Can someone explain to me how it is that the Church can create the Polynesian Culture Centre with which to preserve a culture, yet also institute the Indian Student Placement Program, which contributed to the erosion of another culture (or several cultures as it may be)?
Culture
huh????? I know about the PCC as I have been there… loved every second of it but what is the other one?
In the 1970s, the Church had a programme where they took children from reserves/reservations in the US/Canada during the school year and put them in the homes of members of the Church. Like Canadian residential schools, but without the sexual abuse.
As far as I understand the Indian Placement Programme was simply for the purpose of helping kids whose educational opportunities were very limited on the reservations to get out where they could have better opportunities. There was nothing in there about eradicating culture. The Church didn’t demand that children forswear their native languages forever, or give up all cultural and tribal identity. It just put them in places where they could have advantages that weren’t available (at the time) on reservations. Now it is true that by placing them in a different environment, the programme isolated them and exposed them to different cultural influences. It is true that if they were living off the reservations they were unlikely to use their tribal languages or participate in tribal activities. But those were an inevitable, and (I hope) temporary side-effect of the programme, whereas in the case of certain Indian schools, the eradication of “Indianness” was one of the main objectives.
The presence of American Indians off the reservation may also be viewed as a promotion or spreading of American Indian cultural influence. What’s the effect of having an exchange student from a foreign country living in your home? It’s not viewed as an eradication of his culture. Rather, it’s viewed as cultural sharing. It exposes you to his culture and lets you learn more about his. I think that’s a very valid way to look at the IPP. A student studying abroad has opportunities he wouldn’t have in his home nation, while at the same time he is isolated for a time from the influences of his own country. But that experience is generally viewed as a positive thing. I think the IPP is, although not identical, quite similar in purpose (and I hope, in effect).
“There was nothing in there about eradicating culture.”
I didn’t say that was its purpose. I said that’s what happened.
I know you’re not necessarily saying that the Church’s purpose was the destruction of Indian culture. But your original post implies that it’s inconsistent or hypocritical for the Church to be in favor of native cultural preservation and also sponsor the IPP. Since the side effects of cultural destruction (assuming they did happen, which I’m willing to do) were not one of the Church’s purposes, I think that underscores the idea that there’s no real inconsistency or hypocrisy–the Church programmes were both just doing their best to achieve different goals.
I already agreed that there was some of that culturally destructive effect. But there were (I think and hope) other very positive effects, both on the students themselves and on the families and communities that hosted them, as I mentioned in the rest of my posts.
We had a First Nations girl staying with us, I remember. I was quite young. My parents just had two young (like 6 and under I believe we were??)girls and took a 14 year old girl. Well, that wasn’t a positive experience as she had some issues, alcohol and smoking related and she had a lying problem (well heck, she was 14 and apparently her home life wasn’t all that positive) and my parents had no idea how to handle teenagers then.
It may be that your experience reflected another purpose of the programme (though I can’t say for certain). Is it probable that the programme was aimed at helping some kids get into a better environment and possibly be able to turn away from some destructive influences? Sounds like the girl who stayed with you had some major problems, may have had a home environment that exacerbated them, may have been influenced for the better by spending some time with your family. I realize you don’t seem to feel that there was much benefit to her or to you. That may mean there really wasn’t and the effort failed. But that doesn’t mean the effort was a bad idea. It also may be that you’re wrong and that the girl really did benefit from your influence.
(Am I way too far out on a limb? I realize I’m conjecturing about the placement programme’s purposes as well as the effects and outcome in your own family’s experience.)
Not really on topic, but I just wanted to add that I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything good about the Indian Placement Program. I only know a couple of families that took part but their stories are similar to those of Mary’s.
Even if all the kids hosted under the IPP had problems such as drugs, alcohol, or lying, the IPP may have been a success. It may have helped the students by placing them in a different environment with different (and I hope much better) influences. Of course, their tribal cultures are something they should embrace, but there are other “cultures”–such as alcoholism or drug abuse–that are well worth leaving behind. Maybe SOME of the kids similar to Mary’s student made positive steps in turning away from bad traditions, such as alcohol or drugs, that aren’t part of their tribal identity at all, and became better people and better members of their tribes because of it. That’s strengthening indigenous peoples, not weakening them.
