schad honors thesis final - stanford university › file › druid:yh056fz1454 › schad...4)...
TRANSCRIPT
Stanford University Graduate School of Education
UNDERGRADUATE HONORS
My Lands Are Where My Dead Lie Buried: The Representation of Native Americans
in South Dakota High School History Textbooks
Taylor J. Schad
May 2015
A Thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Undergraduate Honors
Approvals:
Honors Program Director: _______ May 24. 2015______________________ Honors Advisor:
1
Abstract:
Objective: In this study I discuss how history textbooks used in the state of South Dakota
over the last 30 years or so represent Native Americans. In order to determine whether
Native Americans are represented accurately, equally, and respectfully in the texts I analyze
five historical events involving the tribes of South Dakota in each textbook. Method:
Through the use of textbook coding and word counts the textbooks are analyzed and
discussed in terms of accuracy and overall content. Teacher interviews are also conducted
to provide insight into how educators teach South Dakota Native American history.
Participants in the interviews are asked about their use of textbooks in their classrooms and
how they incorporate outside sources to help students grasp certain topics as they relate to
Native Americans. Results: The text analysis shows that although more recent textbooks
are more objective and “politically correct” in the names they use for Native American
people and tribes, the textbooks have slowly decreased in their coverage of Native issues
and events. The teacher’s interview showed a pattern that goes along with the inaccuracies
in the textbooks. Teachers very rarely use only the textbooks as sources for information.
Many use outside and supplementary sources to discuss topics surrounding Native tribes in
the area. Conclusions: Within a classroom setting textbooks cannot be the only source of
information for high school students. Teachers must incorporate supplementary sources
and school districts need to provide more accurate representations of Native Americans.
Textbooks cannot cater to one group or specific event in history, meaning it is up to schools
to pick up where the textbooks leave off. Schools need to help bridge the gap between
cultural respectfulness and educational responsibility as it relates to teaching about cultural
groups who have had huge impact on history in order to further improve cultural relations
and establish well educated and informed students.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 1 Native American History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Literature Review: Changing Representations of Native Americans . 10
Contemporary Understandings of Native Americans as Products of History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Writing About How American History is taught . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Textual Analyses of American History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CHAPTER 2 Methodology: The Study of Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CHAPTER 3 Between Battle and Massacre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Text Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Teacher Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHAPTER 4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Stepping Beyond the Confines of the Textbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Appendix A: Coding Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix B: Interview Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Appendix C: Oceti Sakowin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3
List of Tables and Figures Table 1. The five historical events for analysis of the textbooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 2. Word counts for the five historical events in The Americans. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table 3. Word counts for the five historical events in United States History. . . . . . . . 55 Table 4. Word counts for the five historical events in The American Vision. . . . . . . . 58 Figure 1. The naming of key historical figures (Big Foot, Major Samuel Whiteside, Colonel James W. Forsyth). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 2. Ft. Laramie Treaty in The Americans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 3. Wounded Knee never being referred to as a massacre in United States History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 4. Custer being blamed for losing the Battle of Little Bighorn in The American Vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Teresa LaFromboise for
her encouragement and mentorship this past year. You really helped influence my
thesis; your support means a great deal to me.
I would like to express my gratitude to John Willinsky and Laura Moorhead
for their guidance and support this last year and for making sure I pushed my own
limits to create the best thesis I possibly could. You have both really given me the
chance to make this thesis my own.
I would like to give a special thank you to all the teachers, the outside coder,
and outside scholars that provided their insight and opinions to this thesis. I really
appreciate you dedicating your time and expertise in order to help advance my
research.
Finally I would like to acknowledge my family in their continual support of
my studies and education, especially my mother. I cannot tell you how grateful I am
to have you and your vast knowledge as a resource in writing this thesis. This would
not have been possible without you.
5
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to people of the Lakota Nation and especially to
the tribe of Cheyenne River. Without the wisdom my family and tribe have given me
throughout the years I would not be where I am today. It is our history that I am
writing about and through this history I hope to bring awareness to the
misrepresentation of Native peoples across the United States.
6
Chapter 1
Native American History
I went to high school in South Dakota. My school had, and still has, one of the highest
enrollments of Native American students for any off-‐reservation public school in the
state. Central High School has the third highest NA student population of all public
and non-‐public schools in the state; an approximate total of 396 Native students
attend CHS. It is third only to Todd County Elementary in the Rosebud Reservation
and Wolf Creek K-‐8 in the Pine Ridge Reservation. (Student Enrollment Data, 2014).
I was not taught about Native American culture that did not derive from state-‐
mandated curriculum until my junior year. Up until that year of high school the only
real perspective about Native Americans that I received at school was from that of a
district-‐selected textbook and from my family. The school system did not provide
me with any in-‐depth cultural curriculum, even though I was from a local tribe.
I have heard many stories about other people’s elementary and middle
school experiences surrounding Native culture in which students decorated tipis,
colored headdresses, and picked out “Native” names. In this case I was lucky never
to be exposed to such blatant disregard for Indigenous accuracy. These particular
“cultural activities” showed students how to “play Indian” by using historical
stereotypes to represent Native American lifeways. The problem with these
exercises is that every Native tribe and nation is unique and has different practices.
