Talk:Oka Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oka Crisis article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis 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:
View comments (edit)
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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)

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.
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)

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)

[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)
Doesn't seem relevant. If there are sources linking the KGC with this crisis that's fine, otherwise it's just an opinion piece. I've removed the paragraph pending the production of reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (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] 300

If anyone saw the movie 300, this was kind of a similar situation, in which Natives=Spartans (as people defending their lands from imperialistic invaders) and Canadians=Persians (as colonial conquerors). That's a pretty good analogy for Native/European colonist (USA and Canada) relations.

So say we all brother, so say we all... haha OldManRivers 08:28, 2 April 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)

[edit] Mohawk Civil War redirect

Just checkin' around, think this has been raised (by me) before; the Mohawk Civil War refers to at intfra-Mohawk conflict at Akwesasne-St. Regis a few months prior to the outbreak of the Oka Crisis; I note that the Oka Crisis itself was labelled the "Mohawk Civil War" by the Village Voice, but that's not its proper usage. There's a number of articles/columns about "Mohawk Civil War" if you google that phrase so, unless this article includes a section on the unrest within the Mohawk Nation in the months before Oka, the topic should be broken off and given its own section. One reason I meant to do so is that it also would, or should, qualify under List of United States military history events because it involved the deployment of US troops (who were from the adjacent Messina base and deployed in full-scale occupation of the American side of the Akwesasne Reserve in response to the shooting war on the Canadian side...the US deployment I remember from CBC Newsworld's coverage, I haven't seen it in print since but it must be somewhere i.e. citable).Skookum1 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists

Julian Watson, I think you'll have trouble finding any respectable news sources referring to the Kanienkehaka warriors at Oka as "terrorists." - TheMightyQuill 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't usually call them warriors either. A warrior isn't some university student in a funny camoflauge outfit and a mask who yells racial slurs at real soldiers and blockades a road. Julian Watson

Actually, they do. Both the CBC and Historica refer to them as warriors. As for your counter argument, will you be citing yourself as a reference? - TheMightyQuill 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, why is it that you keep removing the link to Mohawk Nation? I'm going to assume in good faith that you have a reason, rather than just venting your anger through vandalism. - TheMightyQuill 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Brad Laruque was an economics student, he was not a "warrior". The wikipedia "warrior" page says "A warrior is a person habitually engaged in warfare" As far as I know the Mohawks haven't been at war with anybody for for well over a century. Julian Watson 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I start, Julian, thanks for discussing this on the talk page. I should apologize for some of my more hostile comments earlier, when I thought you were simply vandalizing. I see you are definitely making edits in good faith, and I appreciate that.

Now, here's my rationale: Firstly, the role of warrior is an important part of Mohawk culture. I understand that you may feel indigenous culture is a remnant of "the stone age" (as you put it on another article's talk page) but people like Brad Laruque disagree with you. They called themselves warriors, and that counts for something. Reputable media referred to them as warriors, which is even more important, for wikipedia.

Second, while I appreciate wikipedia's definition of warrior, there are clearly multiple definitions...

  • Random House Unabridged: 2. a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.
  • American Heritage: 2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict

Furthermore, they were physically defending what they considered their territory by means of force. You might not agree that the Oka crisis was a war by the wikipedia definition, but historically there were few indigenous large-scale prolonged conflicts, yet there have always been mohawk warriors. The American Heritage dictionary also defines warrior as "1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle" which certainly fits in this case.

Essentially, you disagree with their political stance and certainly don't seem to value their culture, and therefor, you're attempting to denigrate their status as warriors. That is POV, not the widely-used term "warrior." - TheMightyQuill 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add that these warrior societies have been apart of Haudenosaunee culture for centuries. The definition is clearly expansive and isn't easy to tight down, but as an organization (The Warrior Societies), warrior would be a correct term for these individuals. There are numerous Warrior Societies across Canada from the East Coast to the West Coast (Although the West Coast Warriors Society is not defunct and disbanded years ago). Doesn't the Armed Forces Handbook on Counter Insurgency call them Warriors too? OldManRivers 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TheMightyQuill...I am far from an expert on Mohawk culture but I do understand a bit about Aboriginal culture having spent about a third of my life living on a reserve in southern Alberta. I object to the use of the term "warrior" because I think it plays into the whole "noble-savage" stereotype that is so often seen in Canadian(and American I suppose) media. The man in the picture was a economics student who as far as I can tell had never participated in a war, never trained to be in a war, was not a member of any army and belonged to a people who hadn't participated in anything that could be considered an armed conflict for over a century. If he were white nobody would be calling him a "warrior".

