G. Patrick O'Neill

The presentation of the North American Indian in history and social studies textbooks has been of interest to historians, sociologists and educators for over 20 years (Kirkness, 1977). The earliest studies (Indian and Metis Conference Education Committee, 1964; Sluman, 1966; Vanderburgh, 1968; Vogel, 1968) appeared in the mid-to late 1960s, and were generally condemnatory in nature. The second and largest wave of inquiries was soon to follow in the form of extensive government sponsored and individual undertakings (Costo, 1970; Hirschfelder, 1975; Katz, 1973; Mallam, 1973; Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, 1974; McDiarmid and Pratt, 1971; Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, 1974; Paton and Deverell, 1974). Results were, for the most part, scandalous. The textbook portrayal of the North American Indian was distorted, denigrative, inaccurate, and incomplete. They were presented as blood-thirsty war-mongers, hostile savages and drunken thieves. They were the bad guys, the culprits and the villains. In particular, textbooks contemptuously dismissed Indian religious beliefs, paid attention to Indian faults but not to Indian virtues, glossed over negative aspects of the white man's impact, discussed missionary endeavors among the Indians from only one point of view, ignored Indian contributions to Canadian history, and represented drinking, gambling, and fighting as specifically Indian habits (McDiarmid and Pratt, 1971, 23).

Since the mid-1970s, sporadic comments on the ongoing status of the North American Indian in contemporary textbooks have been conflicting. Garcia (1978), for instance, found that, over a 20 year period, "The type of information employed to describe the group remained unchanged" (19). In contrast, Fulford (1984) suggests that there have been "enormous" improvements whereas Jackson (1976) noted only "moderate gains" in the depiction of the North American Indian in history and social studies textbooks.

Before proceeding, however, distinctions in textbook methodology should be clearly differentiated so as to eliminate any confusion in the types of evidence submitted. As a rule, observations have been based on one or more of the following methods, namely, impressionistic practices (idle inference), contextual descriptive (qualitative) approaches or scaled numerical (quantitative) procedures.

Impressionistic strategies are neither sequential, nor scientific. Rather, conclusions are based on subjective observations gained from perusing isolated passages of print material that may or may not be representative of the text as a whole. On the other hand, both the contextual descriptive and scaled numerical processes represent distinct forms of content analysis (Carney, 1979; Holsti, 1969; Krippendorff, 1980). The contextual descriptive technique hinges on a coding system in which units of analysis (themes, characters, sentences, paragraphs, items) are classified according to a predetermined set of exhaustive and independent categories, concepts or criteria. Each unit is then systematically and objectively assessed by two or more readers for errors in distortion, misinformation and omission Extensive excerpts are normally employed to illustrate deficiencies in the content of the materials evaluated.

The scaled numerical design (Pratt, 1972) is concerned with the smallest unit of analysis, that is, words or terms that express value judgments about a target group. All descriptors within a text are scored as either positive, negative or neutral according to a prescribed word list. A Coefficient of Evaluation is then calculated which indicates the position of the group on a favorable/unfavorable continuum. These distinctions are important as they are referred to throughout the article and in the final discussion.

The second query (Garcia, 1978) looked at five California-adopted, eighth-grade history textbooks published between 1956 and 1976. Both a thematic descriptive and a scaled numerical approach were utilized. Results indicated that the portrayal of the Native American had not changed significantly between 1956 and 1976. Moreover, any changes that were initiated were "superficially undertaken" (19). Terms most commonly used to describe the Native Americans were largely contradictory. For example, they were seen as either "friendly" and "peaceful" or as warlike, always "fighting" and "attacking" their European foe.

The third project (Coburn, 1979) entailed an extensive review of 29 grade 4 to 12 history textbooks in the state of Oregon. All of the texts were published between 1973 and 1979, although the majority were published in the 1977 to 1979 period. A working committee employing a descriptive set of criteria judged 6 textbooks as acceptable and 19 as unacceptable. Three were acceptable if supplemented and one was found to be not applicable. The unacceptable texts suffered mainly from gross omissions, over-simplifications, inaccuracies, and misleading comments.

The fourth survey (Garcia, 1980) analyzed 20 secondary U.S. history textbooks published in the 1970s. A thematic descriptive approach revealed that references to Native Americans:

In conclusion, Garcia noted two major weaknesses. First, the accounts of the Native American were "stilted," "disjointed and incomplete." And second, a "Native American perspective" was missing from events which directly affected them (152).

