Talk:Oka Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oka Crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] More info about Canadian Forces intervention

We need to add more info about what happened after the CF intervened. There was that famous photo of the soldier staring down an armed protestor. Can we include the photo? (probably not). The photo really demonstrated the professionalism of the troops, which deserves some mention. — Pburka 1 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

He was convicted (military) several years later of drug offences and kicked out of the military.

Actually he went on to become a porn star (seriously).Easter rising

True...story is he was high on coke during the eyeball-to-eyeball pic; so much for professionalism. And as for professionalism, I'm not sure I can deal with that claim (if it's on the main page it's POV) given that the military supported the undeclared state of emergency which stripped Canadians and others of their civil rights, interned people without charges, and also brought down their authority on CBC Newsworld to end the Mohawk's access to the public via live free-speech broadcasting. They may have been "professional" in terms of following orders, not shootin' injuns and so forth; but there's no way the military should be considered "professional" here, and its use for the troops is like saying only "they did their job" (taking orders from superiors, no matter how dubious in political origin....).Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect that someone on coke would have had greater trouble restraining himself given the provocation. Looks more like adrenaline to me, but if you can source it reliably... Geoff NoNick 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
you don't know very much about coke behaviour, then. Crystal meth or other speeds might cause trouble restraining yourself, but coke is known for macho intimidation eyeballing and does not imply that someone cannot control themselves; quite the opposite. Don't believe everything you see on Scarface, OK?Skookum1 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I spent a while promoting loft parties in Montreal, so I have a reasonably good idea about the effect of coke on people. I can understand your wish to subvert what is, indeed, a very powerful image in the Canadian public conscience for the purpose of your cause, but you discredit yourself further every time you try to pursue this topic.
Any speculation as to whether or not Pte Cloutier was 'blasted' on coke or not is not going to proceed beyond just that - speculation - regardless of whether or not you're able to find some ragsheet that was willing to print it. As far as the 'evidence' that he was on coke being that he was in a staring contest, are suggesting that Larocque was on coke too? Of course not. Get over it.
In other news, for those interested: a link to the porn video featuring Cloutier. He didn't actually become a 'pornstar' - I think his industry experience was limited to this one feature flick. Geoff NoNick 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just trying to be funny with the pornstar comment. I'm sure he want all that popular, and I didn't mean to suggest we should include it in the article. I tend to agree with you about the coke/control issue... and there will certainly be no proof he was 'blasted' when the picture was taken.
I'm not making this up, and if the much-propagandized image's context to the Canadian public is harmed by it, it's not my fault; I don't have the cite but will find it. As a whole, I think a lot of the apologism for official authoritarianism in this country takes the same tack all the time - "harming the national image". If Canada hadn't spent a century and a half whitewashing its history, and if its news networks weren't still in the habit of whitewashing news, there wouldn't be a need to have to dispute such things; but because you didn't hear this item is no reason to say that I'm discrediting myself. Instead, what I see is you being gullible as to the reliability of the mainstream account/news.
And in all your loft parties where you saw coke behaviour, did you see anyone lose control on a mano-a-mano eyeball confrontation? And if you did, could you be certain it was the coke and not the other things whomever might have been taking? I stand by my dispute with you that coke doesn't necessarily lead to a loss of control of testosteronal feelings, especially in a high-profile in-front-of-the-camera situation as with this image; and you should know, since you ran loft parties, that coke is suited to staredowns and macho bluffing and subviolent behaviour of that kind, and does not necessarily lead to outbreaks of spontaneous violence. Good case to be made that a lot of the Mohawks might have been blasted too, except that it was a drug treatment centre they were defending/encamped in and I doubt it would have been smiled upon. My main dispute here is the positive press given the military in the absence of anything positive said about the "other side"; which constitutes POV by sin of omission.Skookum1 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, both sides should be told; however, as per wikipedia policy, the more 'popular' view of what happened should be given a larger portion of the article. Both sides should be told, fairly and impartially, however, your personal views don't mean that the article should spend much time disscussing the grand consiracy that (aparently) constitutes the Canadian society, journalism, and politics. Have fun editing!Easter rising 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any mention in the main article concerning the military's blackout and takeover of CBC at the height of the crisis? If it's not mentioned, then not mentioning it is POV.Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything you just said (Skookum1) is POV. The fact is that the perception and legacy of the incident, as accepted by the majority of historians and journalists, is that the military acted with great professionalism an extremely difficult and high-tension situation. You have to keep in mind that the military does not really train for this kind of operation, they train to destroy legitimate enemies in combat... therefore the restraint they showed in Oka is a credit to them and the institution. As for trying to blame them for "supported the undeclared state of emergency which stripped Canadians and others of their civil rights, interned people without charges, and also brought down their authority on CBC Newsworld to end the Mohawk's access to the public via live free-speech broadcasting." they were called into play by ELECTED officials, so in reality, as a voter YOU sent them into action. It is not for the military to question orders unless they are un-ethical, and none of those orders were unethical. That all being said, you're right there are two sides to this story, and both should be heard, meaning that the generally accepted perception, that Canadian Soldiers acted with the utmost professionalism, should be included.Easter rising
To date, no elected official has taken responsibility for the military's abrogation of freedom of the press (presumably this was the Minister of Nat'l Defence, but....) and one of the sickening parts of the political setting of Oka was the way the Mulroney Tories as well as Opposition politicians didn't say much; in fact, they pretty much hid out for the duration. The only elected official I can recall whose name is associated with the crisis and who took any kind of responsibility was Claude Ryan; and I don't vote in Quebec so don't point the finger at my having "voted" for him, or for the Mulroney Tories for that matter. Point is that there was a constitutional interregnum that still has no official legislation, not even an order-in-council, to back it up. And what you're doing is telling me a) trust your politicians b) trust your academics and c) trust your journalists: "Follow the leader" and tug your forelock and don't question too closely; it's un-Canadian. I won't live with that and I don't know how other Canadians can so willingly listen to the revised and bowderlized histories of recent events such as Oka and Charlottetown; the three groups you've asked me to trust are the three least deserving. There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning political morality and due process that a proper account of the Oka Crisis requires answering; I don't see those here, and instead I see excuse-making and, with this latest bit about "professionalism by the military", a POV because the Mohawk Council of Women and the Haudenosaunee roles in the affair/history are not mentioned at all (and I'd put Ellen Gabriel way ahead of the military on the "professional" role).Skookum1 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
See everything you're saying is POV... you are arguing under the assumption that the natives at Oka were right to take up arms, and that everythign the military/politiciians/journalists did was in the wrong.
You're putting words in my mouth, like any "good" spin doctor; I said nothing about the Mohawk Warriors taking up arms being right, but I did express discontent that the position and role of the Haudenosaunee in the crisis, and the important role of the Council of Women, is glaringly absent in the article. I also think that giving kudos to the military who came in invoked as peacekeepers and wound up executing a siege, then supporting a undeclared state of martial law throughout the Montreal region (if there was a declared state of emergency that suspended civil rights, someone please cite that legislation or cabinet order). I also think that the politicians ran for F**KING cover and stayed out of the way, other than Claude Ryan - whose SQ of course were the ones who precipitated the crisis; the Mulroney cabinet are conspicuous in the history of this incident by their absence and silence during it. The only other politician I remember was Jesse Jackson, and of course we know which side he was on. There's also no mention in the article that the ballistics studies post facto, as well as the angle of entry, indicate that the weapon that killed Cpl. Lemay was a police weapon, not a Mohawk one. There's so many sins of omission in this article that it can't be called anything else but POV because of their absence.
If you have such a problem with ommisions in this article... THEN ADD THE INFO... no one is stopping you. The fact is, the comment about the professionalism of the military in the Oka crisis WILL be included in the acrticle, because by the Wikipedia rules, it is a valid and verifiable POV, provived that it is described in a neutral tone. If you can find and reputable souces for your conspiracy theories and anti-establishment POV, please feel free to add that content to the article. All this other disscussion amounts to nonsense. Have fun editing!Easter rising 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I do support the devolution of native mini-states within Canada, which was a theme that the pre-military-shutdown discussions on NewsWorld and in the other public media were beginning to tackle with, improbable as it sounds to people obsessed with continent-spanning semi-unitary centralist/federalist states. The Haudenosaunee have legitimate historical grievances concerning territory as well as self-government rights; as the recent crisis in Caledonia reminds us. It works for Liechtenstein and Andorra, why can't it work for the Haudenosanee or the Nisga'a Nation? Oh, but of course then the next spin is how I'm not a loyal Canadian and don't support our troops/politicians and follow our other leaders like a good little Canadian merino.Skookum1 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Your views clearly do have a place in the article, but the more popular POV in the Oka Crisis is that the CF acted with great professionalism; ergo, it must be includeed in the article. I think you should take a step back for a moment and look at it this way: right or wrong - a sub-group of Canadian society in Oka chose to defy the legitimate civil authorities and pursue their agenda through force of arms rather than legal means. The situation was so out of control that the military was called in as an aid to civil power; a job that they are both loathe to do and that politicians are loathe to resort to. I'm not saying everything that happened is right, but it has to be noted that the average soldier involved; many of them only reservists with minimal training; acted with extraordinary professionalism in an extremely harrowing situation.Easter rising 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On a side note: I'm also pretty sure the guy was not blasted on coke at the time of the picture, it was later that he was found in possesion and charged.Easter rising
it was in the context of media coverage of his later possession charges that one magazine/newspaper somewhere (maybe Terminal City here in Vancouver, which has/had a good trait of reporting things other newspapers wouldn't go anywhere near, esp. Gustafsen Lake) that he had been on coke during the eyeball-to-eyeball photo shoot; the context of the account was that he'd been a user for a number of years at the time of his arrest, suggesting that he was "on" at the time of the famous photo; I'll find the cite if I can when I go to Terminal City's archives about various other stuff.
If you can find the source, by all means include the info, but make sure not to present it as 'the truth'... even if a newspaper in vancouver did publish it, who's to say if he was snorting coke that day or not?Easter rising 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

There's some good detailed info at the band council's web site. Seems to be largely NPOV. — Pburka 1 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

What is the source for the "playful" water balloon fight and the references to the Mohawks breaking their guns, throwing them into septic tanks, and burning tobacco before they walked home?