By decorating tipis (which only were used by Plains Indians), coloring headdresses
(again Plains Indians), and choosing an Indian name (usually some sort of animal,
which perpetuates the idea of Native Americans as “children of nature”), students
7
were learning from a very young age that cultural appropriation is acceptable. These
activities also show how Native Americans are portrayed, as being in the past and
that historical representation of Native Americans are the only authentic
representations. Brian Brayboy talks about the idea of visibility for Native
Americans in classrooms and adds to this idea of historical misrepresentations, “by
romanticizing Native people, visibility becomes a trap. This trap of visibility
ultimately arrests images of the “real Indians” in the past, and thus obliterates the
experiences and realities of present-‐day Indigenous peoples” (2003, p. 43).
Perpetuating misrepresentations shows a complete lack of cultural respectfulness
and it is a problem this is still widespread and often does more harm than good for
students and teachers.
I did not experience any of these discriminatory activities, but I was taught
that Christopher Columbus discovered America, that Thanksgiving was a time for
Native Americans and Pilgrims to come together and give thanks to one another,
that many Natives died on the Trail of Tears, and that the Battle of Little Big Horn
was the place where Custer fought gallantly. Being a young student I took these
versions of history as fact. During my junior year of high school, I took an AP US
history class. In this class, I was given my first and only in depth look at local Native
history. The two weeks my teacher dedicated to Indian history was not without its
faults, but there clearly was some thought and dedication that went into teaching
regional history. What I remember most about those few class periods was my
fellow classmates’ reactions to the curriculum. Most griped a majority of the time
about how this did not pertain to them and how it was a waste of time. To my
8
friends in the class, I was the token Native who should already know all of the
history and who they expected to ruin the curve on test day. Yes, I was the only
Native American in the class, but I got the exact same schooling as my peers until
that point.
All historical understanding, cultural or not, starts with an accurate and
comprehensive education. People are taught basic academic lessons through their
K-‐12 curriculum. The education system allots twelve years for a person to learn
subjects and lessons that they, ideally, will carry with them the rest of their life.
Beginning as students, people develop an understanding of others and make choices
through childhood teachings. Providing accurate, dependable, and respectful ways
of teaching certain subjects, like US history, is important when taking into
consideration the formation of societal appreciation and acceptance of marginalized
groups. This is especially relevant considering the focus of this thesis.
According to the 2010 census, South Dakota has a population of 844,877
people with 8.9% of them being of American Indian and/or Alaska Native descent.
Such a percentage does not seem like a huge representation when looked at in
comparison to the racial makeup of the rest of the state but that changes when
comparing it to the rest of the United States, which is made up of a 1.2% Native
population. In South Dakota approximately 75,000 people identify themselves as
Native American/American Indian. This is higher than any other minority group in
the state and yet very little, if anything is taught about these citizens. It is important
to teach more about diverse cultural groups, especially in South Dakota. Throughout
its 125 years of statehood, there has been ongoing racial tension and clashes
9
between the majority White and minority Native groups in South Dakota (Giago,
2012). Rapid City, the second biggest city in the state, was recently written up in an
article by Nick Estes in Indian Country Today (one of the biggest media networks
providing news from Indian country) giving it the nickname Racist City due to of all
the police brutality and general attitudes of hate designated towards Native
Americans. Not all issues surrounding majority and minority groups start with
insensitivity surrounding education, but K-‐12 schooling does have an impact and
effect on relationships within diverse communities.
This thesis investigates the questions: How are Native Americans
represented in South Dakota High School history textbooks? To what extent do the
textbooks used in South Dakota accurately and respectfully represent South Dakota
tribal history? In the teaching of these textbooks do teachers supplement or provide
additional materials? And in what ways do South Dakota teachers move beyond
teaching from the textbooks about Native Americans? When teaching Native
American history through textbooks in contemporary classrooms, there is an
abundance of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Even when, coverage of Native
American history occurs the quality of that coverage is usually lacking. One could
argue that Native Americans do not have as strong of influence in American history
as other minorities. Even if that were true (which it is not, just look at the trust
relationship between Natives and the government) it should at least be expected
that the role they do play is accurate and comprehensive. Students deserve more
than half-‐truths when it comes to learning the role Native Americans play in US
10
history, particularly in areas such as South Dakota, which are in no way lacking in
tribal history.
Literature Review
Changing Representations of Native Americans
Research on historical texts in secondary education tends to discover Native
Americans through a small window of sources. Based on my research the sources
tend to fall into two categories: the first being what is being misrepresented (e.g.,
books about educators teaching false history); the second being is how something is
being misrepresented (e.g., articles surrounding specific content analysis). Many
articles, books, and dissertations cite similar sources. This does not mean that all of
the sources are the same; source selection depends greatly on the specific topic at
hand. When looking at the representation of Native Indians in educational textbooks
there are many specific topics to take into consideration, for example, the time
frame, textbook grade level, states or areas, and information being inspected are all
important considerations. Despite these different distinctions one tends to find one
or two articles that are commonly examined in contemporary works, contemporary
defined here as the previous 20 years.