I would like to propose a compromise, I will stop calling him a terrorist if you will stop calling him a warrior and we can just call him a student. I think we can both agree that he was a student and that it is certainly not a derogatory term. I find "warrior" to be a demeaning and mildly racist(though unintentionaly) and I would prefer not spend the next 6 months replacing the term.Julian Watson 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. He used the term and the Warrior Societies which OldManRivers referred to are pretty secure in their use of the term. The media used the term. You object to the term claiming it's racist, but you label indigenous people defending what they see as their territory "terrorists" ? You've got to be joking. The man in the picture carried a weapon, acted alongside a group of people who were using physical force to defend land, and are connected with a culture which has valued warriors since time immemorial. No, if he were white, he wouldn't be called a warrior because white-canadian culture doesn't include warrior societies. If he were white, he probably wouldn't call himself a warrior and the media wouldn't call him a warrior, but he's Haudenosaunee, so they do. - TheMightyQuill 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He was not "defending his land" from anyone. He was illeagaly blockading a road in a effort to extort land that courts had already found did not belong to him. He used terror and the threat of violence in an effort to force his ethnocentric views on others. The majority of aboriginal people I know including my mother and grandparents considered the people involved in the Oka crisis to be extremists and thugs and certainly not representation of mainstream aboriginal views. The "warrior societies" on reserves serve the same function as the Triads in Chinese Canadian communities or the Hells Angels in European Canadian communities. They do not exist to "defend" the community or make war, they are organized criminal gangs that engage in drug running and extortion on reserves. The media in Canada refer to these criminals as "warriors" because the Canadian media is biggoted and treats aboriginal people as if we were still living in 1750 instead of 2007. Julian Watson 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You got sources to back up these claims buddy? I could say the exact same thing except that the majority of Indigenous in Canada supported the Warriors at Oka in the uprising that created a breaking point for Indigenous resistance across Canada. This is largely your own personal point of view on what the so called Oka Crisis is and who these men are. Wikipedia is about neutrality in an encyclopedic manner. The traditional governance of the Haudenosaunee support enormously the warriors societies and are governed by the clan mother and not the originally imposed band council system. Terrorists to who? Gangs to who? The warriors societies at Kanastake drove out all the drug dealers in their nation. But please by all means, bring sources for you wild claims. OldManRivers 04:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Julian, while I'm sure you consider your mother and grandparents reliable sources, forgive me if I am a little skeptical. To my knowledge, the Triads and Hells Angels do not receive the same respect from either the media, or from academics (like Taiaiake Alfred or Lana Lowe). You believe the Canadian media is bigoted, and I happen to agree with you, only maybe from the opposite side. Personally, I find your comment that residential schools were set up to pull indigenous people "out of the stone age" incredibly offensive, and I'm willing to bet a majority of indigenous people would agree with me, pardon me if I suspect your bias, despite your birthplace and family. Since we clearly have opposite points of view, we need to work with sources, as OldManRivers has pointed out. You've already gone through wikipedia and removed a number of admittedly suspect references and sources (Kevin Annett), but simply claiming media bias doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia:Verifiability. - TheMightyQuill 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


We are free citizens of the Haudensaunee/Iroquois Confederacy first and foremost and we will never be anything less. We are ruled by the Great Law of Peace-the oldest constitution and practicing democracy in the world. We were never beaten in war, we made treaties for peace to live in harmony side by side. Treaties are international law and very much binding agreements i.e. the rule of law. We did not break these laws. We did not encroach on land that was designated british/U.S./canada through treaty. We did not coerce,bribe or otherwise change these treaties through nefarious means. We did not have assimilation policies for the"eventual extinction or integration" of your people. We do not have your foreign ideas of selfishness nor did we force our ways and culture on you. We did not destroy the pre-columbian forest that stretched north to south on the eastern half of the north american continent nor contless millions more plant life. We did not slaughter millions upon millions of animal life. We did not commit genocide to satisfy a need for greed. We work to have a good mind. We are patient. We are your brothers and sisters.

