Imperial informants in a settler world: writing empire to the British Aborigines’ Protection Society from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, 1870-1890
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the entangled relationship between settler colonialism and imperial humanitarianism in the late nineteenth-century British Empire through the practice of becoming informants for the Aborigines’ Protection Society. Using letters written by settlers, Indigenous peoples, and missionaries living in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa between 1870-1890, it argues that the connections forged between colonial subjects and the Society reveal continuities of imperial subjecthood within self-governing colonies as well as contingencies of settler colonialism on the limitations of imperial networks. Informants came from a wide variety of backgrounds and had different motivations. Colonists became informants to participate in British House of Commons debates and publish letters in the British press. Missionaries became informants to undermine pro-settler logics of mission society capitalism. Indigenous peoples became informants to challenge settler government disinformation campaigns. Yet running through all these different perspectives was a shared desire to claim political rights as imperial citizens, to subvert settler discourses that opposed imperial authority, and to challenge imperial disavowal of responsibility for Indigenous-settler relations. Consequently, these informants moved between a variety of imperial networks to resist the development of settler sovereignty and construct an alternative version of subjecthood that blended self-determination with imperial oversight, all through the discourses of British humanitarianism, honour, and justice. While some experienced more success in their epistolary endeavours than others, the Aborigines’ Protection Society was ultimately incapable of fulfilling informant visions of imperial subjecthood. This thesis therefore suggests that the entrenchment of settler sovereignty and nationalisms in the early twentieth century was not a direct continuation of mid nineteenth-century campaigns for self-government, but was contingent on the failure of imperial networks to provide workable alternatives in the late nineteenth century.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".