I Will Live for Both of Us: A History of Colonialism, Uranium Mining, and Inuit Resistance by Joan Scottie, Warren Bernauer, and Jack Hicks (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: I Will Live for Both of Us: A History of Colonialism, Uranium Mining, and Inuit Resistance by Joan Scottie, Warren Bernauer, and Jack Hicks Riley Yesno (bio) I Will Live for Both of Us: A History of Colonialism, Uranium Mining, and Inuit Resistance by Joan Scottie, Warren Bernauer, and Jack Hicks University of Manitoba Press, 2022 it is always invigorating to find a book about Indigenous relationships with resource extraction that is firmly grounded in love and expertise gained through lived experience—I Will Live for Both of Us is such a book. The story is told from the first-person perspective of Joan Scottie, an Inuk woman and longtime community leader/activist, whose writing was aided by two non-Inuk researchers, Warren Bernauer and Jack Hicks. The three authors employ stories from Scottie's experiences of decades of front-line activism to provide readers with a thorough and accessible overview of community perspectives on mining in the Arctic and its relationship to settler colonialism. Scottie begins by retelling events and lessons from her own life and that of her family in Baker Lake, Nunavut, Canada. This section is emotionally moving and helpful in adding depth to later chapters. Indeed, Scottie's stories offer readers a glimpse into Inuit ways of life and their worldviews. As the book progresses, this glimpse makes especially clear how colonial industry and governments were able to mobilize their knowledge of Inuit worldviews to try to exploit communities for mineral resources. The remaining chapters focus on the decades of various consultation and negotiation processes between Inuit and the uranium industry/government. A particular focus is given to the tactics communities used to organize and oppose proponents of mining. Readers should anticipate that these later sections include many necessary but occasionally overwhelming details about the dozens of organizations and actors involved in the processes. In saying this, it is important to understand that this complexity is part of a lesson from the text. Put simply: if the multiple moving parts the authors traverse feel like a lot to keep track of for readers, even when laid out so plainly, one can imagine how much labor and overall diligence it took for Scottie and other Inuit leaders to keep on top of the developments over the decades. The chapters constitute a testament to the rigor and multifaceted nature of their community advocacy. [End Page 140] Overall, the authors have impressively and effectively included an extensive record of events, including dozens of actors over several decades. The authors' summarization skills are superb as are Scottie's recall and ability to interject feelings and memories associated with the numerous meetings and events discussed in the book. The approach keeps the reader grounded in the narrative while also providing plentiful background research. The text offers many valuable insights into community-led consultation, the importance of grassroots Indigenous activism, and the need to protect the rights of the land, animals, and people in the Far North. The main argument addresses how ongoing efforts to mine uranium in the Arctic are a continuation of settler colonialism—with especially devastating impacts on Inuit women. The argument is solidly supported by overviews of obvious violations of inherent Inuit rights, in addition to comparisons between the contemporary moment and some of Scottie's earliest memories about the onset of colonialism in the Arctic. The parallels in colonial objectives and Inuit resistance between these two times are insightful and indisputable. An interrelated secondary argument concerns how the current territorial government of Nunavut, often regarded as a form of Indigenous self-government by some scholars, is another form of colonial government operated by a greater number of Indigenous representatives. This argument may be particularly beneficial to those interested in Arctic governance and leaves room for more significant discussion about how Indigenous people define and operationalize self-government, and the limits of representation. One critique to note: other than in the opening chapter (and a brief mention near the end of the book), little in-depth attention is paid to how mining has specifically impacted Inuit women. This lack of investigation was unexpected, given how this impact was stated as an objective at the outset of...
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".