Tewatatha:wi: Aboriginal Nationalism in Taiaiake Alfred's Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the idea of Aboriginal nationalism has been creeping into public language in Canada through the widespread use of the term First Nation. The idea that Aboriginal peoples are Nations, not just cultures, has also begun to influence the Canadian government, the courts, and the study of law and political science. The principle that Aboriginal peoples have the right and responsibility to determine their own paths is an ancient one, however. The Great Law of Peace of the Rotinohshonni, which is itself at least five hundred years old, claims the long history of this principle: By birthright, the Onkwehonweh (Original Beings) are the owners of the soil which they own and occupy and none other shall hold it. The same law has been held from the oldest times. 1 The idea of Aboriginal nationalism has not significantly impacted the study of Aboriginal literatures, however, particularly in the territory known as Canada.2 In the United States a few critics, such as Craig Womack and Robert Warrior, have begun to document tribal nationalism in Native American literature, but no such project has yet been attempted in Canada. Rather, Canadian critics of Aboriginal literature have tended to look through the lenses of culture and colonialism. This article examines some of the shortcomings of these widespread approaches and explores the idea of thinking about Aboriginal literature in terms of Aboriginal nationalism. As a test case, I will read Taiaiake Alfred's Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto in terms of its place within the Kanien'kehaka (more widely known as Mohawk) Nation and the Rotinohshonni (or Iroquois Confederacy).3 Criticism of Aboriginal literature in Canada has tended to divide the literature from concrete political issues of law, land ownership, and gov-
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".