Settler Salvation and Indigenous Survival: George Copway’s Reconciliatory Vision, 1849–1851
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1849 to 1851, Canada’s first international literary celebrity, the Mississauga writer Kahgegagahbowh, or George Copway, travelled the United States, Great Britain and Europe promoting his vision for the future of Indigenous peoples in the United States. Building on a theological critique of settler colonialism, he called for the creation of a new Indigenous territory west of the Mississippi led by a legislature made up of English-speaking Indigenous Christians. Copway believed that through the establishment of this territory he called Kahgega, European settlers would be able to atone for the sins committed against Indigenous North Americans, thus escaping the impending wrath of God. More importantly, believing that Indigenous peoples faced imminent extinction, he saw Kahgega as a permanent means of preserving his people and safeguarding their shrinking lands and political agency. Though Kahgega failed to impress the public, Copway’s vision offers a fascinating window into an early attempt at reconciling the Indigenous and non-Indigenous halves of North American society. Using the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s definition of ‘reconciliation’, this article shows that past, often failed, Indigenous political visions reveal the complexities and tensions inherent in dialogue surrounding reconciliation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".