I am adding to this discussion mostly because of the ignorance shown by i can only presume are supporters of the genocide occuring against me and my people. Is this article POV? I am not concerned with whether or not some soldier was on crack when he was there, the real question is Why was he there in the first place! I have noticed that most of the "sources" refered to here by these same people are amibigous at best, plain old lies at most, they presume that since it was written/spoken by the same people who created this situation (non-Natives) that it must be true. Why dont they ask one of us how things really are, to have a better understanding of why situations like this happen, (a good start is Alanis Obomaswin's documentary 270yrs of Resistance) When you realize that it is your government (and by extension yourself) that is responsible for these situations occuring then perhaps we can have a REAL discussion about this. I appreciate Skookums comments on this issue although i do find the reference to identifying herself as an Canadian a bit disappointing, but that is a matter for another time. RedMan11

[edit] POV problems

I have some pretty big problems with the POV of this article. I have cut the statement about the Oka mayor saying "You know you can't talk to the indians" as I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever said that. Can someone provide a link? Also, the talk about the "millions of dollars" Oka stood to receive for development sounds suspect (evidence?). The narrative of the police raid on the barricade reads a lot like fictionalized account ("women and children fled in panic, and then the police opened fire in an effort to disperse the Mohawks manning the barricade") and in fact there is still a great deal of conflict around who opened rifle fire first. Indeed, evidence suggests that the natives responded to the tear gas shots, which they thought were gunshots, but I'll leave this ambiguity out. The account of the police calling out women and children and then firing on them doesn't at all jibe with the news reports, which show that there were women and children inside the barricade, unbeknownst to the police, who had attacked in a rapid raid without communicating first. Also, Corporal Lemay was shot in the face, not between the segments of his bulletproof vest. The entire discussion of racial abuse at the barricades also sounds suspect and I can't find anything to support the anecdotes included (except some rock-throwing, but nothing to suggest it was racist rather than natural anger), so I have cut much of it as well. The mention of a Francophone KKK is nothing short of absurd - I'm afraid the Bethune Institute (cited below) just isn't a very reliable source. It's more of an odd collaboration between some far right and far left radicals. I've added some more details about the military units involved. The line stating that "sympathy for Quebec nationalism plunged and never recovered" is simply untrue - the Quebec referendum of five years later came within a few thousand votes of supporting separation from Canada, and the provincial government of the day was federalist. If anything, provincial Liberal mishandling of the Oka file led to the rise to power of the separatist PQ. Comments? Geoff NoNick 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The recent edits have added a lot of info, but some of it is inflammatory and POV. In particular I am referring to the allegations of racism. I believe that racism played a major factor in this event, but talk of a "francophone KKK chapter" need reliable references if it's going to stay in. I've never heard of Klan activity in Quebec, and it seems very unlikely given the predominance of Catholicism in the province. The anecdotes about white Quebecois attacking natives also need references if they're to be kept. I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt, but I will remove the questionable sections if they're not toned down or reliable references provided. Pburka 14:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but Googling revealed a number of sites offering evidence (sometimes of the KKK in Canada generally, sometimes in Saskatchewan, sometimes in connection with opposition to Catholic French-Canadians, and sometimes suggesting that the Klan was active in the past but not now: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]...
One of the most significant is [7] ("The Ku Klux Klan has a long history in Canada, stretching back to the 1920s. At present, the Klan is most active in Quebec and on the Prairies, although Klan activity is also reported from every region of the country. In 1991, three Manitoba Klansmen were charged with a number of offences, including the advocacy of genocide.") --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I will withdraw the POV tag. The claims seemed too outrageous to be true, but do seem to have some documentation supporting them. Thanks. Pburka 17:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I was surprisd too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re the Klan thing in Quebec; about the same time as Oka, give or take a year or two, was the trial of the two Quebecois non-coms over the murder of Billy Bartholomew, the son of the quartermaster at CFB Reimagen in Germany. Tried to find some web coverage of this but no luck so far; newspaper coverage reported that the court heard testimony that one of the two French guys was recruiting the other to join "Les Rouges", a secret organization within the military, police and other organizations "out to kill anglos, blacks and Indians". The judge ruled this inadmissible in court for whatever reason I can't remember; but it did remind me of the way Ollie North's "secret government" comments were ruled out of order during Iran-Contra. It's dangerous IMO to bring up this material at all, but I did want to corroborate the idea that racist-fascist organizations are alive and well in Quebec, and there was a contemporary (to Oka) example available; probably only citable through pay-for archives at CP (Canadian Press) or the newspaper archives (for anyone who has access search "Billy Bartholomew" and maybe murder+Reimagen).
OK, my turn now. I was one of the Warriors on the Mercier Bridge, and what we heard concerning the Longitude 74 chapter of the Ku Klux Klan was that they took advantage of the mob hysteria at the protests in Chateauguay to both form their chapter (apparently the first French Catholic chapter ever) and to distribute leaflets at some of the larger protests where over ten thousand people were present. We had also heard that after some of these protests, the ground would be heavily littered with KKK flyers and leaflets, indicating that most protesters were discarding them. What at first seemed to be a crazy story that could not possibly be true had eventually turned into a footnote on the lunacy that often tainted the whole crisis. I can personally attest to the racism that was present, as I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. That is not to say that Chateauguay residents in general are racists, but some of the less tolerant characters were definitely running about unchecked at that point in time. In the end, the KKK had little influence, aside from giving everyone on all sides a shot of cold water to the face, as it clearly underscored how far out of control things had spiraled. A final thought regarding the debates about POV in this article. There are so many differing reports expressing opposite perspectives in regards to this dispute/conflict/rebellion, that the only truly neutral option is to delete the article. The media was heavily manipulated by all sides during the Oka Crisis, and many media outlets also had their own agendas as well. The politics, propaganda and misunderstanding here were extremely intense from all angles. The result is that there will probably never be a version of this article that can be fully trusted by anyone. Perhaps this article should be replaced by TWO articles, titled "Oka Crisis (Mohawk POV)" and "Oka Crisis (Canada/Quebec POV)" Arcticmohawk 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we must never forget that the Native people were fighting for their freedom, whereas the colonial Canadian government was fighting to make money and oppress indigenous people's rights. The Canadian government cannot try to sidestep the truth: that they sent the military to arrest people over a golf club. Canadian soldiers were NOT heroes, they were evil imperial stormtroopers sent to crush a group of people fighting for their freedom.


