of the stories corroborate on a general level. Sutherland (1997) describes the most accurate memories in terms of what he calls scripts.  Scripts are recurrent events that children have in their lives (such as daily chores  or daily activities on the playground) that children do not specifically remember, but, rather, are a means that our memory uses to "organize those events and activities in our lives that are very similar to each other" (p. 9). Thus, scripts are general ways of life for children - activities that people remember doing in general, but which are not specifically recalled. Sutherland argues that these scripts are common to children and, therefore, are a means of understanding childhood regardless of race, religion or class. He calls this the "culture of childhood" in that the scripts that are remembered are largely the recurrent events created while learning the "unwritten rules that regulated social behaviour" (p. 233). The stories of this study address Sutherland's arguments in some new and interesting ways regarding scripts and the culture of childhood. I had to ask myself, is thinking in terms of scripts the most profitable way of understanding these experiences? When I compared the experiences of Paul and Ann in terms of routines, many things that Sutherland would call scripts were similar in Alberta and Massett. They went to school every day, they went to church and they played the same games on the playground. Yet,  84  what the participants remembered most within these similar scripts was the difference they felt within the routine. School serves as a good example. Schooling experiences in Massett and schooling experiences in Alberta were not really all that different. Yet, even within a discussion of schooling both Paul and Ann identified what they found to be different. Paul said "I was the only Native kid in class " and Ann remembered an incident in which her homeroom teacher compared her to other First Nations students and asked them "why can 'tyou be like Ann? " Interestingly, then, even when Ann and Paul reflected on routines that were very similar to ones that they would have encountered at home, they focused on the difference within the routines. I think this comments on the concept of the culture of childhood that Sutherland (1997) considers. As mentioned above, Sutherland argues that an understanding of childhood is gained by an understanding of these scripts and the culture that they create. The experience of Paul and Ann demonstrated to me that, although many children in Canada share similar routines that result in similar experiences within their childhood, these similarities do not mean that a child can be transplanted from one living situation to another without tremendous upheaval. This is an obvious point which few people would take issue with. However, when I considered the concept of scripts within this notion, I found using scripts as a framework was problematic. The scripts which Paul and Sally encountered were not the most informative part of the experience. It was the differences (regarding scripts and specific events) that they remembered. This is a crucial point when regarding childhood memory because it highlights the important aspect of difference within memory. The actions of Ann indicate that she very much understood as a child that what was happening to her, as she put it, "wasn't right. "  85 The fact that Paul found himself wondering where Massett was indicates he wondered where the place, which symbolized all that he knew as familiar, was. Throughout the memories discussed by Paul and Ann the one constant is the fact that they remembered differences almost exclusively. I think that it is clear that children, when placed outside of the realm of their normal experience can, and do, notice differences and assess their place within their surroundings. These differences, encoded as memories, can be crucial to the understanding of childhood history because it is what these differences are different understandings of culture, race, gender, et cetera — that informs us of the discourse of the experience. Thus, the differences the children noticed - remembered as scripts and as specific incidences - were the key to understanding their perceptions of the experience. Thus, the culture of childhood did not seem like a workable theoretical framework in this case. By realizing that the stories that Ann and Paul shared were largely focused on difference, the routines (the scripts) became a less central focus and the power relationships within the routines became the foremost focus. Clearly, then, I realized that memory is a much more intricate aspect of the study than I had originally assessed. It is not unchanging and it is affected, as all other forms of data are, by perception. It serves, however, as a means to gain rich information and informed me of the differences that the children who experienced the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program found within their experience.  FAMILY If differences were what Paul and Ann remembered, I had to consider general themes regarding what they found different. The foremost concept participants used to  86  describe the differences was that of family. It is important to consider the concept of family when considering the lived experiences of Paul and Ann because the family is where most social identities are learned. I would argue that movement from one family to another for both Paul and Ann resulted in them noticing differences between the social identities they had learned within their family in Massett and those of their foster families in Alberta. Social identities are learned and internalized in the family setting and beliefs about identity regarding conceptions of race, gender, or class are beliefs largely created within a family setting (Comacchio, 2000). By reflecting on the discourse created around the concepts of race, gender or class, the consideration of the role of the family is of paramount importance. The beliefs of the family are the foundations of the beliefs of the child. The memories of Ann and Paul point to the central importance that family had within their experience. Family is the location which defined relationships, it is the location which created happiness or unhappiness, it is the location which created a clash or correspondence between concepts of the self, and it is the location which made the experience bearable or impossible. Family is, then, a key organizer for the understanding of the experience itself and it is a key way that I used to understand how Paul, Ann, George and Sally were affected by a change in their social space ~ their families — which was associated with social identities. That the experiences of these individuals regarding