There is no Indian Problem and there never was; but there always has been and still is a Settler Problem. It is the theft of our lands and the disconnection of our people, as collectivities, from the lands that sustain us that is the root of the problem in this society.
It is now 25 years since the era-defining summer-long struggle of our people to resist what was one in a long line of attempts by settler governments to steal our land and eradicate our presence as a nation.
Twenty-five years ago, we were living in an era of indigenous resistance that was still defined by the sense of pride and unity and on-the-ground activism born out of the Red Power movement of the 1970s. In 1990, the Mohawks of Kahnawake, Kanesatake and Akwesasne were first and foremost among many communities across the country who had taken stands and protested against the abuse of our people and denial of our rights, and who were ready, willing and able to stand up even stronger, unified and in a much more serious way, to effectively confront the racist policies at the core of our relationship with the Canadian state and people. And this we did.
The summer of 1990 showed the country that there were still indigenous people who thought of themselves as nations, who were politically and culturally distinct, and who were capable of governing and defending themselves on their own lands. It also exposed the fallacy of Canadian territorial integrity and opened people’s eyes to the fact that indigenous people had been pushed to the brink of extinction and were now in full resurgence mode, ready to reclaim their inherent rights and their lands and their freedoms. The actions of our people, and the dignity, courage and strength shown by the children, women and men of our nation in the summer of 1990 made Canadians realize that indigenous nationhood was still a fact and that it was no longer possible to use violence as a first resort to discipline indigenous people or to treat our rights with the callous disregard that was the hallmark of so-called Indian policy in previous eras.
Yet 25 years later, we find ourselves living in an era defined not by the successful achievement of a new and just relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, nor by continuing struggle of indigenous people to defend their lands and their rights. It turns out that the “Oka Crisis” was not a watershed event that ushered in a new reality. Instead, in hindsight, it looks more and more like the last stand of indigenous nationhood in Canada.
Today, relations between indigenous and non-indigenous people, at least in terms of politics, reflect the successful co-optation of all forms of meaningful and effective indigenous resistance and the near total assimilation of indigenous identities and nationhood into the idea of Canada. Twenty-five years ago, we were in conflict because indigenous people were mentally prepared and politically organized to resist the policies and practices of contemporary colonialism; from the 1970s to 1990, there was a rising up of consciousness and commitment from Mohawk territory that spread to indigenous communities across the country, and we were dedicated to doing what was necessary to protect our lands and expand our nationhood. That is not the case anymore.
In the wake of the land-based conflicts of the 1980s, and the resistance by our people during the summer of 1990, the Canadian government determined that confronting indigenous nationhood movements was not a viable strategy, economically or politically. Almost immediately after 1990, it began to implement a strategy of co-optation, to divert the manifest and growing energy of indigenous resistance away from defences of land and rights in militant and land-based forms. Focusing on negotiating major land-claims settlements, renewing self-government negotiation processes in earnest, putting in place the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples — these were all part of a strategy to offer indigenous leaders compromise solutions to the basic grievance driving their resistance. Compromise over confrontation, co-optation over conflict, recognition over restitution. And it worked. Indigenous leaders moved en masse away from their positions demanding return of land and respect for their autonomous nationhood and began to rationalize and advocate for the acceptance of the Canadian government’s offer of a “Third Order of Government,” “shared jurisdiction,” and other such compromises of the truth and surrenders of our inherent rights.
The current framing of indigenous – non-indigenous relations, the evolving rhetoric shifting from recognition to “reconciliation” in the 2000s, is another colonial turn that perpetuates smug Canadianism and the problem-failure-victim image of indigenous people. Twenty-five years ago, we were thought of as “The Indian Problem”; now we are challenged “Aboriginals,” but in the Canadian mentality we are still people that need to be solved, changed, uplifted from beliefs, ways of being and situations that are unacceptable.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, there is no Indian Problem and there never was; but there always has been and still is a Settler Problem. It is the theft of our lands and the disconnection of our people, as collectivities, from the lands that sustain us that is the root of the problem in this society. The main harm of colonization, which is the first and fundamental crime of this country and the thing that our people’s stand during the summer of 1990 was centred on, has been the marginalization and removal of indigenous people from their homelands so that capitalism and then settlements and then the society that followed behind could benefit from and grow themselves on our lands. The issues that we deal with today are the result of dispossession. Two hundred and fifty years ago, it was about the land. Twenty five years ago, it was about the land. And still today, it is all about the land.
The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was set up to research and set out a new course for indigenous – non-indigenous relations, concluded that the only thing that really mattered was a massive transfer of land back to indigenous people. That was true in 1990, it’s what we were fighting about that summer, it was true in 1996, and it remains true today. Reconciliation in its true sense can only come from the reconnecting indigenous people to their homelands in a real way.
We can disagree on or work out different political arrangements, we can argue about the legalities, we can make deals on how we’re going to do business and relate economically, but until the land and our cultural practices and spiritual connection to it becomes central to the discussion and to action by both indigenous people and the Canadian government, the root causes of the 1990 crisis will still be there, and reconciliation will remain a smokescreen for recolonization.
Gerald Taiaiake Alfred is a Kahnawake Mohawk professor of Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria. In the summer of 1990, he was part of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake’s intergovernmental affairs team.