[edit] Chant

Isn't the canonical form of the chant "Le Québec aux Québécois", rather than "Québec pour les Québécois"? Indefatigable 20:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oui.Skookum1 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   We must also not forget that Racism exists on every side in some portion.  Having worked and lived with the two ethnicities basically involved in this crisis, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that forms of racism were not involved on both sides.  We have to face the fact that we live in a Country that treats minorities very different from non-minorities.  If a caucasian Farmer's land in Saskatchewan was needed for a highway, if he and his family took up arms to defend his land he would be immediately arrested and charged. This is the reality that faces Canadians of any ethnicity.Brchkal 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ROFLMFAO

Haha, watching the video of the standoff, I never realised the soldier muttered "motherfucker" at the Native who was staring at him, cursing...I always imagined that scene completely quiet and surreal Sherurcij 02:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, I'd argue "fair use" of the "classic" image from Oka (As a note, it's not actually Lasagna in the image, it's Brad Laroque...a fact that wasn't realised until years later)

Nor that Pvt Cloutier was allegedly blasted on cocaine during the eye-to-eye faceoff (what Laroque was blasted on, other than righteousness, is anybody's guess); all the more ironic since it was a a dug treatment centre the Mohawks were holed up in and defending.Skookum1 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

The article is already great as is, but I have a few suggestions:

More images (easy fair use argumentation IMHO) would greatly enhance the article. Also, several books are mentionned by the end of the article, but there is no bibliographic links fro them, which would be a nice addition. In general, footnotes would also enhance the article.

The final effects on the disputed land are not even mentionned in the article! Bad me! I didn't notice the part about the extension being cancelled.

Finally, the picture currently illustrating the article indicates other acts of support were held beyond Quebec, this should be mentionned in the article, likely in a different section "Support outside Quebec" or something alike. In the same vein, more details about who supported/opposed the Mohawks would enhance the article. Circeus 14:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As well, there needs to be more detail about the Canadian army part of the crisis and the date the army was called in. I believe it was a major historical event in terms of tv news as well and we should discuss the role of CBC Newsworld which was still in its infancy much like the girl in the well was for CNN years before when it was a new network. A lot of rules about how to deal with live events were made up on the spot during this time including airing "unedited" tapes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
A lot of rules about how to deal with live events were made up....". Yeah, they sure were; and I'd rather have Newsworld "in its infancy" than emasculated by corporate and government interests as it has been ever since the peak of the Oka Crisis; the military was very clear about their control, and about limiting the CBC's ability to serve the public; Newsworld has ever since been a choke-fest of talking heads, documentaries, boring business coverage - but NO LIVE FEEDS EVER AGAIN, as these can be too politically volatile, as Oka so clearly demonstrated; it was not until after the military took control of the media, in fact, that public opinion began to turn agains the Mohawks; because they could no longer hear and see them, but only hear and see what the military wanted them to.
Also, glaringly absent from the article overall is any discussion about how the politicians and political parties largely stood aside to let the military run things, and how an effective state of emergency (aka martial law) was in effect despite no state of emergency being declared. But of course, being good Canadians, it's so much easier to obey than question, isn't it?