the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program is one in which the family was the crucial means of defining social space is clear. I have discussed this notion already in regards to the organization of the stories, but it is important to mention that the story of Paul and Ann was one that largely surrounded their moving from one family to another. Ann reflected, "the loneliness,  87  yeah, I don't think you can get away from that" and Paul explained that "the most negative part you are going to find out about it is loneliness. " They largely defined their loneliness in terms of separation from their families. Paul ran to his room crying every time his mother called and Ann remembered how she felt when she said, "after coming from my culture, with my grandparents, you know a person with a lot of pride, and then just feeling really degraded. " Both reflected on how they missed their family in Massett. In fact both reflected on the fact that what they conceived as family went beyond the realm of the household and applied to their extended family. Paul reflected on this when he said "the whole village was my family. " Leaving their families is one negative aspect of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program experience that could not be avoided no matter what the experience was like with the receiving foster family for the participant. But what the participants encountered once they joined their new foster family was a variable for Ann and Paul. Ann said that that for some "a? least they were with families that treated them as part of their family right? " and Paul continually referred to how good his foster family was to him. Thus, the degree to which Paul and Ann differed in the way that they placed the experience of being in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program has a great deal to do with the experience they had with the foster family. The clash that occurred between Ann and her family was largely due to the difference between who Ann defined herself as and what the family defined itself as. For Paul, the differences in expectations were not significant enough to create the amount of conflict that Ann encountered. This study, then, is the study of an experience that occurred within the life course of several families. Any comments on these experiences  88 are ones which must be seen within the context of the overarching organization of the social, space within the family. The notions of race, gender, religion and resistance will be discussed when considering the experience of Ann and Paul. However, for Ann and Paul, all of these notions occurred within the organization of the family. The family defined what was normal and right at all times and it was the experience of being able to identify with these definitions, or finding these definitions offensive, which created the conditions of the experiences themselves. What this clash or correspondence was based on has a great deal to do with discourses of race, gender and religion. These notions were defined within the families which Paul and Ann left and within the ones that they were fostered to. Once I gained an understanding about how memory worked in the case of my participants and how that memory largely pertained to the differences the participants had remembered within the social space of the family, I decided to take a closer look at what Ann and Paul remembered specifically as different. As discussed above, the stories gained from George and Sally largely concerns the place of Paul and Ann. Thus, it is largely used as a means of supplementing the memories of Paul and Ann. The experience of Paul and Ann largely centers on what they saw as different. What they saw as different largely relates to what they perceived as different within their new foster family setting. Thus, the discussion below, although obviously referring to notions of race, gender and religion within the experience of Ann and Paul, surrounds the memories of childhood which do not necessarily reflect any understanding of these categories.  89 POWER AND SELF-DETERMINATION: T H E DISCOURSES OF RACE, GENDER, RELIGION AND RESISTANCE  The experience of Paul and Ann is important to discuss with reference to power and culture. This story is characterized by relations between cultures which quickly turned into relationships of power. Both Paul and Ann went to a family which was not of their culture. The family controlled the activities, the movements and the values of the household. Thus, the family was the centre of power. Certainly the mother and father of the family held the most power. However, I consider the family as a whole in this instance because the children's values, by and large, reflected the parents' values. George remembered that "we were always a close knit'family" and that his parents had "brought us up trying to show us that that was the best way to go and to be religious and everything like that. "  Sally remembered that her parents were "strict, and we really  always listened because we knew they were right and that was what we were supposed to  do." As a result of the interviews, I have concluded that there was very little difference between values within the families of Sally or George. I think it is legitimate to consider the concept of family within the power relationship. Within this power relationship, the family has the ability to value or de-value knowledge. Knowledge, such as cultural knowledge or memories of the family, is prioritized by those in power. This prioritizing involves a process of distinction in which those who hold privileged social positions have the symbolic power to decide what is valuable (Flecha, 1999). The foster family, in this instance, is the key to this process of distinction because they were the ones who decided what to value with respect to the knowledge that Ann and Paul possessed. It is a useful exercise to consider their  90  experiences in this way because what Paul and Ann saw as different were largely instances where they noticed more prioritization given to knowledge that they had not considered valuable or less prioritization given to knowledge they considered valuable. Indeed, this process of distinction is linked to the process of colonization when one considers culture within the process. Colonization is a relationship that leaves one side dependent on the other side to define the world. Any self-determination by Ann or Paul, if acceptance into the family was going to occur, was going to be on the terms of the foster family itself. If the family did not give Paul's or Ann's personal knowledge distinction, and if Paul or Ann continued to value the knowledge (or at the very least privately continue to hold that knowledge as valuable), nothing but trauma could possibly occur. As a result then, the family must be seen as the key actor in the theatre of power relationships within the experience. The concept of negotiation is also a useful tool with respect to power relationships in the family. When personal knowledge is considered distinct and valuable within the social space of the family there is no need to negotiate. However, when it is not valued, the process of negotiation occurs. The process is not an equal one, since the family alone has the power to prioritize knowledge. Yet, the reaction by those without power is negotiated. They must either accept the new value judgments or reject them. The act of acceptance or rejection carries with it consequences and, in the case of Ann and Paul, these consequences evolved into acceptance within the family or rejection from it. Under the frameworks of the power relationships and negotiation, then, it is possible to consider the experience of Paul and Ann more specifically.  