Mankiller Response from Walker Elliott

Walker is experiencing technical difficulties so I am posting on his behalf:

Wilma MankillerҀs autobiography is unusual in the way that it incorporates narratives both of Chief MankillerҀs own life and of Cherokee history. As a history major, the historical narrative was of particular interest to me. I have to admit, however, that this account was at first frustrating to me in a number of ways. It was not until the middle of the book that I realized that I had been reading MankillerҀs version of Cherokee and U.S. history in entirely the wrong way.

My problems in reading MankillerҀs autobiography stem directly from my experience as an undergraduate student of history. In particular, Mankiller incorporates a number of elements that would not pass muster in a formal, academic history׀in some cases, the very same ӀerrorsԀ that my professors have found with my own work. Some of these are only minor quibbles. For example, Mankiller mistakenly asserts that the Civil War ӀofficiallyԀ ended with General LeeҀs surrender at Appomattox, which is׀and thereҀs no polite way to say this׀simply wrong. But the issues that proved more disturbing to me were her very frequent use of harsh judgment words and her one-sided analysis of the white/federal motivations for Indian policy, particularly in her narrative of Cherokee history before the end of reconstruction. For example, Mankiller describes US Army atrocities during the Trail of Tears in great detail, but tends to attribute them mainly to racism and native brutishness. While racist attitudes certainly played an important role, careful study would reveal that the structure and composition of the US Army of the 1830s was likely also a contributing factor. Seriously underfunded, understaffed and despised by most American citizens, the interwar Army tended to recruit from the very bottom rungs of society: illiterate immigrants, alcoholics, criminals, young men ducking responsibility for illegitimate children, etc. The Army was neither a particularly reputable or well-thought-of force, nor was it very representative of broader American society. Mankiller, however, tends not to explore any motivations but the very ugliest and most damning. I got the impression that she had constructed her thesis well before conducting any research.

I am not merely being pedantic. In formal, academic history, there are׀in my opinion, at least׀very good reasons to avoid writing history as a polemic. By portraying the most despicable historical actors without balance or nuance, the historian loses the opportunity to explore other possible motivations for the historyҀs least pleasant episodes. History is moved by the mundane just as often as by the nefarious. And by ignoring the more mundane explanations, it allows the reader to dismiss historical atrocities as the regrettable mistakes of ignorant, primitive people. It allows the reader simply to say, ӀMy goodness, white people in the 1830s certainly were greedy and filled with racial hatred! How terrible! ItҀs such a good thing IҀm not like that!Ԁ While many writers of history feel that they are doing a valuable service by condemning injustice in the strongest terms possible, it is my opinion that they are allowing the reader to avoid responsibility and deeper contemplation.

But while wrestling with these questions in my reading of MankillerҀs autobiography, I was suddenly reminded of a book by Carol Reardon that I read for a military history class. It discussed PickettҀs famous charge at Gettysburg in the context of what historians call Ӏremembered history.Ԁ It then hit me that I had been reading MankillerҀs historical narrative incorrectly. While her book is of little use as an academic history, it gives great insight into the remembered history of the Cherokee nation. MankillerҀs autobiography tells us less about past events than present attitudes, and in this capacity it is a rich and valuable source. This concept of remembered history is best explained by comparison: Many white Southerners, for example, look at the Reconstruction in ways that an academic historian never would, but by understanding how white Southerners see Reconstruction, it helps the historian to understand their attitudes on the federal government, Northerners, blacks, etc. Similarly, MankillerҀs historical sketches tell us much more about Cherokees in the late 20^th and early 21^stcenturies than about Cherokees in the more remote past.