[edit] Related pages

  • I've started a page for Joseph Onasakenrat. Any additions would be appreciated. Pburka 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've also created a stub for the Honoré Mercier Bridge Pburka 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that Jean Ouellette and Gilles Proulx could both use small biographical articles. Pburka 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pre-Oka violent conflicts

the first of a number of violent conflicts between Indigenous people and the Canadian Government in the late 20th century.

I'll have to figure out how to rephrase that, as there were many incidents of semi-organized native vs. government violence outside of Central Canada which never made the national media radar; especially here in BC I'm thinking of the shooting war in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s between DFO and the local natives (various chiefs were arrested) and more recently on the Lower Fraser and also as I recall in the Skeena. What made Oka different was that it was happening on Montreal's doorstep, i.e. it was going on in Central Canada, and also that CBC Newsworld had instituted an innovative round-the-clock live coverage policy for unfolding events, which gave Oka prime-time status (and top ratings, too); the silencing and muzzling of CBC Newsworld that arose from the Oka Crisis' unofficial (? - no one's ever shown me the paperwork!) imposition of military censorship on the eve of the final ultimatum; Newsworld's original open-air flavour has forever been replaced by talking heads carefully managing information for us, instead of actually just SHOWING us the news, as it had originally done. Now, like all media worth their lying salt, they manage the news for us....Skookum1 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it in, so maybe I can help. I'll admit to being ignorant of other major conflicts in the second half of the 1950s, but perhaps that's because of the lack of media attention you mentioned. How about the first of a number of well-publicised violent conflicts ? -- TheMightyQuill 10:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post-Meech Oka Crisis stuff

Reply to someone who'd changed a mention I put into the Meech Lake Accord article:

I saw your edit of my change to the Oka Crisis article, and I have to disagree. The matter-of-fact reality of the crisis may have been the Mayor of Oka's ill-considered golf course wet dreams, and the jock-shock boyos of the SQ rampaging into thick woods with guns blazing, but the political mood of the times were exactly as I said them: and it was widely perceived that Quebec's hostility to natives for "blocking the Meech Lake Accord" underlay both the Mayor of Oka's intransigence and his disregard for the Kanesetake Mohawks, and also beneath the behaviour of the SQ and the Quebec government over the matter, to say nothing of the Van Doos themselves. To believe that the Oka Crisis was ONLY about a golf course is just disingenuous; it was a given at the time that Quebeckers were "out to get" natives, and Oka was the manifestation of that, even though you want to claim it was just over a golf course. The most ironic line I remember is from one of the off-duty SQ who were stoning the refugee convoy as it fled Kahnwake on the eve of the military's ultimatum: (in heavily-accented French): "They [Mohawks] are a conquered people - they should behave that way". Ironic because the Iroquois were on the winning side in 1812-14 as well as in 1763. And I don't think Quebeckers have really forgotten that either.Skookum1 19:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that it was about way more than a golf course - it was about autonomy/sovereignty/indigenous rights/anti-colonialism. But the blocking of the Meech Lake Accord was about the same thing. I'm not sure if you could draw a direct link between the Oka crisis and Meech Lake. Not that they weren't related, but it's hard to prove, NPOV. I can't find the edit of your reference to Meech, so I'm not sure exactly what you had said. The quote you mentioned above would be good. Do you have a source? -- TheMightyQuill 10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming Commission

Why is "licences" written in quotes? Kahnawake is a respected licensor, affiliated with Gaming Associates.

According to the article, Both the Canadian and Quebec governments dispute the legality of this operation, but have not risked taking further action. If the legitimacy of the operation has been called into question, the any licences issued are naturally also questioned. If the legitimacy of the Gaming Commission is not in question, you should change the article. -- TheMightyQuill 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mohawk w/Warrior" vs. "Mohawk person"

