Gerald F. Reid’s study of politics in the St. Lawrence Iroquois community of Kahnawà:ke (or Caughnawaga) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries sheds new light on that particular place but falls short of advancing the study of Native American politics in colonial contexts. Kahnawà:ke’s political divisions will be familiar to scholars of other Indian peoples. Reformists or Progressives were largely Christian métis who favored accommodating colonial demands for reduced community autonomy and governmental reforms. Their opponents, the Traditionalists, were mostly Indians (called full-bloods in other settings) who pursued self-determination. Sometimes, a third faction of moderates or political upstarts joined these contests. Reid’s treatment of these factions challenges earlier accounts that characterize Kahnawà:ke as passive and unified in response to outside pressure and without a traditionalist movement until the 1920s. His failure to engage the rich literature on Indian politics, however, undermines his goal of demonstrating that Native factionalism could serve as a dynamic and effective response to colonization.

Reid ably traces the lineages of Kahnawà:ke’s factions with an overview of the community’s early history. Kahnawà:ke was born out of factionalism in the late 17th century, as Catholic Iroquois (mostly Mohawks) left their people in upper New York to create a religious haven near Montreal. Thereafter, Kahnawà:ke formally broke with the Iroquois League and supported the French against the English in the colonial era’s imperial wars, contrary to league neutrality. That said, Reid emphasizes that Kahnawà:ke maintained cultural, kin, and even political ties to other Iroquois communities. Such linkages continued to shape Kahnawà:ke politics for generations to come.

During the late 19th century, Kahnawà:ke faced a series of interrelated challenges widely shared among other Native peoples, although Reid does not address these parallels. In the 1870s, Kahnawà:ke’s Indians squared off against the community’s whites and métis (also called Canadians or half breeds) about the latter’s access to collective resources. Class tensions, not just racial ones, infused this dispute, because Indians were generally poor whereas their opponents were comparatively wealthy. Debate grew so caustic that some members of the Indian Party advocated parceling the reserve, with an eye toward wresting territory from métis hands rather than opening Kahnawà:ke’s land to the market. When Ottawa followed through in the mid-1880s by subdividing the reserve, Kahnawà:ke succeeded partially in expelling Canadians from the community.

Thereafter, Kahnawà:ke politics centered on Canada’s Indian Act of 1876 and Indian Advancement Act of 1884, which sought to replace the traditional council of lifetime clan chiefs with an elective council serving limited terms. As before, class divisions shaped political alignments. Large landowners and entrepreneurs, especially the young, supported government initiatives and thus became known as the Reform Party. Conversely, small landowners and the landless feared that restructuring would exacerbate their vulnerability. After Canada forced its policies on Kahnawà:ke in 1889, some traditionalists began working within the Indian Act system to carve out an autonomous role for the band council. Other traditionalists focused on overturning the legislation altogether. What traditionalists did agree on was reaching out to other Iroquois communities to collectively pursue local sovereignty. The cultivation of Iroquois nationalism in the context of Kahnawà:ke politics began in earnest in the 1890s and continued well into the 20th century. In particular, traditionalists’ opposition to a proposed school taught by nuns inspired them to join a movement led by Chief Thunderwater to create an Iroquois Council of the Tribes. Ultimately, the school opened and the Thunderwater movement collapsed, but these clashes also introduced the Longhouse religion to Kahnawà:ke as the traditionalist way of worship, thereby adding a new layer to local factionalism.

Methodologically and stylistically, this book disappoints. Reid makes excellent use of oral history, having spent ample time at Kahnawà:ke, but his written source base is limited to materials from Canada’s Department of Indian Affairs and newspapers. Certainly, Reid could have uncovered other pertinent material, given that Kahnawà:ke was a literate community under the scrutiny of missionaries and government officials. A broader range of sources, in turn, would have allowed Reid to delve more deeply into cultural meanings that Kahnawà:ke people attributed to their political activities, a critical topic he neglects throughout the study. Kahnawà:ke’s stylistic lapses are even more glaring. Several sections are little more than block quotations (some of them running almost an entire page) strung together by short transitions. Reid’s own voice and, more importantly, his analysis rarely break forth.

In sum, Kahnawà:ke should attract Iroquoianists interested in this specific community. Other Native Americanists, however, will be discouraged by Reid’s narrow lens and poor presentation.