MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379792343 · doi:10.1353/nai.2018.a721564

Order Up! The Decolonizing Politics of Howard Adams and Maria Campbell with a Side of Imagining Otherwise

2018· article· en· W4379792343 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Voth

Notice bibliographique

RevueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsIndigenousColonialismCorporationSociologyOrder (exchange)NewspaperMedia studiesConvictPrisonHistoryLawPolitical scienceCriminology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Order Up!The Decolonizing Politics of Howard Adams and Maria Campbell with a Side of Imagining Otherwise Daniel Voth (bio) it has been more than forty years since the publication of Maria Campbell's foundational text Halfbreed (1973) and Howard Adams's Prison of Grass: Canada from the Native Point of View (1975). Both authors emerged out of Indigenous organizing movements and established themselves as articulate and persuasive Métis writers, activists, and leaders. Campbell and Adams provided pointed and powerful criticisms of the Canadian colonial milieu grounded in their respective local contexts and experiences. Both Adams and Campbell were featured on Indigenous media programs such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) radio show Our Native Land. Adams also gave comments to major daily newspapers; magazines such as New Breed; and films, including the National Film Board's Pow Wow at Duck Lake and The Other Side of the Ledger: An Indian View of the Hudson's Bay Company. Campbell went on to write acclaimed children's books and translated Cree and Michif stories in Stories of the Road Allowance People. Through their activism, Campbell and Adams came to be leaders in both formal and protest Métis political movements, and they built bridges between the leaders of the previous generation and a new generation of Métis agitators. While many in Indigenous communities will reflect fondly on both Adams's and Campbell's teaching, mentorship, and public appearances, both scholars ought to also be noted for their important intellectual contributions to understanding Canadian colonialism and theorizing Indigenous resistance.1 With the exciting rise in Métis scholarship and Métis studies, the time seems right for a reexamination of both Adams and Campbell as intellectual leaders on whose shoulders many of us stand tall. Importantly, though, these works have a great deal to say to each other. In what follows, I start by arguing that, more than forty years after its publication, Prison of Grass continues to have the power to inform scholars and activists engaged in the study and practice of Indigenous resurgence as well as the politics of decolonization, colonialism, and settler colonialism in Canada. This appreciative critique, however, cannot abide one of the central theoretical failings [End Page 16] of Adams's intellectual work: his colossal failure to adequately and appropriately address Indigenous gender and Indigenous gendered power dynamics within his explication of colonial domination. While Adams's thought remains useful as a tool both for Indigenous activists in community and for scholars in the academy, there is a pressing need to name, deconstruct, and then imagine and act otherwise about the sexism and the reproduction of heterosexual norms of life he advances in his thought. To this end, I contrast Adams's interventions with Maria Campbell's insightful engagement with gendered colonial violence in Halfbreed to demonstrate that Campbell understood better than Adams the gendered and intersecting dimensions of colonial power and violence. The article is divided into three sections. In the first, I argue that Adams's interventions continue to have explanatory strength for Indigenous political struggles and the study of those conflicts. In the second, I work through Adams's failure on gender and contrast his theory with Campbell's. The problem created by this critical engagement is that it leaves much of the fight against gendered colonial oppression unfinished. Phrased differently, the critique that I offer here does not in itself substantially contribute to the building of a decolonizing politics attuned to gendered colonial violence. To address this, the final section takes up James Tully's call to act otherwise in struggles of freedom along with the calls of literary scholars to imagine otherwise. The aim of the final section is to offer a framework that at once harnesses a rich appreciation of Indigenous gender diversity toward creating an anticolonial politic, thereby combining the strengths of both Campbell and Adams. The way I approach this is to engage in an alternative imagining of the formulation of Adams's orientation to both gendered colonial domination and the way gender is animated in a decolonizing political movement. Howard Adams as Foundational in Decolonizing Politics in Canada This section outlines the continued relevance of...

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: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,309
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

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 technologies0,0010,009
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · 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'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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNative American and Indigenous StudiesMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207