Alright, gotta say my piece. I'd reversed this to the way it should be, i.e. how we all heard it described, and how they describe themselves. Who keeps on politically-correcting "Mohawk warrior" into "Mohawk person", and what's your rationale? Mohawk Warrior is fully capitalized, also. Could it be that the lack of capitalization led someone to believe that "warrior" was racist/discriminatory? Nope, it's not, and Mohawk Warriors call themselves that proudly, AFAIK.Skookum1 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PS when you make a sensitive edit like that, please have a username and sign in before doing so. IP address edits don't help much if there's a disagreement or a need for consultation.Skookum1 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ive added a NPOV tag to the history section of the article, it requires sources from the other side of the question DRCarroll 11:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) --RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should add {{citationneeded}} tags to statements you feel specifically needs sourcing instead. That will make other editors' work much easier. Unless you can specify state what exactly makes this section otherwise POV, please remove the template. Circeus 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine as far as political bias/content goes, but "Mohawk Warrior" is standard spelling/capitalization style for that "title", and is commonplace in the Canadian media (and their own website). They are not generic-w warriors, but Mohawk Warriors. Same as you wouldn't write "U.S. marine" or the "Canadian Forces vandoos". As for the political POV thing goes, it should be borne in mind (and commented upon) that the official account is the "other side of the story" here, and the official account is heavily censored and politicized to start with; when the "other side of the story" is a pack of lies and information-wheedling, if it's to be included then a POV warning on it would be necessary. Or in history of some nefarious regime, is it requisite that the regime's version of their era should be included out of "fairness"; e.g. Mengistu's faction's version of Ethiopia during their tenure, or Allende-ite histories of Chile?Skookum1 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the situation as it exists in Canada is anthing more than superficially similar to anything in Ethiopia or Chile. To suggest a parallel is nothing more than to play fast and loose with the facts for dramatic effect; and to deny that any history of the Oka crisis is going to be influenced by POV is to deny that the "official" account of the natives and the "official" account of their opponents are both grounded in some facts while conveniently excluding others. That being said, I'm not exactly certain which facts in the historical section are deemed to be in dispute - can anyone clarify so we can dig up citations or correct as necessary and get rid of the NPOV tag? Geoff NoNick 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.Easter rising 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The impression I got from the Iroquois website was that the "Warriors" are a distinct faction, within the tribe but outside the League. They don't recognize the authority of the sachems, and are the ones responsible for the smuggling, gambling, and other illegal activities (kinda like an Iroquois mafia). --WikiMarshall 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you have gotten the wrong impression. The Warriors (of any Native Nation) authority comes from the people of that Nation, the sachems (or in my language Giimaa) are only spokepeople, the situation that you describe as for recongnizing the"authority" of these SPOKEPEOPLE, one must look at the long-term history of our Nations, The current political situation on most of the Territories is one of occupation & control by Foreign powers (canada, us etc;) through the band council/tribal council system. As these Foreign systems are NOT indigenous to our people as well as being illegal, they have no authority to implement policy for ANY matter concerning us. As for the mistaken accounts of Indian Mafia I will say this most of the revenue producing activities authorized by the people dont involve Soprano-type deals of ANY kind. This is just misrepresentation of us and insulting to the characters of the people involved. RedMan11 September 25 2006