[edit] Historical background

I did some tinkering with the Historical background section because there were some lexical errors in it and also to see if we could drop the POV tag. I'm not sure what facts are in dispute, so I've tagged a couple of uncited statements (does anyone know the source for the PERC link?) and generally tried to outline the Mohawk claims without endorsing them in the article until we can properly source them. Without starting a pissing match, is there anything more we can do to make the section unPOV? If there's no action in the next couple of days I'll take the label off. Geoff NoNick (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As with many Canadian political articles, I think a hasty removal of a POV tag is inadvisable. Especially in this case - there are too many unanswered questions and bones of contention about the Oka Crisis to render this easily NPOV-able. My main issue at this point, other than the carefully-jigged tone of much of the military-placed content, is the complete omission of the seizure of NewsWorld and also the internment of a couple of hundred "non-combatants" including international human rights observers, all without charges - or a later apology/redress. The emergency powers used were never publicly stated, although there's a passage in the article now about communications between the Quebec and federal government about them; the public was told nothing, the politicians were invisible during the crisis; the article makes it sound like all this was above-board; it wasn't; even the NDP were running for cover (except, I think, Svend Robinson). The circumstances of the evacuation of elders and children has more detail (one off-duty SQ was seen on camera, rock in hand, saying "they are a conquered people, they should behave that way" (he was a quebecois so the irony was very pointed, especially because the Mohawks helped conquer the British conquer Quebec). Anyway the cite for the seizure of NewsWorld I've looked for before but I can't find a date or would have added it already; ditto with the exact number of those detained (some detained were in other parts of the country). There's people also omitted from the article - Jesse Jackson dropped by for an ill-advised press conference; but Ellen Gabriel, who because she became a legislator later probably has an article, and Jenny Jack, the Tahltan activist who figured prominently in the on-air confrontations/stalemates, is also unmentioned. The tone of censorship is all over this article; it may sound NPOV but it's not errors of omission that are the problem; it's the deliberate omissions. Like so much else in Canadian politics/history.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please Assume Good Faith just a little? I see no reason to suggest omissions are deliberate. Yes, the article could use some work. Please, Be Bold and add any content you deem necessary. I haven't heard of any of the things you mentioned, so I can't very well have deliberately omitted them. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say YOU did; what I'm saying is that current/citable web content omits any mention of said events or individuals, despite their high profile during the crisis. Which, being largely disemployed at the time, I watched all day long at times, including the talking-heads announcement from de Chastelain or whomever it was that the military had taken over the CBC; this was the night before the final ultimatum as I recall. You may not have heard of it - a sign of the thoroughness of the "washing" of the public record afterwards by the Big Media (who were more successful later in quashing fair coverage of Gustafsen Lake entirely); but I actually watched it go down. CBC Newsworld archives don't even record these events; I've posted a related query at Talk:CBC Newsworld but again, no answers despite the questions being there for quite a while. I'm not imaging this, or claiming it - it happened. But you'll have a hard time finding online cites for it as I have. Similar problems abound with highly-charged Canadian political history, be it on Grant Bristow or the Solidarity Crisis of 1983; post-facto "information washing". Because of the political nature of the article and my inability to webcite these things, I've left them out for fear of starting an edit war; I've been asking for help researching them; instead I see people wanting to delcare the article NPOV because what's there is all nicely cited (supposedly) and fair (supposedly). I'm really surprised there's no Ellen Gabriel article....that's like not having an Elijah Harper article (geez, I hope there is one...). I'll look over the article again for instances of the "tone" thing, but it's these omissions which are most troubling to me.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's unfortunate, and even shameful that there isn't more information on the Oka Crisis online, but I'm not sure it's a conspiracy. Firstly, there are lots of people on both sides of this issue whom I expect feel stronger about it than you or I do, yet they haven't put information online either. Corporate media largely ignore these issues (unless they have no choice) not because they want to keep it quiet, but because they don't care, and they think most Canadians feel similarly. Sadly, they're probably right. I remember telling someone from Ontario a couple years ago about Caledonia, and she said "Oh yeah, the indians do that every year or so..." Indigenous rights protests are largely treated as non-issues by Canadians... as just whiners and trouble-makers. Protests at Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation (Grassy Narrows) have been going on since at least 2003, and I've never once seen it on the news. Leaders from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation were arrested in March, and it made national news for one night. If a whole municipal council from a non-native community was arrested, it would get press until the matter was resolved. Still, it's systemic bias... same as wikipedia. The Elijah Harper is there, but it's weak, with one reference and no picture. Not a conspiracy or "information washing" just that there aren't enough people who care editing wikipedia. Just you, me, and a handful of others. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I move to make Canada into the 51st American state. That should resolve this issue of lack of writers. OldManRivers (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
