Cherokees 1

Running head: CHEROKEES

Cherokees:
Myth, Culture, and
Implications for Intercultural Interaction

Curtis B. Livesay

IllinoisStateUniversity

Cinderella, Rocky Balboa, Scarlet O’Hara, and Davy Crockett all share at least one thing in common. All of these individuals, whether real or fictitious, have become cultural icons and are a part of (white) American mythology to a greater or less degree. The distinction of “white American mythology” is an important one because multiple American mythologies may exist, and the characters mentioned above may be viewed differently and/or may play a very different role in those mythologies, if they even exist in them at all. Moreover, cultural myths convey very specific meanings to, and for, the cultures in which they exist.

According to R.T.G. Hill (1997), scholars have examined mythic characters, types of myth, themes in myth, values reinforced by myth, cultural functions of myths, relationships between myth and religion, and archetypes in myth.[1] Because the extant literature on myth is quite extensive it should come as no surprise that there are a plethora of definitions of “myth.”

Lopez Austin (2004) described myth as, “a narrative, but it is more than that. It is also an idea or belief whose elements are manifest throughout social life” (p. 603). Stafford (2006) cites several authors who define myth in various ways: “‘a story which embodies a timeless and profound truth about a given people’s view of the world and of their place in it’” and “a traditional source of power and empowerment and provides those who believe in it with ‘efficacy in a hostile world’” and finally as, “an alive, interactive event that is present in the everyday… [it is] at the root of an event. It’s the shimmering framework for all else to occur” (p. 195). Reist (1997) explained myth as
[a] critical concept, embedded in the culture, which helps individuals make sense of the world, particularly by acting as a link between one’s direct material experience and one’s concept of the unseen force(s) that are believed to shape or at least influence that experience (The Significance of Myth).

Seidel’s (1985) understanding of myth emphasizes its function in terms of relating to and/or explaining the divine and/or cosmological. In sum, Seidel concludes, “Myths… help accout for order and disorder in the universe and man’s place in it” (p. 19). Burke (1970) also emphasized the cosmological influence on myth:
Insofar as calamities defy man’s governance, these can be explained as the acts of the higher authority. Such a theory does not dispose of the possibility that one such “myth” may be “true” while others are “false.” It merely explains the verbal mechanisms by which such myths can arise, regardless of whether they are true or false (p. 241).
Ramsey (1999) claims that myth is “an essentially conservative way of grasping and ordering reality, for all of its apparent imaginative wildness” (p. 161). One of the world’s most renowned scholars on the subject of myth, Roland Barthes, described it far less generously. He argued that myths are (whether intentionally or not) tools of the bourgeois to pass on the normative values of any given culture (1972, pp. 148-149). However, on a more positive note,Barthes also believed that myth was a commonly held conception or idea around which people unite—myth is a point of identification and unification.

For the purposes of this analysis, myth can be understood asa narrative which conveys cultural ideology and/or values. Additionally, it may or may notbe polysemic (see Meyer, 2003, for a discussion of the polysemic nature of myth). Furthermore, it may or may not be accompanied by act(s) of performance. Finally, regardless of whether or not it contains one truth or multiple cultural truths, and is or is not accompanied by performative acts,I argue that gaining a better understanding of a culture’s myth can potentially offer insight into that culture.
In an examination of Mesoamerican myth, Lopez Austin (2004) arrived at five conclusions regarding myth[2]and argued that these characteristics could be “sought in other indiginous mythologies of the Americas” (p. 614). Moreover, because myths are a powerful method of conveying cultural ideology and values, Reist (1997) argued that understanding the myths of a given culture may lead to a better understanding of that culture.

Before analyzing and discussing any culture’s myths it is important to appropriately consider a cautionary note. Lankford (1994) makes a very important point about the importance of not essentializing Native American literature through any given collection of stories:
In assessing the oral literature of Native Americans of North America, it is always tempting to treat the collections from a given tribe or nation as a synchronic corpus to be accepted as ‘their lore,’ if only because it is so difficult to deal with the diachronic reality that the materials change over time. Nowhere is that temptation greater than in the Southeast, because the last four centuries have been a period of extraordinary upheaval for the Native Americans of that area (p. 83).
Similarly, Barthes (1972) argued that myths are, by their very nature, transient (p. 110) and that they necessarily, grow, change, and adapt with the culture in which they are embedded.
However, while one must be careful to avoid drawing broad conclusions or of making sweeping historical generalizations, it is also true that mythic analysis offers unique insight into a culture. Additionally, Stafford (2006) explains that examining the historical stories of Native American culture in particular may offer insight that cannot be gained in other ways.