91 In the case of Paul, power relationships were less pronounced because the family largely demonstrated to him that his knowledge was distinguished as valuable. Paul remembers that his "Mom would write letters and Gina would read them " and George remembers Paul always "talking highly of his family, especially his grandfather." Paul remembers talking to George "about home and what we used to do for fun back in Massett. "  George referred to this too when he said that they would "sit there at night and  talk and ask him lots of questions about how many brothers you got and stuff like that. "  The general tone of both interviews indicated that the foster family accepted and valued Paul's personal knowledge. This made the time he spent with the family bearable. I think that it is important to note that the family's goal of treating Paul the same, or as George put it " I think maybe that it was my whole family's upbringing and nature that we treated everyone equal. In my eyes there is no Indians"  is an act of colonization  in itself. Treating everyone the same in the context of one's own dominant culture means that you are judging sameness on the terms of that culture. However, George's stories suggest that, in fact, the family did not treat Paul as the same in this sense. They valued the differences that Paul brought with him regarding who he was — his personal history — and in fact treated him differently. They spoke about those differences and demonstrated that they allowed this knowledge to be valuable. Paul's feelings of otherness were largely found outside of the family, "going to a class and it's all white kids," and "not really understanding what to do in church."  But within the family, the otherness was not one  which had a negative value placed on it. This is not to say that Paul did not perceive differences in what was distinguished as valuable. Paul noted many differences that made him feel like it was a "culture  92 shock."  Church, changing clothes after school, early to bed/early to rise routines ~ all  were foreign to him and not what his own family had considered valuable. Paul also remembers the "lack of communication we had with my family at home. " To Paul, these were tremendous difficulties. Yet, here the process of negotiation is worthy of consideration. These differences were not perceived as an assault on Paul's ability to self-determine. He definitely saw the differences that set him apart from the family, yet he perceived the differences as not worthy of open resistance. Things were different. Different knowledge was valued and different practices were emphasized as valuable. Yet, most importantly, Paul was able to negotiate a place within the household due the family's willingness to allow him to self determine to an extent that Paul found acceptable. The case of Ann is much more traumatic when one considers the power relationships and the way in which power was used and understood. The key experiences that informed me of what knowledge was distinguished as valuable were the foster family's refusal to discuss her personal history, Ann's lack of communication with her own family members, and the behavioural demands that the foster family put on her. Ann's foster family's refusal to discuss her personal history was problematic to Ann. She stated that "they certainly never ever talked to me about my family, or who was my family."  Sally remembered this as well. She said, "I remember that we weren't  supposed to talk about her family or home or anything. I think it was so she didn't feel homesick." Ann's  inability to speak of her family had real effects on her experience. Her  family equated to her personal history and the fact that this knowledge was off limits was seen by Ann as a value judgment. She remembered that the only contact she had with her  93 family resulted in her feeling that her foster family "looked ashamed or something. " Clearly, the knowledge that Ann had was not distinguished as valuable. Haig-Brown (1988) argues that, during the residential school experience, when a culture was being attacked in an effort to dominate it or replace it with an alternative way of life, an effective tactic included lack of acknowledgement of that culture's history. I see Ann's experience as being a microcosm of the residential school experience in this case. Ann's foster family distinguished her personal history as being invalid and, in doing so, demonstrated to Ann that they felt her personal history lacked value. This was further evidenced by the fact that the foster family got rid of, as Ann put it "everything I owned, and the suitcase, they just got rid of it."  Both of these acts must be understood in regards  to the power relationship that existed. The family's decision not to acknowledge Ann's personal history — her familial history and her material history via her possessions — was interpreted by Ann as a demonstration that they did not value who she was. Ann's lack of contact with her parents and siblings is also demonstrative of the value the family placed on her personal history. Any contact with her family would have been a means of reminding her of who she was and who her family was (Haig-Brown, 1988). In the maintenance of a sense of self-definition for Ann, being in contact with her family was an integral part of being in contact with everything she knew. The limiting of this contact with her family can be seen as a means of limiting the amount Ann was able to remind herself about who she was. Ann clearly expressed this when she said "Ifelt like they didn't like me being Native. "  To Ann then, there was a clear connection between  what was valued and race. She felt everything that was not valued within her personal  94  history had to do with them not valuing her for