Special Foreword: We Are the Manifestations of Our Ancestor S Prayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonialism infuses the experience of First Peoples around the world, across the past, present, and future continuum. Its destructive force extends past First Peoples, eroding the understanding of non-Aboriginal peoples and to diminishing the fundamental national values of democracy, freedom, justice, and dignity for all, even in the most developed nations. For a colonial power to be successful, it must take the land, control the natural resources (especially food and water sources), suppress self-governance, delegitimize culture (language, spirituality, education, and so on)-and, finally, it must take the children. Every colonial power across the world has done these things, and in the process has established policies and infrastructure that have held the colonial relationship in place over time. Child welfare policy and practice has been no exception; it has just recently begun to acknowledge its colonial culture and take steps to address it in some parts of the world.The United States and Canada are seldom thought of as contemporary colonial powers-unless, of course, you are among its First Peoples. Every day, we experience the manifestations of colonialism in the form of limited jurisdiction, restraints on our right to protect our own children, disproportional placement of our children, health and social disparities, and inadequate funding provided for First Nations and tribal services. Much of this oppression is legitimized and systematized within government policies and emboldened by a lack of knowledge among non-Aboriginal peoples about the disadvantages that First Peoples continue to face simply because of who they are. Colonialism is a choice. As child welfare organizations and the public increase their awareness of colonialism and its active diminishment of First Peoples, there develops an irrevocable responsibility to stand with First Peoples to acknowledge the past, learn from it, and set a course for a relationship that is characterized by mutual respect, justice, and peace. There is a lot of strength to build on. First Peoples have successfully resisted colonialism, and although much damage has been done, there is strong resolve to prosper as distinct peoples who make important contributions to our communities and to other peoples of the world. There is also a growing number of non-Aboriginal allies who are stepping forward on both sides of the border to demand the end of inequitable government policies that erode the human rights set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment 11 on the Rights of Indigenous Children. Both of these documents affirm the rights of First Peoples to claim and control our lands and resources, and to receive proper compensation in the case of irrevocable loss, to maintain our sovereignty, to maintain our cultural ways of knowing the world-and, most importantly, to claim our right to care for our children. Some countries, like Canada, view UNDRIP as an aspirational document that is not binding; however, Canada cannot escape its responsibilities to uphold Indigenous peoples' rights because the fundamental nature of those rights is protected in numerous international human rights conventions to which Canada and other countries are legally bound. There is much current discussion on reconciliation, and some frame that within a discourse of decolonization. The problem with limiting the discussion to decolonization is that it centers on colonialism versus the pursuit of freedom and the inherent rights that are at the center of the enterprise.We propose a discourse of reconciliation based on the recognition of inherent rights and freedoms that support Indigenous peoples in the reclamation of their cultures, languages, and children in ways consistent with UNDRIP. This pursuit requires a firm rejection of the colonial versions of reality that have been perpetrated in the name of history and continue to exist in some classrooms in our countries. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".