Our class trip to the Museum of Anthropology’s exhibit “Speaking to Memory: Images and Voices from St. Michael’s Residential School” was a moving experience that immediately invoked a sense of responsibility in me to have a well-informed understanding of Aboriginal history in Canada, so as to play my part in facilitating a reconciliation and to ensure that this type of prejudice does not repeat itself. I was particularly struck by the honesty, richness and layers of the exhibit that can be observed through a multitude of perspectives, using imagery, posters, letters, apologies, and books to emancipate those affected and give them a vehicle to have their sentiments heard and to be healed, as a visible body of people.
In particular, what struck me most was that there was two different entrances to the exhibit, which invoked different sentiments and perspectives to those whom entered the exhibit from each respective entrance.
1. One entrance to the exhibit commenced with a portrait of the various experiences of children who participated in the residential school system juxtaposed against apology letters written by various groups including government officials and religious bodies. This entrance instantly commenced a dialogue of the diverse body of experiences.
2. The other entrance to the exhibit commenced with a blackboard available for guests to write their thoughts down of the exhibit and the residential schools. The most common comment was “it is sad” or “it makes me sad”.
Viewing this blackboard upon leaving the exhibit, I nodded my head in affirmation of those who expressed the sad nature of the content we viewed. However, having read the term “sad” repeatedly on the blackboard made me question whether guests of the exhibit felt limited to writing that content was “sad” because that was the dominant perception expressed, rather than truly grappling with the rich, moving, and troubling nature of the exhibit.
It would seem logical for the blackboard to be the “end” of the exhibit, but since guests could commence their visit at the exhibit from the blackboard, I can’t help but question whether this would color their perception of the exhibit so as to construe the rich exhibit from the viewpoint that “it is sad”, rather than allowing visitors to formulate their own conclusions on the exhibit.
Thinking of this duality in the entrances makes me question whether popular perception and knowledge of the residential school system is much like the “black board” experience. Most people know that the residential school system is a part of our history and that it is sad, but how many of us Canadians know much about the various experiences of the children who partook in these schools and how it affected their families and communities, and the ripple effect it has had on our social fabric?
I find it incredible that such a pertinent part of our history that is as recent as 1996 has such limited discourse surrounding it in our society for those who do not seek it out. An integral part of any healing experience is discourse, so while it’s great that we have these exhibits available to us, perhaps we need to facilitate greater discussion around this historical event, instead of just simplifying it to “it is sad”.
Hi Ponnie, when I was going through the exhibit I also noticed the blackboard, and the sheer amount of the word “sad” concerned me. It felt as if there were no other descriptive words that people were able to use in order to describe the events they were learning about. Like you mentioned, it seemed that people were limited in their ability to express themselves. But the usage of the word “sad”does not really describe much to me. It’s very abstract. How are they sad? What specifically in the exhibition makes them sad? How does this sadness affect them? With how rich in content the exhibition is, I find it concerning how people only seem to be able to use this one word to describe their experience. You mentioned that it might be due to the lack of discourse, but do you also think that it might be because this event is something that people simply want to bury and forget, thus causing them to not express the details that is causing them to feel “sad”?
Hi Clement,
Thank you for your comment. I do not necessarily think that there were no other descriptive words that people were able to use to describe the events they were learning about, but rather, it is much easier to describe something with a blanket statement like ‘it is sad’ instead of engaging with it in a broader context and grappling with the depth of emotions it may engage. I also wonder whether people felt inclined or limited to describing their feelings as ‘sad’ because of the number of similar comments preceding theirs. I do not think that the majority of people simply want to bury and forget, rather those who were unaffected by the events that took place may feel disengaged or try to disengage from the events, thus causing a monotonous reaction among the masses.