Redman11, whoever you are (since that's not a Wikisig), whatever your Giimaa are and whatever language that's from, you're making BIG assumptions that all native peoples are the same, and that automatically any outside description of them is "defamatory". The Mohawk Warrior Society is totally unique, though it has copycats among the Miqmaq and certain Western Canadian groups; it is both a political organization and, because it invokes the ancient right to trade cross-border, is heavily and intrinsically involved in smuggling both US-Canada and within Canada (becaus of differential liquor and tobacco taes). They're also typically heavily-armed and many are e-mercss, when not ex-Marines or e-CanForces, and are a known factor in the cross-border weapons trade. Whatever; point is that if the Mohawk Warrior Society DOES have a history of "criminal" involvement, as well as a big role in the violent Mohawk Civil War of the spring of 1990 (just before the Oka Crisis); and close links to the various Quebec bike gangs. Sopranos no, bike gang yes (and the mafia in Montreal are Irish anyway). "Misrepresentation and insulting to the characters of the people involved" you may claim; but if you do bad things, bad things get said about you. Point blank. Wrapping yourself in red skin (y'know, like the flag?) and invoking Mother Eareth doesn't cut it when the truth is involved.Skookum1 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments short sighted and almost assimilationist in character. If you truly did understand anything about our people, you would notice that although our motions(means of action) are not always the same, the basic intent is. I find your comments about copycats from other NATIONS (yes thats right were not canadians or americans) insulting and damaging to those of us who know the history and culture/language of our NATIONS. As for your comment on the Mohawk Civil War, perhaps you should talk to the people and aquaint yourself with the facts before making general judgements, the fact is that the Band/Tribal governments (supported by canada & the us) were attempting to impose their "authority" onto the Traditional people by stripping away what little self-suffienct economic development they had established at that time. As for your other comments on connections with biker gangs and "criminal activities",the so called criminal activities are nothing more then Native Nations asserting their right to be free,The true Traditionalist people would not have anything to do with biker gangs or others like them (and Yes this includes the Warrior Societies) The people who you refer to are the ones who started the Civil Conflict over economics the same ones the canadian & american governments support to maintain their dominance over us. Have you ever talked to them? Have you realized what they and others like them are trying to do for my people? Probably not which is sad :( Since you are not a citizen of a Native Nation I find your comments on subjects of which you know little or nothing about harmful and disrespectful of the struggles which me and my people face on a daily basis, when you have spoken with us and understand why things happen THEN you can speak of it, until then please keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I do not try to be something im not (canadian and/or american) I am Anishinaabek. --RedMan11 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and so non-Germans should not write on German history, non-Irish on Irish history, and (ahem) non-white people on white history. Look, all I've tried to do is dispute the change someone from ANOTHER NATIVE NATION made (or a p.c.-conscious white-guilt type) from "Mohawk Warrior" to "Mohawk person", because THEY thought that "Warrior" was a racist and prejudicial term. And I can't speak for the Miqmaq Warriors (where I think there's a bit longer tradition) but I do know that certain groups in BC DID imitate the Mohawk Warriors (and don't tell me that's racist, assimilationist crap because YOU DON'T COME FROM WHERE I COME FROM). As for the "Civil Conflict" as you call it, please note I have not attempted to write an article on it, only pointed out that it needs an article; I have no political opinions on it one way or the other and would, in fact, appreciate the Mohawk viewpoint/story which we DID NOT get from CTV etc (NewsWorld was then still un-censored and its live coverage was exactly that: live, and not explanatory or doing the talking-heads thing). Fine, if the whole thing went down because of collaborators with white domination, or however you want to style the Indian Act-derived "governments"; I understand all that. But NONE OF THIS was clear in the Oka Crisis article, and the Mohawk Civil War ("Civil Conflict") remains a blank spot in the story. Now, if you're capable of writing a NPOV history of these events, and you don't mind white people actually READING the story (since, apparently, in your mind, we're not capable of understanding and, besides, we're all the same anyway, right?), then write the article and make the changes. As for calling me an assimilationist, you have no idea how LAUGHABLY wrong you are on that; I fully support (and do support) the full independence of the haudenosaunee just as I do of First Nations in my own province; a devolutionist Canada is where I'm coming from. In the same knee-jerk way Quebecois consider all anglos to be just like Ontarians, you've assumed that because I'm white (I happen to be, but I might have been something else, by the way) I "think like all other white people", I'm an "assimilationist" and worse. Anything but; in fact I regard the devolution of local power to native governments as a first step in constitutional reform in CAnada, and I also think more local power to municipalities (taken from the provs and feds) happens to be the way to go, based on the native model. But I guess my white skin disqualifies me from having an opinion in your world, huh? Funny thing about you native radicals - you quite often can't distinguish between supportive and interested non-natives and those who think you don't matter shit and are a bunch of whiners; I'm in the former group, despite the childish abuse hurled at me over the years by resentful radicals/ideologues such as yourself. Learn to distinguish people by something else than their skin colour, OK? Save your animosity for.....hell, maybe you should read some of the Dalai Lama so you can deal with that animosity of yours, in fact, instead of expecting everyone else to deal with it.Skookum1 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your opinion here as hyprocrisy defined, you say you have no opinion or POV on the situation that developed as the results of your governments actions (past and present), yet you refer to the Warriors who were defending their territory and the people on it as "criminals" has already shown to me and others that you dont understand what happened or is continuing to happen to us. I have no problem SHARING as defined in the INTERNATIONAL treaties our governments signed with you, what i do have a problem with is your insistance that we act, think and obey you in all activities. Which is the whole thrust of your