Well, for me, I was excited to have her staying there because I had always wanted an older brother or sister. I don’t remember a whole lot about the experience except that it was “cool” to have a teenager in the house. I don’t know how positive or not it was for her. Hopefully it was alright. All I know is that in hindsight, understanding my own parents at that time, better, now, there was probably a lot of negativity for her (like I said, my parents didn’t know how to handle teenagers then). I think the program had good intentions, and I have heard of some positive outcomes, where the families stayed in touch and their students became a part of the family.
The IPP was a classic case of,’ we know better than you’ syndrome.
Imagine being taken from your home and being forced to live with the Amish for a year. On top of it, people are telling you, ‘Hey maybe something good will rub off on you’.
This is similar to what these aboriginal children were put through.
When you remove all the cultural influences from a person you are, in effect, diminishing their own culture.
Some of the children were very accepting of the whole situation and took advantage of the opportunities presented to them through the program, others were very resentful and felt like they were being judged and being told that their culture wasn’t as important as the culture of these other ‘successful’ people.
There are thankfully better, tribe-run programmes out there which are both uplifting to aboriginal youth and culturally sensitive.
My lord, this movement is practically as militant as feminism here in Canada now.
I don’t agree that being taken and put with an Amish family for a year is all that similar, but let’s assume it is. I think something good WOULD rub off on me. I think exposure to a different culture–whether I think it’s a “better” or a “worse” one–has value. It makes me more educated and better-rounded. It gives me a greater capacity to understand others. It gives the Amish family a chance to know me and my own people better as well. Maybe both sides end up better off, because they understand each other better. My sister went to Chile as an exchange student when she was a teenager. She stayed for more than a year. We weren’t concerned that she was having her Americanism erased; we were excited that she got to have a cross-cultural experience.
Now suppose the Amish have a great school, and that no comparable schools are presently available in my own community. Would I get some advantages in attending that school? Yes, and the advantages would outweigh the loss of my native culture for a limited time. Sure, we should build a better school back home but what do we do NOW for ME? My answer is, give me a chance to go to the good school.
Though it’s good to see value in all cultures, with a neutral eye, we also need not be neutral in our judgment of certain influences such as alcohol or drugs. IF it is true (and it appears from the limited evidence here that it may be true) that some of these kids were being given a chance to get away from alcoholism or similar influences at home, then that’s a good thing even if nothing else was accomplished, and even if a limited and temporary separation from positive tribal culture happened at the same time as an unavoidable side-effect. Drugs and booze are not a part of any valid “culture” and don’t deserve anyone’s respect. Getting away from them does create a good chance of something good rubbing off on the kids, or maybe something bad rubbing off OF the kids.
So: Was the IPP saying “we know better than you”? I don’t think so. It was saying, “A chance for a solid education right now is better than being deprived of that chance while we wait for things to improve on the reservation.” It may also have been saying, “A chance to learn how other people live and have them learn how you live is a good thing.” And in some cases it MAY have been saying, “An environment free of destructive forces such as alcoholism is better than an environment where they can’t be escaped.”
I don’t think I’d argue so much against the intent of the program, it’s the way it was implemented.
I suppose if funding were the only issue, the IPP was carried out as best they could; but I think we can argue that funding is not a problem for the church now, nor was it then.
It would have been more cultually sensitive to set up programs which would instill the same qualities while keeping the program on the reserves or aboriginal communities themselves. Would this have been more expensive than just shipping out individual aboriginal youths out to member families? Sure.
The overall optics of the IPP was more of a rescue program than an exchange, in any event.
Yes, i believe the main purpose was to help create a better opportunity for better education. I know that Pres Kimball (who I believe started the program?) was very respectiful of First Nations people and their cultures and wanted to help.
President Kimball also thought people indigenous to the Americas changed skin colour when they accepted the gospel (or at least with subsequent generations).
I didn’t say he was PERFECT. Just that he had good intentions.
I respectfully submit my belief that President Kimball had far more than just good intentions. He had inspiration in creating and administering this program, as wel as the other programs of the Church, and the program did far more good than harm.
President Kimball did things that go against my personal feelings, such as the way the temples were remodeled. President Hinckley does things that go against my personal feelings, too. But in both cases, my concerns are overridden by my faith that they are SEERS. As such, they can see what I can’t see. I have little doubt that Spencer Kimball could see things about the IPP that none of us can see, and that he acted under the inspiration of God.
