12 - The Urge for Freedom: "Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance"

Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance

Roger Penatui, Michelle Senthivel & Shyama Patel

The neglect of our Aboriginals has always been something talked about in whispers. Our Government and community should be ashamed of the way we treated people within our own country. The films “Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” and “Le Peuple Invisible” try to open our eyes to their story. They denounce the atrocities of the government and of the Catholic Church.

“Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” is a documentary film produced by Alanis Obomsawin. It was released direct to video in 1993 and is 1h59min long. The film recounts the Oka crisis of 1990. It shows the resistance of the first nations of Kanehsatake, a Mohawk establishment in the municipality of Oka.

The film covers the armed protest against the construction of a golf course on the ancestral territory of the first nations, which led to the blocking of the Mercier bridge and a provincial road . The movie revolves around the issue of the respect of the First Nation’s ancestral lands, and incidentally on the respect of their culture and their vision of the world, which is completely ignored by the the municipal, the provincial and the federal administration. The movie starts with shootings between the police and the protestors and gradually, things escalate, until the point where the entrance to the city is blocked. Numerous violent protests also erupted and a number of non-natives expressed their total contempt for the movement and to the natives, referring to them as  a “bunch of savages”. Along with an insisting ignorance from the government comes the refusal to let democracy speak, but also comes a complete marginalization of basic human rights and the media’s freedom of speech. Media is denied access to the protest scenes and the videotapes taken by the journalist who successfully infiltrate the restricted zone are simply destroyed.

Our weekly topic on “nations and communities” is important in understanding the bigger phenomenon underlying what some might perceive as just a protest. To understand the motives of the “fighters” as we’d like to call them, it is important to take a close look at the native people’s world view. Their way of living is based on a philosophy of interdependence and reciprocity, characterized by the perception of men and nature as one. The interconnection between knowledge, culture and environment is at the foundation of this philosophy. For them there is no such thing as personal property, the land is there to serve all Men and in return Men have to protect the land.

Along with their land, comes their past. They describe history as “the unbroken thread from the past and a path to a collective future”. What this means is that they constantly rebuild themselves and become who they are based on their history. Through it, they find strength to fight  through life. The continuity of traditions such as food preparation and sharing, taking care of the nature and being one with the land is what constitutes their identity and lifestyle and we can see in the movie when one of the fighters go home and engages in a sharing of his culture with his kids. The first nation’s culture revolves a lot around the land, which explains their constant fight to protect the land and the ecosystem whenever it is endangered. Women play an important role in the defence of the land and to understand their prominent participation, it is important retrospect on previous societies and their mythology. For example, Gaia in ancient Greece or Pachamana in the Aztec mythology. These mythological figures were all goddesses of earth and that sheds more light on the origin of the women’s role in the movie. It also emphasizes the matriarchal aspect of their society . As seen in the movie, women in the community played important roles in the demonstrations, and they participated to the negotiations with the government, one of these notorious woman was Ellen Gabrielle, who was spokesperson for her community.

As seen in the movie, the fighters’ indignation did not come out of thin air, but from an exasperation of how they’ve been treated ever since Jacques Cartier reached Hochelaga (Montreal) in 1535 and that their lands were stolen from them. One of the protestors even mentions that she has been raised a pacifist, but is ready to engage in a more physical fight. She wants to transmit the same courage and care for the land, the ecosystem and the traditions in general. This courage also manifests itself in the solidarity of other first nation communities around the continent, who came to support the cause. What was also striking in the movie was the government’s attempt to portray and define the fighters as delinquents, who were only troubling social peace. By acting as they did, the government totally shoveled aside the people’s right to fight whenever the “administration is corrupt, or employed to commit violence and injury” as John Locke states. But as the movie shows us these people were just like everyone they had kids to whom they had to go home and who looked up to them, and they needed to set a good example for them, hence fighting for what was theirs, fighting for their traditions and their identity. Despite the numerous mistreatment inflicted by the police to the natives at the entrance of Oka, the fighters kept their heads up. One of the striking scenes is when despite having a child with them, a woman and her husband were both stopped, and after they protested, were arrested. What is shocking in this case that they only protested verbally, and despite that were arrested as if they were criminals. Let’s not forget that the most remarkable changes in history have always occurred thanks to the power of speech. Where would humanity be today if all we did was just keep our mouth shut and follow the instruction given by decision makers? Today numerous groups continue voicing themselves for causes that are meaningful to them. Check the following link for a look on how the police force treats people when they stand up for what they believe is right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dakota-access-clashes-sunday-night-1.3859945

“Le Peuple Invisible”  (Richard Desjardins & Robert Monderie, 2007, Canada, 93 min.)

The film “Le Peuple Invisible” is a Quebec documentary produced by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie. It was released direct-to-video in 2007 and is 93 minutes long. The film tells the story of the Algonquin people, Native Americans of Canada, composed today of barely 9000 people dispersed in approximately a dozen communities (reserves) throughout Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Their current living conditions, the confiscation of their lands by the government, the stripping of their natural resources, and their forced passage from nomadic to sedentary lifestyle are denounced. All of that colonialism led to social and economic misery that, to this day, threatens their language, their culture and possibly their existence.

