Within this post, I am going to talk about my experience visiting the Mohawk Institute Residential School (MI) at the Woodland Cultural Centre (WCC).
I always learn a lot visiting the WCC because it challenges my preconceptions. I am a white settler (English) raised in a Christian household and educated in Canadian public schools. I have a lot to learn.
Background
Like the Aga Khan Museum discussed in my last post, the Woodland Cultural Centre (WCC) differs substantially from other museums in the area. As stated on their website, the WCC “was established in October 1972, under the direction of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians upon the closure of the Mohawk Institute Residential School” (Source). Today, it is one of the largest heritage institutions managed and administered by First Nations in what is currently called Ontario.
I first learnt about the WCC when researching my PhD on Ontario Museum Policy because they receive the provincial Community Museum Operating Grant (CMOG).
In the 1980s, the provincial government introduced standards as a condition for CMOG. The standards continue to exist and an updated version is available here. Museums applying for CMOG were asked to demonstrate compliance and, as a result, some small heritage institutions lost their provincial operational funding (or transferred to the smaller and less stringent Heritage Organization Development Grant). As I engaged in archival research, I came across a WCC application for CMOG in the 1980s. Although they did not meet the requirements, Museum Advisors recommended an exception because they were the only museum operated by First Nations receiving funding. I believe they continue to be the only CMOG recipient run by First Nations.
Operational funding, which CMOG provides, is critical for museums because they need funding for staff, maintenance, and other items that are not typically funded through conditional donations or project funding. Consistent and long term operational funding is key to developing organizational capacity.
Operational funding, which CMOG provides, is critical for museums because they need funding for staff, maintenance, and other items that are not typically funded through conditional donations or project funding. Consistent and long term operational funding is key to developing organizational capacity.
From a cultural policy perspective, I believe the WCC is stands as argument for funding to First Nations to develop the organizational capacity needed “to maintain, control, protect and develop their own cultural heritage” (UNDRIP 22).The Woodland Cultural Centre is an amazing space that is well worth the drive from Toronto to Brantford. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about the Hodinohsho:ni worldview and think we should be prioritizing funding and donations to Indigenous led institutions, like the WCC. As a result, we have driven to Brantford and visited the Museum a few times over the last year.
Our January visit to the Mohawk Institute Residential School (MI) at the WCC, which opened on Truth and Reconciliation Day in 2025, was a second attempt. Previously, I headed to Brantford without much planning. Unfortunately, the MI was closed as they made changes to the procedures. They had posted the following statement to Instagram:
The week of November 10th, I showed up on a Wednesday, hoping to book a tour. Unfortunately for me, the change was not set up yet and there was information on what the process would look like. While I was frustrated and disappointed, I admire the institution’s approach to prioritizing safety.
During my January visit, I focused on touring the former Mohawk Institute Residential School and did not visit the museum or art gallery spaces. However, I was parenting my toddler and could not fully engage with the content. That being said, I still learnt and have reflections on the design. Hopefully, I will be able to go back soon and reflect more on the content.
Reflection
The museum and art gallery inside the Woodland Cultural Centre (WCC) are very toddler friendly. The Woodland Cultural Centre (WCC) also did the work to ensure parents have the option to bring children into the Mohawk Institute Residential School (MI) with an audio guide for children. That being said, the subject matter and history depicted is incredibly difficult.
I want my kid to grow up knowing about difficult histories. I want them to understand what residential schools were and how they continue to impact society. However, my kid is two.
Their goal for the visit seemed to be running and playing through the hallways, which did not feel appropriate. Since it was a quiet day with only one other family in the MI, the reflection rooms served as a space I could bring my little to calm down and color. I would have felt uncomfortable using the space in this way if the institute was busier and other people needed the space for quiet reflection.
All of that to say: The WCC made the MI accessible for children, but I don’t recommend bringing a rambunctious toddler.
Due to my rambunctious toddler, I was not able to engage with the content as much as I wanted. I did listen to most of the auditory materials and walked through the entire space, but was not able to read very much. The experience was far more emotional than intellectual / educational for me. My child running alongside me heightened my emotions as I imagined what these children went through.
I left with one key idea and I can’t stop thinking about it – that was not a school.
The seed of this idea was planted during an earlier visit when I called the MI a school at the WCC front desk. The staff member kindly corrected me, letting me know they prefer to use the word Institute. I thought the correction made sense and changed the language I used but did not reflect on the implications of word usage.
Then, when touring the MI, I saw and heard repeated examples of abuse and neglect. The stories from Survivors emphasized the ways they were essentially imprisoned and mistreated. Information about their so-called education in this space conflicted with what I was taught in school.
I only have one clear memory of learning about “Residential Schools” in elementary school during the 1990s in the New Brunswick French Immersion program. Most of our lessons about Indigenous Peoples centered the Mi’kmaq and their relationship with Acadians. Functionally, these lessons taught us what Europeans learnt from Indigenous Peoples and how positive relationships helped Acadians survive.
One day, we had a fill in the blank activity centering Indigenous peoples. At least one question / answer implied children were forced into “schools,” but I do not remember any other negatives mentioned in this activity or our classes more broadly. It was not clear to me that bad things happened there. I remember one question asked us to list the benefits of Residential Schools. While I did not know the answer, the teacher explained that people learned many valuable skills needed to survive.
I still remember being confused and trying to get information on what, exactly, the Indigenous Peoples learnt at these “Schools” that helped them survive. We always got a lot of information about specific helpful things Acadians learnt from the Mi’kmaq. I noticed and vividly remember noticing the difference. However, when I did not get additional information, I stopped thinking about the issue and accepted that what the teacher I liked told me was true (in my defense, I was about 8 years).
I remained ignorant for most of my life about the horrors of places like the Mohawk Institute. Like many white Canadians with settler roots, my awareness started to change around 2012 due to the Idle No More movement and 2015 with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Over the last decade, I have made some efforts to learn and understand the implications of Residential Schools. However, I never questioned or thought critically about the use of the word school.
I have been to a number of historic school museums in Ontario and Canada more broadly. Notably, the experience of going to the MI is nothing like the experience of going to a school museum. Instead, the emotional impact was similar to experiences I’ve had in museums that focus on incarceration (e.g., the Kilmainham Gaol Museum) or other difficult histories (e.g., Vabamu Museum of Occupations and Freedom). I understand that the use of “residential school” reflects what they were called, but the wording is part of the colonial narrative. It obscures the reality of lived experiences, encouraging assumptions about learning.
Today, the Mohawk Institute actually is a site primarily for learning and I think the work is really important. I appreciated the opportunity to learn from survivors.
Questions
Have you visited the Mohawk Institute and, if so, what were your take aways?
Museoception 