agruement against me and others like me who wish to be free of that system. I can site numerous examples of where your government has betrayed, raped, stolen from and murdered (past & present) when it suits your wants. Based on your comments it would be HIGHLY unlikely that you would be able to read let alone understand a NPOV article about us, since this would be at odds with your conception of how and what we should be and what actually happens. The real cause of the "Indian problem" isnt us, its you. When you and others are READY to listen then we can understand each other and finally put these conflicts away and move forward, until then I hope that you take these words and reflect on your beliefs about us and open yourself. --RedMan11 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"My" government? What you're doing is guilt-by-accusation, as if by being white I'm guilty of all the rapes, thefts, betrayals and murders of other white men in other times. Yeah, I might even be distantly related to them but by how many generations and on which side I wouldn't want to begin to guess. But you're doing a guilt-by-association thing here, where the association being made is that I'm white and therefore am stupid and don't know anything; in fact I know quite a bit more about the rapes, thefts, betrayals and murders concerning aboriginal history in BC than you ever will, and that includes some of the internecine wars which the white man had nothing to do with as well as all the recent stuff at Seton Portage and Gustafsen Lake and elsewhere that you've never heard of. Trying to portray me in the enemy camp because of my skin colour (which you're presuming on, though you happen to be correct; I might have been black or polka-dotted, for that matter, but you presumed I'm white and accused me of supporting "my" government; in fact I'm a big-time critic of the Canadian constitutional system and am anything but supportive of the increasingly authoritarian drift of the Canadian system; that you've thrown your assumptions all over me is just a sign of the deep racist revanchism you have sunk to in your hatred of the white man; not all white people are guilty of the crimes you so resent, and some white people are guilty of crimes far worse in other places, too (just ask the Irish about the potato famine, or any of the Irish Wars). Somehow you also missed my point that I support the sovereignty and independence of the haudenosaunee, and know the legal history, and see no reason why it can't become a functioning microstate, under its own laws and government, operating in North America the way Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino do in Europe; a patchwork quilt throughout Ontario, granted, but a historically valid one. Do I make myself clear? Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm the bogeyman. Maybe if you wiped some of the warpaint you've got on you might be able to see that I'm not General Custer. And I'm not a supporter of the federal governmental system in Canada, nor indeed of BC's, and was behind native self-government right from the start. I've also learned that nobody has a right to tell anybody else to shut up about their opinion on something, as you're trying to do, while hurling out-of-thin-air judgements and condemnations around at the same time. On the other hand, if you don't want anyone outside your own race (so-defined by yourself as separate from all white men being the same) to have any input, or even a right to ask questions, then maybe you don't want support and just want to rage against the world, refusing to talk to anyone who doesn't have the right skin colour and not giving a shit if anyone listens. Keep it up. I'm sure you'll accomplish a lot that way.Skookum1 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your a taxpayer arent you? You vote in the canadian "democracy"? therefore it is your government acting on your behalf. You cannot take credit for one action and deny the other thats called hypocrisy. And what is your obsession with always mentioning that your white? You seem to focus on this a lot in your comments as if somehow mentioning that fact gains you authority over matters of which by your own admission you are not directly apart of. As for your statements that you know more then me, someone who lives it everyday, about oppression against my people not only insulting and arrogant, but another example of your mentality towards us thinking (perhaps subconsiously) that you are somehow superior to us even in matters which we live day to day, like i previously stated but which you seemed to have once again missed, Native Nationalists like myself have no problem sharing the resources and responsiblities of Turtle Island, where we differ is the concept of how. I believe as others do that we are NATIONS subject to our OWN laws and customs, you appear to believe that you have the right to decide for me and others what we can do, how we live, what are rights are. This is called colonialism in other areas of the world, if you are truly sincere in your claim that you support this, start by examining your own attitudes and prejuidices and petition YOUR government to start the process of DeColonization. I know that you will know doubt respond to this and although i would sincerely wish to have a decent and open-minded conversation about this subject, it would be sadly (based on previous posts) be more of the tirade directed towards me for challenging your view of us. --RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a reductionist as well as a hate-monger, it seems; denouncing all people who are in the Canadian nation-state for being guilty simply for being in that country by dint of being born in it and co-opted by a once-in-a-while plurality FTPT voting system that is not democracy, only the sham of one; and no, I'm not responsible for the actions of my government, no more than they are for my actions. Most of all the Mulroney government, fer chrissake, or more to the point that of the Mayor of Oka or the Government of Quebec. Being from BC, I have nothing to do with the latter two, and only guilt-by-association-of-being-white-and-having-voted (Green, btw). So what's your deal? You sound like the kind of radical who wants the 300 million non-aboriginals on the continent to go back to where they came from; that's also very realistic of you, and I admire your determination. And where you got the idea that I - I re, man, I - "have the right to decide for 'you' and others what you [we] can do, how we live" etc. I have no FUCKING IDEA where you got that from in my previous post, in which I clearly said the audenosauee had every right to exist as a microstate, including deciding for itself how it's run and how it'll approach things; that I ever said any different is something in your twisted white-hating fantasies.Skookum1 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you guys calm down a little please? You're both hurling personal insults that are unwarranted and turning what could be a useful debate into a shouting match. To start, try to look past the hostile accusations the other person is making and look at the rest of their post. -- TheMightyQuill