who she was as a member of the Haida Nation and as a First Nations person. The power relationship is not only a relationship where knowledge is demonstrated as valuable through a process of distinction. Which knowledge is valued is also demonstrated by the acts that those in power demand of those not in power. Behaviour is a symbol of knowledge because through our acts we demonstrate what we value. People's actions inform us about the ways in which they conceive notions of race, gender and religion. When it came to Ann remembering things that her family valued as behaviours, she did not focus on race, gender or religion. This, I think, is indicative of the fact that the discourses of race, gender and religion are often interconnected within the world and do not act upon the lived experiences of people as separate entities. I think that any separation into distinct discourses would be artificial. In fact, my interviews with Ann demonstrated that, other than connecting the lack of family contact and discussion of family history to notions of race, she did not see the demands that the family put on her behavior in terms of race, gender or religion. The best way to describe the way Ann saw it was that the demands were attempts at changing her, that they were aimed at Ann's self-definition. I do think that it is valuable to consider some of the behaviours in terms of racial, gendered and religious assumptions however. The important point here is that, although these behaviors do comment on racial, gendered and religious assumptions of the family, when taken into consideration collectively they were seen, in the words of Ann, as the family trying to "change me." The first behaviour which Ann reflected on at some length was the place of chores within her time in Alberta. One important aspect to note is that both Ann and Sally  95 remember that Ann did more chores than the other children. Ann said "Ididn't see the other kids having to do a lot of stuff but I had to do it. "  Sally remembered that "Ann had  to do most of the cleaning. She was in trouble and that was a way of disciplining her. "  The historical significance of chores within the discourse of "civilizing" First Nations people has been well noted (Fiske, 1996; Miller, 1996). Yet, Ann did not equate these chores to the discourse of race or gender. Mostly, Ann saw it as "testing my defiance. " Yet, in my mind, the continuous demands to do menial tasks such as dusting so much that she was "just removing the polish from the last time " comments on something larger than testing defiance. A sense of regimentation and regulation is part of the larger act of domination. The action of cleaning means more than just the action of cleaning. Valverde and Weir (1987) argue that moral regulation "involves organized, repetitive and often mundane practices and relations which privilege certain forms of expression and behaviour, all the while rendering other forms of expression as marginal, contained, illegitimate, or immoral" (p. 32). Repetitive cleaning certainly fits this definition. The cleaning was repetitive and mundane, yet it was not the cleaning itself that was the point. It was the act of making Ann subservient within the family via the chores, and the fact that the chores were domestic, which says a great deal about the place of Ann within the family. It was not just testing her defiance ~ it was telling Ann her place within the family itself. Thus, it was defining the power relationship based on gender and race. A second act that is worthy of considering within the discourse of the experience is that of the delousing. Again, the act has more meaning than just the act. This was well understood by Ann. She said "I really felt demoralized, because Ifelt you know, like we were kind of herded into the big gymnasium and literally what they did was, we had to  96 get treatedfor lice. It's not like we had anything on us, it was like they were delousing us. They literally washed our hair with stuff you know, and we had a shower and this woman was inspecting my body, and that was the first day we arrived. "  Although the  foster family was not the agent of this act, they supported the act by continuing to do it for "a week or something. " The resulting understanding that Ann gained from this act was that it was designed to humiliate. However, once again, to me it means much more than just an act aimed at humiliation. The act assumes that the children had lice. Lice are associated with dirtiness. The act of delousing, then, served two purposes — it served to demonstrate to the children that they were dirty upon arrival and it served to demonstrate to the children that they were not allowed to be dirty any more. The children were to go to the family and become clean. The feelings of demoralization for Ann, I think, stemmed from the fact that she understood, in the only way a child can, that this delousing was a comment on who she was in the eyes of those who did the delousing and were a comment on the fact that they were going to change this past practice of dirtiness. Mary-Ellen Kelm (1998) has commented on the historical practice of using health practices to colonize aboriginal self-concepts. She argues that health education was another means of colonization for missionaries and the government because it focused on cleanliness with the subtext of the cleanliness being that First Nations people were unclean. Thus, the process of colonization was aided by health education because it instilled values of culture and gender through its "training" while labeling the health practices of First Nations people as worthy of abandonment. Those with power determine which knowledge is valued and which is not. I think this theoretical framework is evidenced by Ann's experience.  