MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379780098 · doi:10.1353/aiq.2016.a615233

Sarah Winnemucca Goes to Washington: Rhetoric and Resistance in the Capital City

2016· article· en· W4379780098 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cari M. Carpenter

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Indian Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWhite (mutation)PoliticsResistance (ecology)Power (physics)DepictionBrotherLawHistoryRhetoricSociologyEconomic historyPolitical scienceArtTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sarah Winnemucca Goes to WashingtonRhetoric and Resistance in the Capital City Cari M. Carpenter (bio) The complex, often troubled relationship between American Indians and whites has played out numerous times on the national stage of Washington, DC, not only in theaters that have showed performances like Pocahontas, or The Settlers of Virginia: A National Drama in 1836 but in the hosting of Native American delegations since the creation of the United States.1 In January 1880 Northern Paiute activist Sarah Winnemucca accompanied her father, her brother Natches, an unidentified young relative, and the Washo leader known as Captain Jim to DC (see fig. 1). She and the others were invited in large part because of a petition she had sent to Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz criticizing William Rinehart, the Malheur Reservation agent who would become Winnemucca’s ardent enemy. The Northern Paiutes who had been invited to DC by the US government had not been formally elected to represent their nation; Northern Paiute society traditionally consisted of bands, each with a headman, so that little centralized governance existed. Winnemucca’s father had come to be known by whites as Chief Winnemucca, a reflection more of non-Natives’ attempts to locate authority in a single figure rather than an accurate depiction of his stature among Northern Paiutes. At least since Sarah Winnemucca’s grandfather, known as Truckee, had welcomed white settlers to the area, the family had enjoyed a certain political power in relation to white society. The delegation went to the US capital in hopes of restoring Northern Paiutes to the Malheur Reservation in Oregon, where they had initially enjoyed comparatively good treatment by agent Samuel Parrish. In early 1879, however, following the Bannock War, residents of the Malheur Reservation had been forcibly removed to Yakima (now spelled Yakama) Reservation in Washington Territory, a 350-mile journey that took a number of lives. [End Page 87] Click for larger view View full resolution Fig. 1. Paiute delegation, 1880. From left: Sarah Winnemucca, Chief Winnemucca, Captain Jim, and an unidentified boy. Courtesy of National Archives (75-ip-3-26). This was in no sense the beginning of Sarah Winnemucca’s political career; she first published her critique of the treatment of her people in 1870 in a letter to E. S. Parker of the Board of Indian Commissioners. Throughout the 1870s she was an interpreter for the US army, a teacher at Malheur Reservation, and a lecturer across the western United States. In the 1880s she lectured across the eastern United States and taught at Fort Vancouver and at her own Peabody Institute in Lovelock, Nevada. She had been planning a trip east to meet with sympathetic reformers in Boston when she received the invitation to DC. Once there, Winnemucca and the other members of the delegation met with President Rutherford B. Hayes and Secretary Schurz. Although the delegation [End Page 88] was able to secure a promise from Schurz that Northern Paiutes could return to Malheur and receive land allotments, the United States ultimately reneged on this promise, an outcome that Winnemucca found both personally disappointing and professionally damaging. Examining Winnemucca’s two visits to the capital during the late nineteenth century next to the 2005 installation of a commemorative statue of her in the Rotunda (see fig. 2), I consider what each tells us about the relationship between American Indians and the US capital. More specifically, I offer a close study of the transcript of her 1884 testimony to a congressional subcommittee—a document that has received, at best, only passing mention—alongside the statue commemoration. My study uses Winnemucca’s self-narrative, Life Among the Piutes (1883), as well as contemporary newspaper articles, which I argue give us new insight not only into federal efforts to “manage” her but also into her manipulation of her public image.2 Finally, I turn to the 2005 statue commemoration, a contemporary example of efforts to incorporate indigenous people into the United States. In these DC encounters, I argue, we see examples of the federal government’s project to fold Native Americans into the American community in a way that attempts to negate their political distinctiveness. Winnemucca’s delegation...

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,646
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,638

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 technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,240
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · 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.

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
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe American Indian QuarterlyMême sujetRhetoric and Communication StudiesTravaux en français237 207