(You may note that I’ve abandoned my efforts to spell in Canadian and returned to my native USA habit of writing “program” rather than “programme,” etc. I tried using the Canadian spelling in order to be respectful of this blog’s environment–just as I try always to speak French in Quebec–but it’s too hard to remember, and someone’s going to think I’m being disingenuous.)
Oh I agree that it was also inspired. If it didn’t always go perfectly or according to plan, it wasn’t Pres. Kimball’s fault, is what I meant. I don’t believe he was setting out to eradicate Native culture or impose white culture. Even if some attempted this, I know this was not the intention of the Church.
Mary, I know you’re not being disrespectful to President Kimball or to his office, his priesthood or his calling. But I believe Kim’s post, which implies hypocrisy or inconsistency, and Kim’s latest comment about President Kimball’s beliefs on the “Lamanites” becoming a “white and delightsome people” (now corrected to “pure and delightsome”) do contain a dose of disrespect. I’m not saying this because I want to attack Kim, or question his faith, but I do think his original post is in some ways an attack on President Kimball. I felt that I ought to come to President Kimball’s defense. None of the people who are commenting here can know as much as President Kimball knew about the Lord’s will in regard to the IPP. I assume the President was acting in part on his own initiative in creating this program, but I believe he sought–and more importantly, received–guidance from the Holy Ghost in forming and implementing it. Because I believe that President Kimball was acting under God’s direction and conforming to His will, I believe that charges of hypocrisy or inconsistency are not fitting.
“I believe he sought–and more importantly, received–guidance from the Holy Ghost in forming and implementing it.”
Which of course we cannot know for certain since it is entirely possible that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the process that formed and implemented the programme. It is entirely possible that he came up with an idea that he was sure would expose indigenous persons to a better education and the gospel simultaneously, but then handed the idea to a committee to come up with the logistics.
This process has been used for other endeavours of the Church (e.g. correlation, current editions of the scriptures, perpetual education fund). There’s no reason this could not have been the case then either.
Am I saying it was the case? Nope. Am I saying that President Kimball single-handedly conceived, developed and implemented the programme? Nope.
Furthermore, does disagreement automatically mean disrespect? Can a person not disagree with a programme conceived by or an idea taught by someone without being disrespectful. Quite frankly, I see nothing in my post or my most recent comment that suggests I am disrespectful to President Kimball to any degree.
Kim, if you say you weren’t being disrespectful, then I don’t presume to contradict you. I was very sincere when I said I didn’t mean to attack you. Perhaps I would have expressed myself better if I had said you were being “critical” of President Kimball. I do realize there’s a difference between criticism and disrespect, or I wouldn’t engage in criticisms of your comments.
Let me see if I can explain why I believe your comments were critical of the Church and President Kimball:
The question posed by the original post was, How can the Church be in favor of indigenous cultural preservation in one program and yet in another program help to eradicate indigenous cultures? The implication of that question seemed to be, “Isn’t the Church wrong in doing that? Isn’t it hypocritical to do that?” And that implication, I suggest, is a criticism of the Church as an institution and of the leaders who instituted and carried out the program.
In addition, you cited the fact that President Kimball referred in one of his speeches to indigenous people becoming whiter. You seemed to be saying that President Kimball was wrong in saying that. (In light of the later correction of the Book of Mormon text that gave rise to his thoughts, I suppose it’s reasonable to say that he was wrong.) In suggesting he was wrong, you seemed to be criticizing him. Furthermore, you introduced that point right after Mary mentioned President Kimball’s respect for native peoples and cultures. You seemed to be suggesting that if he believed that, he was not really so respectful of native cultures and peoples after all. This, I submit, was also a criticism.
I don’t believe you’re acting out of hatred for President Kimball or out of a desire to tear down any prophets. But I do think I was reasonable in interpreting your comments as criticisms.
Just a short follow-up question: When criticisms of a person or an institution suggest that the person or institution is hypocritical or culturally insensitive, is it unfair to say that the criticism contains some amount of disrespect?
“The question posed by the original post was, How can the Church be in favor of indigenous cultural preservation in one program and yet in another program help to eradicate indigenous cultures?”
Actually, the question pose din my post was as follows:
“[How] it is that the Church can create the Polynesian Culture Centre with which to preserve a culture, yet also institute the Indian Student Placement Program, which contributed to the erosion of another culture?”