[edit] Statement in Intro is incorrect

It resulted in three deaths, and would be the first of a number of violent conflicts between Indigenous people and the Canadian Government in the late 20th century.

?? Violent conflicts between the DFO and First Nations in BC were commonplace in the '70s and '80s, including a "shooting war" in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s. I'm also pretty sure that there were other aboriginal-officialdom conflicts, some of which could be styled "violent", long before Oka. What distinguished Oka is that it was on the doorstep of one of the country's largest cities and was also front-and-centre in then-live coverage on NewsWorld. So "first of a number of violent conflicts" is definitely NOT the right phrasing here.Skookum1 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In Kahnawake, we had a number of violent conflicts during the 1970's as well.--Arcticmohawk 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


the warrior's society erradicated all the drug dealers out of kahnawake and if you were there you would know what went on and how the media depicted the warriors as villians and thugs like mafia because that is all white people know, native people have been and continuing to be descriminated against even in canada the O, so equal country who promotes peace in among countries in the rest of the world. HIPOCRITES!!!!

And your comment relates to this article how? Geoff NoNick 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and Reversions

Tried to get back to last legitimate version following multiple quite silly vandalism attempts. Someone more familiar with the article might just check that I reverted to the correct place. Abbeyvet 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/k/a/Talk%7EOka_Crisis_aade.html"