The film starts off with Desjardins visiting a reserve and telling the story of how the balance the Native Americans lived in was upset when the Europeans first arrived on their vast territory in the 16th century. He goes on to tell the history of the Indians and their way of life, as we see old pictures and video clips rolling. Further, we see all that the Europeans did in order to assimilate the aboriginals; we see the poor life conditions they lived in at the reserves. During the end of the film, we are shown current aboriginal schools and how this nation is living in the present day.   The main issue raised in the film is the leading extinction of the Algonquin people of Quebec; we see how the traditional native songs have been replaced by country music, the young children no longer speak the language of their ancestors, their territory has been taken by the government and to top that, the loss of dignity of a generation of children beaten and raped in religious schools meant to assimilate them.    

http://www.richarddesjardins.com/filmographie/le-peuple-invisible.html

Check out this link for further understanding on the issues faced by the aboriginal community.

Through this documentary, the filmmakers provide a voice for the Algonquin people. This may be considered bias because the audience is compelled to naturally feel empathy for the victims of this injustice because we are simply shown one side of the story. Richard Desjardins clearly points the finger at the authorities and reveals that they’re to blame in this situation, but we are not shown what they have to say in their defence. They are portrayed as the ignorant perpetrators, somewhat racists, doing as they please regardless of how their actions may affect others. Had the producers left a little bit of a militant tone out of the film, it would have been more impartial and fair. The director's’ goal was precisely to carry out the Algonquin people’s mindset and to let them tell the audience about their experience. When we watch the film, it seems, for the majority, expository with additional observatory scenes. There are many interviews with Native Americans expressing their thoughts and stories and some footage of their lives in the reserves and of the children at their community’s school.    

           For the Natives, their world view was based on interdependence and reciprocity between the people and the land and we see that in the scenes where they are shown living among nature not apart from it. When the settlers came to Canada and claimed the territory, they didn’t have the same ideology as the aboriginals and began abusing of the natural resources. That is in part when the conflict between the Indians and the Europeans first imploded.

           The concept of this film is to help us, the viewers, understand that we should not turn a blind eye when we see an unjust situation. We should act in support of what is right because we have the right to fight and revolt when the administration of the law is corrupt; as did the Algonquin people when their territory and culture was being diminished.     

A Personal Reflection of The Two Films

Both the films “Kanasehtake: 270 Years of Resistance” and “Le Peuple Invisible” are such eye openers to anyone who watches them. The films expose the viewers to the full story of the Indians throughout their assimilation. They show us the ugly truth of what our country has done to the first inhabitants of our land. “Kanasehtake” touches home for us due to the closeness of its location being only a 20 minute drive away.

“Le Peuple Invisible” shows us the horror of what our nation has done to our own people. They were subject to many different referendums, which almost always ended in the government's favor. During the settlement, the “whites” had one goal, it was to separate the First Nations to their traditions. All children seven years and older were forced into oblates to teach them the French language and the Christian religion as fast as possible. The majority of the children who went to these boarding schools were forced to stay there ten months of the year. They were not allowed to go home for Christmas. They were also physically and sexually abused by the Father’s teaching at these schools, however, there were strong repercussions of this abuse. When the Indians finally came home, they were physically and sexualy abusive to their wives and children. We need to reconsider how we treat the people of our land. The Europeans imposed laws that were incomprehensible to the Indians. The English said that they were now the owners of the land but to the Indians, one cannot own the land but be a part of it.

These films show us how little we really know about what actually happened to the natives starting with the arrival of Jacques Cartier. We took and took and took but the worst part is we took what wasn’t ours for the taking. The people were lied too and denied the basic rights to knowledge. The English played with the fact that most of the Indians were illiterate.

We must take action and defend our people within the reserves. They are often denied legal rights and even access to lawyers due to the fact that they were prohibited to defend the natives or they would face a 200$ fine. Whether big or small, we must try and change their living conditions. How is it normal that women in the reserves are 7 times more likely to commit suicide compared to the international average? Over 75 percent of the inhabitants are on social security. Can we not find them employment whether it’s on or off the reserve?

We should all feel touched by the situation in North Dakota, the US government is installing a $3.8 billion pipeline that is scheduled to carry crude oil nearly 1,200 miles from North Dakota to Illinois. The people from standing rock are worried because the pipeline cuts within a mile of their reserve and could pollute the river which provides fresh water to 17000 people who are not necessarily part of the reserve. They are not protesting in personal gain, they have everyone’s well-being at heart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/21/police-citing-ongoing-riot-use-water-cannons-on-dakota-access-protesters-in-freezing-weather/

The filmmakers used personal and interactive ways of filming for these documentaries. In “Le Peuple Invisible” Richard Desjardins traveled to the different reserves all over Canada and conducted interviews with the residents of the reserves. The way he decided to conduct the film was a very efficient and honest way, he went straight to the source. The people are not ones to hide and deny the atrocities that happened to them so we are sure to hear what actually happened. In “Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” Alanis Obomsawin stayed all throughout the lockdown and was able to film from the inside without any misleadings from the police or the government. She had a similar approach to Desjardins, which was probably the most effective way of telling the full truth of the story.

This french link from “La Presse” gives us a further and more personal understanding of the filming process that Desjardins and Monderie went through :

http://www.lapresse.ca/cinema/201207/23/49-500-le-peuple-invisible.php

In conclusion, when a group of people are oppressed, it is only normal that they stand up and fight for themselves. The first nations have been marginalized and their constant fight should strike us who represent the future decision makers. We should understand this urge that every human being has to free himself whenever constrained. As John Locke says, “all men and women have the right to life, liberty and property” and if we take his words in consideration, the native people are just trying to regain these fundamental rights. They are trying to regain and maintain the identity that was stripped from them in the past centuries.