97 The relationship between power, perception and negotiation created great difficulties for me when I considered the gendered aspects of Paul's and Ann's experience. I think the case can be made that the difference between Paul's and Ann's experience was, in part, due to gender. Many things that made Paul more comfortable were gendered. He remembers that he played "Little League baseball. We played on teams, I don't know how many teams they had, but George and I were on the same team. "  George remembered sibling rivalries where they went "toe to toe and wrestled  with each other. "  The boys "did chores together " and played outside together. "  Nothing stood out to Paul as different with respect to gender. The experiences were different - chores, baseball, wrestling with a foster sibling - but they were not perceived as a difference that was connected to different understandings of gender roles. Thus, a large part of Paul's ability to connect with his family, and particularly with his foster brother George, was due to gender. Gender roles held within his family and his foster family were similar. Ann, on the other hand, experienced different gender roles within her foster family. She related this to her "matrilineal culture " and said that the chores she did were "stupid and useless. " She said they were " always disciplining me " and that "You didn't do anything, certainly didn't do anything that was bad, no drinking coffee, wearing of skirts too short. "  Part of Ann's conflict was due to gender. Domestic  duties are associated with the domestic place of women. Short skirts are connected with a sexualized understanding of clothing and the idea that how one dresses reflects sexual activity. A l l of these gendered notions connect with both race and religion because they are, as mentioned above, intertwined with racial and religious discourses. Domestic chores demonstrated acts of "civilization" which are clearly race related, but they are also  related to a gendered understanding of the "proper" place of women. Conservative dress is associated with religious purity, but they cannot be separated from sexualized notions within a gendered discourse. Thus, what Ann perceived as attempts to change her were, in a very real way, involved with gendered assumptions. She found it difficult to negotiate her understanding of gender within the experience. Paul did not perceive any difficulty with the gendered assumptions he encountered. Thus, negotiation was not necessary. I think the relationship between power, perception and negotiation is exemplified best when the religious aspects of the experience are considered. I would have expected the religious aspect of the experience to be extremely pronounced given the fact that the program itself was one organized by the Mormon Church. Both Ann and Paul understood that the goal of conversion to the Mormon religion was part of the experience. Paul said, "They were really trying to convert me " and Ann, when reflecting on the goal of conversion within the program, said, "It didn't work. " Yet, neither Ann nor Paul expressed any memories of defying the religious practices they encountered during the experience. Ann said "We were always in church, " that "it was a way of life " and that her family was "pretty straight. " Paul said "You know, to them, being a Mormon is a really important thing " and "we would go to school, church every Sunday, shirt and tie and the whole bit. "  Clearly, the religious aspect of the experience was something that  was greatly intertwined with the experience of living in Alberta for both Ann and Paul. Yet, it was not perceived as a threat to their self-determination. Ann remembered it as "imposed, " yet  she concluded that "It's not that it was a problem to be religious, I grew  up with my grandparents praying too. " As a result,  Ann and Paul do not remember the  99  religious aspect of the experience as traumatic. Religious practices were not referred to, in any great detail, during our interviews. When they did refer to them, they were noted as different and more rigid when compared to the practices of their own family. The foster families exhibited their powerful position by establishing which religious practices were valued. But the tone and memories expressed during Paul's and Ann's interviews indicated that they did not see the religious practices as distressing. I believe this is because it was not an alien concept to them and, thus, it was negotiable within their selfdefinition. They associated religion with their lives in Massett and, therefore, it was not perceived as a threat. Such is the way in which I noticed negotiation took place within the experiences of both Paul and Ann. Whereas I would have assumed religion would have been an overbearing aspect of their lives, it simply was not. They were able to negotiate the religious aspects of their experience within the self-definition they brought to the experience itself. With all of the above discussion, one might begin to assume that the discourses within the foster families of Paul and Ann were conspiratorial ones. I think there is a real danger in assuming that the families thought carefully about what they had to do and then, after weighing their choices, chose and conspired to put the plan into action. Sally said that her family was " very devout, so we followed our scripture very carefully.  As  well, my mother was very strict with us, you know manners and how to behave. Yes, we  had a strict upbringing, but it was a good one. " I think we have to realize that Sally's family was doing what they felt was right. I do not think that they saw themselves as valuing or devaluing Ann's personal knowledge. Beliefs are beliefs and it would be a large mistake to place blame. Sally remembers Ann "not fitting in " and "not trying to fit  100 in. " To her, this was the largest problem. She believes that her family was doing what they could and, although in retrospect she feels it "wasn't handled very well, " she does not see the experience in terms of power. George does not see the power relationship either. To him, his family was not involved in the power relationships. He said, "I know that part of the program was to convert these kids to be Mormons but really, our family was there to give him a good home and that was mostly it. "  Yet the power relationships  were unavoidable. It was only the extent to which the families allowed for selfdetermination that varied. In the end, the power relationships come down to the concepts of perception and negotiation. George's family demonstrated that they valued much of the knowledge that was important to Paul. Paul perceived this to be close enough to his concept of self that he was able to reflect positively on most of his experience.  