Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance - Historical Significance

Historical Significance

In every narrative there is a narrator, a voice, an author. Unfortunately, this voice is never truly objective. There is always some underlying bias, agenda, or philosophy guiding the perception of the narrator. As history itself is a narrative, the viewpoint of the narrator can have a profound effect on history and its meanings. This has a particular impact on those who traditionally have not had a voice. One such group that has historically been lacking mainstream representation is the American Indian. The history and traditions of American Indian peoples have, for the most part, been passed down through oral traditions. This leaves these peoples with little written record. On top of this, indigenous peoples in both the United States and Canada have been subject to a great deal of persecution. From being stripped of their traditional homelands and sacred sites to being subjected to forced assimilation through boarding schools, American Indian peoples have been unable to represent themselves, to share their stories with the mainstream. Instead of being able to represent themselves, indigenous people have historically been represented to the western world by outsiders. Outsiders such as anthropologists, ethnographers, and others who often emerge from the very people and social viewpoint that have benefitted from the oppression of indigenous peoples. This has led to ethnographic documentaries that, in their attempt to explore another culture, end up misunderstanding and even exploiting native cultures. This tends to continue the mainstream narrative of indigenous inferiority. It is in this context that Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance is worth noting in the history of documentary. This film is remarkable because of the intent of the director, an indigenous woman who approaches documentary in order to explain more deeply the indigenous experience from an indigenous perspective. In Alanis Obomsawin: Vision of a Native Filmmaker, the author explains that the goal of all Obomsawin’s work “whether in singing or storytelling or filmmaking-has been a fight for inclusion of our history”.

In regard to the Oka issue, this goal of getting the indigenous narrative out into the mainstream was of vital importance. The media landscape concerning the crisis had profound slant against the indigenous activists and in support of the Canadian government response. According to Lewis, new coverage at the time “often relied on government press releases and other one-sided sources.” (91). This, combined with the ridiculous attempt by the CBC to avoid airing Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, shows that not only did the media not care to get the full story but that the powers of the time desired to construct a narrative where the Canadian government was the hero in order to maintain the status quo. If it had not been for the work of Obomsawin and other like her, it is likely that the Canadian government would have succeeded in having their narrative be the only narrative. It is in this way that Alanis Obomsawin, through Kanehsatake: 270 Year of Resistance, avoided having the Oka Crisis become yet another lost indigenous historical narrative. In her article “Redressing Invisibility”, Beth Mauldin points out that documentary film has become “a modern-day extension of the Abenaki oral tradition” and a way of passing down history, beliefs, and culture to the future. It is for this reason, the taking of historical self-license for the benefit of the indigenous peoples of Canada, that the works of Obomsawin and particularly Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance is worth remembering in the history of documentary film.