On a more serious note (lol), I agree with MQ. Actually, didnt one or a few of the PM's say their policy regarding the "Indian Problem" was to not make it a problem until the media made it a problem because it wasn't a "priority" for the Canadian public? Thus, protests, road blocks, etc. would get the media's attention, then, the gov't attention, and become a problem. (Frak this has become the status quo for making change in Canada with FN/Indigenous peeps). I'm quote shocked actually. Isn't the internet supposed to house all information. The Gospel of the Internet. Or is it the Gospel of Wikipedia? lol. OldManRivers (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy cover-up or not (and I would tend towards the latter), the article itself can be NPOV in the face of the available information. The NPOV tag has a very specific meaning: that the article clearly exhibits a bias in one direction despite documented evidence in the other. What Skookum1 is talking about are things that he has heard happened, but that no credible media outlet has published (unless it has been published, in which case the way forward is clear). That can't really attribute a POV to the article, which is obliged to simply give a fair review of the existing documentation. I would propose that a compromise that might allow us to get rid of the NPOV tag while addressing Skookum1's concerns would be the addition of a "Conspiracy theories" section that would address the fact that there appears to be some belief that some Oka-related events were covered up, without actually entering them into the official record of events. Geoff NoNick (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no GNN - I watched it happen. I didn't hear it happened, I watched it happen. The media aren't credible outlets in this coutnry, as a tour around somewhere like the BC Mary blog on Railgate will teach you. I suspect what's going on here is also generational; I'm 52, I know OMR's young, not sure about MQ or yourself. The media have taught the public not to care and you guys are the product of that; not just ever told the full information but raised in an environment where the reporters and pundits repeat "the public doesn't care" and then go back to covering pedophiles moving into your neighbourhood instead of real news; the public did care. Because in the lead-up to Oka, and throughout the '80s in fact, the tide of public opinion, from polls through to writeups, the public consensus was that the Indians needed a fair deal, and public sentiment was much more on the side of the little guy than Big Government even before Oka started. Yeah, there'd already been efforts by Frsaer Institute types to sway the public against hte Indians, but mostly it was only SHARE BC types (that's an org) who trashed the Indian agenda. What was going on through the course of the crisis was that the haudenosaunee was getting airtime and its very legitimate case to ministatehood was making way too much sense; and was seen as a precedent, and not a bad idea; the SQ and the CF were looking increasingly bad on-air, and there was a political vacuum; the general who sat in front of the mic that night invokved the CBC Charter "to promote national unity and prevent regionalism" it runs in part, not those exact words, as the reason there would be no more live coverage, and all the panel shows and interviews with poeple like Ellen Gabriel and Jenny Jack were silenced (along with human rights critics and those talking about illegal arrests of same). The talking-head anchor who replaced the usuals from then on has been on-air since - her screechy voice gee-whizzing on road trips and antique shows; she was a nobody until that night, from then on she's been one of the principal CBC people; heads rolled that night. This is REAL, I didn't "hear" this, I watched it. I also saw the shift in op-ed coverage in the wake of these events, and watched the media-washing of the Charlottetown results into, supposedly, "a vote against natives, women and Quebec" when it weasd nothing of the kind; it was a vote against the politicans and the pundits; who all sat there the night their little agenda got shut down saying, "what happened? why didn't they do what they were told to? What can we do to have more influence on their voting next time?" That's nearly-verbatim, mind you, right on air. I gave some thought on how to cite this; aren't standing military orders or executed ones or whatever they're called, aren't they all on-file somewhere? Because the orders to seize CBC Newsworld must exist (be interesting to see who gave the go-ahead); it's that problem of the exact date; it wasn't the night before the final ultimatum, I don't think; there was a day or two lag in there. So sorrry to pull the grey eminence thing, guys, it's not a question of hearsay on my part; it's a question of being an eye-witness. Including an eye-witness to how the public was shifted from very pro-native in the '80s back to overall redneckdom by media massaging; they've done it on environmental, fiscal and social issues too. I'm gonna send a note to Glavin, see if he remembers who the Straight's reporter/columnist during Oka was, or someone who might remember the date. I've written Newsworld a few times to ask, no one ever writes back; I've also written the CBC Ombudsman about why they won't cover the Railgate case, he told me to write the boss, I did, got no answer; wrote again, no answer, or no real answer. The answer was "the public isn't interested" but the meaning, especially from CanWEst Global is "we don't want the public to be interested". In Railgate's case they just don't cover it or when a pundit has to mention it, he claims "there's no substance to it" and gets back to the pedophiles and paving contracts; with Oka it was being covered, way too well. In the months and yeears after Oka and the Spicer Commission and Charest Commission (betcha haven't heard of them either), all the feel-good lets'-make-it-better sentiment in the public was turned around to jadedness, and the public fed more hockey and soap operas and while native social issues get covered (partly as a way to turn people off) and other things the media tell them they care about more. No, don't be innocent about the media being objective; at least in the US there's more diversity, more