MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Settler Colonialism: Universal Theory or English Heritage?

2019· article· en· W2964375554 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe William and Mary Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismIdeologyHistoriographyHistoryNarrativePower (physics)EthnologyPoliticsPolitical scienceLiteratureArchaeologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Settler Colonialism:Universal Theory or English Heritage? Nancy Shoemaker (bio) Those who see explanatory power in settler colonialism as a concept cast it as a theory, as a "global and genuinely transnational phenomenon" pitting settlers against indigenes. Yet the vast majority of studies employing settler colonialism as their vantage point concentrate on the former British colonies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and South Africa in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1 If settler colonialism is a theory, then presumably people of any racial, ethnic, or national heritage could appear in the role of settler. Why, then, have the English outpaced all others as the archetypical settlers, and why has the historiography on settler colonialism dealt almost entirely with the modern period when migration and conquest are age-old phenomena in human history? The scholarly emphasis on the recent past makes settler colonial narratives appear to be a retrospective cover-up of a Native dispossession that began mainly in the nineteenth century and continues up to the present day. But we can envision an alternate approach: scholars could conceptualize settler colonialism as a forward-looking ideology devised to motivate English imperial expansion in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If settler colonial ideology did indeed crystalize in early modern England, the early American period is more important than advocates of settler colonial theory realize. By shifting attention away from settler colonialism's consequences to query its origins, scholars could test the theory's applicability in a wider variety of settings and refine it. And by contextualizing settler colonialism in a longer durée, theorists could nuance the presentist mindset that privileges the latest wave of settler invasion as the only settler colonialism worth remembering. So why the English? A curious aspect of English history from an outsider's perspective is how fundamental invasion is to that history's [End Page 369] telling.2 Over a thousand years, from the Roman Conquest in the year 43 to the Norman Conquest of 1066, a succession of foreigners arrived from across the sea: Romans; Germanic Angles, Jutes, and Saxons; Vikings; and Normans. A prime example of early English history told as a series of foreign invasions is John Speed's The History of Great Britaine Under the Conquests of ye Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans of 1611. The illustration representing "Britannia" on Speed's title page gives pride of place to England's original inhabitants but credits five distinct peoples as the collective forebears of the English nation (Figure I). In Speed's history, the various newcomers subdued, displaced, and usually assimilated whoever was in England before them, though sometimes it was the invaders, and not those they conquered, who did the assimilating. From this mélange of cultures, the English people, political system, and language emerged. As Daniel Defoe put it in The True-Born Englishman, England had "to ev'ry Nation been a Prey. . . . Who conquer her as oft as they Invade her," and "Thus from a Mixture of all Kinds began, That Het'rogeneous Thing, An Englishman."3 In the early modern period, English invasions continued but now reached outward. By the early eighteenth century, England had consolidated its control over Ireland, Wales, and Scotland via various political arrangements achieved through outright force or heavy-handed negotiation and at the same time populated a host of more distant colonies. In these endeavors, the English identity as a people that had evolved through a series of invasions made colonization seem a natural and virtuous pursuit informed by a progressive, multicultural history. Precisely how English ruminations on their history intersected with their overseas ambitions is obscured by a chicken-and-egg causality, however. The timing certainly seems auspicious for assuming a connection, since a fascination for history surged in England simultaneously with that country's expansion. Scholars who have documented the early modern rise in English antiquarianism typically begin their narratives with William Camden's Britannia, which first appeared in Latin in 1586, a year after English settlers landed at Roanoke, and which was republished in an enlarged English translation in 1610, three years after Jamestown's founding. Based on research in the documentary record, Camden highlighted the Roman...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe William and Mary QuarterlySame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207