Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Commissions as Narratives: A Review EssayHedican, Edward J. Ipperwash: The Tragic Failure of Canada's Aboriginal Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013, 304 pages.Niezen, Ronald. Truth and Indignation: Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013, 173 pages.It goes without saying that as anthropologists we are interested in the study of human subjects and their interactions with each other. We are concerned with the mechanisms through which culture becomes a means of interpreting events for individuals and for communities; how local narratives compete with metanarratives; and how the narrative form can be used to create barriers or expand relationship. Narrative is an obvious focal point for our work because it acts as a gateway for individuals and communities to explain how they experience events, often without us having to experience the event ourselves. Two works that exemplify the use of narrative as a tool within anthropology are Edward J. Hedican's Ipperwash: The Tragic Failure of Canada's Aboriginal Policy and Ronal Niezen's Truth, and Indignation: Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools.Hedican and Niezen have written about two different inquiries into the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and two different levels of government, the Ipperwash Inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Hedican has focused on a single event in which Dudley George was killed. Niezen's focus was, at the time of his writing, the ongoing TRC. Hedican's work does not shy away from dealing with the role of racism in the Province of Ontario and its institutions. He allows us to consider how the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown can be problematically unfulfilled because of racism. Hedican spends the first third of the book discussing Aboriginal policy and rights in Canada, focusing on historical and legal developments before exploring the Ipperwash Inquiry and the failure of Canada's Aboriginal policy.Niezen's work is a reflection on the relationship between Aboriginal people, the Crown, the churches that ran the schools and the symbolic construction of a particular version of that relationship. Niezen's analysis of how public performance of trauma can act to transfer blame from one actor (the Crown) to another (the Church) is interesting and important. He does this by his focus on the role of indignation as a response to the abuse of children at the hands of those whose care they were in (Niezen 2013:16-17). In this way, actors narrate the events they experienced and the audience converts the narrating actor into archetype characters within the structure imposed by the scope of the inquiry. The end result is a powerful force that the Crown uses to shape the direction of the inquiry's narrative.Common ground can be found in these two books not by considering the inquiry as a hearing, which ends a series of events, but by focusing on the potential effects of the inquiry on ongoing relationships. Hedican reminds his readers that these inquiries are expensive and, taking a cynical view, do nothing but buy a government more time and perhaps deflect attention away from real problems (Hedican 2013:203). His point is important. Certainly the Ipperwash Inquiry did not make the land claims process more efficient. The Provincial Crown has little authority to make such changes. In addition, as is evident by a lack of real changes, racism continues to be a problem in Canada. The TRC serves the role of collecting important personal narratives, but the focus on trauma circumscribes the finished product. In addition, the narrowed scope of the inquiry limits the legitimacy of anyone coming forward with a claim who did not attend a residential school as defined by the commission.However, I wish to focus on the construction of narratives, including Hedican's and Niezen's, as it relates to how metanarratives continue to be created about Aboriginal peoples. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».