Die Erkundungsreisen der Herrnhuter Missionare nach Labrador (1752–1770): Kommunikation mit Menschen einer nicht-schriftlichen Kultur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is the slightly abridged publication of a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Dresden in 2007. It is based essentially on diaries, journals, and letters of six Moravian missionaries—Johannes Erhardt, Jens Haven, Christian Drachardt, Andreas Schloezer, John Hill, and Steffen Jensen—who pioneered communication with Labrador Inuit between 1752 and 1770. These Moravians recorded everything they did and observed in compliance with the assignment of their mission driven by an Enlightenment-inspired, open-minded curiosity about natural phenomena, such as human psychology and indigenous cultures. Their records, now held in the Unity Archives at Herrnhut, Germany, enabled Olsthoorn to reconstruct the missionaries' experiences and analyze them in the context of modern communication theory.Olsthoorn attributes her interest in Inuit to her fascination with the Canadian North—its icebergs, whales, and native peoples—a fascination widespread among people growing up in the urbanized world of Germany and the Netherlands. This fascination carries over into parts of her painstakingly meticulous documentation of how the Moravian missionaries managed to bridge the gulf between their highly literate eighteenth-century European culture and the Stone Age culture of the illiterate Inuit. Her sources reveal how the Moravians accomplished this feat without resorting to force at a time when colonial powers had no qualms about using force in their encounters with native peoples.Of the book's four chapters, the first three are the most intelligible and appear to be the most relevant. Chapters 1 and 3 trace Moravian difficulties in reaching Labrador Inuit in 1752, 1764, 1765 and 1770, against the background of French and English colonial rivalries and these powers' dealings with Inuit. Chapter 2 highlights challenges posed by Inuit appearance, character, and culture, as well as by European conceptions of native people in the Age of Enlightenment. Lengthy excerpts from the missionaries' diaries focus on their skills as facilitators of communication and highlight their multifaceted, and at times riveting, experiences with Governor Palliser, English naval captains, fishermen, and Inuit, in their endeavors to establish a mission in Labrador. Special attention is given to the personalities and pedagogic approaches of Jens Haven and Christian Drachardt, and to the Inuk woman Mikak whose conversion and contacts facilitated Moravian efforts. Chapter 4 reviews select theoretical approaches to an analysis of “effective” communication. Starting with an exposition of Schulz von Thun's 1981 model that Olsthoorn applies to Haven's communication with Mikak, the chapter continues by discussing concepts developed by Johann Gottfried Herder (1772) and Eugene A. Nida (1960), and ends with a discourse on the philosophical foundations of Zinzendorf's theology.The evidence gleaned from the missionaries' accounts reveals that until 1769 repeated Moravian attempts to establish a mission in Labrador were thwarted by ongoing hostilities between English fishermen and Inuit as well as by naval captains' obstructions of the missionaries' objectives, apparently in accordance with English government policy. In 1752 Erhardt and five of his first Moravian exploration party were killed by Inuit who disliked Europeans and may have mistaken them for Englishmen. After the Seven Years' War, the English restricted Moravian access to Inuit. At the same time, the English were anxious to exploit Moravians as interpreters and cartographers in their efforts to expel the French from Labrador, with whom Inuit had been trading peacefully. By 1769, however, the English had failed to pacify the Inuit by force and hostilities had spiraled out of control. Christianizing them now appeared as the only way to secure English control over the Labrador fishery, so Moravians were finally given permission to settle with Inuit.Olsthoorn's excerpts shed light on the enormous impact the Moravians had in teaching Inuit not to steal and kill. These behavioral changes halted the violent encounters between colonial authorities and Labrador Inuit, pacified the Inuit, and averted the execution of genocidal designs against them. The missionaries succeeded because they rejected contemporary European conceptions of native peoples as inferior humans, treated Inuit as equals, and were able to speak Inuktitut, a language Haven and Drachardt had learned while engaged in prior missionary work among Greenland Inuit. Olsthoorn emphasizes that the missionaries, especially Jens Haven, tried to understand Inuit psyche, adopted Inuit body language, and endeavored to identify as Inuit. Haven's own character and communication skills appear as major facilitating factors. In response, Inuit accepted the missionaries as “humans” (Inuit), a privilege they did not extend to other Europeans at the time.This is not the first account of how Jens Haven and his fellow missionaries initiated contact with Labrador Inuit. A sizable body of multidisciplinary research has dissected numerous aspects dealing with the early history of the Labrador mission and Inuit. The value of Olsthoorn's publication lies in the transcription of excerpts from manuscripts written in a near-incomprehensible German style and antiquated German script. The format of presentation, however, is marred by the absence of an introduction setting out the historiographic context, methodology, and argument, and the lack of a conclusion summarizing the findings. These are standard requirements for a PhD thesis and any serious scholarly study. The various new issues raised in chapter 4 do not provide an adequate conclusion of the book and might have been more meaningfully summarized at the beginning. In particular, the disproportionately detailed elaborations on theoretical concepts by Schulz von Thun, Mika, and others, tend to detract from, rather than enhance, the findings of the other chapters. Readability of the entire book might have benefitted from some competent copyediting, including streamlining its organization and weeding out tedious redundancies and digressions. In its present form, the potential of this published dissertation is difficult to appreciate by anyone but the specialist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".