MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379803948 · doi:10.1353/nai.2022.a863585

No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous by Sheldon Krasowski (review)

2022· article· en· W4379803948 on OpenAlex
Paulina Johnson

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

VenueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurrenderIndigenousTreatyNegotiationLawGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous by Sheldon Krasowski Paulina Johnson (bio) No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous by Sheldon Krasowski University of Regina Press, 2019 WRITTEN BY NON-INDIGENOUS SCHOLAR Sheldon Krasowski, No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous details the negotiations during the Numbered Treaties, focusing specifically on the first seven Treaties of the eleven in Canada. Krasowski's main argument is that the Canadian government through its crown negotiators misled the Indigenous nations they wanted to build relations with because Canada wanted land and these Treaty territories stretch across Manitoba to Alberta today. Chapter 1 examines Treaties 1 and 2, and how outside promises made by crown negotiators in the negotiations were left out of the written texts, but the "cede, release, surrender, and yield up" clause was added without Indigenous knowledge (72). Chapter 2 challenges the previous Treaty research that relied heavily on the unbiased use of Treaty texts by crown officials and ignored Indigenous oral narratives and eyewitness accounts of negotiations. This bias benefits the crown and the Government of Canada as it limited the glimpse into the ceremonial aspects of Treaty 3 and, more importantly, Indigenous philosophical and economic views of natural resources and land. Chapter 3 presents the "conflicts" between the Cree and Saulteaux Nations during Treaties 4 and 5, but as Krasowski points out, these conflicts were not about Indigenous animosity toward one another but about the Hudson's Bay Company's (HBC) impact on their territory. Tensions over ownership of land were prevalent at the time, which increased with the Cypress Hills Massacre, which led Canada to form the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) in 1873. Chapter 4 examines the negotiations of Treaty 6 and the discontent among the Cree Nations in Saskatchewan, where political tensions were high concerning access to land and ownership. This is one of the first negotiations [End Page 124] where missionaries, the NWMP, and interpreters were in attendance, as only three missionaries had witnessed the prior treaty negotiations. Chapter 5 focuses on the 1877 negotiations of the Treaty 7 at Blackfoot Crossing with the Siksika, Piikani, Kainai, Tssu T'ina, and Stoney Nations. The chapter details the negative impacts of the American whiskey trade within their territory and how the creation of the NWMP protected their territories. The concluding chapter forwards the interrelations between Treaty 1 through Treaty 7 as much literature focuses on each separate Treaty, but together we are aware of the negotiation strategies that discuss only the "benefits of treaty" and "ignore[s] its liabilities" (272). Indigenous peoples and settlers understood the importance of a treaty relationship, but Canada had no interest in maintaining the relationships entailed by the Treaties. Krasowski calls into question scholars overuse of treaty texts, yet he defends the documents when statements made by Indigenous academics refer to them as "lies on paper" (citing Venne 1997, 212). Can you blame Indigenous peoples for having such a view when written and official documents have been disingenuous and deceitful? These were not just political agreements; they are representations of Indigenous livelihood. Unfortunately, Krasowski does not mention Indigenous women; this work still falls within the heteropatriarchal view of Canadian history. Lack of recognition of the role that women play in Indigenous societies replicates the patterns of sociopolitical misrecognition carried out by the Crown and state during the treaty negotiations. Krasowski also does not incorporate concepts of Indigenous kinship or reciprocity, both of which are important for the maintenance of relationships. There is mention of oral narratives and eyewitness accounts, yet these are significantly limited. The spiritual importance of the pipes used in the negotiations are only referenced at the end of the book. Cree scholar Winona Wheeler acknowledges in her foreword that Krasowski was an accomplice to the integration of Indigenous oral narratives rather than just written texts on the Treaties because "the more evidence, the stronger the case" (xiv), yet the incorporation of Indigenous spiritual philosophies on Treaties are lacking, and this evidence has more merit than any settler text. For those who do not know the complexity of Indigenous and settler relations extending from the Treaties, No Surrender does provide a look into Canada's emergence based on the...

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.272 · 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