The question you paraphrased above suggests that I was implying the ISPP had as one of its purposes such an eradication. I’ve already established that I was not implying such.
“The implication of that question seemed to be, “. . . Isn’t it hypocritical to do that?”
Are you suggesting that promoting one culture while implementing a programme that, intentionally or not, erodes another is not hypocritical?
“In suggesting he was wrong, you seemed to be criticizing him”
I didn’t seem to be criticising him; I was criticising him. Or more precisely, I was criticising his opinion that somehow the gospel changed a person’s (or rather a people’s) skin colour.
“You seemed to be suggesting that if he believed that, he was not really so respectful of native cultures and peoples after all.”
Actually, what I really think is that to him, conversion of indigenous peoples was more important than their cultures.
“But I do think I was reasonable in interpreting your comments as criticisms.”
So do I. After all, they were intended as criticisms.
“When criticisms of a person or an institution suggest that the person or institution is hypocritical or culturally insensitive, is it unfair to say that the criticism contains some amount of disrespect?”
Yes.
But you don’t agree that your criticisms were disrespectful in any measure?
Correct.
It seems self-contradictory to me. You say (1) the Church WAS being hypocritical and (2) that calling someone hypocritical is disprespectful, so doesn’t it follow that you were being disrespectful? You say (1) calling someone culturally insensitive is disrespectful and (2) President Kimball was interested in converting Indians but not in respecting their cultures, so doesn’t it follow that you were being disrespectful? I suppose we just have to agree to disagree on these points.
Where did I say calling someone hypocrtical or culturally insensitive is disrespectful?
I’m sorry–I actually misread your previous answer. You DON’T think that attacking the Church or its leaders by calling them culturally insensitive hypocrites is a sign of disrespect.
I do.
On that point I suppose we will never agree.
I am not sure why, but you seem to have a habit of trying to make me say something I am not. I never said anything about attacking the Church or its leaders. I certainly would not equate disagreement or criticism with an attack.
You don’t believe that accusing the Church and/or its leaders of being culturally insensitive hypocrites is an attack on them.
I do.
I guess we’ve identified another area where we can never agree.
No, I do not believe that an accusation is the same thing as an attack.
Although I do believe it is an attack, I’ll alter my statement to match your wording.
You don’t believe that ACCUSING the Church and its leaders of being culturally insensitive hypocrites is disrespectful.
I do.
Not necessarily. I believe an accusation could be disrespectful, but I do not believe that every accusation has to be disrespectful.
But obviously we’re not talking about EVERY accusation. We’re talking about YOUR accusation. You accuse the Church and/or its leaders of being culturally insensitive, and you accuse them of being hypocritical. At least that’s all I can gather from your post at 2/11/05 20:17 and several of its predecessors.
Do you accuse them of this or don’t you?
I’m talking about that accusation. It’s a disrespectful accusation–also known as an attack.
And as I established previously, I do not consider any of my previous comments to be disrespectful.
For the record, I did not accuse the Church of being culturally insensitive. After all how can a “Church [that created] the Polynesian Culture Centre with which to preserve a culture” be absolutely culturally insensitive. Nor did I accuse any of the leaders of being culturally insensitive.
As well, could you point me to a reference that defines “attack” as a disrespectful accusation?
1. Reference for the word “attack”: – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attack – lists among its definitions, “To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.”
You will undoubtedly claim that you were not being hostile, but I hope you won’t deny that you were criticizing “strongly.”
2. You claim that when you criticized President Kimball for believing that there might be an alteration in the skin of Indian converts, you were not saying he was culturally insensitive. You also claim that although you accuse the IPP of helping to destroy American Indian cultures, you don’t accuse anyone of being culturally insensitive. You also say that when you brought this up you were not questioning his deep love and respect for members of indigenous tribes. I’m afraid I just don’t buy any of that. You didn’t use the term “culturally insensitive” but that is the substance of what you accuse.
However, even if we just disregard the cultural insensitivity, the accusation of hypocrisy is a disrespectful accusation–an attack.
Pardon my ignorance on this topic, but is showing disrespect for Kimball tantamount to apostacy?
In my opinion, no. Disrespect for President Kimball is not, per se, apostasy. It could manifest itself in extreme ways that would amount to apostasy–such as actively encouraging others to disregard the Prophet’s teachings or dispute his authority.
