Walking on Our Lands Again: Turning to Culturally Important Plants and Indigenous Conceptualizations of Health in a Time of Cultural and Political Resurgence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are in a time of Indigenous cultural-political resurgence in Canada (Coulthard, 2014; Manuel, 2017; Simpson, 2017; Talaga, 2018). Increasingly, Indigenous Peoples are finding renewed strength, pride, and grounding through cultural practice and the reestablishment of connection to the land. Included in this resurgence are the relationships between people and plants. When we practise our ancestral relationships with our plant relatives, we heal and strengthen ourselves. The depth of connection to place, to ancestors, and to our own mindful presence is amplified when we partake in millennia-old practices of plant cultivation, stewardship, and the integration of plant foods and medicines into our bodies. This time of resurgence emerges from generations of Indigenous Peoples suffering devastating violence, losses, and trauma as a result of colonization. In this paper I address the role that rebuilding Indigenous plant relationships plays in addressing colonial impacts on Indigenous health and in supporting Indigenous cultural and political resurgence. I also put forth Indigenized models for understanding colonial impacts on health and discuss culturally rooted conceptualizations of health that address these impacts from an Indigenous point of view. Finally, I propose a set of guidelines to consider for conducting respectful ethnobotanical research within Indigenous communities. This paper is borne out of a desire for deeper critical engagement with the intersections between colonial history, intergenerational trauma, and Indigenous plant knowledge. Furthermore, this paper acknowledges the strength and resilience of Indigenous Peoples in the face of historical injustice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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".