Volume 20 Number 1
January 1981

Grayson B. Noley

THE HISTORY of American Indian education is a subject that has been given scant attention in historical research. When it is mentioned at all, it generally is discussed in terms of educational structures developed and pursued for Indians by non-Indian missionaries. However, it is clear that education itself is not a concept exclusively belonging to the Europeans who came to this continent nearly 400 years ago. Indeed, when those Europeans began to acquaint themselves with the nations of people that populated this country, they described economies, political hierarchies, and social systems that certainly could not have existed and progressed without the use of formalized structures of education (see Note 1).

Obviously, much has been recorded about what American Indians did in the past. Serious attempts to understand the nature of their various actions have been limited. Adequate historical analyses of their previous educational structures have been practically nil. The reconstruction of those human processes which provided the original educational models that served American Indian societies is a singularly important activity and as such, should be pursued diligently.

It is the purpose of this article to provide a rationale for rethinking what now generally is understood about American Indians, particularly their previous cultures and institutions and the manner in which they were advanced. The problems raised by contemporary approaches to the educating and schooling of American Indian children add to the urgency of renewed research activity in this area.

Particularly as it concerns American Indians, it appears to be an unfortunate truth that the historical conclusion frequently is based on the unconsciously preformed expectations of the researcher, or of the observers upon whom he has relied. Seldom do they stem from a critical reconstruction of the rationale which led to the actions under study. Adequate historical analysis must become less the product of emotion, or uncritical cultural loyalty, and more the result of disinterested research and understanding.

In most cases for historians in other fields, this probably is accomplished by the natural functioning of the scholarly community. Scholars specializing in many different areas are quick to call attention to discrepancies in new research when it touches the area of their particular emphasis. What Civil War historian, for example, would dare present a new analysis of the rationale for "Pickett’s Charge" without making certain that his statements were thoroughly defensible? No writer willingly would make casual speculations about a subject so widely studied. Yet, careless and emotion-laden interpretations occur regularly in purportedly historical research having to do with American Indians. The unreasonably high incidence of this may in part reflect the lack of any group of scholars with an abiding interest in the accuracy of interpretation of this particular area of history. But there seem to be more fundamental reasons as well.

When it comes to examining education and schooling, phenomena understandable only within wider social and cultural structures, there is a general tendency to escape the necessity of explaining the manner in which the ways of a society are transmitted to new generations. The process usually is passed off as mere "custom." We would not countenance such a superficial analysis of our present institutions, nor is it likely that a future conquering society, which had been plundering and destroying our present American society for 400 years, would dismiss our sophisticated public school system as quaint custom. Or is it? Is it possible that the fact that we Americans "customarily" send our children to public schools some day will become misunderstood and misinterpreted? Suppose our descendants, by some miracle, retained a sense of loyalty to our 20th century ways and institutions, and suppose "our" historians attempted to say to the society which had prevailed that their commonly held understanding about the previous society was inaccurate. What type of reaction might the scholars expect? What kind of frustration might the subjects of what had passed for "research" experience?

We surmise that the reaction would closely resemble that found in many communities throughout this country in response to new interpretations of the history of American Indians and their educational institutions. That reaction would range from surprise to disbelief to open hostility - perhaps even to charges of "subversive" motives.

The issue is, however, much greater than setting "the record" straight or salving the historic consciousness of a small group. New approaches to historical research are required for any adequate consideration of current American Indian educational needs. Most obviously, this demand includes the need to develop a better cultural understanding by all teachers and more appropriate material for the use of all pupils in the day-to-day work of schools. But, better historical research also should help us avoid the replication of unsuccessful educational programs and suggest approaches which could lead not only to "innovations" but to genuine success.

The efficiently organized American Indian societies of the Pacific Northwest, the desert Southwest, the forest region of the Northeast, and the agricultural South are now mute testimony to the highly functional educational processes which their members developed and which enabled these societies to be maintained. It is time that the efforts of these societies be examined for their contemporary usefulness. That is, while it is understood that present demands preclude a literal return to any kind of previous society, it equally is wrong to deny categorically the potential usefulness of long-hidden activities and thought structures which were enormously fruitful for a people in its past. It is possible that these forms of life and modes of interpretation might provide new and revealing perspectives regarding the contemporary institutions we appear compelled to worship. In order for this to come about, however, it will be necessary to begin to utilize new approaches to this history—approaches which are based on a serious desire to understand rather than to explain away or merely romanticize.

Collingwood states that all history is the history of thought (see Note 3) Becker, from a quite different perspective, lays particular emphasis on the notion that the past is always viewed in terms of the present (see Note 4). Given that an individual has the experience and ability to preserve history in some dynamic, recreative sense, and that there are questions which demand present responses, the task becomes one of reenacting thought in the context of one’s own knowledge, criticizing that thought and making responsible judgments of value in which past, present, and future are critically unified. It is at this point that further interpretation, and perhaps correction, of existing historical material, can begin to take place.

If this view is tenable, it might further be argued that the task of interpretation, correction, and (if necessary) refutation of existing "historical" accounts would be accomplished best by American Indian historians. This argument is lent additional weight by the demonstrable fact that much previous historical research has not reflected the depth of understanding of the choices American Indians made precisely because the researchers were observing the phenomenon from a position outside the social and cultural reality under examination. It is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether non-Indians can enter into the necessary relationship with that reality. It is only necessary to suggest that, however tenuous the vestigial remnants, an American Indian historian still embodies a potentially fruitful vantage point from within.