He did not accept all aspects  of what the foster family perceived as valuable. But he was able, in his own way, to resist where he desired and to continue to find a bearable social space within the foster family. He negotiated his experience. Ann's family demonstrated that they did not value most of the knowledge that was important to Ann. The result was that Ann was not able to negotiate her place within the family. This, in turn, resulted in Ann being in a position of conflict within the family. The resulting behaviours, which both Ann and Paul remembered, I believe, can be seen as the children asserting their agency. I would categorize this assertion of agency largely in terms of resistance. Agency is a very difficult thing to assess when considering children. You might argue that Paul asserted his agency when he ran away from Massett and in his words, "forced his way to go " to  Alberta. You might argue that the foster parents had agency  101 when deciding how to approach their new foster children and that Ann and Paul's mother had agency when she decided to send her children to Alberta. These are arguable points. But what I am really concerned with understanding are the ways in which Ann and Paul asserted their agency once in Alberta. I am concerned with this for two specific reasons. First, Paul and Ann were away from their natural family whom had acted as their agents up until the time they left for Alberta. Second, the ways in which Paul and Ann asserted their agency informs discussion of the discourse within the experiences of Paul and Ann. What they resisted says a great deal about what they found to be intolerable. Resistance is a very complex process because what I see as resistance is a very subjective assessment by myself. The way I define resistance is any act or thought that a person uses to assert their self-definition. Thus, resistance is the rejection of an outside imposition of values. It is found when a person disagrees with what they see as being valued around them and this disagreement manifests itself in a thought or behaviour designed to assert their own self-definition. Resistance is also a very individual process because it involves each person negotiating a threshold in which they delineate the extent to which others defining what is valued threatens their self-definition. Haig-Brown (1988) has described this concept with respect to children's experiences at Kamloops Indian Residential School and found that resistance manifested itself in two general areas — defiance and sub-cultures. Interestingly, the possibility of sub-culture formation to resist impositions of self-definition were not available to Paul or Ann. They were very much alone with respect to resistance because they were not able to associate with other individuals who were experiencing a similar powerlessness. I found many types of resistance within the experience of Ann and Paul. However,  102 especially in the case of Paul, I do not think that all resistance can be appropriately called defiance. Ann's resistance can largely be seen within the definition of defiance. Her early experience of being deloused, in her words, "horrified" her. As a result, her first acts of resistance came within her feelings and thoughts. She felt "degraded" and recognized that her new environment was "not right. " Soon her resistance became more open. When confronted with chores she said "I did it, but I didn't do it happily. " Ann projected her feelings about her new environment and about her threatened self-definition by projecting anger. Sally remembers Ann having a "real look on her face" and recalled that the "look was pretty much on her face the whole time she was there. " Eventually the need to resist grew to the point where Ann considered leaving. However, she remembers deciding to "stick it out" and "see if I could make something positive for myself." Ann's decision to stick it out changed her resistance, which then became focused on avoiding contact with her foster family. She remembers deciding that "they didn't like me and I didn't like them."  She would walk right past the mother and neither would speak. In her  words, "Ijust probably quit saying hello so I wouldjust walk right by and go to my room. "  As Ann remembers it, "I spent a lot of time by myself." Ann's resistance, her  defiance, grew as she became more and more aware that she was not able to negotiate her self-definition within the household. In the end, her intense loneliness was partly due to her need to separate herself from the conditions that she could not accept. Loneliness was the central manifestation of resistance for Paul. I equate this feeling to resistance because it indicates that, although he felt welcomed within the family, he did not wish to be there. What he wished was to be back in Massett around the  103 things which reinforced all that he knew as normal. With respect to loneliness, Paul said it was "inevitable to have that when you pull a sibling that far away from a family, let alone not just across the street, I mean damn near halfway across the country. And then you mix in the young age. "  What he saw as unacceptable with respect to his self-  definition was his surroundings in general. His foster family was not his real family and Paul's loneliness demonstrates that no matter what his foster family did, he could not incorporate what they represented - their culture, their values, their definition - into his self-definition. He was separated from his family who represented everything that he identified with. The resistant behaviours Paul exhibited demonstrate this. He sat there "looking up at the sky, wondering where Massett is" and "for the first three or months  [he] cried lots. " Every time he spoke to his mother he "ran to his room, crying all over." He rode his bike by a house where he knew a boy from Massett was staying "to see if I could see him. "  I see all of these acts as acts of resistance to the entire situation. They  indicate that he was thinking about his family in Massett, that he missed his family in Massett, and that he wanted to be in Massett. Massett, and Paul's family in Massett, were, metaphorically, his self-definition. A final act of resistance is a fitting summary for the concepts of agency and resistance within this experience. Ann and Paul chose not to go back to Alberta once they returned home in June of 1968. Once they were placed in an environment in which they could exercise some agency, they used it to choose not to go back. Regardless of the differences between the experiences of Paul and Ann, this act speaks volumes about selfdefinition. They chose to stay in the place that most reflected themselves, that they identified with and that encapsulated who they were. Paul summed it up best when he  104 said "well, after I went through it, there was no way I would volunteer to do that again. " In spite of all of the good things he acknowledges that his foster family did for him, they were not his family. Nor were either Paul or Arm converted to Mormonism. The goal of the program, "to teach Latter Day Saints doctrine" (Chadwick and Albrecht, 1994, p. 292) was not achieved. In summary, I think that an analysis of the stories as a whole and of the specific stories regarding the discourse surrounding memory, family, power and selfdetermination informed me a great deal with respect to how the participants in this study placed the experience within their lives. In general, the interviews demonstrated to me that George and Sally related their experiences almost entirely to Paul and Ann. The focus and volume of their stories reflect this. As a result, my analysis deals with Paul and Ann exclusively. Memories indicated that Paul and Ann remembered