role as the central node in the mission network of the Northwest. The mission struggled to procure funds to rebuild and maintain its school. The financial exigency of the school prompted a new and evolving discourse around Métis identity. By this time and from the Oblates’ viewpoint, a generation of indigenous people at the mission had attained the same civilizational standard as their Red River brethren. They had become Métis. In 1877, the Canadian federal government started to contract with religious denominations to provide education, with an objective to assimilate indigenous children. The Saint-Jean-Baptiste mission promoted its majority Métis population to the government as effective agents in the assimilation of their sauvage kin since the Métis were “more advanced in civilization” (87). The author misses an opportunity to deliver a more complete analysis of Catholic perceptions of mixed-descent indigeneity by not situating this detailed study of the Saint-JeanBaptiste mission amid other published accounts of Catholic missionaries in the West. A comparison here with Martha Harroun Foster’s We Know Who We Are: Métis Identity in a Montana Community (2006) raises questions. Her study shows how similar financial concerns at the St. Peter’s mission residential school in Montana prompted an opposite action by the Jesuits and Ursulines—government policy encouraged them to erase Métis distinctiveness. Since the United States government awarded funds based on the number of Indians taught, turning Métis into Indians meant more funds. Why are there opposing, yet concurrent, Catholic histories of “defining Métis” in North America? What impact did these different Catholic discourses have on the development of Métis self-identity and peoplehood? The author does not connect this mission-specific case study to a broader, French-speaking Catholic historical understanding ofmétissage or the termmétis in western North America. The evolving use of métis as a social category in the mission records of the Oblates is just one part of this larger story. Nonetheless, by focusing critical attention on these scribes of early Euro-Canadian and indigenous contact, Foran has provided scholars with a fresh historical analysis of the cultural biases embedded in the key institutions—church and state—of settler colonialism.

中文翻译：

---

边界之间的阅读：跨越四十九度线的文化生产和消费

作为西北任务网络中的中心节点。特派团努力筹集资金来重建和维护学校。学校的财政紧迫性引发了围绕梅蒂斯身份的新的和不断发展的讨论。到这个时候，从献礼者的角度来看，传教区的一代土著人已经达到了与他们的红河兄弟相同的文明标准。他们变成了梅蒂斯。1877 年，加拿大联邦政府开始与宗教教派签订合同以提供教育，目的是同化土著儿童。Saint-Jean-Baptiste 使命将其大部分梅蒂人人口提升到政府，因为梅蒂人“在文明上更先进”（87），他们是同化他们的原始亲属的有效代理人。作者没有将这项对 Saint-JeanBaptiste 传教士的详细研究置于其他已发表的西方天主教传教士记述中，从而错过了对天主教对混血原住民的看法进行更完整分析的机会。此处与玛莎·哈伦·福斯特 (Martha Harroun Foster) 的《我们知道我们是谁：蒙大拿社区中的梅蒂斯身份》(2006) 的比较提出了问题。她的研究表明，蒙大拿州圣彼得教会寄宿学校的类似财务问题如何促使耶稣会士和乌尔苏拉教徒采取相反的行动——政府政策鼓励他们消除梅蒂斯的独特性。由于美国政府根据受教的印度人数量发放资金，将梅蒂斯人变成印度人意味着更多的资金。为什么有对立，但同时存在，在北美“定义梅蒂斯”的天主教历史？这些不同的天主教话语对梅蒂斯的自我认同和人性的发展有什么影响？作者没有将这个特定于任务的案例研究与更广泛的、讲法语的天主教对北美西部的梅蒂萨奇或 termmétis 的历史理解联系起来。在 Oblates 的任务记录中，梅蒂斯作为一种社会类别的不断发展的使用只是这个更大故事的一部分。尽管如此，通过将批判性的注意力集中在这些早期欧洲-加拿大人和土著接触的抄写员身上，福兰为学者们提供了对定居者殖民主义的关键机构——教会和国家——的文化偏见的全新历史分析。