American Indian cultures seek the remembering of the old stories as a framing context for contemporary culture. Many Native cultures do not adhere to the Western model of inevitable progress and the privileging of the present over past as the site of superior knowledge. The idea of the inexorable march forward into a more and more highly developed world does not serve as a model for traditional Native values, and Native writers do not look to the future for answers, but often to the past, especially when the preseent and future of Native peoples, as scripted by powerful colonial interests, leads either to assimiliation or disappearance. As a result, Native writers will often place a much higher value on the past as a source of identity and political resistance. American Indian intertextuality may transpose the new backward into the old in a way that revalues, rejuvenates, even refigures the old, building cohesion rather than erasing it (p. 197).

Moreoever, Cherokee culture in particular seems to be one that lends itself well to a mythic analysis because Davey Arch, a contemporary Cherokee writer explains in an interview with Duncan (1998),
the Cherokees used storytelling and legends and communicating in that way to educate and even to pass on our history… And in this way our history was kept by word of mouth and passed from generation to generation. And today this is something that is very important still to us because the same stories that have been passed down for thousands of years still teach the same vital lessons that people need to be good human beings and to understand what it takes to live in the world around them (pp. 75-76).

Thus, it seems that a mythic analysis of a Cherokee Indian text is an appropriate and effective means of analysis that may offer insight into implications for intercultural communication with that group.
In this paper I begin with an overview of a myth that is prevalent (in a variety of forms) in several Native American cultures, before next examining several myths that are unique to Cherokee tribes. Ultimately, I argue that the Cherokee mythsexamined here expose a cultural view of women that is both similar to, and vastly different, white culture’s conception of women. The paper concludes with an examination of possible implications of the messages contained in the Cherokee myths for intercultural communication.

The “Trickster” Myth in Native American Culture

Lowe (1994) posits that Trickster is known to nearly all Native American cultures.Babcock and Cox (1994) also argue that Trickster is an ambiguous yet nearly ubiquitous character in Native American mythology. According to Lankford (1994) the Cherokee Trickster occasionally resembles the Algonoquin cultural icon, Rabbit. At other times, the Trickters is reminiscent of the relatively more pure African Hare (p. 86). Moreover, Radin (1956) argues that the Trickster figure is not only central to many Native American cultures’ myths, it is also appears in cultures from Greece to China. While Trickster seems to be common in a multitude of cultures, he/she/it is a particularly prominent figure in southeastern Native American Indian texts. Because of the specificity of this location (i.e., the Southeast U.S.) some have argued that the origin of the Trickster in Native American myth actually may have derived from African culture and was received when Africans were brought to America as slaves. However, this assumption is quite controversial and hardly supported with any confirmable factual basis (see Vest, 2000, for a discussion of this controversy).
Defining Trickster is tricky business (pardon the pun) for at least two reasons. First, Trickster appears differently in different cultures. Secondly, Trickster him/her/itself is an ambiguous and polymorphic being. These two facets of Trickster are part of the reason that Babcockand Cox, (1994) refer to Trickster as “the most popular, problematic, and powerful figure in Native American literature” (p. 99). Trickster can manifest itself in virtually any form—human or animal. Babcock and Cox (1994) argue that regardless of what form Trickster decides to embody at any given moment he is always understood to be ultimately human—“a human, however, who can shift his shape at will and for whom the human/animal boundary does not exist” (Babcock Cox, 1994, p. 100).

It seems that Trickster is best described and understood by the many qualities that he commonly possess. Lowe (1994) argues that “transformation and trickery are his hallmark, yet he bears aspects of the divine” (p. 194). Lowe goes on to explain that Trickster is believed to be immortal. However, he has been known to die in some tales; although he is resurrected. Thus, Lowe concludes, “Trickster is between God and man, and as such is both a link to God and a comic butt who mirrors man’s own failings and glories” (p. 195). Radin (1956) claims,

Trickster is at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself. He wills nothing consciously. At all times he is constrained to behave as he does from impulses over which he has no control. He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both. He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetitites, yet through his actions all values come into being (p. ix).

The existence of such an odd character merits further analysis; and the outrageousnessof such a character most likely leaves the non-Native reader wondering, What purpose does he serve? What does he mean? Babcock and Cox (1994) argue that Trickster serves a very important social role in Native American culture and that his antics, “constitute metasocial commentary, for by breaking rules, he/she throws into sharp relief the relationships, categories, and patterns of his culture” (p. 101). Lowe (1994) is slightly more graphic and explicit in his description of the place of Trickster in Native American culture. He argues that “Trickster tales frequently center on bodily functions, and man’s [sic] inability to control them; indeed, Trickster is generally blamed for all things that go wrong, which loss of body function symbolizes” (Lowe, 1994, p. 195). However, Lowe is also quick to point out that Trickster is not merely some crude or crass form of humor among Native Americans, but that he serves a greater social purpose (much like Babcock and Cox’s argument above). Lowe (1994) states,

[Trickster] tales actually support the norms they rupture, while providing comic ‘release’ from societal pressure. The tales, moreover, no matter how scabrous or obscene, were told in the presence of children, for they were meant to be instructive as well as entertaining (Lowe, 1994, p. 194).