differences. They understood these differences in terms of their family and their foster families. When locating power, the family itself represents power because it was within the context of the family that knowledge was deemed valuable or insignificant. When considering the specific experiences of Ann and Paul, it became clear to me that knowledge was, concurrently, related to race, gender and religion. The extent to which Paul or Ann found differences between the knowledge that they valued and the knowledge that the foster families valued resulted in different experiences for Paul and Ann. Paul was able to negotiate a bearable social space within his foster family because his family allowed him to self-determine to an extent that he found acceptable. This was not the case for Ann. Ann perceived her ability to self-determine as negligible and, thus, had an experience that was consistently one of conflict. Both Ann and Paul resisted in different degrees because  105 of the differences in their ability to negotiate self-determination within the foster family. Ann resisted mostly through defiance. Paul resisted mostly through loneliness. Both were resisting because they were experiencing a situation with which they could not identify.  106 SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND AREAS IN NEED OF FURTHER RESEARCH  This study is a case study, and thus, conclusions cannot be drawn concerning the entire state of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. The interviews really only reflect two features of the experience. First, they reflect part of the experiences of Ann, Paul, George and Sally within the framework of the time they spent together as a result of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program from September 1967 to June of 1968. Second, they reflect a partial understanding of the ways in which the participants have come to understand how the experience fits into their lives. As well, as noted above, the interviews with Sally and George largely focused on the memories regarding Ann and Paul respectively. Thus, there is a limit that I am able to comment on. That having been said, however, I think several valuable conclusions can be drawn. I think the experience of the participants' points to two areas in need of research and thought. First, I think it raises an important point regarding the history of childhood. Many historians have been concerned with creating an understanding of widespread and typical aspects of childhood (Sutherland, 1997). I would agree that this is an important approach. However, I think it is also important to recognize the important contributions studies of unique experiences can make. The experiences of the children in this study were not shared by most children of the period. However, we ignore these unique experiences to our peril because they speak with such force about differences within our history. Unless we look at these cases, it is hard to look at the present through any other eyes than the ones that reflect growing up in a "normal" white, patriarchal, middle class home. As well, the story raises a further point that historians have yet to study the work  107 of religious groups outside of the residential school model. This work is new, in that it attempts to describe a phenomenon that has a great deal in common with the residential school experience, but which was not state sanctioned. It involved missionaries carrying out the programs created by the policy of the Mormon Church. It involved parents, in some sense at least, allowing their children to go to spend a year, or even several years, with a Mormon family. It opens the door to speculation that the interaction between First Nations communities and various religious groups outside of state sanctioned programs is worthy of investigation. I believe, then, that the study contributes to the historiography of both childhood and First Nations history. It is also important to comment on the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program specifically regarding the experiences of the people in this study. The title of the program reflects its racial nature. The program is not called the Poor Student Placement Program or the Student Placement Program, it is called the Indian Student Placement Program. It is called this because it was directed at First Nations people and its goals were goals that the program had set out for participants who were First Nations only. Thus, the program is inherently racial. It aimed at finding the Lamanites in Massett and raising them up through Mormon conversion. However, as I hope the discussion above has demonstrated, the racial aspect of the program was not entirely manifested in the practice. I think this is due to the fact that there was much more than just racial discourse going on at the level of the participants' experience. Parr (1996) has argued that history cannot be mastered in "parts" because history is not about parts - it is about a gestalt working and an understanding that we are studying multiple discourses of race, gender, class et cetera. I would argue that the participants in this study experienced  108 these discourses in a similar manner. It is not possible to separate the experience of being in the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program into separate discourses. The experience of the program was not racial - it was racial, gendered, cultural and many other things. A separation of these discourses would be artificial and it would not reflect the experience in any meaningful way. One of the conclusions I drew, then, is that a racial assessment of the program is too simplistic. Some aspects of the workings of the program are, to me, very clear. The first is that recruitment for the program was done by missionaries who wished to proselytize for the Mormon faith. The second is that the program was aimed at children. The third is that the program placed the participants in separate homes. I can only deduce from these facts that the program sought to convert these children by recruiting them, by taking them away from the influences of the home, by separating them from their siblings (and, thus, further reminders of the knowledge that they identified with) and by placing them within Mormon families. However, once again, the difference between policy and practice is highlighted by the experiences of Paul and Ann. Both recognized that the goal of the program was to convert them, yet the actual practice varied with respect to how the family itself interpreted its role in the program and the actual agency exhibited by Paul and Ann through their resistance. I believe this is why an evaluation of the experiences of Ann and Paul, and to a lesser extent of George and Sally, warrants