MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591545009 · doi:10.1353/aiq.2009.a362029

American Indian History and Writing from Home: Constructing an Indian Perspective

2009· article· en· W1591545009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Indian Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipIndian historyMainstreamHistoryPerspective (graphical)Reading (process)Native American studiesCultural historyOral historyAmerican historyPremisePolitical historySociologyMedia studiesAnthropologyPoliticsLawPolitical scienceVisual artsAncient historyEpistemologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American Indian History and Writing from HomeConstructing an Indian Perspective Donald L. Fixico (bio) As we approach the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, examining the scholarship of Native historians "writing from home" represents a major step in advancing the field of Indian history. At the same time, after reading the writing of American Indian history for over thirty years, I am convinced that there is much more to do. It is not the research data that are collected but rather how the historical evidence is viewed and interpreted. If the typical premise of American Indian history is actually the history of Indian-white relations, then the "other" side of the coin must be turned over for understanding an Indian point of view and what is called "writing from home." Conceptually, "writing from home" is the challenge of historians who are American Indian and who write history based on their cultural perceptions and home place as Native people who have been trained in the mainstream academy. Before this essay can go any further, we should ask, What is Indian history? Without going into great detail, Indian history is perceived differently by Indians close to their traditions as opposed to academic historians. While this essay focuses on the latter and writing from home, Indian history of the former is conveyed in the oral tradition via stories where "experiences" are more important than "events." Furthermore, Indian history in the form of "experiences" is actually moments of time where time is perceived differently from the American mainstream. "Time, in [Indian] mythic thinking, is a very different order of perception, obligation, and experience," as described by Calvin Martin. He continues: "Here, time's instruments of measurement are the myriad cycles of nature and its citizens, all thought to be taking place within the suspended moment, the still point, of creation."1 While Martin, a mainstream historian, [End Page 553] has helped to acknowledge Indian perception of time and history, it is the mainstream definition of history that is the concern here, and writing from home is the central issue. First of all, some people might say that there is no one Indian perspective. It is true that at present there are 562 federally recognized tribes, and all of these nations have a different view about Indian history. When the added factor that Indian men and women think differently is considered, then the previous statement is more complicated. The complexity becomes greater when adding in the First Nations of Canada and Indigenous groups of Mexico and South America. Yet Indian people and individuals who know Indians very well would agree that there is an Indian perspective. Writing from home has both advantages and disadvantages, and this has been pointed out by the authors of the essays in this issue. If one had to say, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. At the same time, this comparison depends on perception and how historians see the situation of Native persons writing about their own homeland and their tribal history. With this thought in mind, there is a difference of how Indian people and non-Indians view things. This point has already been addressed in these essays; I also addressed it in The American Indian Mind in a Linear World.2 Without doubt, Native people who are close to their traditions "see" the world differently from non-Indians and even Indians who are not close to their tribal traditions. If you really know Indian people, then you know what I am talking about. The difference in perception underscores the point that Indians who write history "see" the world differently than non-Indian historians who write Indian history. (Yet you do not have to be Indian in order to "see" Indian.) This particular difference has not been so evident, since there are only about a dozen American Indian historians who actively write from a Native perspective. This ability is what I would call "real" Indian history and writing from "home." How they do this is the main argument of this essay and the other essays in this issue. In her essay, "Haudenosaunee Genealogies: Conflict and Community in the Oneida Land Claim," Kristina Ackley reminds us...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it