MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7034588763

"When We Were First Paid"\nThe Blackfoot Treaty, The Western Tribes, And\nThe Creation Of The Common Hunting Ground, 1855

2001· article· en· W7034588763 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueInsecta mundi · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Établissements canadiensAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev Canada
Organismes subventionnairesAustralian Government
Mots-clésTreatyGovernorGeorge (robot)Government (linguistics)White (mutation)ReservationOrder (exchange)Foreign policy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In mid-October of 1855, Blackfoot Treaty commissioner Isaac 1. Stevens, governor of Washington Territory and ex-officio its superintendent of Indian Affairs, and his co-commissioner Colonel Alfred Cumming, head of the Central Superintendency including Nebraska Territory, finally assembled the Blackfoot Peace Council just below the confluence of the Judith and Missouri Rivers. The federal government through the Office of Indian Affairs by then had already pieced together a new reservation policy for the West. This "new order of things," largely designed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny, hoped to reduce white conflicts with Indians, to prevent, if possible, expensive military actions, and above all to extinguish Indian land title by purchase, thereby enabling "legitimate" white settlement. In doing so, the new policy went well beyond the government's earlier and more limited goals of keeping immigrant trails free of hostile Indians and of creating a peaceful, federal dispensation or order on the Great Plains by means of annual compensation.1\nThe Blackfoot Council and the treaty that emerged from it, often termed Lame Bull's Treaty, however, did not fit the new reservation policy. It extinguished no aboriginal land title through land sales or cessions, nor did it provide for Indian removal to reservations where the government could establish schools, hospitals, and mills and provide farming instruction and moral guidance. Nor did the treaty advance the division of communal lands in order to allot small parcels to individual Indians. It was not a so-called land treaty at all; it was a peace treaty. And it contained a surprise-the federal creation of a common hunting ground. This designated area was to be shared "in peace" by the Blackfoot tribes and what were termed the "Western Indians," those who had come from west of the Rocky Mountains, across the continental divide, from the drainages of the Columbia River. These Western Indians were the Nez Perce, Yakima, Walla Walla, Cayuse, Kootenai, Spokane, and numerous Salish speakers, most prominently the Flathead and the Pend d'Oreille.\nThe formal establishment of such a common hunting ground in October of 1855 flew in the face of much of the emergent reservation policy. Instead of being encouraged to establish fixed and permanent homes, namely reservations, for exclusive tribal use, and to stay put, Stevens's federal recognition and formal establishment of a "buffalo commons" stimulated the bison hunters of the Columbia River drainages to continue their long, seasonal migrations to the contested buffalo plains centered at the headwaters of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers just as they had always done.\nWhere did the Blackfoot Treaty commissioners find the precedent for such a common hunting ground and what lay behind their willingness to establish it on the buffalo plains? Could this divergent, if not contradictory, regional determination in the Far West be reconciled with the prevailing federal reservation policy as determined by the Office of Indian Affairs? Or was that unnecessary, given that American reservation policy in the 1850s was by its nature contradictory, little more than a series of regional improvisations?2\nCommissioners Stevens and Cumming, of course, did not actually "create" the common hunting ground. They simply acknowledged and restructured the reality of a preexisting Indian common hunting ground, a sort of buffalo commons, that gradually over the years had been constructed through war, treaties, and diplomacy on the part of the tribes themselves. Stevens had first encountered this dynamic tribal creation with its shifting boundaries and alliances when he led a congressionally funded transcontinental railroad survey through the middle of Blackfoot territory in 1853. Two years later, not only did treaty commissioners Stevens and Cumming recognize this Indian construction in the treaty provisions in 1855, they gave it an inordinate amount of attention. What were their goals and expectations regarding the federal definition, limitation, and reshaping of this preexisting regional Indian commons? How did these purposes relate to possible repercussions for a bison population, already perceived to be dwindling on the Northern Plains?

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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,248
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 technologies0,0000,000
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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInsecta mundiMême sujetGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsTravaux en français237 207