This literature review examines articles that focus on textual analysis and
books, which look at perspectives on teaching from historians. There is an ongoing
debate concerning what Indigenous tribes of the United States of America are to be
called. For the purpose of this thesis we will primarily designate them by the title of
Native American, only using Indian when quoted in certain texts. However, when
11
doing a search for articles it was important to look for ones including the use of
American Indian, because the terms for Indigenous Americans vary from author to
author.1 This literature review begins with why inaccurate histories are so harmful
to modern day Native Americans, which opens up the discussion of deception in
textbooks. This literature review finishes with how Native American history is being
misrepresented through articles of content analysis in different history textbooks.
Contemporary Understandings of Native Americans as Products of History
In the article, “Defining the Native: Local Print Media Coverage of the NMAI,” Akim
Reinhardt focuses on the media coverage surrounding the opening of the National
Museum of the American Indian in 2004. While this article does not have a direct
relation to Native Americans in US history books, Reinhardt’s analysis of the media
places understandings about Native Americans in a context that is grounded in
historical representations. Reinhardt examines news outlets such as the Washington
Post and Baltimore Sun and their attempts at accurately covering the new museum.
Reinhardt finds that the publications’ articles include underlying themes, which fall
into three categories: Exotica, Cultural Stasis and AHistory, and Non-‐Native Experts.
1 Most of the articles used were found through Google Scholar and the ERIC database. Those that were not found through these databases were referenced in the bibliographies of those that were. A general search of “Native American history” and “curriculum” was used along with “education.” Since there is very little written about specific Native American topics such as historical representations and textbooks the search had to be vague,. Thus the descriptors, education and curriculum were used. Like with Native American searches were conducted using “American Indian,” “curriculum,” and “history,” From these searches five articles were chosen based off of relevance to topic, incorporation of textbook analysis, and citations. Within the bibliographies of these articles one master’s thesis and one Ph.D. dissertation were found and used. Even though these articles might not be considered scholarly or hold substantial academic ground this researcher feels that it is important to include students’ viewpoints and research models. It is important because if their research isn’t considered adequate enough for scholarly review then the research in this thesis wouldn’t be either; it is important to bridge the gap between student and scholarly perspectives.
12
The use of the term “Exotica” refers to the author’s consistent reference of Native
Americans as romanticized beings. He writes,
Whether minor insertions in larger articles or dominant themes in coverage, the framing of Native peoples and cultures as exotica was a consistent occurrence in local print media coverage of the NMAI. It served to warp discussions of both the museum and Native peoples by suggesting a cartoonish or cinematic quality to them and generally undercut the legitimacy of the discourse by implying a sense of novelty. (2005, p. 453)
The use of certain phrases or words to describe the museum such as “noble” or
“artifact” (2005, p. 452) leads readers of these news articles to imagine Native
American identity as being exotic or foreign. This in turn frames Native Americans
in a way that does not allow for the acceptance of modernity into their
contemporary identity.
Cultural Stasis and AHistory is determined to mean that when writing and
exploring Native American existence “experts” are led to frame Native Americans in
a static perspective (2005, p. 453). Reinhardt makes the point that Native Americans
continually have to fit into certain stereotypical boxes in order to be seen as truly
being Native because “real Indians” are ones that hunt buffalo (2005, p. 454), wear
headdresses, and live in tipis. These stereotypes continue in many textbooks as a
mechanism for placing Native Americans into a generalized group, which is
discussed later within Zinn’s and Loewen’s works. Cultural generalization is a theme
that is used in many of these news articles to measure true Indianness, in
consequence this ends up portraying Native Americans as a population stuck in the
past with one typical history.
13
Reinhardt goes on to explain how the Native voice is not promoted as being
authentic enough for scholarly debate, (again further analyses will be explored in
the next section with Mihesuah’s work on Indigenous voices in the academy).
Renhardt calls this Non-‐Native Experts. The narrative of the museum is confirmed
through the incorporation of scholars, without Native heritage, who are able to
sufficiently encompass Native ideology about the museum. Native Americans are not
seen as a reputable source for Native American issues because apparently their
insights do not adequately put certain concepts in context for the article’s
readership (2005, p. 459). It is like saying people who are not Native can only
understand Natives through the narrative of people like them. This is completely
inaccurate and frankly, a biased way of writing.
Philip Deloria relates a similar sentiment in his book Playing Indian when he
references the use of Native American imagery during the Boston Tea Party. A
moment in American History heavily covered in US textbooks but very rarely
documenting the Native American point of view. He makes the point that Americans
are able to understand and change their identity through the control and
appropriation of Native American identities. This might not have direct implications
to those taking aspects of the identity (besides the obvious internalization and
historical progression of ignorance) but for the Native Americans, whose identity is
being mistreated this appropriation directly affects them.
