MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154003176 · doi:10.1353/ail.2020.0019

"We Are Here Now": The Generative Refusal of Fictional Residential School Diaries

2020· article· en· W3154003176 on OpenAlex
Melanie Braith

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in American Indian Literatures · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)IndigenousSociologyResidential schoolAlienationGender studiesCriminologyPsychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"We Are Here Now"The Generative Refusal of Fictional Residential School Diaries Melanie Braith (bio) A fictional residential school diary is a diary-structured novel purportedly written in secret by a residential school student who has escaped all school censorship. The Canadian residential school system, which existed from the 1880s to 1996, separated Indigenous children from their families, communities, and homelands and forbade them to speak their languages and engage in other cultural practices. It also inflicted physical, sexual, emotional, and spiritual violence on students. By attacking students' relationships with their families, communities, the land, and the other-than-human, the schools attacked what Glenn Coulthard terms the "grounded normativity" of Indigeneity (13). However, as scholars point out, new ways of resistance are often born and practiced in the most coercive institutions (Harlow 10), and though residential schools were coercive, totalizing institutions, or perhaps because of this, they nevertheless faced resistance by the Indigenous children they incarcerated. This article analyzes how the fictional residential school diary These Are My Words (2017) by Anishinaabe author Ruby Slipperjack employs the diary as a medium for restor(y)ing relationships—with self, kin, and the land—and thereby for enacting resistance. In order to demonstrate how residential school discourse had changed over time, the article furthermore briefly examines the extent to which resistance is addressed in Nlakapamux author Shirley Sterling's much earlier fictional residential school diary My Name is Seepeetza (1992). As will be demonstrated, Leanne Simpson's concept of "generative refusal" (As We Have 35) is a helpful framework for interpreting resistance in fictional residential school diaries because it crucially conceptualizes resistance as care for the kinship relationships constituting Indigeneity. Analyzing fictional residential school diaries through the lens of generative refusal [End Page 88] offers new ways for understanding how residential school literature and, more broadly, residential school testimony resist and rewrite colonial narratives. While residential school survivors have never been silent about their institutional experiences, over the last four decades, they have been telling their stories more frequently and in greater numbers to an also increasing public audience. They have publicly shared their stories in different forms—including as autobiographies, novels, plays, graphic novels, poetry, and film. This cross-format range of works constitutes the genre that Renate Eigenbrod calls residential school literature ("For the Child" 278). Survivors have also shared their stories in interviews with the Assembly of First Nations, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and the Legacy of Hope Foundation. Nearly 7,000 survivors testified and shared their stories with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established by the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement in conjunction with a five-year mandate (and one-year extension) to gather statements and historical documents toward the construction of a residential school history. Diaries written by students at the times of their residential school incarceration have never been shared with the public and are not among the millions of collected documents at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. As the two fictional diaries analyzed here emphasize, writing a secret diary was both dangerous and often near impossible given schools' ubiquitous surveillance and censorship. This does not mean no residential school diaries exist, only that they have not been shared publicly. The only available diaries are fictionalized versions writers have based on their own residential school experiences and released as novels. I first read Sterling's and Slipperjack's fictional diaries when working as a research assistant at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in Winnipeg. As a PhD student specialized in residential school testimony, I was well familiar with residential school narratives, but given the unavailability of nonfictional residential school diaries, I was especially intrigued by the genre of fictional residential school diaries. Growing up in Germany where The Diary of Anne Frank was a common school text, I early on learned the responsibility of learning one's national history and of honoring that history by preventing its reoccurrence. As a non-Indigenous researcher in the field of Indigenous literatures [End Page 89] in Canada, I aspire to engage with Indigenous stories in a way that acknowledges the harms of colonialism and that helps decolonize the present. Through this article's...

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.322 · 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