The article “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Devon A. Mihesuah attempts to shed light on the class differences within the Cherokee Female Seminary. It also explains how the class differences go hand-in-hand with the color differences within the Cherokee Nation. For instance, Mihesuah uses the term “full-blooded” to refer to the tribe’s people who were 100% Cherokee and not mixed. These two points contribute to the ever-growing struggle for identity the Cherokees were facing at that time. Although the article sheds light on a part of history that has not been seen before, it unfortunately left me with more questions than answers.
One of the questions I have revolves around the lack of information she presents (or does not present) regarding the Cherokee. For example, she does not spend enough time on the economic structure of the Cherokees. On page 180, Mihesuah explains that only the wealthy and those that could afford the tuition were allowed to enter the school. She also states, “… daughters of the wealthier families were sent to schools outside the Cherokee Nation and never attended the female seminary” (180). However, she never explains how certain Cherokees are richer than others. While she does explain that most of the Cherokees were farmers, and so they learned trades as opposed to other academics, she does not show the difference between those full-blooded families that are wealthy versus the ones that were poor. What kinds of jobs were the wealthy Cherokees involved with? What kind of jobs did their society allow them to be in? Of the men on the tribal council: was there a mix of rich and poor Cherokee men that made the decision on what was right for their culture?
Also, there is no explanation for the gender structure within the tribe. She does allude that the idea of women (at least some) as strong willed and able to run businesses without fear (189). However, this does not shed light on where women saw themselves in the nation. What is the woman’s place among the Cherokee and how does education contribute to her place in the clan? How did education change that?
Mihesuah explains that some Cherokee families were only able to afford the education for one child in which that child saw herself/himself as better than their siblings (190). What did that do to the family structure after the daughter completed her training? How did this effect relationship or how did it create tensions within the household? She does not use primary sources to explain this further.
She also seemed at times contradictory. At one point she says that the school “helped to strengthen their [the women’s] identities as Cherokees” (190). With the evidence that she presented, I do not agree with this. Yes some women, like Na-Li, spoke up about their culture. However, Na-Li was a full-blooded Cherokee and therefore darker than most of the women at the school. She could not pass as anything other than Cherokee. The lighter, mixed-blood girls felt a superiority because of the lack of Cherokee in their blood. They also married men who had lesser Cherokee blood than they did. This was an effort to wash-out their Cherokeeness. They would also often lie about the amount of Cherokee in them. This, to me, does not seem equate a strong Cherokee identity (190).
-Alisah Rivera