The taking of a person’s cultural identity is based upon the premise that
certain identities aren’t fixed to those who naturally inhabit them, they are aspects
of one’s personality that can be confiscated and molded to fit those who believe they
14
have the right to obtain them. “Indianness provided impetus and precondition for
the creative assembling of an ultimately American identity” (1998, p. 5). American
society is interpreting Indianness through an outside lens just like the news articles
are showing Native American narratives through non-‐Native anecdotes. Similarly
Reinhardt looks at the use of exotic as a term for glamorization but also as a means
of designating Native Americans as “others” in society. Deloria defines the term
noble savagery as “a term that both juxtaposes and conflates an urge to idealize and
desire Indians and a need to despise and dispossess them” (1998, p. 4). Even though
these terms might no longer be used in contemporary textbooks, their influence is
still apparent as seen later through O’Neill’s work. In both these works there is this
push and pull between Native Americans as something to be admired but also as
something to resist.
When it comes to playing Indian this notion has stemmed from the desire to
be connected to something/ someone is considered to be naturalistic. Reinhardt
uses the words “romanticized” and “sentimentalized” (2005, p. 451) in relation to
this idea. Deloria says “Indians represented spiritual experiences beyond
representation” (1998, p. 168) which instills this idea of some sort of otherness
attached to the Native American identity and to those wanting to encompass it as
their own. It is not just an outward curiosity to the culture but also an inward
attraction to the Native self. Native Americans are somewhat foreigners to modern-‐
day “Americans” because their very culture and traditions are not widely shared.
Very little is taught about them and what is taught most of the time is not even
accurate. Indian Country Today has an entire article on inaccuracies taught in grade
15
school surrounding Native Americans, a few of which being that Pocahontas was
actually about 8 years old when John Smith arrived in the New World and that John
Rolfe was actually her second husband (Schilling, 2014, p. 1). Another being that
President Lincoln was actually the one who signed off on the largest execution in US
history that involved the public hanging of 38 Dakota men (Schilling, 2014). This
history paints a very different picture of a president who is seen as a pioneer for
racial equality. The point being that so little is known about who Native Americans
really are and what they stand for that historical stereotypes are easily constructed
in the American eye, like that of the “noble savage” or “children of nature,” to the
extent that they become the rule and not the exception.
In another book, Indians in Unexpected Places, P. Deloria sets up a historical
presence in which the stereotypical Native American is created. By starting with this
idea of a Native American that continuously rebels against the government and
never really conforms, as seen through textual representations of the Indian Wars
(e.g., Battle of Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek Massacre). He shows how
a lot of these stereotypes are deeply rooted in the history of the people. He uses the
story of Plenty Horses as an example in the chapter “Violence” to show that even
with a westernized presence in the Native identity there is still some sort of inner
connection to nonconformity. The stereotype of the “Fighting Indian” has been
fueled and perpetuated through stories such as Plenty Horse’s and throughout
popular media. Deloria says, “Literature, film, art, television, and other media have
often invoked violence in order to stage extended mediations, justifications, and
celebrations of non-‐Indian, American violence” (2004, p. 49). This stereotype has
16
less to do with the actual character of Native Americans and more to do with feeding
the ego of American integrity because there is a distinct difference between
portraying a Native person as a bad guy and showing them simply defending
themselves. Historical representations and stereotypes of Native Americans affect
so much about contemporary ideology of Native Americans. In order for people to
understand and accept accurate Native American history they must comprehend
where textbooks fail in teaching history.
Writing About How American History is taught
In Indigenizing the Academy, Devon Mihesuah asks, “Should American Indian History
Remain a Field of Study?” In a chapter dedicated to this question, she examines the
dilemma from a scholar’s perspective surrounding whether recent writings on
American Indian history are beneficial given that most of what is written is
documented through a westernized lens. She asks, “why can’t we see more
collections of papers devoted to the historical reason why Natives are in their
current situations” (2004, p. 144). This question is relevant when looking at the
teaching of US history because it is the very history, as it is taught, that has helped to
influence situations and hardships that Natives face today. “Life today for many
Natives is lived as colonized peoples who continue to be stereotyped, discriminated
against, and kept impoverished by subtle and blatant policies and behaviors that
also occurred historically” (2004, p. 145-‐146). In order for the present quality of life
to improve, the past needs to be taught with accurate and respectful texts, even the
parts that Westernized cultures would rather not dwell upon.
17
Sanchez said “utilizing Native authors for textbooks may ultimately be the
best suggestion if cultural/historical accuracy is the goal” (2007, p. 8). Which may be
true, though Mihesuah argues that it is the Native voice that needs to be heard not
just the history. She says, “Historians who do not include Native voices and
perspectives about their versions of the past tell readers that Native voices are not
important or necessary” (2004, p. 151). Merely using Native authors does not fully
address the issues; rather Native authors need to be able to step outside the
westernized box that contains Native history and contribute personal/familial
narratives of history in order to really begin discussions on accurate and
appropriate representations of Native history. Mihesuah further addresses the issue
of usefulness in teaching Native American history, “knowledge of the past is crucial
for understanding treaty rights and land claims and ultimately is indispensable to
keeping Native cultures alive” (2004, p. 155).
Indian Country Today Media Network (ICTMN) does a good job of describing
what Mihesuah suggests in terms of the incorporation of Native American
perspectives. This network featured materials concerning what educators need to
realize before they teach Native American history. Vincent Schilling’s article in
Indian Country Today, “5 Things Educators Should Know Before Teaching Native
Culture and History,” provides an interesting perspective on the inaccuracy in
textbooks that teach Native American history. He writes, “we are not saying it is
necessary to share horrible details with children, however, we do believe teachers
should be aware of the truth when teaching any history of this country” (2014).