competition for news; up here the CBC has no balls (what balls they did have got cut off during Oka), and the private media are part of the political machine; if there was more competition here, more diversity in media, Oka and Railgate would have been a lot harder to silence; if the Mulroney case was going on in the US his "I didn't do anything illegal" would be getting send-up after send-up by comics and columnists, and we'd have Congressional hearings by now; if the CIA had been caught red-handed meddling with an opposition political party the way CSIS did in the course of using Grant Bristow (another "washed" history online) it would be impeachment-time for the boss. Not here; last night on the radio I heard some Harper cabinet type or Tory SEnator say say, about Mulroney, "we feel that a confidential inquiry will be more efficient than an open public inquiry" - and say it with a straight face. This is not an open country; it is a tightly managed, tightly controlled mindspace. The media don't want you to know, so they tell you that you don't want to know, and show you what they want to show you. CSI-Miami, American Idol, cooking shows and news about the perv down the street and the danger to your kids from sharp edges on balloons. Before Oka, Newsworld was 24 hours very live of anything there was footage of, world-wide; it was fascinating; and then something started to happen on the doorstep of Montreal, and it got more fascinating. Until the powers-to-be decided it was too fascinating and shut it down; during that time notions about irredentist statelets like the Ganienkehaka or the Gitxsan Confederacy emerging from within the Canadian map, or gbeing part of the Canadian map, were being talked about seriously and not in a hostile way. It's all changed sicne then, like so much of the way things are in Canada; this isn't original research, this is just an account, an eyewitness thing; I wish I could explain better the way things have been done; and I've noted before that younger generations (that's anyone under 45) just don't have the same remembrances of things; because they're much more media trained/inundated and there's no real publishing/editorial competition here to give them a chance to think for themselves, instead of being told what they do think. And OMR I think you generalize too much about white people not caring about Indians; it's the politicians and the paid hacks in the media who don't want them to care, or who have taught them to. People in the '80swanted a fair settlement, and until the media seizure began people were on the Mohawks side (including polls)......Skookum1 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And I don't mean to sound paranoid, I'm just telling it like it is - "there is a conspiracy, this whole country is a conspiracy" as one senior politico I know put it. Pynchon's view on such situations is there's nothing you can do about it, so deal with it and hope they don't notice that you know ("Proverbs for Paranoids" no. 6 or so, tucked into Gravity's Rainbow somewhere). This is a country where the political system is "institutionalized bagmen" as one wag put it about what an MP or MLA does, plus the cabal of lobbyists and spin doctors who cluster around them. A conspiracy doesn't need an ideology or need to be secret; it can be right out in the open; and calling down people bringing up stuff like waht I've brought up as conspiracy-theorists is one ofthe ways "the conspiracy" has trained its subjects to do, including bald-faced black-is-white excuse making and outright straight-faced lying. And passive censorship.....and not-so-passive....re media conspiracy, well, let's put it this way, I know three different reporters who left major dailies because they didn't want to change what they'd written as ordered by their editor/publisher...those who remain at their desks write what they're told. Including denouncing anyone who criticizes the media lockdown of this country as a "conspiracy theorist".Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to backpedal a little here and concede that corporate and (in the case of the CBC) national biases do affect media spin. Owners do affect content, particularly editorial. Whatever happened at the time, it's likely that in the case of Oka, both public disinterest after the fact, and conscious editing/censorship by the media have played a part in the lack of information available online now. The problem with claiming "media conspiracy" is that it allows people to make accusations without substantiation ("The media don't report on their own conspiracy!"). That's why the extreme-right and wackos like Gary McHale can make the same case. ("Look! There's no entry on McHale! Wikipedia conspiracy!") As far as wikipedia goes, claiming media blackout sounds like a cop-out. There might be media influence, but we don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship. If something was said, it's not THAT hard to find out. The Conrad Blacks of this country may dominate the media, but they don't control it all. I haven't seen anything online about local whites burning Mohawk effigies and chanting "sauvages! sauvages!" but I saw it in a film (I can't remember if it was Obomsawin's or Welsh's). I'm assuming, Skookum, when you say you "watched it happen" you weren't actually in Oka - you "watched it happen" on TV and in the press. If an anchor invoked the CBC Charter "to promote national unity and prevent regionalism" live on air as a reason to pay less attention to the Oka Crisis, that's fascinating, and should definitely be included. Do you remember at all what night it might have happened? Maybe we can track this down. To much complaining and not enough adding content is a waste of time. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time for more right now, but I've remembered that it was Valerie Pringle who was the until-then-nobody staffer, at CBC Winnipeg I think, who was pulled out of hte shadows to anchor things afte the military takeover; not used to being in front of the camera, with a scratchy voice (still has the scratchy voice...).....it appeared at the time that all the regular anchors/news staff refused to comply with the military, and so they found someone who would....I wonder if she'd care to recall the date/circumstance if we wrote her ;-| ?.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohawk Civil War redirects here...