I don’t accuse Kim of apostasy.
You think my words were strong? So what would be an example of a weak criticism in your mind then?
“You claim that when you criticized President Kimball for believing that there might be an alteration in the skin of Indian converts, you were not saying he was culturally insensitive.”
Right. I was saying he was wrong. Sensitivity to culture had nothing to do with the statement.
“You also claim that although you accuse the IPP of helping to destroy American Indian cultures, you don’t accuse anyone of being culturally insensitive.”
Not absolutely. As I said before, the Church is promoting the cultures of the Pacific islands. How can that be construed as cultural insensitivity?
“You also say that when you brought this up you were not questioning his deep love and respect for members of indigenous tribes.”
Right. I fully believe he was sincere in all he said about and in all the feelings he had toward indigenous peoples.
“You didn’t use the term ‘culturally insensitive’ but that is the substance of what you accuse.”
Based on your interpretation of what I said.
“the accusation of hypocrisy is a disrespectful accusation–an attack.”
Again, I fail to see how this is disrespectful, let alone an attack.
Well then I’ll have to just disagree with you on that point, too. The accusation “you are a hypocrite” is a strong, disrespectful critcism. It’s an attack. It was an attack when Christ used it against the Scribes and Pharisees, and it still is today.
It doesn’t matter whether you used the very words “you are a hypocrite” directed at the Church or President Kimball. The substance of your criticism was just that, from the very start of this thread.
I have never denied that my original post suggested the participation in these two programs seemed hypocritical.
I am more than open to someone explaining to me how purposefully promoting one culture while participating in a programme that contributed to the erosion of another culture is not in any degree hypocritical.
“It could manifest itself in extreme ways that would amount to apostasy–such as actively encouraging others to disregard the Prophet’s teachings or dispute his authority.”
Okay, but if the prophet were wrong – in this case it seems he was incorrect about the lamanites becoming whiter; is that still apostacy?
I thought that the current prophet’s teachings trumped any older prophet’s teachings. That being the case, wouldn’t someone want to encourage others to disregard that Prophet’s teachings?
Rick, I don’t think President Kimball’s belief, founded on a textual error in the Book of Mormon at the time, rises to the level of his “teachings” because I don’t believe he ever told anyone to do something based on that belief. If his belief was a mistake, how did it result in misleading anyone–that is, leading them into doing evil? I don’t think it did. If President Kimball said people should do something, and someone stood up and said he was leading the members to do wrong, and that they should stop doing as the Prophet counsels them, then I think that would be apostasy.
If President Hinckley said that the time had come to make a change in our conduct–for example, to end some specific program that President Kimball instituted–then of course, it would be apostasy to tell others they should disregard President Hinckley and continue the Kimball program.
That’s why “polygamous Mormons” are, of course, not Mormons but apostates. They refuse to accept the leadership of the Prophet in their own time and continue to insist that he can make no change in the direction of the Church.
Just as in Christ’s time, people have an easier time wanting to follow ancient or dead prophets than wanting to follow the current prophet.
Sorry ltbugaf, but that’s completely wrong.
Kimbal stated that:
“The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation” (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3)
If that doesn’t strike you as wrong (and racist by the way) I am afraid we must agree to disagree on this topic.
Kimball most assuredly taught this, and also caused harm in its’ teaching.
If I were a member and I said this, would it make me an apostate?
I don’t believe that a teaching of a prophet has to consist of giving the members direction in practice. I see no reason not to consider things they taught as teachings.
“That’s why “polygamous Mormons” are, of course, not Mormons but apostates.”
That depends on your definition of “Mormon”. Members of the church seem to define it to mean “members of the church”. Others seem to define it as anyone who follows Joseph smith.
Rick,
Not only could that statement be interpreted to mean that participation in the programme has made them lighter, but it could also be interpreted to mean they only picked the whiter ones to participate.
Rick: What did President Kimball teach people to DO, based on this belief? Did he teach them to do something evil? I don’t believe he did. You may believe the opposite.
Kim: Obviously I do hew to the school of thought that says that since “Mormon” is most commonly used as a reference to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is confusing and somewhat destructive to use it to mean something else. Of course, I recognize that almost every word means more than one thing. I’m ADVOCATING for that definition.