Schilling provides a few historical narratives that most educators teach incorrectly.
18
The first being that “Columbus Was Not a Hero and He Never Landed in the United
States” which is detailed more in the next section on Howard Zinn’s writing. The
second being “The Real Story of the First Thanksgiving” in which he examines the
account of the first Thanksgiving by using the anecdote of William Bradford in order
to provide a more realistic history of pilgrim and Indian relations. The third
perspective he provides is one on Pocahontas and how Disney got it drastically
wrong. He finishes his article on a more culturally relevant note. Even though it does
not relate to tribal history he thinks it is important for teachers to know that when
people appropriate Native American culture through the wearing of sacred regalia it
is offensive and something that should be addressed when teaching history. Cultural
appropriation does find its way in history in that historical stereotypes are the
reason behind the acceptance and tolerance of cultural appropriation.
Most commonly it is in the classroom that these historical stereotypes are
perpetuated. Through the mis-‐teaching of these more known histories, Native
American misrepresentation can be seen. A reader must keep in mind that these
alternative histories are being written and published by a primarily Native
American news network, so their inclination would be to promote histories that are
more accurate in relation to Native Americans. This is not to say that all of what they
are writing is completely 100% factual but it only makes sense for Native Americans
to want, in general, to represent Native American narratives in the most authentic
light as possible. The same can be seen in another article by ICTMN in which Vincent
Schilling discusses 8 Big Lies History Books Tell About Natives.
19
In this article Schilling again restates the fact that Columbus never even landed
in what would be considered present day America. The incorporation of Columbus
is important because the first thing so many students learn about Native Americans
is through Columbus even though he never really met with continental Native
Americans. He again describes the mis-‐narrative of Pocahontas because, like
Columbus, her story is one that is often misread. Schilling goes on to discuss
Thanksgiving, and Racial Stereotypes (what really is a R*dskin?). History books tend
to leave out the real historical meaning behind the racial slur. Schilling discusses
how history books tend to leave out the detail of the hanging of the Dakota 38. He
also discusses how Hitler studied reservations to gather inspiration for Jewish
encampments of WWII (Schilling, 2014).
Schilling asserts that how Native Americans are seen as an entity instead of
as individuals. He believes it is important to teach students that Native Americans
are represented through 566 different federally recognized tribes. Schilling ends
this work by talking about relations between African Americans and Native
Americans and underscores that Native Americans were some of the first slaves in
America. Obviously more extensive research needs to be conducted to investigate
the accuracy of these histories, but it is worth noting that Schilling is a Native
American scholar with published books surrounding Native American identity. His
writings of historical accounts are supported by many different distinguished
sources. What all these historical perspectives have in common is that history is
usually portrayed in a way that benefits the US mainstream majority. Minorities in
US history curricula are usually highly misrepresented, especially in the case of
20
Native Americans. More needs to be done in representing these vast historical
accounts, whether it be Columbus’ journey or Pocahontas’ life story.
Zinn gives a detailed and studied account of the history that is lacking in the
American educational system. In his chapter dedicated to the finding of America and
western expansion he starts with the George Orwell quote, “Who controls the past,
controls the future. And who controls the present controls the past.” From this
quote he is setting the reader up to understand history as seen through the eyes of
its present day writers. The beginning half of the chapter details Zinn’s
understanding of the story of Columbus, not as the heroic explorer who found
America but as the man who forced labor on thousands of Indigenous people, whose
lands he pillaged and people he murdered. Zinn paints a bleak picture on a part of
history most often taught as being triumphant. With this, Zinn is showcasing how a
critical point in US history is distorted.
Zinn addresses one of the issues that educators, parents, policy makers, etc.
talk about when teaching negative history in a positive light: “The argument about
children ‘not being ready to hear the truth’ does not account for the fact that in
American society, when the children grow up, they still are not told the truth” (2011,
p. 188). Those in the American school system cannot rely on false histories being
corrected through their transition into adulthood. He goes on to convey how these
histories are being justified. “The dehumanization of the “enemy” has been a
necessary accompaniment to wars of conquest. It is easier to explain atrocities if
they are committed against infidels, or people of an inferior race” (2011, p. 194).
When it comes to Native Americans, Zinn does not outright say that people view
21
them as part of an inferior race but historically speaking Native Americans are
typically discussed in terms of being a primitive people and/or “savages.” It really is
no surprise that the conquest, oppression, and crimes committed against them have
been justified or accepted. Loewen, in his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, goes into
detail about this superior way of thinking:
How people think about the past is an important part of their consciousness. If members of the elite come to think that their privilege was historically justified and earned, it will be hard, to persuade them to yield opportunity to others. (1995, p. 268)
Loewen and Zinn are both speaking to how American history has arrived at where
it is today by putting emphasis on class complexes within historical representations.
Zinn does a fair job of showing what is wrong with this specific history and his
multiple works on history and education are very well-‐known.