In other words, consistent with the way that myth is conceptualized for the purposes of this paper, Trickster appears to be a mythological tool which Native Americans use to convey cultural ideology and values to their younger generations.
Another noteworthy aspect of the Trickster myth is sexual ambiguity. As mentioned above, Trickster can seemingly morph into a variety of creatures and/or personas. This ability apparantly allows Trickster to transcend sexual boundaries as well. While Trickster is usually referred to with the generic “he,” he is definitely capable of changing sexes, and often does (Babcock & Cox, 1994). In fact, Babcock and Cox (1994) note, “Tricksters frequently transform themselves into women and are sometimes represented as hermaphrodites. Moreover, female [Tricksters] are not unknown in either traditional or contemporary Native American literatures” (Babcock and Cox, 1994, p. 100). The sexual ambiguity of Trickster represents a bridge into another fascinating aspect of Native American (specifically, Cherokee) myth—the role of women.

Cherokee Culture, Myths, & The Role of Women

Cherokee culture is a particularly interesting Native American culture for several reasons. According to Starr (1921) when the early Christian missionaries began to work among the Cherokees, they were astonished at the similarity between the religious views of the Cherokees with biblical accounts. Rather than the polytheistic views that the missionaries expected to find, they found that the Cherokees had a similar creation story to that of Christianity, believed in a form of the Trinity, had a story of the flood, and essentially had a parallel story to practically every one of the biblical narratives (See Starr, 1921, pp. 22-23). However, for all of the similarities to the Christian faith, Cherokee culture also had a much different understanding of “family.” Additionally, some argue that the Cherokees engaged in much more liberal sexual practices than what the missionaries were most likely comfortable with (or at the very least, the missionaries interpreted Cherokee customs this way); and women played a more prominent role in society in general than they did (and some might argue, still do) in white culture.

S.H. Hill (1997) explains that Cherokees established family lineage (for the purposes of identification as well as property rights) matrilineally.S.H. Hill goes on to explain that language barriers were a common source of frustration for Christian missionaries because of the Cherokee conceptualization of family. Cherokee culture used one noun (translated, “father”) to describe bilogical father, father’s brothers, mother’s brothers step-father, and all other males with a close degree of relationship. Similarly, all female relatives were called, “mother.” However, what missionaries initially failed to realize was that Cherokee language,
actually identified clan position so precisely that anyone ‘could tell you without hesitating what degree of relationship exists between himself and any other individual of the same clan.’ Specific terms distinguished mothers, their parents and siblings, older and younger brothers, and sisters and their children… Each relationship presecribed different kinds of behavior and varied responsibilities (Hill, S. H., 1997, p. 27).

Additionally, Cherokee culture’s understanding of family was further differentiated from white culture in that the entire clan was thought of as close family. For example, if a woman died in child birth, any of the woman’s relations that could (i.e., were lactating) would take the child and nurse it as her own. Thus, “among Cherokees, there were no ‘improper’ children. All belonged to a clan” (Hill, S. H., 1997, p. 30).

S.H. Hill argues that what the white Christian missionariesfound perhaps most troubling however, was the relative sexual freedom that Cherokees (and particularly women) enjoyed. She states, “Within the constraints of the clan system, women exercised considerable autonomy and sexual freedom… Some took partners for love and life, others changed marriage partners with ease and frequency, and non suffered punishment for divorce or adultery” (p. 31).
It important to point, however, that S.H. Hill’s arguments may give us a clear example of intercultural prejudice. S.H. Hill fails to mention the fact that nearly all of her information relies heavily on tales recounted from a distinctly white perspective. In other words, the accounts from which she draws her conclusions are hardly objective, and in fact are quite heavily tainted from a white, Christian, European perspective. Mails (1996) offer an altnerative interpretation and explanation of Cherokee culture. He argues that the whites’ perception of sexual promiscuity among the Cherokees may be more than slightly exaggerated. He claims that,
the only second marriages considered honorable were those involving a brother’s widow who needed a man to provide for her. [This] custom may account for white claims of polygamy being practiced, for many men were killed in war, and the women greatly outnumbered the men (p. 73).

Mails (1996) also claims that divorce and adultery were taken far more seriously, and carried far heavier consequences, in Cherokee culture than S.H. Hill (1997) does.[3] Regardless of the debate about the sexual freedom of Cherokee women, one thing that is certain about the Cherokees is that they held very different perceptions of women than did (and perhaps does) white culture.