Red Ink: Native Americans Picking up the Pen in the Colonial Period by Drew Lopenzina
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Red Ink: Native Americans Picking up the Pen in the Colonial Period by Drew Lopenzina Geoff Hamilton RED INK: Native Americans Picking up the Pen in the Colonial Period. By Drew Lopenzina. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2012. The title of Lopenzina’s book—Red Ink—invokes an era of under-appreciated literary production by Native Americans, while punning on two crucial features of that production: its enduring vulnerability to revision and erasure by hegemonic cultural “editors,” and the blood-spattered historical context in which it took place. This is an impressively thorough and often compelling study; it highlights the processes of assimilation and the strategies of resistance visible in a range of colonial texts composed by indigenous authors while extending the bounds and enriching our understanding of Native American literary history. Lopenzina’s introduction anatomizes Euro-American cultural presumptions about Native literary presences, and surveys the efforts of Native authors in the colonial period to negotiate agency within print culture and reconcile (however precariously) indigenous and Western beliefs. As Lopenzina argues, “While Natives who entered into the realm of print discourse in the colonial period were not always, in their views and stances, in lock step with another or necessarily representative of all indigenous culture at the time, they nevertheless contributed to an emerging body of Native intellectual tradition that dynamically engaged the settler culture and stamped their own presence upon a period that, in response, has collaborated to deny their historical relevance” (9). The book’s chapters move through a consideration of the dynamics of “contact” and attempts by the European colonizers to deny or “unwitness” forms of Native American literacy and wider cultural achievement; the fate of Native Americans who studied at Harvard’s Indian College and helped administer New England’s first printing press; the Wampanoag’s textual efforts to defend and preserve their culture in the context of King Philip’s War; Samson Occom’s articulation of Mohegan survivance within the hegemonic conventions and disciplinary controls of eighteenth-century print culture; and finally the achievement of the Mohicans of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, who creatively managed their own literacy in order to secure a greater measure of control over their colonial destiny. [End Page 147] Red Ink effectively builds on recent scholarship investigating the dynamics of early Native American literacy—above all, Lisa Brooks’ The Common Pot: The Recovery of Native Space in the Northeast (2008), which it complements in arguing for the longstanding importance of written communication in indigenous cultures and the particular significance of textual struggles for autonomy in the colonial era. One profound implication of this scholarship is its complication of the familiar but simplistic privileging of orality over textuality as the “authentic” mode of indigenous expression. Native writing has a much longer and more intricate history than is often recognized, and, as Lopenzina demonstrates, “In many cases, access to the tool of alphabetic literacy was what preserved both individuals and entire Native communities” (168). If there is a prominent weakness in this study it is its tendency, on occasion, to lose the momentum of its argument within expansive commentaries on the historical contexts informing particular texts. Nevertheless, Red Ink represents an important, broadening contribution to our understanding of the history of Native American literary self-assertions. Geoff Hamilton University of Toronto Copyright © 2016 Mid-America American Studies Association
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».