However, Zinn’s writing highlights issues of writing history. Sam Wineburg
analyzes Zinn’s A People’s History. He finds that though what Zinn says about people
being taught inaccurate histories within school settings might be true, that does not
make the accounts that Zinn uses of historical events completely grounded in
sufficient evidence or unbiased. When discussing Zinn’s assertion that World War II
would have ended differently for Japan had America “not insisted on unconditional
surrender,” Wineburg explains, “not only is Zinn certain about the history that’s
happened. He’s certain about the history that didn’t” (2012-‐2013, p. 32). This
jumping to conclusions that Wineburg highlights can be seen in Howard Zinn on
History: “When students discover that in the very first history they learn – the story
of Columbus-‐they have not been told the whole truth, it leads to a healthy
skepticism about all of their historical education” (2011, p. 201). Zinn uses
22
viewpoints from a few students who learned about various perspectives of the
history of Columbus and from them he came to the conclusion above. Even though
the ideas from the students all followed the same pattern of feeling duped by the
school system that does not mean that those reactions apply to all students. Yes Zinn
makes interesting points concerning how students interpret history, but his
overgeneralizations need to be acknowledged.
Wineburg makes an important point when discussing Zinn’s use of sources;
he explains the opinions of a few do not constitute to the attitudes of the many. Zinn
makes an overgeneralization when discussing how the Black community felt
resentment and resistance when enlisting in World War II. On this front Wineburg is
quick to note that Zinn “[generalizes] nearly 13 million people by citing three
anecdotes, while at the same time ignoring data about 2,427,495 eligible black
registrants, is a yes-‐type question in its purest form” (2012-‐2013, p. 29). Loewen
seems to agree with this sentiment saying, “textbooks rarely present the various
sides of historical controversies and almost never reveal to students the evidence on
which each side bases its position” (1995, p. 265). Zinn could possibly agree with
Wineburg and Loewen, but it appears that he concerns himself with the inaccuracies
taught through textbooks and then he provides inaccuracies himself in his own
narratives on certain historical events. This might have to do with the idea that,
when writing about history, it is important to realize that the time in which it is
written very much dictates how people understand certain events. Wineburg writes,
“Too often, whether or not we like someone’s politics determines whether or not we
like their history. Many of us find ourselves reading the present onto the past,
23
especially with issues we care about deeply” (2012-‐2013, p. 33). Historians tend to
find what they are looking for in history if they frame their questions to cater to the
answers they are looking for, this is what Wineburg means when he is referring to
yes-‐type questions. Even though Zinn highlights a point of history that is not
represented in textbooks (Black involvement and attitudes toward WWII) that does
not mean his anecdotes are completely accurate themselves. This could very well be
seen in textbooks when examining certain instances in history; framing historical
insights in ways that benefits one side of history over another in the hopes of being
“politically accurate” or sustaining historical objectiveness.
The biggest take away from Wineburg’s article is his emphasis on students’
abilities to understand history. He says they must question it and learn how to
analyze it for themselves. He shows that even though Zinn talks about history as
being inaccurately represented, he does not provide any sort of discussion on
students evaluating it for themselves. Instead, Zinn administers his own
understandings of historical events. Wineburg goes on to say, “In many ways, A
People’s History and traditional textbooks are mirror images that relegate students
to similar roles as absorbers—not analysts—of information” (2012-‐2013, p. 32). To
understand history one must question what they are taught about it, because
history is taught through the eyes of the present day interpretation of it.
Surprisingly enough Zinn and Wineburg appear to agree on one thing,
“Americans like their narratives clean” (2012-‐2013, p. 33). The way in which
American history is represented is inaccurate but why it is represented the way it
has been is a completely different discussion. Loewen explains,
24
Special pressures in the world of textbook publishing may account to some extent for the uniformity and dullness of American history textbooks. Almost half the states have textbook adoption boards. Some of these boards function explicitly as censors, making sure that books not only meet criteria for length, coverage, and reading level, but also that they avoid topics and treatments that might offend some parents. (1995, p. 271)
All one has to do is look at a recent debate in Colorado to understand why certain
histories are chosen. In Jefferson County, Colorado, there have recently been
changes in the curriculum for 10th grade US history. Julie Williams, a board member
in Jefferson County, best described that these changes “present positive aspects of
the United States and its heritage” and “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials
and benefits of the free enterprise system” (Lane, 2014). Concurrently the AP
history curriculum added two timeframes of history that must be covered in order
for a county’s AP US history courses to be recognized by the College Board. One of
the new subjects includes Native American and European settler’s relations
between 1491 and 1607 and the other focuses on topics of social conservatism,
abortion, terrorism after 9/11 and shifts in demography and the economy between
1980 and the present (2014, Washington Post). Jefferson County’s pushback can be
understood through the framework of how they idealized curriculum on history.
