Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada: Mythic Discourse and the Postcolonial State (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada: Mythic Discourse and the Postcolonial State Colin M. Coates Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada: Mythic Discourse and the Postcolonial State. Jennifer Reid. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008. Pp. 314, $34.95 cloth Louis Riel has been a most malleable historical figure, standing in for a variety of causes: Aboriginal rights, Western Canadian alienation, bilingualism, deluded messianism, and Métis identity. Riel’s appeal to different groups in Canada (French, English, Métis, First Nations) sets him apart from other figures of the country’s past. Examining a wide range of poetry, prose, film, and operatic and historical versions of the Riel story, Jennifer Reid canvasses these identities, arguing that Riel is the most variegated historical character in Canadian history, as well as the most studied. The range is not particularly surprising: All heroes and anti-heroes are subjected to similar processes of reinterpretation and recasting. All historical figures take on guises, as their stories are retold and reinterpreted, and of course this process is in no way unique to Canada. It is difficult to imagine a single historical figure whose significance remains stable over time. This book contributes to the ongoing reinterpretation of Louis Riel, seeing him as a foundational figure for the constitutional novelty of the Canadian state. The book goes much further than merely examining the many faces of Louis Riel. Riel is the touchstone for an alternative Canadian narrative, one that recognizes difference: ‘a most basic fact of the [End Page 784] Canadian experience: that of cultural hybridity or, as I will choose to describe it, métissage’ (71). Reid’s study therefore has grand ambitions: to recast an overarching Canadian narrative. This is not a Laurentian thesis redux, but rather a way to reinterpret Canadian historical development. Essentially, Reid’s analysis relies on jettisoning the concept of the nation-state. Canada is more than a nation-state, she argues, and its political, linguistic, social, and ethnic complexities set it apart from other countries. With its lack of a revolution or other defining historical moments, Canada does not fit the mould of other countries. Without the putative ethnic and cultural unity of archetypical nation-states – Reid is not clear in the text itself which countries this category might include, though her endnotes provide some discussion of the United States – Canadians are fated to lack a firm understanding of their common experience. There was a time when scholars looking at the development of Canadian nationhood would have made sustained comparisons with Australia and New Zealand, and maybe South Africa. The similarities in constitutional evolution are striking, yet Canadian scholars are keener to compare their country with other states that apparently base their nationhood on revolution and ‘independence.’ Such comparisons are latent throughout the book, though they lack specificity and fail to acknowledge that countries such as the United States – presumably one of the exemplars of a revolutionary nation-state – also experienced a bloody and destructive civil war where clearly whatever unifying national narrative that may have once existed failed utterly. Canadians often assume that other countries forged their identity through revolution and political choice, thereby downplaying the postmodern nature of even archetypical countries. Tom Nairn long ago deconstructed British (he writes ‘UKanian’ identity), and an analysis of Canadian identity – or lack thereof – would benefit from a sustained comparison with other contexts. ‘Can Canada provide a model for the state in a world that is still largely defined by the nation-state?’ Reid queries (248). This is an intelligent question and one that is certainly worth exploring. One might have expected to see some discussion of two of the leading international political theorists – both of them Canadians – Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka, though it seems churlish to ask a broadly researched book to do even more. The book circulates in and out of Riel’s biography, focusing on the 1869–70 and 1885 Rebellions. With the violent events as anchors, the [End Page 785] author reflects broadly on the nature of the Canadian state. The rebellions, Reid claims, are analogous to the 1848 revolutions in Europe and reveal the violence at the centre of...