Bloody Blockades: The Legacy of the Oka Crisis

Overview

• Historical context of contested First Nations land rights in Canada.
• Comparison between the Oka Crisis (1990) and recent Wetsuweten protests.
• Ongoing issues with Canadian government's approach to First Nations land rights and reconciliation.

Background on Oka

• Location: Oka village, originally Kanehsat:ke, near Montreal.
• Historical claim: Land originally held by Kanienkeh:ka (Mohawk).
• 1717: French King grants land to Seminary of St-Sulpice, intended to be held in trust for First Nations, which was later violated.
• 1881: Failed government initiative to displace indigenous inhabitants.
• The Pines: Area planted with pine trees by Mohawk, became a burial ground.

The Oka Crisis

• Golf Course Conflict: Town plans to expand a golf course into a Mohawk cemetery.
• 1990: Mohawk erect blockade to prevent development.
• Escalation: Despite injunctions, Mohawk strengthen defenses; support from Kahnaw:ke and Akwesasne communities.
• Police Involvement: Quebec provincial police (Sûreté du Québec) raid results in the death of a police officer.

National Reaction

• Blockades: Mohawk warriors blockade Mercier Bridge; other First Nations communities across Canada join in.
• Public Backlash: Racist attacks and cut-off of supplies to Kanehsat:ke.
• Military Intervention: Canadian Armed Forces deployed; a deal reached to cancel golf course expansion.

Aftermath

• Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Established to improve First Nations-government relations.
• Unresolved Issues: Ownership of the land remains contested; developers hold legal title.

Recent Parallels: Wetsuweten Protests

• Conflict: Natural gas pipeline through Wetsuweten territory.
• Blockades: Similar strategy of disruption to gain attention; nationwide protests.
• Government Response: RCMP enforcement, allegations of excessive force.

Lessons and Reflections

• Impact: Oka taught First Nations the power of disruption but highlighted escalation risks.
• Reconciliation Challenges: Ongoing lack of concrete action by the Canadian government.
• Future Considerations: Need for land repatriation and compensatory measures.
• Legacy of Inaction: Without change, Canada risks repeating the cycle of conflict and apology.