In 1925 the American Legion declaimed that the ideal textbooks: . . . . must inspire children with patriotism . . . must be careful to tell the truth optimistically . . .must dwell on failure only for its value as a moral lesson, must speak chiefly of success . . . must give each State and Section full space and value for the achievements of each. (Loewen, 1995, pp. 265-‐266)
Given these guidelines, it is easy to see how the proposed topics do not fit in the
classroom. It is fair to say that countless students and teachers were upset about
their school system’s plan to push back at the new regulations. This occurrence is an
example as to why certain history is taught and why other history is not. This idea of
25
“American exceptionalism” is one that is prominent in the K-‐12 school system. In the
long run, however, it is only hurting students. By only providing clean narratives,
students get only half the story, and those halves might not even be accurate.
Loewen’s raises an interesting point when discussing the publisher’s
involvement when writing historical textbooks. He writes, “in American history,
even more than in literature, publishers strive for a “balanced” approach to offend
no one” (1995, p. 275). “Balanced” in this case is meant to mean objective, but as
described above narratives in textbooks tend to favor the side that promotes
American patriotism. Loewen also examines how little textbooks have changed
throughout the past decades: “publishers tend to innovate more than authors, so
although new editions may have new looks and even new bibliographies, they rarely
have much new historical content” (1995, p. 276). In full, just because the look of
something changes does not mean that the actual content does. He also makes the
point that “teachers cannot teach that which they do not know” (1995, p. 280). He
goes on to discuss how this directly affects students and how they come to
understand and question history:
Teachers rarely say ‘I don’t know’ in class and rarely discuss how one might then find the answer. ‘I don’t know’ violates a norm. The teacher, like the textbook, is supposed to know. Students for their part, are supposed to learn what teachers and textbook authors already know. (1995, p. 281)
Again, we have this divide that Zinn and Wineburg are talking about in terms of only
getting half the narrative. Teachers are provided with guidelines in how to instruct
students when learning from a historical textbook but what they are not given is
materials on how to advance students’ perception of these textbooks through
analysis and questioning. Students often will take what the teacher teaches them as
26
fact and teachers teach the history in textbooks as if it is completely accurate.
Teachers need to be more comfortable not having all of the answers and, in turn,
students need to be taught the skills to question and break down components of a
textbook because as it is seen now, textbooks are not reliable sources. “Only in
history is accuracy so political” (Loewen, 1995, p. 286). The responsibility of
accurate teaching not only lies in the textbooks but also lies with the teachers and
how they teach and discuss the subject within the texts, this is examined in chapter
three.
Textual Analyses of American History
In “The Depiction of Native Americans in Recent (1991–2004) Secondary American
History Textbooks: How Far Have We Come?,” Tony Sanchez examines the reliability
of the representations of Native Americans in 15 textbooks of American history used
in secondary and higher education in the Midwest. He does this in part by utilizing a
numbered value system. These values are taken from Native American cultural
beliefs called the Five Great Values. “The Values include: generosity and sharing;
respect for elders and women; getting along with nature; individual freedom and
leadership; and courage” (2007, p. 313). Measuring portrayals of pictures/photos,
stereotyping, respectful language, tokenism, historical distortion and/or omission,
lifestyle, and gender roles, Sanchez further simplifies these values. Sanchez states
that the expectation that all these values would be met in a singular textbook is
highly unlikely and therefore in the examination of these texts the incorporation of
all values should not be anticipated.
Sanchez assigned the texts, in relations to the values, a number on a scale
27
from zero to five; zero being the least sufficient representations and five being the
most. It is important to note that though a text could get a score of five that did not
mean that the textbooks had fully accurate and respectful representations of
history. Rather, it simply meant that the text did an acceptable job of integrating, at
minimum, four of the five values previously stated. The results of the study found
that out of the 15 books initially reviewed three received a score of four, four texts
received a three, three received a two, and five received a score of one. On average
most texts received either a three or a four, which is considered a moderate level of
information represented. It is troubling that five books received a one for obvious
reasons. If textbooks can’t even moderately represent Native American history what
can be said about other histories they are teaching?
Sanchez goes on to examine common trends in the texts, including famous
Native figures, Native Americans battles, and historical occurrences. He looks at how
each text introduces chapters pertaining to Native history. Most started with an
overview with information that varied from comprehensive to brief and vague. He
also found commonality in the lack of depth shown in every textbook toward
representations of modern day Natives, how the texts represent Native religious
practices (primitive), origin stories (Bering Strait), and how the wording used
portrays Native Americans as being in the past. The collective thread between all
these issues is the lack of Native voices. In order to write about Native Americans it
is ideal to actually talk with Native Americans and incorporate their voices and their
perspective on history as stated in Reinhardt and Mihesuah’s works. Sanchez
focuses on educators and not solely on publishers. “The key is to influence those
28
who adopt the textbooks rather than those who publish them” (2007, p. 317)
because the teachers and administrators in the state are usually the ones who
decide what textbooks to use. By influencing teachers publishers are directly
influenced because teachers are not going to choose books that they know are
misrepresentative (hopefully). However, he writes that authors of the textbooks
have an obligation: “the fact remains that authors have a responsibility to produce
an accurate text that offers fair treatment of the topic, while publishers need to be
taken to task for the same reason regardless of financial arguments” (2007, p. 316).
Sanchez’s main effort is to promote clear, accurate, and extensive representations of
Native people, even though it might be difficult or burdensome to reevaluate the
methods used for choosing information it is an urgency to do so in order to
respectfully teach and learn about Native history.