a much more complex assessment than bad or good or positive or negative. It would be easy to blame the family of Sally or to speak of the racial aspects of the Mormon doctrine and how they manifested themselves within the program. But the lived experience of the people in this  109 study clearly points to the need for a much more complex assessment of the policy and the practice of the program in general. Amongst the complexity created between policy and practice are the experiences of families and children, which need to be explored thoroughly. I have already made the point, but I think it is worth reflecting on this again, that at the heart of this story is the story of children from one family, one method of upbringing, one set of values, one culture, being placed with families who had their own method of upbringing, their own values and their own culture. The differing discourses within the family become what guide our understanding of the entire experience. And within that experience, at the heart of that experience, are the children - and children are too often powerless. This case demonstrates this point in many ways. Ann, Paul, George and Sally all exhibited their agency at certain times. However, the overriding aspect of their experience was that their decisions were made for them. They understood their powerlessness and reacted accordingly. This meant both resistance and compliance. It meant that, in the end, they realized the only real aspect of their lives over which they had control was what went on within their own minds. The result was a sense of powerlessness which was exhibited in the loneliness felt by Ann and Paul, in the regrets of Sally with respect to how Ann was treated and George's empathy expressed with respect to Paul's fear when he said, " He was scared. Wouldn't you be?" Paul said, when referring to his experience, "I was just lucky I guess. " I will leave the reader to decipher the accuracy of that statement. In closing then, I would say that there is much more to be done with this topic. I have been able to comment on the case and what it demonstrates, but a historical  110 investigation into the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program would definitely inform us about how the program fits within the context of social history and within the discourses of race, gender and religion of the period. What needs to be done, and what was far beyond the scope of this study, is to investigate both the policy and the practice of the program on a grander scale. The program needs to be placed within the larger context of state social programs and policies and the extent of the effects of the experience on all participants needs to be assessed more critically. Thus, as with most historical inquiry, , more questions have been raised than answers. Yet, and I say this is the most positive sense, I believe that I have made some meaning of a small part of it for myself and, hopefully, my readers.  111 Bibliography Alcoff, L. (1992). The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique. Winter, 91-92, 5-32. Allen, J. B. (1998). The Rise and Decline of the LDS Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-1996. In David Bitton (Ed). Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson (pp. 85-119). Provo, UT: Foundation for  Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Barman, J. (1991). The West Beyond the West: A History of British  Columbia.  Toronto : University of Toronto Press. Bishop, C. (1967). Indian Placement: A History of the Indian Student Placement Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unpublished Master's  Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Chadwick, B. A . and Albrecht, S. L. (1994). Mormons and Indians: Beliefs, Programs and Practices. In Cornwall and Heaton (Eds). Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives (pp. 287-309). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Comacchio, C. (2000). The History of Us: Social Science, History and the Relations of Family in Canada. Labour/Le Travail, 46, 167-190. Cruikshank, J. (1997). Negotiating with Narrative, Establishing Cultural Identity at the Yukon International Storytelling Festival. American Anthropologist, 99(\), 56-69. Fiske, J. (1996). Gender and the Paradox of Residential Education in Carrier Society. In Miller and Chuchryx (Eds). Women of the First Nations: Power, Wisdom, Strength (pp. 131-146). Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press. Flecha, R. (1999). New Educational Inequalities. In M . Cassells (Ed). Critical Education in the New Information Age (pp.65-82). Lanham, M D : Rowman and Littlefield. Fournier, S. and Crey, E. (1997). Stolen From Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities. Vancouver:  Douglas and Mclntyre. Haig-Brown, C. (1988). Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian  Residential  School. Vancouver: Tillacum Library. Johnston, P. (1983). Native Children and the Child Welfare System. Toronto:  James Lorimer and Company.  112 Kelm, M . (1998). Colonizing Bodies: Aboriginal Health and Healing in British Columbia, J900-50. Vancouver: U B C Press. McKenzie, B. and Hudson, P. Native Children, Child Welfare, and the Colonization of Native People. In Levitt and Wharf (Eds). The Challenge of Child Welfare (pp. 125-141). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Miller, J. R. (1996). Shingwauk's Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Morse, J. and Richards, L. (2002). Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd. Murphy, T. (1999). From Racist Stereotypes to Ethnic Identity, Instrumental uses of Mormon Racial Doctrine. Ethnohistory, 46(3), 452-480. Parr, J. (1996). Gender History and Historical Practice. In Parr and Rosenfeld (Eds). Gender and History in Canada (pp. 8-27). Toronto: Copp Clark. Sutherland, N . (1995). Reflections on a Century of Canadian Childhood. In J. Barman, N . Sutherland and J.D. Wilson (Eds). Children, Teachers and Schools in the History of British Columbia (pp. 175-187). Calgary: Detselig. Sutherland, N . (1997). Growing Up: Childhood in English Canada from the Great War to the Age of Television. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sutherland, N . (2000). Children in English-Canadian Society, Framing the Twentieth-Century Consensus. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier Press. Ursel, J. (1992). Private Lives, Public Policy: One Hundred Years of State Intervention in the Family. Toronto: Women's Press. Valverde, Mariana and Lorna Weir. (1987). The Struggle of the Immoral: Preliminary Remarks on Moral Regulation" in Resources for Feminist Research/Documentation sur la Recherche Feministe, 17(3), 31 -34.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items