Dismantling Historical Hardscapes: Unsettling Inclusion as Solidarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have been invited into a conversation about how history can become a welcoming home to many who have found ourselves erased and eradicated throughout history, from written histories, and from historical disciplines.Our work leverages our respective embodied connections to communities historically targeted for erasure.Here, instead, we share our emergent engagement with ongoing violence that predicates homemaking of any kind on stolen land.We begin where Tuck and Yang's oft-quoted article ends: operating instructions for settlers seeking to unsettle.Our goal in this essay is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization-what is unsettling and what should be unsettling.Clearly, we are advocates for the analysis of settler colonialism [ : : : ] and we position the work of Indigenous thinkers as central [ : : : ].We, at least in part, want others to join us in these efforts, so that settler colonial structuring and Indigenous critiques of that structuring are no longer rendered invisible.Yet, this joining cannot be too easy, too open, too settled.Solidarity is an uneasy, reserved, and unsettled matter that neither reconciles present grievances nor forecloses future conflict.1 To paraphrase: Get uncomfortable.Stay uncomfortable.Learn.Lay bare.Be uncomfortable.Bear witness.Do not "help" those whom we have harmed.Acknowledge genocide.Make reparations.Perpetually and painstakingly recognize and dismantle our structures and practices that continue to harm.Work hard with those leading decolonization efforts.Resist all seductions of saviorism.We are not the Hero of this story.Nor of our histories.This is not a happily-ever-after story.Not in our lifetimes.We must divest from hope as foreclosure.Tuck and Yang's call is not for settlers to lead the revolution.It is for solidarity.In recognition of that call, some scholars and institutions have rigidified certain practices of acknowledgement and inclusion into structures that are founded upon the opposite.The defining feature of a solid is its substance: neither hollow nor empty.So, too, our solidarity must be substantive: not the work of The authors are with
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".