The fifth study (Wilson, 1980) scrutinized three leading American college history textbooks published in 1979. A detailed descriptive approach found that all three texts still contained pejorative terms such as "squaw," "half-breed" and "savage." In addition, many of the accounts were patronizing, inadequate or incomplete. In the final analysis, Wilson recommended that the authors need to present a more accurate and thorough picture of Native Americans in order to avoid misleading, confusing, or frustrating their readers by shallow, vague, or superficial accounts (47).

The sixth undertaking (Decore, Carney & Urion, 1982) was one of the largest of its kind in that over 246 required and recommended Alberta elementary and secondary titles were inspected. The analysis was based on a descriptive evaluative scheme containing six main categories. Most of the materials assessed spanned the 1970 to 1980 period. The most obvious problem was error of fact (erroneous information) followed by errors in theory, errors of attribution (inadequate distinctions), errors of implication (biased interpretation), decontextualization, and stereotyping. In summary, the authors noted that, "63% of all materials which deal with native issues were found to be either seriously problematic or completely unacceptable" (2). They continue

The seventh item comprised two commentaries, a review and a response to the coverage of native people in a social studies textbook recently published in the province of Saskatchewan (Hull, Knight and Barnett, 1982). The descriptive analysis, based on five perspectives, was most negative. Accounts were labelled trivial, fragmented, uninteresting, superficial, one-sided, biased, and distorted. The authors retaliated with stinging countercharges. They accused the reviewer of superficial treatment, errors of fact, personal bias, and false assumptions. When the dust settled, there was only consensus on one factor, that being the possible need for more extensive accounts of native people in the textbook.

The eighth investigation (Ferguson & Fleming, 1984) examined 34 elementary textbooks (K-7) from eight series listed on the adopted textbook list in Virginia. Both a descriptive and a scaled numerical approach were employed. The biggest weakness was either poor coverage or total neglect (omission) of certain key concepts. The use of biased language was minimal as 74% of the descriptors were found to be favorable. Nevertheless, terms such as "savage," "fierce" and "terror" were still used in some textbooks. In reflecting, the authors state

The ninth article (Fulford, 1984) involved a cursory discussion of a 1981 elementary and a 1982 secondary textbook. The author quoted so-called "typical" passages to support the contention that the status of Indians in textbooks has, "improved enormously" (7). The evidence, though, was strictly impressionistic as there was no systematic examination of the textbooks as a whole.

The tenth inquiry (O'Neill, 1984) looked at 10 intermediate (7-10) history textbooks approved for use in Ontario schools. All were 1977 to 1982 editions. A scaled numerical approach found that only three textbooks scored slightly above 70.0 on a scale between 0.0 (totally unfavorable) to 100.00 (totally favorable) with 50.0 representing the point of neutrality or ambivalence. The two most complimentary terms were "skillful" and "helpful" while the two most disparaging terms were "warlike" and "raiding." The word "barbarian" did not appear in any of the texts reviewed, although the words "savage," "fierce" and "hostile" appeared occasionally. In the end, O'Neill insists that

The 10 works reviewed examined dozens of textbooks, from kindergarten to college, in multiple settings stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Findings based on contextual descriptive efforts have been, by and large, unanimous. Most accounts of the North American Indian remain disjointed, distorted and incomplete. Improvements, when noted, have been largely the result of scaled numerical studies. Specifically, much of the biased language, found in earlier textbooks, has been eradicated, but even here there is considerable contradiction. Indeed, the Indian continues to be portrayed in extreme, simplistic, stereotypical roles. On one hand, for example, individuals are seen as noble, peaceful, friendly, and helpful, and yet, on the other as warlike, always attacking, fighting and raiding each other or the European. Only impressionistic data have inferred fundamental changes. However, as stated, such information is unreliable. Thus, the evidence, as based on published sources, is overwhelmingly conclusive. The status of the North American Indian in most history and social studies textbooks has not substantially improved in the last 20 years.

Hence, the vigil must be maintained. Writers, editors and publishers should be relentlessly bombarded by these unequivocal facts and figures. They must be shown their errors and encouraged to remedy their ways. Textual compensation in the form of historical restitution must become a first priority for all publishing houses that deal directly, or indirectly, with the North American Indian.

Perhaps a public forum, such as that proposed by Downey (1980), would help expedite the process. When implemented, all curricular materials, textbooks and otherwise, would be subjected regularly to exhaustive scholarly reviews. Accordingly, such a forum could be best accomplished through the major history and social studies journals.

