INTRODUCTION
In fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus
sailed the ocean blue.
- TRADITIONAL VERSE
In fourteen hundred ninety-three, Columbus
stole all he could see.
- UPDATED VERSION OF THE VERSE
What has caused anti-Columbus sentiment to recently permeate American society? Why are some Americans turning against one of America's most glorified heroes? Simply put, America is experiencing a period of awakening. In 1992, countless celebrations were planned in honor of the 500th anniversary of Columbus' "discovery" of America. However, the festivities were countered by cries of protest. No longer willing to accept invisibility, Native Americans, alongside many non-Indians who agreed with their protests, argued that Columbus' actions prompted 500 of destruction and suffering for the original inhabitants of this country. This, they argued, was not a reason for celebration. Rather, Native Americans established their own celebration-500 Years of Resistance and Survival. The year 1992 was not the beginning nor the end of Native American resistance and survival, but a chance to take advantage of the publicity generated by the Quincentenary. Native Americans proclaimed the anniversary of the 1492 encounter as an opportunity to educate Americans about the real history of America and increase awareness among the general population about the Native American struggle.
Why is this education necessary? Why are most Americans ignorant of the history of their nation? Students in the United States have been taught that American history began with Columbus, and they are therefore unaware of the myriad of cultures that were already thriving here. Most social studies textbooks refer to the "virgin wilderness" of the "New World" that was "discovered" by the Europeans. If the education system gives students the impression that Native American history is insignificant, the students will not consider current Native American issues important. Historically, Native Americans have been the most misrepresented peoples in American history, and they are presently among the most disadvantaged minorities in the United States. I believe there is a strong connection here, and that our Eurocentric curriculum has produced Americans unconcerned with present-day Indian issues. The American history curriculum must accurately portray the Native American experience if we hope to eliminate prejudice against Native Americans and improve their quality of life.
This topic is of interest to me because I was a typical victim of the Eurocentric American history curriculum. Like many children, I did not enjoy studying history in school. It was not until an anthropology course in college introduced me to what I had been missing that I began to wonder why I did not enjoy studying history. The long and rich indigenous history of America was taught to me for the first time in my college courses, and the tragedy that ensued after the arrival of the Europeans shocked me. What I had been taught in grade school and high school was something completely different from what I was now learning. Why had I not been taught these things before? What possible reasons did the schools have for omitting or distorting the truth? The material I learned in my college anthropology course was fairly limited given the scope of Native American history, so I educated myself further by reading books. The information that was kept from me when I was in school in the late 1970s and early 1980s is today available in any bookstore. As I read more and more about the Native American experience of the past, I began to wonder what life is like for Native Americans in the present day, after having almost everything taken from them.
These questions planted the seed for my thesis. I wanted to find out more about the version of history that educators were presenting. I combed the bookshelves in my parents' house for American history books. I found two: A Basic History of the United States, by Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, and A Short History of the United States, by Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager. When I approached my parents about the origins of these books, they informed me that the Beards' book, published in 1944, had been the staple history book of the time. I deduced that it had likely been used as a textbook in high school because, first of all, the reading comprehension was too difficult for elementary school, and secondly, my aunt's name was written on the inside cover, and she did not attend college. I felt that I had educated myself on the history of Native Americans in the Americas sufficiently enough to be able to examine these books for accuracy. The 554-page Beard's volume mentions American Indians, who the authors refer to initially as "primitives," on a total of seven pages. The first mention of Indians, on pages 24 and 25, grants that "treachery and massacre" were initiated by whites as many or more times than by the Indians. Yet it goes on to make statements such as, "From time immemorial Indian tribes had fought amongst themselves, the warlike nomads preying upon the tribes that tilled the soil, the settled tribes trying to defend themselves, tribes battling against other tribes for other reasons or without rationality" (25). Terminology such as "preying upon" and "without rationality" disturbed me, because each Indian tribe had not lived in a vacuum and had warred periodically, but often due to something as "rational" as a territory dispute. Brief references to Indians on six other pages consisted of these phrases: "defense against the Indians," "when Indians made attacks," "the regulation of relations with the Indians in that region," "trade with the Indians," "the swamps of Florida were the hiding places of marauding Indians who emerged from time to time to harass American settlements," and "protection against the Indians". Not only does the book omit virtually all Indian involvement in the development of the United States, except as antagonists, it only refers to them in historical terms, as if they died off sometime during the period when America still consisted of settlements. I moved on to the other volume, A Short History of the United States, hoping it would present a more accurate portrayal of Native Americans, since it had been published 25 years after the Beard's volume. However, although this version of American history mentions Indians more often, it is usually in racist and degrading terms. The first page of the book starts out with a vivid description of how the first English settlement in America was brutally attacked by "the savages." The next paragraph tells of how forging a new nation was "no picnic" because, among other things, it was "peopled by a warlike, cruel and treacherous people still in the Stone Age of culture." A few pages later, as the authors describe how the settlements began to migrate westward, they write:
