MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2765150108 · doi:10.1215/00182168-4214594

At the Border of Empires: The Tohono O'odham, Gender, and Assimilation, 1880–1934

2017· article· en· W2765150108 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natale A. Zappia

Notice bibliographique

RevueHispanic American Historical Review · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAfrican history and culture studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsSovereigntyScholarshipPolitical scienceIndependence (probability theory)EmpireAutonomyCultural assimilationPolitical economyPower (physics)SociologyLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This excellent study of gender, indigeneity, and empire in the southwest borderlands of the early twentieth century has resulted from a collaboration between two scholars trained in different subfields: Progressive Era public health and transnational smuggling. Like the borderlands, collaborative scholarship (particularly within the humanities) can result in a muddled effort with dissonant voices. At the Border of Empires, in contrast, largely succeeds in precisely identifying the power of the local to shape the national and beyond. Indeed, Andrae Marak and Laura Tuennerman argue that “it was at the edges of empire that local forces . . . had the most chance to impact the implementation of national policies” (p. 2). Utilizing a most effective analytical tool—gender—this study aims to unveil what actually happened, not “what the leaders and policymakers wanted to happen” (p. 2).In six short but substantive chapters focusing on the Tohono O'odham nation between the Dawes Act and the Indian Reorganization Act (from the 1880s to the 1930s), the authors analyze tensions between national assimilation polices implemented by the United States and Mexico and their local adoption (or resistance) by Tohono O'odhams, whose communities and villages straddled both sides of the border between Sonora and Arizona. This time period reflected dramatic (mostly devastating) changes across Indian country in Mexico and the United States. The Dawes Act ushered in the allotment and boarding-school eras, simultaneously undermining native land ownership, sovereignty, economic and political independence, and cultural autonomy. While many Progressive Era policies and reformers may have had the best intentions, the authors argue, they mostly disrupted Tohono O'odham marriage practices, ceremonial activities (which many times involved alcohol—a usual target for reformers), farming and ranching practices, and education.A somewhat disparate cross section of local, regional, and national organizations attempted to usher in these Progressive reforms on the vast, recently established Tohono O'odham reservation, including the Methodist and Catholic Churches, matrons, the Tucson business community, and the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA). While these groups competed with each other for Tohono O'odham hearts and minds, the authors argue that national assimilation connected them through the language of gender. All these groups believed that marriage meant monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) relationships, that proper education emphasized Anglo-American values (and thus eschewed Tohono O'odham language and culture), and that gambling and alcohol should be removed from Indian communities. Following these assimilative practices, in turn, resulted in strengthening traditional gender roles reflected in mainstream America. Most of the book is thus organized along these themes, in chapters with titles such as “Vices and Values,” “Marriage and Morals,” “Schools and Gendered Education,” and “Vocation.”At each of these intersections, however, Tohono O'odhams and their indigenous borderlands resisted or at least played a strong hand in negotiating gendered identities. Native parents and tribal leaders most intimately involved in managing the implementation of OIA policies ultimately decided how far assimilation could go. Passive resistance (i.e., not showing up to school, church, or work) frequently served as the strategy of choice—acts usually overlooked by historians but nonetheless essential to understanding the perseverance of indigenous autonomy. The frustration of agency officials and missionary agents bears this out, and the authors' meticulous combing of archival material like the National Archives and Records Administration reveals an impressive methodological approach (there are many vivid photographs throughout the book as well). At the Border of Empires succinctly utilizes these overlooked primary sources while also inserting itself in several historiographical and theoretical conversations. In a short amount of text, the book speaks to the history of the borderlands, the Progressive Era, and Native Americans.The final chapter also provides a comparative framework by highlighting the experiences of Tohono O'odhams in Sonora. Like those living in the United States, these communities lived at the periphery of empire. Unlike in most regions in Mexico, the state played a weak institutional role in Sonora, as it had in centuries past. In contrast to the United States, Tohono O'odhams here faced additional challenges for political recognition and corporate autonomy. Many thus frequently crossed the border to gain access to jobs and services on the Tohono O'odham reservation. The border—and identities—remained porous for some time to come. It is here (as well as in the first chapter, chronicling early Tohono O'odham history) that more comparative analysis would further strengthen this study—for example, looking at other binational indigenous communities along the Mexican and even Canadian borders. But ultimately, At the Border of Empires skillfully entices future scholars to further research these very spaces.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,134
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,267

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,008
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHispanic American Historical ReviewMême sujetAfrican history and culture studiesTravaux en français237 207