“Compound Dispossession” in Southern\nOntario: Converging Trajectories of Colonial\nDispossession and Inter-Indigenous Conflict,\n1886–1900
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, two First Nations groups—the Chippewa of the Thames and the Six Nations of the Grand River—attempted to evict two other First Nations groups—the Munsee of the Thames and the Mississauga of the Credit—from the Thames and Grand River reserves in southern Ontario. These land disputes were successfully resolved by the turn of the twentieth century and no evictions did take place, but the 20 years of conflict are revealing of the complexities, contingencies, and evolutions of dispossession in Canada over the nineteenth century. This article presents a narrative of these attempted evictions and proposes the concept of “compound dispossession” as a means of grappling with these complexities. It is argued that compound dispossession not only captures the snowballing complications of historical dispossessions over time, but also captures the imbrication of multiple disparate trajectories of dispossession as the pressures of settler land hunger and encroachments on Indigenous sovereignty in the late nineteenth century bore down on four neighbouring First Nations groups simultaneously. Rather than interpreting these conflicts through a binary of assimilation/resistance, compound dispossession suggests the pervasiveness of dispossession as a discourse and the agency of dispossession as an adaptation to the unfolding settler-colonial paradigm. Résumé: Tout au long des années 1880 et 1890, deux groupes de Premières nations–les Chippewa de la Thames et les Six Nations de la rivière Grand–ont tenté d’expulser deux autres groupes de Premières nations des réserves de la Thames et de la rivière Grand, dans le sud de l’Ontario : les Munsee de la Thames et les Mississauga de la Credit. Ces conflits territoriaux ont été résolus avec succès au début du xxe siècle sans aucune éviction, mais les vingt années de conflit sont révélatrices de la complexité, de l’évolution et des impondérables de la dépossession au Canada au cours du xixe siècle. Cet article présente un récit de ces tentatives d’expulsion et propose le concept de « double dépossession » comme moyen d’appréhender cette complexité. D’après l’auteur, ce concept ne fait pas que traduire l’effet boule de neige des dépossessions du passé; il comprend également l’imbrication de multiples trajectoires disparates de dépossession, au moment où les pressions exercées par l’appétit des colons pour la terre et les empiétements sur la souveraineté autochtone à la fin du xixe siècle se sont abattus simultanément sur quatre groupes de Premières nations voisins. Plutôt que d’interpréter ces conflits à l’aide du schéma binaire assimilation/résistance, la double dépossession montre l’omniprésence de la dépossession en tant que discours et l’agentivité de la dépossession comme moyen d’adaptation au déploiement du paradigme de la colonisation de peuplement.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".