Myth, Symbol, and Colonial Encounter: British and Mi'kmaq in Acadia, 1700-1867

Martin L. Nicolai is an adjunct assistant professor of history at
Queen’s University.

This book examines British–Mi’kmaq relations from the perspective of
religion and myth, although Reid’s sweeping definitions of these two
words encompass virtually every facet of human thought. The Mi’kmaq,
Reid argues persuasively, had an identity firmly located in place—the
land—and were culturally equipped to deal with the ambiguity created
by a colonial society comprising diverse peoples and values. They were
accustomed to binding themselves with other communities, as long as the
strangers were willing to engage in the norms of social and economic
intercourse and affirmed the significance of all peoples participating
in the relationship.

Reid goes on to argue that the Loyalists were demoralized by their
removal to the “alien” environment of the Maritimes, and she
believes that in an effort to combat their sense of rootlessness they
created a mythical identity for themselves that stressed their
Britishness. Their attempt to recreate a North American extension of
England did not permit them to establish a reciprocal relationship with
the Natives, for their pursuit of Britishness, progress, and
civilization excluded the Mi’kmaq. The Natives were systematically
devalued as human beings and had their land brutally expropriated.
However, Reid’s theme of Britishness does not explain why the British
Maritimers’ cousins in the United States, who certainly identified
with their American home, were just as single-minded and brutal in their
conduct toward the Native peoples. Nor does she fully explore the
logical consequences of her statement that the French colonizers enjoyed
positive relations with the Natives.

Reid concludes by saying that Europeans throughout the Americas are
coming to terms with their identity as inhabitants of the New World and
have an opportunity to establish stronger ties with Native peoples. One
might ask whether changing attitudes have been as affected by a new
identification with “place” as by secular liberal values.
Nevertheless, while one might question Reid’s attempt to expand her
theme to hemispheric proportions, and regard her overindulgence in the
specialized jargon of the social sciences—which makes her book
inaccessible to the general public—as unfortunate, this study presents
some genuinely valuable insights into British–Mi’kmaq relations.