We incorporated a variety of methods into our research. As Nightingale recommends, “when different kinds of knowledge are taken seriously and all are critically interrogated… supremacy of anyone kind of knowledge is challenged.”. For our research, we used archives, newsletters, reports as well as a personal interview. We mainly looked into historical sources since the goal of our research is to unveil the forgotten story of the Musqueam in the context of the creation of Pacific Spirit Park. While we closely investigated the documents, we were also aware of ‘archival silences’. Not only did we pay attention to the stories included in the archives, we were also conscious of exclusions in the story, specifically the exclusion of the Musqueam. As researchers, we aimed to use silences in our methodology to highlight the untold story of the Musqueam and to “[manifest] the actions of the powerful in denying the marginal access to archives and that this has a significant impact on the ability of the marginal groups to form social memory and history.”
Archives, Newsletters and Reports
Due to its historical nature, our research was primarily conducted in the archives. We spend most of our time in Rare Books and Special Collections at Irving K. Barber Learning Centre (IKB). We found documents on the University Endowment Lands including journals, brochures, photos and newspaper articles. Except for a few, the documents found in Rare Books and Special Collections told narratives other than the Musqueam’s. In the box dedicated to the Pacific Spirit Park, documents mainly discussed the potential social, economical, and environmental benefits for establishing the park with regards to various stakeholders; we found gaps regarding the role of the Musqueam. This is when we first encountered archival silences. We found more evidence of silences in GVRD newsletters from IKB Book Stacks. We did not find even one word about the Musqueam. Additionally, there was an article titled “What a great Christmas present” in the January/February 1989 newsletter, referring to the opening of the Pacific Spirit Park; still no word on the Musqueam—the rightsholder of the land the newly established park was situated on. Additionally, we found a report in the IKB Book Stacks that was conducted for the provincial government with the primary objective “to develop consensus and recommendations on integrated development and use of the UEL”. The report consists of technical work and consultations with provincial, regional and municipal governments, public and private institutions, community organization, and residents of GVRD. The Musqueam were also contacted for input. They responded with a letter explaining their concerns.
To avoid structural sources, we decided to look into more “unconventional archives”, one of which being the indigenous foundation website by the faculty of Arts at UBC. In the this website we found newspaper clippings that more or less acknowledge Musqueam disenfranchisement. However, the source that clarified the Musqueam narrative the most was the UBC Open Collections, in which we found numerous past Ubyssey articles on Musqueam land claims before the establishment of the Pacific Spirit Park as well as the past relationship between the Musqueam and the provincial government. The Ubyssey articles in UBC Open Collections were all written by UBC students thus provided a different point of view. Yet any articles regarding the Musqueam were either limited to small sections of the newspaper or shoved to the back. This hints the student body’s indifferent attitude toward issues regarding the Musqueam even as they did not act upon the injustice they knew was happening.
Interview
In addition to archival research we also conducted a personal interview with Thomas Nick, the former director of the Pacific Spirit Park Society, who helped with and supported the establishment of the Park in the 1980’s. In our interview with Thomas, we gained a substantial amount of information on the historical context in which the park was created as well as the provincial government’s vision for the park. However, in terms of the Musqueam, Thomas was not able to shed much light, which in a way proves the lack of awareness among local residents at the time, even those heavily devoted to the preservation of the area.
Limitations
We used a variety of methods to piece together the Musqueam version of the Pacific Spirit Park story. But more could be done. Given the restricted timeframe, we were not able to complete some of our research, which is the main limitation of our methodology. First, even though we spend long hours in the archives for weeks, we were unable to read all the documents in the archives. The archives represent a wealth of information; however, considering the small size of our group and limited hours of access, it was not possible to go through every single document found. Second, we were unable to interview the Musqueam. To be granted an interview with the Musqueam, we need a research permit, which can take up to ten weeks. Given the timeframe for our project, we were unable to do obtain this permit.