MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139742360

Review of <i>Noble, Wretched, & Redeemable: ProtestantMissionaries to the Indians in Canada and theUnited States, 1820-1900</i> By C. L. Higham

2001· article· W7139742360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clyde Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2001
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionProtestantismArgument (complex analysis)Interpretation (philosophy)NormativePublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By exploring how nineteenth-century Canadian and American missionaries wrote about Indians, this book examines a little-known aspect of mission work. Their accounts reveal remarkably similar-and increasingly negative- ideas about Indians that helped create the images policymakers and the public alike embraced. In their letters, diaries, official reports, and scholarly essays, Protestant missionaries "shaped the stereotypes that the literate Christian public had of the Indians in both Canada and the United States." Although Canadian and United States Indian policies were motivated by different strategies and environments (at least until the late nineteenth century)' missionaries on both sides of the border had similar experiences as agents of assimilation. Moreover, each group was buffeted by insufficient support, shifting policy goals, and fickle public opinion. Importantly, whether as noble savages, ignoble wretches, or blighted yet redeemable souls, these were the images missionaries used to curry favor with the politicians and philanthropists who controlled the purse strings that funded mission stations. Based on an impressive array of primary sources, Higham's argument is well marshaled but unevenly balanced. Part of the book's weakness stems from its ambitious scope, which forces Higham to rely on a relatively small number of frequently used voices that imply a normative experience. Moreover, Higham's largely negative interpretation seems overstated in light of recent studies that suggest a more complex set of encounters and attitudes. As Marvin Kroeker, Clara Sue Kidwell, Sergei Kan, and Jack Schultz suggest, many missionaries (especially women on the Southern Plains) had decidedly positive images of Indian people. And contrary to Higham's assertion that the post-Dawes era produced a decline in missionary work, some of the most important Plains agencies (the Kiowa Comanche- Apache Reservation, for example) saw unprecedented levels of action. Higham's decision to frame his study without reference to Indians is troubling, implicitly reinforcing the notion that Indians had little agency in the events that swirled around them. Indeed, the book relegates Indians to a footnote that disparages accounts from "the rare convert" as "tainted." This interpretation is clearly at odds with the evidence, ignores the complicated cultural negotiations that occurred at every mission, and has missionaries writing in a vacuum. There are also a number of interpretative and factual miscues: the Ghost Dance did not begin in 1892, the Nez Perces did not murder the Whitmans, the United States Army did not control post-Civil War Indian affairs to the degree that Higham suggests, and United States Indian policy never embraced extermination. These problems notwithstanding, the book convincingly demonstrates that missionaries were more than hewers of wood and drawers of water. Readers interested in comparative frontiers will appreciate both Higham's grasp of Canadian policy and the importance of placing missions in larger cultural, social, and intellectual contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207