The proposal is most commendable, but the focus needs to be narrowed as there are far too many periodicals for any one person to continually monitor. Edwards (1983), for instance, compiled a list of over 50 history journals and newsletters that deal with the discipline. As this was not an exhaustive list, it might be wise, therefore, to nominate or assign specific journals the task of monitoring the reviews. Interested parties could then quickly obtain precise information on the quality of materials released by different publishing houses. In addition, a Better Book Bureau could be established to encourage, promote and reward outstanding contributions to the field.

Whatever route is taken, one fact remains clear. After more than 20 years of convention, conference and colloquium, it is time for concrete action. Apologies and excuses will no longer suffice. The depiction of the North American Indian in textbooks, ". . . must become less the product of emotion, or uncritical cultural loyalty, and more the result of disinterested research and understanding" (Noley, 1981, 13).

Carney, T. F. (1979). Content analysis: A technique for systematic inference from communications. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press.

Coburn, J. (1979). Oregon Indian textbook review project, Final Report. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Indian Reading and Language Development Program. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Costo, R. (Ed.) (1970). Textbooks and the American Indian. San Francisco, California: Indian Historian Press, Inc.

Decore, A., Carney, R. & Urion, C. (1982). Native people in the curriculum. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Department of Education.

Downey, M. T. (1980). Speaking of textbooks: Putting pressure on the publishers. History Teacher, 14(l), 61-72.

Edwards, C. W. (Comp.) (1983). History journals and newsletters. The Social Studies, 74(l) 40-41.

Ferguson, M. J. & Fleming, D. B. (1984). Native Americans in elementary school social studies textbooks. Journal of American Indian Education, 23(2), 10-15.

Fulford, R. (1984). By the book. Saturday Night, 99 (4, 7, 9, 10).

Garcia, J. (1978), Native Americans in U. S. history textbooks: From bloody savages to heroic chiefs. Journal of American Indian Education, 17(2), 15-19.

Garcia, J. (1980). The American Indian: No longer a forgotten American in U. S. history texts published in the 1970s. Social Education, 44(2), 148-152 & 164.

Hirschfelder, A. B. (1975). The treatment of Iroquois Indians in selected American history textbooks. Indian Historian, -(2), 31-39.

Holsti, 0. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Hull, J., Knight, L. R., & Barnett, D. C. (1982). Viewpoint: A social studies textbook: Review and response. The History and Social Science Teacher, 17(3), 154-161.

Indian and Metis Conference Education Committee. (1964). Survey of Canadian history textbooks. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Community Welfare Planning Council.

Jackson, M. M. (1976). Trends in publishing for ethnic studies: Afro Americans, Native American, and Spanish speaking. Paper presented at the World Educators Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. ERIC ED 133 250

Katz, W. A. (1973). Minorities in American history textbooks: Equal opportunity review. New York, N.Y.: National Center for Research and Information in Equal Educational Opportunity, Columbia University.

Kirkness,V. J. (1977). Prejudice about Indians in textbooks. Journal of Reading, 20(7), 595-600.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Mallam, R. C. (1973). Academic treatment of the Indian in public school texts and literature. Journal of American Indian Education, 13(l), 14-19.

Manitoba Indian Brotherhood. (1974). The shocking truth about Indians in textbooks. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Indian Brotherhood.

McDiarmid, G. & Pratt, D. (1971). Teaching prejudice. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.

Noley, G. B. (1981). Historical research and American Indian education. Journal of American Indian Education, 20(l), 13-18.

Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. (1974). Textbook analysis: Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Nova Scotia Human Rights Commissions.

O’Neill, G. P. (1984). Prejudice towards Indians in history textbooks: A 1984 profile. The History and Social Science Teacher, 20(l), 33-39.

Paton, L. & Deverell, J. (Eds.) (1974). Prejudice in social studies textbooks. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Modern Press.

Pratt, D. (1972). How to find and measure bias in textbooks. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Sluman, N. (1966). The textbook Indian. The Toronto Education Quarterly, 5(3), 2-5.

Vanderburgh, R. M. (1968). The Canadian Indian in Ontario’s school texts: A study of social studies textbooks, grades 1 through 8. Port Credit, Ontario: University Women’s Club of Port Credit, Study Group on the Canadian Indian and Eskimo.

Vogel, V. J. (1968). The Indian in American history textbooks. Integrated Education, 6(3), 16-32.

Wilson, R. (1980). Native Americans in college textbooks. The Indian Historian, 13(2), 44-47.