Movies

The choice of the film for this paper is not incidental. It is one of the most prominent and award-winning documentaries in the history of Canadian film moreover, the fact that producing it has required tremendous courage and dedication from the director, Alanis Obomsawin, makes this piece stand out among the few other documentaries devoted to the recent history of Native Americans. The variety of issues discussed in the documentary are as topical nowadays for the members of Native tribes as they were when European first settled in America.

The film, shot by a Native American director and exploring the complexity of Kanehsatake tribes struggle for their land and livelihood, is a clear example of what is called minority cinema in academic literature. This strand of research, focusing on films by or about minorities, is relatively new prior research has predominantly analyzed the portrayal of populous and visible minorities, mostly in the United States and Europe (e.g. visual representation of Latino minority in American popular culture). The theme of minority cinema as it pertains to Native Americans in Canada (and elsewhere) remains largely underresearched as of today.          

The development of minority cinema is usually a welcomed development in Western liberal democracies, since it gives minority representatives a space for cultural expression and also acquaints the general population with the concerns of minorities as well as their epistemologies and aesthetics. Yet this type of cinema does not necessarily advance the cause of tolerance and mutual coexistence in a multicultural society. Too often, minority cinema tends to reinforce rather than challenge age-old stereotypes and flare up rather than pacify ethnic confrontation. Thus, there is no consensus across the field of film studies whether minority cinema actually serves the interests of minority communities.

The set of questions this paper will try to answer will be as follow Can Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance be regarded as a typical example of minority cinema Does the film serve to challenge or reinforce the existing stereotypes about Native Americans in Canada What does Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance tell us about the Canadian multicultural society, and what are its implications for the future of interethnic relations

In order to provide a brief excursus into the theory of minority cinema, one important distinction shall be made. A significant difference exists between films produced by minorities or merely about minorities by the members of the majority population. Given that the state of development of the literature on minority cinema is nascent, this paper will draw insights from the theory of minority media in general.

It is noted that too often media content devoted to minority issues produced by representatives of the dominant culture might present an inaccurate, distorted image of smaller ethnic groups. Researchers observe that mainstream film and media continually recreate racialized identities, position people of color on the margins, and reinforce the privileges of whiteness (Mellinger, 2003, p. 129). The alternative would be the development of ethnic media and film industry, where non-white journalists and also directors, authors note speak in their own voices (Mellinger, 2003, p. 132). Fraser (1990) believes such voices can constitute a subaltern counterpublic, developing a counterdiscourse that will eventually expand the dominant discourse of the common public sphere.

Visual representation in media and film is an inherently political process in so far as control over mediated narratives and representations is denied to individuals and groups by virtue of their status or their capacity to mobilise material and symbolic resources in their own interests (Silverstone  Georgiou, 2005, p. 434). The right to control ones own image is of paramount importance to everyone represented as other in the mainstream discourse (Ruby, 1991).

No doubt, Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance would qualify as being in the category of minority cinema produced by a member of a minority. Other documentaries and written accounts have been supplied by white directors and journalists who might fail to understand all the subtleties and complexities of aboriginal affairs in Canada. Yet a close watching of the film leads to the conclusion that it serves to reinforce rather than challenge deeply engendered stereotypes that Canadians hold about Native American people. Perhaps it was the intention of the director to show the Mohawk people as being radically different from the rest of the population, but the question whether such a portrayal is beneficial for the members of Native communities remains open. It is quite possible that the mechanism which is at play here is the so-called social comparison theory. The social comparison theory is based on the fact that individuals are willing to both perceive and present themselves in a socially desirable light. The director Alanis Obomsawin, herself being a member of the aboriginal community, has been willing the present the plight of her people as more important than that of the majority population in order to make sure the viewer sides with her on this particular occasion, when both sides have a seemingly plausible claim to justice.

While the social comparison theory is usually applied in social psychology to individuals in a group rather than different groups in society, it is possible to project its findings onto the situation of Mohawks in Canada as well. One of the mechanisms within the social comparison theory, referred to as one-upmanship, implies that people are desirous of presenting themselves in a favorable light but also as different from other group members. As Brown (1974) argues, to be virtuous, in any of an indefinite number of dimensions, is to be different from the mean (p. 469). Thus, Alanis Obomsawin presents her people not only as having a more credible claim to justice and behaving themselves in a more honorable way (as the leader of the Mohawks claims, the approach of Native Americans at the beginning of the confrontation was an example of honorable conduct, given that they were trying to avoid violence at all cost), but also as being very different from the members of the mainstream society.  

However, does the documentary construct a positive and, more importantly, an unconventional image of the Mohawk people This paper will argue that the representation of the Mohawk people in the documentary is not always positive furthermore, the film might turn out to be rather detrimental to the position of Native Americans in the Canadian society. The interview with the Mohawk leader constructs the image of Mohawks as utterly alien to modernity, the era most Canadians associate with. Their beliefs, convictions and tribal way of life are very different from those of European descendants inhabiting America.