It shouldn't; it was a separate series of events, earlier in the winter, maybe Jan-Feb, Mohawk vs. Mohawk. Am I the only one who remembers the past? i.e. don't have to rely on the major media to repeat/reshape it for me? I don't have time to write an article/ search for cites; if someone could pls take an interest in the topic, it should be part of the background here, but it really is also a separate article, or should beSkookum1 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for resources

HI, I noticed a couple of citation regarding Ciaccia, I was wondering if any of those are verifiable. I am trying to remember who he was in Obomsawin's documentary. Anyway, the other comment I would like to make regarding some of the assumptions of non-native people living under Canadian rule, and our people are also guilty of this as well. One dicussion centred around smuggling across borders etc, the assumption is that the Haudenosaunee people fall under Canadian law...and we do NOT. Therefore any attempts we incur to assert our treaty rights is met with resistence and hostility, therefore the use of firearms becomes necessary not by our laws but because of Canadian law. It would seem a bit ridiculous if a Mexican police officer came into Canada assuming juristiction and began telling each of the "tax-paying Canadian" what rights they can and can not exercise, in fact I suspect if that be the case each of you would find yourself taking up arms against this man, should he have the power to enforce his law upon you within your own borders...the audicity!!! The main point I believe most of our people are making is it is mainly about perspective and perception. We as the Haudenosaunee, who are educated about our rich history from birth, and we carry that from us throughout our lives, we are born into the politics of our people and most Canadians do not come into contact with us until they reach post-secondary. Therefore, if you can get your head rapped around the idea that we are not Canadian or American, however we are allies or friends of both nations maybe just maybe your mind can open up to the idea that we want peace amongst our friends and that for the most part our people are willing to continue that relationship and it is actually Canada that is the protester and the terrorist, then maybe we can begin to make some honest and geniune steps towards a better tomorrow for all nations and individuals involved without weapons and without violence. Our people "buried the hatchet" prior to contact when the Peacemaker and Hiawatha came into our lives and gave us the Great Law, now thats the law we follow, that is our rule of law. 209.226.250.27 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Dodayotahahkwane May 15, 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.250.27 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)