Decolonizing the Prisons of Cultural Identity: Denominational Archives and Indigenous “Manifestations of Culture”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The records of Christian missions to Indigenous peoples have always been assumed to belong to the missionaries and their sponsoring denominations, not to the Indigenous communities where the missionaries worked, and are therefore managed by denominational archivists. This practice has been consistent with Western archival theory and copyright law. In recent years, however, museums have been increasingly willing to repatriate the Indigenous cultural objects they possess to the communities that created them. But it is the objects created by Indigenous persons and communities that are repatriated: records created by settlers about Indigenous persons and communities have remained with settler cultural institutions. The Church's continuing control of so many of the historical records relating to Indigenous nations and individuals raises serious questions about justice, reconciliation, and mutual respect in the relations between Indigenous and settler peoples. Attention has been drawn to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms the right of Indigenous peoples to control all “manifestations of culture.” Where Christian agents of settler churches and organizations have reported on or photographed Indigenous persons—frequently in situations of power imbalance where the Indigenous persons have not given their full, free, and informed consent—who should control these “manifestations of culture”? Using the case study of a request received by an Anglican archives from an Indigenous community to acquire a series of photographs of Indigenous community members and ceremonies taken by missionaries, this article will explore how Western archival theory and codes of ethics may actually get in the way of making the most ethical decisions. It contends that professionals would do well to consider pushing beyond its current theoretical and ethical frameworks to incorporate more intersubjective approaches in order to respect Indigenous rights and move reconciliation forward.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".