Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a critical interpretation of the state and media reactions to the crisis at Oka, Québec in the summer of 1990. Drawing on Marx’s analysis of Bonapartism, or fascism, it is argued that the Canadian state was willing to use excessive force to suppress the Mohawk dissidents. Its fascist methods also included racial demonizing and using the basest impulses of angry crowds to intimidate Natives. Mainstream media sources played an unmistakable role in channelling this racist violence against the rebelling Aboriginals. The function of competing nationalisms (Mohawk, Québécois and Canadian) in this episode is analyzed as well. It is argued that solidarity between the working class and the Mohawks may have resulted in a more positive outcome of the conflict. A renewed set of relations between the Canadian left and Aboriginals could reveal constructive ways forward for groups struggling under the weight of capitalist society and its state. Cet article offre une interprétation critique des réactions de l’Etat et des médias à la crise de Oka, Québec dans l’été 1990. Utilisant l’analyse que Marx avait faite du Bonapartisme ou fascisme, il suggère que l’Etat canadien était prêt à employer une force excessive afin de supprimer les dissidents Mohawk. Ses méthodes fascistes incluaient la diabolisation raciale et l’utilisation des pires impulsions des foules en colère afin d’intimider les Autochtones. Les médias dominants ont joué un rôle indubitable en canalisant cette violence raciste contre les Autochtones rebelles. La fonction des nationalismes rivaux (Mohawk, Québécois et Canadien) dans cet épisode est également analysée. Cet article défend que la solidarité entre la classe ouvrière et les Mohawk aurait pu aboutir à un résultat plus positif du conflit. Des relations renouvelées entre la gauche Canadienne et les Autochtones pourrait révéler des voies constructives pour des groupes luttant sous le poids de la société capitaliste et son Etat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".