Weaponizing settler slogans to mandate colonial school policy in the Americas: Transformation through Indigenous futurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this academic review is settler slogans that mandate colonial school policy in North America. Also discussed is Indigenous futurity as a strategy for transforming education and countering the educational harm that comes from weaponized language. Beginning in 1887, the US federal government authorized colonial schooling, using the dangerous educational cliché “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” The purpose of this article was to illuminate this weaponizing rhetoric in education, which served as a guiding principle for imposing Indigenous assimilation that manifested as federal policy in the Americas. Research questions were, How did the kill-and-save slogan shape US and Canadian education and policy? How can the concept of Indigenous futurity improve Indigenous education? Colonial settler efforts to control tribal nations with weaponizing rhetoric leveled at education policy, public perception,and compulsory boarding/residential schools are exposed. Peer-reviewed studies were read, with analysis of 51 sources, many authored by Indigenous academics. Resultant cultural genocide, systemic discrimination, and educational disparity are described. Indigenous resistance to settler ideologies, policies, and settlements, as well as assertions of tribal rights, freedom, and sovereignty, reflect patterns in the material analyzed. Modern-day empowerment of society’s most vulnerable ethnic group requires a deep rethinking of schooling processes. Debunking settler futurity, the lesser-known Indigenous view of futurity looks to sustaining Indigenous communities and calls on society for amends.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".