This issue of Preservings continues the conversation of the 1920s migration of Mennonites from Canada to Latin America. While our spring issue, which published the memoir of Isaak Dyck, portrayed the factors that led to the migration of the Old Colony Mennonites, this one explores the relationships between family, community, and values which shaped and were transformed by the migration. The conflict between Mennonites and the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan over control of children’s education was only one of several sets of tensions and animosities that were in play. In many ways, our feature articles address not what happened to Mennonites but rather the dynamic among them as families and communities decided whether their ideals required them to leave. These articles also broaden the story to include the perspectives of the Sommerfelder Mennonites, who moved to Mexico in smaller numbers than the Old Colony but made their own contribution to the fabric of Mennonite life in Latin America. Finally, serious consideration is given to the experiences of those families who returned to Canada, after finding the sacrifice of settling in Mexico and Paraguay too great or the opportunities too few.

Many of these articles show the significance of family dynamics in the decision-making process. Grace Dalke’s article raises questions about the centrality of the school issue as a motivation for all participants in the migration, and demonstrates that assumptions about the implications of “conservative” versus “progressive” attitudes are not always useful. Individual families moved for a host of reasons, and not all were intertwined with religious values. In individual family histories, passed down through stories, we find that it was not uncommon for disagreements to arise within a family unit as to whether lives should be uprooted to migrate, and whether faith required such action. It is not difficult to imagine that in some cases differences in perspective fostered resentments and judgement that festered, changing relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and among siblings. While the articles in this issue only hint at how migration weakened or broke family bonds, the pain experienced by many who made the decision to leave as well as those who decided to stay is palpable. Migration separated people; letters and infrequent visits could not maintain the intimacy allowed by regular contact. Not surprisingly, separation and disagreement over how to live a faithful life generated turmoil within families.

Familial tensions were often exacerbated by community pressures. In the case of the Hague-Osler Reserve, described by Leonard Doell, the relentless prosecution by provincial authorities, often meted out by local official trustees and justices of the peace, some carrying Mennonite last names, created hostility within villages. Henry Friesen’s article on the Swift Current settlement in Saskatchewan shows the important role performed by Old Colony religious leadership in pushing forward the migration process and the pressure felt by individual families to follow the group to Mexico or else lose their religious community. As Hans Werner demonstrates, attempts to sell Old Colony land as a block in Manitoba and Saskatchewan added their own complications and challenges, as community members required capital for the migration but struggled to close deals with potential purchasers. The simple solution of selling to the incoming Russlaender proved more difficult than many had originally imagined. These economic pressures, often overlooked, are essential for understanding the experience of the community.

For those who left, life in Mexico or Paraguay was initially extremely difficult. Grace Dalke, Ernest Braun, and Donald Stoesz each explore the theme of the Rückkehrer (returnees) who migrated to Mexico or Paraguay in the first waves and then decided to return to Manitoba, providing different perspectives on the experiences of the returnees. For the Isaac Friesen family, returning after three years in Mexico was a struggle but did not create insurmountable challenges, as Isaac’s parents had not joined the migration. In contrast, for the Braun family who returned from Paraguay, social, economic, and familial losses, and the derogatory label of Rückkehrer, shaped their economic prospects and community standing for decades. The example of David M. Stoesz, a Sommerfelder minister, demonstrates another type of returnee experience. Minister Stoesz supported the migration, offered spiritual guidance in Mexico, and then became a return migrant to Manitoba. His status as a returnee, however, did not appear to affect his religious standing in the community.

Finally, Conrad Stoesz and Kennert Giesbrecht remind us that most Mennonites stayed in Mexico and Paraguay, building lasting communities. These communities continue to remember their past and plan their future with gratitude. For them, despite the hardships, leaving Canada was a moment for celebration, God’s gift to their community. And all of these perspectives, these contradictory interpretations and experiences, exist together, reminding us of the richness of our history.