Playing the Creator’s Game on God’s Day: The Controversy of Sunday Lacrosse Games in Haudenosaunee Communities, 1916-24
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the late nineteenth century there was a growing movement in Canada led by Protestant denominations and their organization, the Lord’s Day Alliance, for the national observance of the Christian Sabbath. After several years, the Canadian government enacted the Lord’s Day Act in 1906, prohibiting non-essential activities on Sundays, including sports for financial gain. Sabbatarians across the Dominion attempted to enforce the Sunday law. In the Haudenosaunee communities of Ahkwesahsne and Six Nations, however, Sunday lacrosse games attracted thousands of paying non-Indigenous spectators and continued to take place “illegally” until the mid-1920s. The Lord’s Day Alliance, the attorney general of Ontario, and the Department of Indian Affairs attempted to enforce the law on the reserves. By examining the controversy surrounding the Sunday lacrosse games from 1916 to 1924, this essay demonstrates that the dispute was both a precursor to and a consequence of larger struggles over the future of self-determination in the communities. Furthermore, the struggle played into internal conflicts about Haudenosaunee governance and identity that were themselves triggered by assimilationist policies. It was hardly a coincidence that the dispute coincided with the Department of Indian Affairs’s forced removal of the hereditary council in Six Nations in 1924; rather, the lacrosse controversy was a significant incident in that series of events and provides valuable insights into the Haudenosaunee’s fight for sovereignty in the early 1920s.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".