MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2471159141 · doi:10.1353/ams.2016.0051

Red Ink: Native Americans Picking up the Pen in the Colonial Period by Drew Lopenzina

2016· article· en· W2471159141 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoff Hamilton

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican studies · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLatin American history and culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésColonialismIndigenousPeriod (music)HistoryHegemonyAgency (philosophy)LiteratureSociologyAestheticsArtLawPoliticsSocial sciencePolitical scienceArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,433
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,005
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican studiesMême sujetLatin American history and cultureTravaux en français237 207