A similar issue has been discussed in another discipline about the advantages of the minority researcher over the non-minority member in interpreting sociological data involving minority concerns.’ Sharing in a social, cultural, and inevitably, emotional reality does not, however, guarantee any particular advantage in ability simply because of one’s peculiar heritage alone. But it is submitted here that American Indian researchers at least would be less willing to assign to complex social characteristics such vacuous explanatory categories as "superstition," or "habit," or "custom," and the like. American Indian researchers, because of what we might call a life-connection, likely will pursue not less but more rational explanations. Thus, the reality of this connection, although laden with opportunity for aggrandizement, also provides an impetus, a genuinely compelling motive, for more exhaustive research.

As has just been suggested, there also are some dangers in this approach to historical inquiry. Conclusions which are unduly biased in favor of a particular group obviously are no better than biases against that group. One supposes however, that a writer would rarely, if at all, make derogatory statements, or suggest unfavorable implications, based on highly speculative or inconclusive evidence in reference to his own ethnic group. And his consciousness of the problem (from the effects of which he has suffered) might preclude his falling into the same trap with respect to others.

In doing history, some logical speculation probably is inescapable. Historical research is not precisely analogous with scientific research. Indeed, history is not, if Collingwood is correct, a science at all, at least in the manner of the natural sciences. He insists that "the historian need not and cannot (without ceasing to be a historian) emulate the scientist in searching for the causes or laws of events (see Note 6). History is not an explanation which shows why things are as they are and why they cannot be otherwise. Historical events cannot perfectly be reconstructed and controlled in experiments under laboratory conditions. Indeed, we would not recognize a perfect reconstruction if it occurred. Comparisons are impossible with a part which itself is known only through history.

If we can agree that history is not a science, then it will be understood that in preserving history we do not simply recount events and describe them in detail. The historian has a much larger problem as he attempts to reconstruct actions which are representative of human thought. But, in so doing he also must take care that he does not write what he wants to believe (see Note 7).

At this point it might be well to illustrate the manner in which previous American Indian cultures have been misinterpreted and thus portrayed in a somewhat distorted manner. This illustration involves a contemporary historian, who shall remain nameless, who goes to great lengths to describe the pre-18th century lifestyle of a major American Indian tribe. He carefully describes the peaceful, agrarian nature of this tribe, noting that the strength of its society rested in its economic stability. In his attempt to describe the system of government, he attributes the success of its decision-making apparatus, not to the particular qualities described, but to the "strength of custom." Additionally, in two sentences he disposes of the apparently ancient restrictions on hunting as mere superstition.

In later chapters this historian describes a condition of almost constant warfare following the occurrence of sustained contact with Europeans. Included in these descriptions are tales of crop burnings, fortification of towns, the capture and sale of prisoners to European slave markets, the destruction of towns and even entire tribes, and the total breakdown of tribal economies. Yet, incredibly, in discussing the condition of the tribe in question at a period in the latter part of the 18th century, he describes them as being virtually unchanged from their so-called primitive state.

A problem with some historians is that they rely on accounts of observers without taking into account the conditions under which the observations were made. For example, two observers cited as authorities in the above illustration made their observations from extremely diverse positions, yet no attempt was made to reconcile the obvious differences of opinion. One observer, a military officer, described the tribe as being warlike to the extent that warfare was enjoyed. His observation was made during a period of time when the tribe was engaged in a war unequaled in length either before or after. The other observer, a civilian, found the tribe at peace, engaging successfully in agricultural pursuits. Neither of the observers could be said to have used "scientific" methods in his observations, and the relatively short duration of their visits would tend to cast doubt on their ability to analyze adequately the meaning of a society foreign to the vantage point from which they observed.

When education is discussed specifically, the existing literature reaches its weakest point. Sadly, American Indian pre-Columbian education is viewed principally in terms of physical exercises wherein children engage in tests of strength, bravery, and skills competition. Little attention is given the types of training which obviously had to occur for those who were legitimate medical practitioners or those who managed the affairs of the native nations with a knowledge of history and skill in diplomacy. How were these histories learned? And, how were the skills required for leadership obtained? How were economies controlled and how were the skills required for economic stability learned by those in leadership positions? These and many more questions exist and cannot be explained through the simplistic categories of "superstition," "habit," or "strength of custom." Clearly, much more is required.

The epistemological adequacy of historical research concerning American Indians has been, it is suggested, thus severely blunted because of the unwillingness of historians to pursue serious questions to sufficient depth. Their relative readiness to accommodate complex systems to the terms of a simplistic rationale has denied both students in general and the subjects of their research the benefit of what might be valuable lessons of life.

The fundamental historical questions must be pressed to a level where we engage all the subtlety and variety out of which not only meaning, but appreciation, rises. American Indian historians, though perhaps not the only enquirers fitted for this journey, must surely lead the way in such an exploration. Once again, and finally, it must be repeated that the fruits of this activity will not be a few "facts" to fill in the gaps or correct the most egregious distortions we all have found in the text books. Whole systems and programs that trap the living frequently are constructed on the basis of accepted notions of the past. Genuine historical reconstruction can lead us in the task of tearing down the stage settings which have limited, not only our vision, but our movements, indeed our very lives.

2. Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of History. New York: Oxford Press, 1946, pp. 214-215.

3. Ibid., p. 215.

4. Becker, Carl L. Everyman His Own Historian. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1936, p. 242.

5. The subject of insiders and outsiders in the pursuit of knowledge is perhaps best analyzed in the following article. Merton, Robert K., "Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge," in Varieties of Political Expression in Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972, pp. 9-47.

6. Collingwood, p. 214.

7. Ibid., p. 204.

Grayson B. Noley is Assistant Professor of Education, Pennsylvania State University.