MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073646055

“Hold For Investigation”: Minnie Atkins And The Contestation Of Indigeneity In The Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries

2020· article· en· W7073646055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueW&M Publish (College of William & Mary) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber Optics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ColonialismCommodificationGovernment (linguistics)Land tenureQuarter (Canadian coin)Entitlement (fair division)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Hold for Investigation”: Minnie Atkins and the Contestation of Indigeneity in the Twentieth Century The United States Government prosecuted Minnie Atkins, a Yuchi-Creek woman, over a land dispute beginning in 1914. The Government questioned the legality of Atkins’ ownership of former Creek tribal land allotted to Thomas Atkins. This seemingly useless piece of land had generated both public and private interest as it was located within the bounds of the highly lucrative Cushing Oil Field. Over the course of near a decade, Minnie Atkins not only was forced to defend her rights as an American private landowner protected under the laws of the United States, but also her identity as a Native woman with tribal rights and her status as the mother of Thomas Atkins. This paper examines Minnie Atkins’ life and experiences within the context of the United States’ settler colonial project. It reveals that allotment, as a tool of setter colonialism, served to commodify “Indianness.” The case United States of America vs. Minnie Atkins, et al. (Equity – 2131) reveals that the United States’ settler colonial project created a dangerous paradox in which Atkins asserted her indigeneity as she called upon the American legal system to protect her rights as an American landowner. “I would not say she was of negro blood; she looks very like an Indian”: Discourses of Race and Indigeneity in United States of America vs. Minnie Atkins In the first quarter of the twentieth century, the case United States of America vs. Minnie Atkins, et al. (Equity – 2131) had become the topic of much debate both inside and outside of the courtroom. As much as the case was a both property and wealth, it was about race. Lawyers, national newspapers, and the general public alike debated whether or not Minnie Atkins was an “Indian,” and whether or not as such she was entitled to legally inherit former Creek tribal land that had been allotted to her son, Thomas Atkins. This paper examines a selection of witnesses’ statements presented to the United States Court of Appeals. These statements reveal popular notions at the time relied on malleable, social phenomena to determine biological race though it was supposedly fixed. Witness statements also highlight the extent to which the white-black binary structured America’s racial discourse, as well as how malleable conceptions of race imposed on individuals such as Minnie Atkins. Officially, the United States Government had placed Minnie Atkins on trial over her claims to Thomas Atkins’ allotted lands, however, the case reveals indigeneity itself was on trial within a settler colonial framework further complicated by the white-back binary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueW&M Publish (College of William & Mary)Same topicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber OpticsFrench-language works237,207