MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405098601 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16268

The Long Memory of Mourning: An Investigation into the Process of Political Apologies from Refusal to Recognition

2024· dissertation· en· W4405098601 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amy Fung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressPoliticsDignityPolitical scienceHuman rightsState (computer science)IndigenousOppressionGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)LawSociologyGender studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first domestic apology delivered by the leader of the Canadian government was in 1988 for the Second World War injustices against Japanese Canadians.The apology became the first of at least a dozen formal apologies since issued by the federal government to acknowledge past wrongs, particularly to racialized minorities and Indigenous communities.Dubbed as <the age of apology= by scholar Roy L. Brooks, state apologies are wielded in modern nation-building discourses and become the official lens through which societies understand historical events.This research critically contextualizes the agency of aggrieved groups in positing the arc of their own historical narratives and draws from three temporally overlapping case studies to trace a better understanding of political recognition in the settler state, as well as its limitations.The aim of this dissertation is to critically examine the sociopolitical contexts that led to three separate apologies between 1988 and 2010 to better understand why the Canadian state apologizes for some grievances while ignoring others.Ranging from human rights violations and systemic discrimination, to state abandonment of civilians involved in Japanese Canadian redress, redress for the High Arctic relocation, and the remembrance of Air India Flt 182, the through line of these different case studies is the pursuit by each community for political recognition, which this study defines as obtaining the federal government9s formal acknowledgement of its past wrongs in violating a group9s human rights and dignity through acute oppression or structural discrimination.Each study takes an interdisciplinary approach blending archival research and original oral interviews to offer new insights into the provisional nature of political recognition.At its heart, this research examines the decades of state refusal, including their liberal logics of private property and national security, to better understand the subsequent proliferation of settler state apologies.By doing so, this research centers the memorymaking of aggrieved communities in their pursuit of political recognition, memorials, and reparations and critically analyzes the limits of recognition in a settler state.series of interdepartmental meetings held in Ottawa who believed Inuit could be forced back into hunting and trapping for subsistence rather than relying on state relief, even as Inuit were affirmed in 1953 by the Minister of Northern Affairs and Resource Development, Jean Lesage as having <the same rights, privileges, opportunities, and responsibilities as all other 9 Canadians, in short to enable them to share fully in the national life of Canada.=The High Arctic relocatees, who were neither legally under the purview of the Indian Act or treated as equal to Canadians, lived under the wardship of stationed officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord with no access to communication with the outside world or adequate access to education or healthcare.Beginning in the late 1970s and through to the 1980s, allegations began to surface against the RCMP for financial mismanagement, sexual abuse, and charges that Inuit had been used as <human flagpoles= to assert Canadian sovereignty, which led to a concerted effort of redress for High Arctic relocatees who self-identified as exiles.10 This second case study chronologically charts the High Arctic relocatees9 efforts to seek recognition for these wrongs and to be treated equally as other aggrieved Canadians, namely Japanese Canadians who received the first state apology as examined in the first case study.Chapter Three examines how Inuit grievances were treated differently by focusing on the tensions between the relocatees9 oral testimonies and public memory-making with the state9s records from parliamentary committee meetings to commissioned reports that adamantly refused any wrongdoing was undertaken.This study concludes with an examination of the state9s belated acknowledgement of its colonial past across Nunavut, including an exploration of the 9 Diubaldo, The Government of Canada and the Inuit, 113. 10 Frank James Tester and Peter Kulchyski, Tammarniit (Mistakes): Inuit Relocation in the Eastern Arctic, 1939-1963 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1994).Whereas Wolfe defined the invasion of Indigenous territory for settler occupation as the negative dimension of eliminating Indigenous jurisdiction in favour of settler colonial societies, extractive colonialism becomes the surplus of this negation.Extraction-based colonialism historically preceded settler colonialism, but for settler states, these two forms of colonialism are inextricably linked in mutual economic dependency.Extraction drives the ongoing colonial occupation of Indigenous territories in Canada and internationally in the pursuit of economic gain.The rule of law in favour of settler colonialism supports the ongoing industrialization of extraction.In the mining industry alone, the commodification of surface and subsurface property rights, exploration rights, and mineral rights generates a perpetually expanding field of settler state jurisdiction.34 In other words, settler colonialism and its ongoing expansion of territorial rights <commits the violence of gross interference on Indigenous territories and of Indigenous lifeways by viewing water, minerals, land and trees through the lens of market value rather than the lens of relationship and stewardship.=35 The elimination of Indigenous self-determination is neither a past historic event or in the discourse of apologies, a <dark chapter= in the nation9s past, but its negative dimension 34 A quote from an anonymous Serpent River First Nation elder recounted: <When the white man came here first, he killed our animals and sold the furs.Then he cut down our trees and sent them off as lumber.And now4 never satisfied4he is taking away our rocks.=Pearson9s response to this painful recounting of First Nations history was:

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0340.034
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies→French-language works237,207→