In Defense of Identity: A Comparative Analysis of Indigenous Self-Defense Movements in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper conducts a comparative analysis of two significant historical events of Indigenous resistance in North America: the Northwest Rebellion of 1885 in Canada and the Wounded Knee Occupation of 1973 in the United States. The Métis during the Northwest Rebellion and the Lakota Oglala along with American Indian Movement activists during the Wounded Knee Occupation both sought to assert their rights against encroaching government policies and settler expansion. By examining the actors, agendas, actions, and outcomes of these movements, the paper explores the nuanced nature of self-defense within a settler-colonial context. Comparative analysis highlights the persistent efforts of Indigenous peoples to protect their communities and cultures despite enduring oppression and genocide. It also investigates how media portrayal and the dynamics of authority influence the success of resistance efforts, revealing the distinct challenges faced by Indigenous communities in Canada and the United States. Through an exploration of these cases, we underscore the ongoing struggles of Indigenous self-determination and the importance of solidarity in resisting colonial legacies. Ultimately, this paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of Indigenous resistance and the critical role of self-defense in preserving cultural identity and autonomy. Understanding the paths of self-defense that were taken in the past is key to guiding the ongoing struggle against genocide, oppression, and the destruction of indigenous communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".