Review of <i>Lethal Legacy: Current Native Controversies in\nCanada</i> By J. R. Miller
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Apart from being from Western Canada, what do Louis Riel and Peter Lougheed have in common? According to J. R. Miller, the two have a shared heritage: both are Metis. Yet, in the eyes of Canadians, one is always identified as Metis while the other is not. This interesting parallel helps the author grapple with the complicated question of Native identity in the first chapter of Lethal Legacy: Current Native Controversies in Canada.\nThe reasons for writing a book with such a title are clearly indicated in the preface. Miller-professor of history and Canada Research Chair in Native-newcomer Relations at the University of Saskatchewan and the author of Shingwauk's Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (1996)-hopes to help Canadians " understand more fully the issues and the ramifications of Native-newcomers relations." His account provides numerous examples going well back in history to make its points and to unravel the roots of contemporary conflicts or questions that still baffle the majority of Canadians.\nMiller covers topics such as Native identity, selfgovernment, treaties, attitudes to land and ownership, and assimilation. For each of these sections he offers a concise but precise account of Canadian Aboriginal history. He touches on many sensitive issues such as Residential schools, the work of the missionaries, and Native claims, to name a few. Aboriginal women and contemporary Metis issues are noted as well. Each chapter is accompanied by a short bibliography. Pictures, drawings, and an index are also included.\nWhile the author acknowledges the fact that there are no easy solutions to current Native-newcomer problems, he nevertheless proposes one. According to Miller, three options have emerged in Canada: the two-row wampum (that is, parallel development between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples); assimilation; and "Citizen Plus," a middle-ground option that combines "a respect for difference with an appeal for unity based on a shared citizenship" (Andrew Parkin, in Centre for Research and Information on Canada, Bridging the Divide Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State [2001], 4). While he has doubts about the "parallel sovereignties of the two-row wampum," he rejects the second option, for reasons he clearly exposes throughout the book, and favors the last. Political scientist Alan Cairns, in his Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State (2000), has extensively debated the benefits of "Citizen Plus." At the time, Aboriginal scholars clearly indicated that they were not in favor of "Citizen Plus" due in part to the fact that "a renewed 'citizens plus' rhetoric does not easily fit into the legal dialogue that has emerged over the past 20 years" (Patricia Monture-Angus, "Citizens Plus: Sensitivities versus Solutions," in Bridging the Divide, 10). Six years later, it is doubtful that Aboriginal people would be any more in favor of such an alternative. While Miller is entitled to his opinion, the last chapter is therefore the weak link in an otherwise well-researched and fascinating book.\nLethal Legacy will be highly appreciated by undergraduate students and ordinary citizens interested in Canadian Aboriginal history. It should serve as an excellent textbook in history, Native studies, and Canadian studies courses and a quick reference for scholars and students alike.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».