(Re)Making Native Space: Locating Gendered Geographies of Law, Territoriality, and Dispossession in the Colonial Archive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revisiting Cole Harris’s Making Native Space, this article responds to Harris’s assertion that settler attitudes toward Indigenous people were not gendered but that, rather, it was the civilization–savagery paradigm that conditioned Indigenous dispossession. Revisiting the same colonial archive of British Columbia through the dual lenses of legal geography and Indigenous feminism, the article examines available evidence about Indigenous women’s role in land governance in British Columbia. Although fragmented and partial, due to the historical and colonial devaluation of Indigenous women’s knowledge, evidence is available on the specific forms of land governance throughout northern, interior, and coastal regions of British Columbia, forming what might be considered property relations in colonial terms. Through a rereading of the archive with knowledge of Indigenous gender and legal relations, it is argued that settlers were able to suppress the legal nature of women’s land governance practices through colonial understandings of Indigenous women as racial and gendered subjects who were already always deterritorialized, incapable of forming territorial expressions of authority. The suppression of Indigenous women’s authority is continued in settler-colonial paradigms that separate traditional ecological knowledge from realms of law or governance and that deny gender as a structural component of settler colonialism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".