Comments on: Culture

By: Our Thoughts » Blog Archive » Top Ten Posts of 2005

Our Thoughts » Blog Archive » Top Ten Posts of 2005 — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:14:14 +0000

[…] Culture – 56 comments […]

By: Sally

Sally — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

huh????? I know about the PCC as I have been there… loved every second of it but what is the other one?

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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).

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

"There was nothing in there about eradicating culture."

I didn't say that was its purpose. I said that's what happened.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.)

By: Jeff Milner

Jeff Milner — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.