Unsettling: How Euro-whiteness was portrayed to Indigenous school children as superior to Indigeneity through the textual construction of the “Indian” in Missionary texts during the 1830s to 1845 in the Great Lakes Area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the mid-1800s, a small influx of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions missionaries set up in the areas of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota where the Anishinaabe people lived and travelled. A nuanced power dynamic existed between the missionaries and Indigenous populations, and it can be argued, neither the Indigenous community nor the missionaries regarded each other with the respect and deference each expected. During this time period, the missionaries endeavored to ‘educate’ any Anishinaabeg that was willing to participate. These missionaries wrote bilingual textbooks in Anishinaabemowin and English from which to instruct the Ojibwe children. Within these educational texts, a portrait is painted. One of heathens and the saved, of savages and the (Eurocentric) civilized, of Indigeneity and whiteness. This thesis will conduct an exploration of the textual construction of the ‘Indian’ in relation to the Euro-white in the 1830s to 1845 and how the missionaries portrayed Euro-whiteness to Anishinaabe and Métis school children as superior to Indigeneity through the use of the mission schools’ teaching materials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".