It was fortunate for the white settlers that the Indians of North America were too few and too backward to be a grave impediment to colonization. They harassed and at times delayed it; they never stopped it for long. When the first Europeans arrived, the Indians east of the Mississippi probably numbered not more than two hundred thousand. Those of the whole continent north of Mexico certainly did not exceed five hundred thousand. Armed with only the bow and arrow, the tomahawk, and the war club, and ignorant of any military art save the ambush, they were ordinarily no match for well-accoutered and vigilant bodies of whites. For that matter, they had shown little capacity to subdue nature, and, as they lived mainly by hunting and fishing, their resources were precarious. (6-7)
I was most disturbed by the overtone and phrases like "too backward," but additionally, almost every statement is today known to be false. In fact: 1) it was fortunate for the white settlers that the Indians helped them survive when they first landed on the east coast, and unfortunate for the Indians that the settlers carried disease that devastated the Indian population and rendered them too weak to successfully thwart the European encroachment; 2) the population numbers stated are grossly underestimated; 3) it has been documented that the Europeans found Indian warring quite effective and actually adopted many Indian war tactics; 4) Indians lived off the land, which involved more than hunting and fishing, and their resources were more than plentiful until the European settlers, showing no reverence for the land or other animals, depleted the Indians' resources; 5) and finally, it is ironic that the authors state Indians "showed little capacity to subdue nature" when today the world's governments, scientists, and environmentalists are turning to the Native peoples of the Americas, seeking their help in the current environmental crisis because of the close connection Native Americans have to nature. The preface says that "this history is written for the layman, not for the scholar," and the front jacket of the book says, ". . . this authoritative and clearly written book, by two of our most distinguished historians, has established itself as the standard work for the general reader." It is hardly surprising that Native Americans suffer from prejudice and discrimination when this is what the general reader in America has been told about them.
After digesting the omissions and the biased attitudes of these volumes, I was eager to find out what has happened to textbooks in the last 30 years. There is a greater awareness of the Native American experience today then there was 30 years ago. But what initiated this change in the public's perception? Have the changes only begun recently, sparked by the publicity generated by such events as the Quincentenary and the release of the hit film Dances With Wolves? Or did awareness begin to evolve many years ago, with the Indian occupation of Alcatraz in 1969 or the standoff at Wounded Knee in 1973? And finally, has the public's perception of Native Americans changed enough? The goal of this thesis is to examine whether or not the attitude in the textbooks and the classroom has evolved with public attitudes. Does the American history curriculum reflect the Native American experience?
For this thesis I have examined the textbooks currently used in social studies classes in the Washington metropolitan area for grades five through eight. I have chosen these grades because of the level of exposure to American history. Social Studies in earlier grade levels focus on families and communities, introducing aspects of American history through the study of holidays and local and state history. At grade level five, students are provided with their first comprehensive study of American history. More formal treatments occur in eighth grade, and then again in eleventh grade. I will focus primarily on the fifth grade since what children learn in their first extended exposure to American history, considering how impressionable children are, is critical to their total understanding of the subject. I have examined ten social studies textbooks currently used in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC public grade schools, six of which are fifth grade level. In comparison, I studied ten textbooks that were used in the 1970s and 1980s to see how the historical accounts have evolved in the last 25 years. I then analyzed the current multicultural education debate that is sweeping the country, and what it means for the representation of Native Americans in American history textbooks. The question I will seek to answer is whether or not the multiculturalism movement has penetrated America's history textbooks and classrooms, and to what extent multicultural education is addressing the Native American experience. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the effect that whitewashing American history has on the current conditions of Native Americans in today's society, and offer suggestions for strengthening the representation of the Native American experience in the American history curriculum.