MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989526933 · doi:10.1093/fs/knz241

<i>A Not-So-New World: Empire and Environment in French Colonial North America</i> . By <scp>Christopher</scp> M. <scp>Parsons</scp> <i>A Not-So-New World: Empire and Environment in French Colonial North America</i> . By ParsonsChristopher M.. (Early American Studies.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. 264 pp., ill.

2019· article· en· W2989526933 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Ibbett

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Historical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismScholarshipEmpireHistoryIndigenousClassicsLiteratureEnvironmental ethicsArtPhilosophyLawArchaeologyPolitical scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Christopher Parsons’s erudite engagement with environmental history shapes his account of New France. This is field-leading scholarship for those thinking through the environmental early modern and through histories of imperial knowledge. (Let me suggest that, minimally, all scholars of the French sixteenth century should read Parsons’s thoughtful account of the term ‘sauvage’ (p. 6).) From Samuel de Champlain’s 1608 sowing of wheat in Quebec through to Paris’s appraisal of ginseng in the early eighteenth century, Parsons shows how environmental encounters serve as a prism through which we can explore the French ambition to know and claim the Americas. Chapter 1 shows that, initially, the French did not find American botany a challenge to their Aristotelian categorizations, but instead read the new terrain via its similarity to European plants; Parsons argues that in minimizing botanic difference, the new world was thus ‘cognitively domesticated’ (p. 32). A crucial part of this process was the generalization of indigenous names for plants, separated from their connection to specific communities. Chapter 2 explores the figure of cultivation in the colonial work of Champlain, Marc Lescarbot, and the Jesuit missions; Parsons argues that the literal and metaphorical practice of cultivation was central to the ‘recuperative project’ of empire (p. 12), allowing the French to set themselves apart from the Spanish, and to imagine their project instead as ‘a consensual and mutually beneficial exchange’ (p. 48). (This chapter is also wonderful on the strangely capacious genres of colonial authors: Parsons has a real eye for literary form.) Chapter 3 describes the Jesuit efforts to ‘sedentarize’ indigenous peoples as a convergence of spiritual and ecological interventions. In a powerful reading that should be taken up widely as a methodological example, Parsons describes the epistemological legacy of the missionaries’ partial appropriation of indigenous knowledge; since Jesuits did not have access to women’s oral traditions, they accounted only for men’s stories of indigenous cultures. Chapter 4 describes a growing French pessimism about American climates and crops in the context of the late-seventeenth-century calculation and management of colonial space, a topic much explored in recent work; Parsons’s eye for the environmental stakes of this delineation of space makes his contribution to this debate compelling. Chapter 5 shows how the new Académie royale des sciences created a new ‘political ecology of empire’ (p. 126) in which Parisian naturalists came to displace grassroots knowledge of New France; here, Parsons’s care for the prose of his sources shapes a nuanced reading of the Parisian scientists’ effacement of indigenous and colonial labour. Chapter 6 explores Joseph-François Lafitau’s work on American ginseng, showing how this surprising discovery sustained ‘a global Jesuit communication network that stretched from Asia to Kahnawake’ (p. 155). In his Conclusion, Parsons describes the ecological legacy of the settler colonialism that emerges out of this history, reminding us of our own entanglements ‘in environments that are political and polities that are also ecological’ (p. 188). A Not-So-New World makes a wonderful contribution to scholarship.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicDiverse Historical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207