For example, the Mohawk leader speaks of the obligation to protect their land and Mother Nature whatever it takes. Such determination might appear as strange and worrisome to a Western person. Although patriotism is an inherent component of modernity, Native Americans strong connection to nature and the practice of worshiping Mother Earth can come across as a sign of backwardness and underdevelopment in the eyes of Western people. The rationalist, anthropocentric paradigm of the West discards the spiritual and cultural value of land the only value that exists is accorded to land on the free market. A powerful vestige of Enlightenment in the Western philosophy is the concept of the rational, autonomous self which is built in disconnection or even in opposition to natural systems we identify ourselves through reflections gained from other people and manmade systems, rather than from nature (Porter, 2005, p. 6).

The Mohawks, with strength derived from their continuing connection to nature and tradition, appear to be threatening to a Westerner. When the Mohawk leader describes one of the first confrontations among people of her tribe and the police, she talks about police officers being scared like babies because they have never encountered anything as wild and forceful before. The police are constructed as powerless because they do not know what they are fighting for, while the Mohawks are defending their inalienable right to their land. Thus, Native Americans are portrayed as a dark force beyond the control of existing governmental institutions, not subscribing to the social contract established in Canada by European descendants.

Moreover, the Mohawk people are presented as extremely religious and fatalistic although ordered to leave the area of confrontation, an old Mohawk woman chooses to stay citing the will of the gods as the reason behind her decision and her willingness to stay on her own land until death. In the Western discourse, where the value of human life is regarded as paramount and the drive for self-preservation is seen as the basic human instinct, such thinking borders on insanity. Given such a representation of Native Americans, the possibility of a rational dialogue with them can be cast doubt upon.        

Another aspect of the film that might scare and avert Canadian viewers is the issue of solidarity among Native American tribes the fact that Kahnawake tribe blocs Mercier Bridge in support of Kanehsatake tribe should bring the viewer to the understanding that Native Americans populating the country have strength in numbers and are ready to provide mutual help when needed. This might be an unsettling revelation for the white majority, if they hold negative views about the claims of Native Americans to land and justice. As York and Little (1991) write, the plight of Kanehsatake community has been taken to heart by other aboriginal tribes facing the same problems, even if they resided far away from Oka. Many Native communities across Canada grapple with the problems of their lands being encroached upon their rights being limited. Thus, the resurgence of aboriginal pride and nationalism has been registered.

Minorities are welcomed by the representatives of the majority when (and only then) they pour their own cultural gifts into a dominant, democratic ethos (Sleeper, 1999, p. 7). If a minority or indigenous community is willing to keep their own autonomy and culture, they are then blamed for the failure to integrate into the mainstream society.  

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the effects of viewing the film might be very different depending on pre-existing opinions about Native Americans. Those viewers who sympathize with them might find the portrayal of the events of the 1990 crisis to be accurate and appealing. However, those Canadians who have negative stereotypes about Native Americans might have their prejudices reinforced in the process of watching this documentary.

The differences are sometimes purely linguistic as Goodleaf (1995) interestingly observes, the term used to refer to Mohawks people taking part in the confrontation is a warrior. While this is the self-description used by Native Americans, its translation from the original language into English is very imprecise. The term in the language of Kanehsatake tribe is Rotiskenrahkete, meaning someone having the responsibility for defending the origin. The duty of protecting the origin in Kanehsatake culture is broadly interpreted as maintaining peace, ensuring the continuity of tradition, educating future generations, and enhancing the chances of survival of community in any other possible way. It is evident that in the original language the term is more about making peace than waging war. However, the term warrior in English ascribes a violent, confrontational identity to the Mohawk people, which might alienate mainstream viewers with negative perceptions of the Mohawks even further.

While most aforementioned facts suggest that the film might unintentionally construct the image of Mohawk people as savage, there are many episodes which actually portray the white people protesting against the claims of Native Americans as brutal and uncivilized, for example, when they burn an effigy of a Mohawk warrior or vandalize a trailer delivering vegetables to the protesters.

Why are media images of minority and majority so important The proponents of the social constructivism theory argue that discourse has a significant power to shape reality. Hay and Rosamond (2002) regard discourse as being of paramount importance for our understanding of social and economic phenomena, since it is the ideas that actors hold about the context in which they find themselves rather than the context itself which informs the way in which actors behave (p. 148). This approach to the relationship between discourse and reality is echoed by Storper (1997) who argues that interpretations and constructed image of reality are now just as important as any real material reality, because these interpretations and imagesbecome the bases on which people act (p. 29).

In case a negative portrayal of minorities in film and media persists, culture can became a precondition for the existence of first-class and second-class citizenship (Rosaldo, 1994). Minorities can end up being citizens who do not experience their social, political and cultural rights as formal citizens being meaning fully achieved in reality in their substantive citizenship (Husband, 1996, Media structures and communication policies, para. 3).

Therefore, a close viewing of all films addressing minority issues is necessary, regardless of the fact whether they are produced by minority or majority members. Some films might serve to reinforce rather than challenge negative stereotypes about minorities, either intentionally or unintentionally. Given the power of discourse (especially visual discourse) to shape perceptions which guide peoples actions, accurate and positive representations of minorities in film is media are the prerequisite for harmonious interethnic relations.