Like Sanchez, Michael Simpson, in “American Indians at Wounded Knee in
Current U.S. History High School Textbooks: Discourse Analysis Using the
APPRAISAL JUDGMENT System,” looks at textbooks. Simpson introduces the idea
that when authors write about history, it is not only what they write about
(quantity) but how they write about it (quality) that matters when it come to
cultural competency. Where Sanchez looked more at the quantity of history books
and how much was incorporated in them on a holistic scale, Simpson focuses on one
historical instance (Wounded Knee) and evaluates the vocabulary that is used in
relating the information. Much of what Simpson discusses is how these texts are
viewed. He focuses on the perspective of the student doing the reading and how
vocabulary in the text has an effect on how Native Americans are represented
29
throughout history. He does this by using an Appraisal Judgment analysis based
upon the APPRAISAL System developed by Caroline Coffins’ and a group of
researchers. Simpson describes “judgment” as having to do “with resources that
express feelings about ethical behavior” (2010, p. 2). As he goes through key words
or phrases in excerpts from the text and identifies them, his findings suggest that
there is biased writing when it comes to historical textbooks. Simpson’s findings
about this particular event in history are as follows:
Great similarity is seen in the textual descriptions of the same historical event in the two textbooks. The recorder voice makes the text appear to be merely an objective statement of what really happened. However, invoked judgment is negative for the Sioux and mostly positive for the government. Negatives against the government are reduced by attribution or by the larger context and both accounts continue the manifest destiny theme that justified genocide. (2012, p. 8)
Simpson and Sanchez both make important points about quantity vs. quality.
American history textbooks, they show, need more holistic measures when it comes
to educating students on past occurrences, in particular to Native Americans.
Educational resources, such as history books, are supposed to be as objective as
possible in accounting for American history. It is however perplexing to find that
though outright subjectivity is not initially noticed it still can be detected when
taking a closer look at how certain events are being described. Authors of American
history textbooks have a tendency to generalize Native American identity and
history so as to be seen through one specific lens as seen in Simpson’s article when
he shows that when you add just one word to a sentence it can change its meaning
drastically; for example when discussing the Wounded Knee Massacre saying
“Native Americans were unarmed” compared to “Native Americans were mostly
30
unarmed.” The addition of this one word adds justification for action (2010, p. 7)
and implies to the reader that the 7th cavalry were not in the wrong. Now it does not
say explicitly that their actions can be rationalized just that there might have been
an acceptable excuse for force. This subtle difference shows the lack of
objectiveness, and this is why the incorporation of various integrated histories is
important and educators need to know it is important how one talks and discusses
these histories because as, Simpson shows, objectivity is not a given.
Journell, like Simpson and Sanchez, uses content analysis of historical
textbooks to hypothesize that Native Americans are misrepresented and lacking in
representation in school curriculum, the same is done with the textbooks I analyze
in chapter three. He takes it a step further when examining how states as individuals
can incorporate local tribal history into their curriculum. He does this by looking at
nine state’s curriculum content in middle and high school. The nine states he
examines are California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. He chose these states because of their collective
diversity of geography and politics (2009, p. 22). His goal is to understand why
certain narratives are or are not included in each curriculum in relation to Native
Americans. Journell evaluates the nine states based on their incorporation of nine
different historical events or happenings that are important to teaching Native
American history. These events in relation to Native American involvement are, loss
of land/death by disease from settlers, as part of the French and Indian War,
American Revolution, Trail of Tears/forced relocation, Federal Indian policies,
Indian Wars, Tribal distinctions, Societal/Military contributions, and Modern
31
American Indian issues. His findings on the incorporation of these events were as
followed, three of the nine states mentioned loss of land/death by disease from
settlers. Four of nine mentioned Native Americans being part of the French and
Indian War. No states incorporated Native American contribution during the
American Revolution. Eight states discussed the Trail of Tears and/or forced
relocation. Five of the nine examined Federal Indian Policies. Two mentioned
Indians Wars. Five incorporated tribal distinctions. Only one discussed the
societal/military contributions by Native Americans and only one gave mention to
modern Native American issues. Textbooks from Oklahoma and Virginia were found
as the most inclusive of American Indian history. Of the nine he looked at each
textbook respectfully utilized five of the nine events noted above into their
curriculum. However, like Sanchez found, just because these texts were the most
concise does not make them completely accurate and/or fairly represented; “not
only does the lack of a modern American Indian focus fail to explain to students
what happened to tribes after the Trail of Tears, but it perpetually leaves American
Indians in a victimized light” (2009, p. 25). He also found “the states often represent
American Indians as a singular entity within their standards, rarely delineating
content as tribe-‐specific” (2009, p. 24). This goes to show that there is a common
occurrence of generalization of Native Americans as one entity, to which all Native
American history. Journell argues that states have a duty to their students and to
local tribes when it comes to representation and education.
In order to provide a complete history, states should start their instruction at the true beginning and describe how life in that state existed prior to European settlement . . . the deficiencies in how standards are representing
32
American Indians need to be addressed by their respective states in order to form a more coherent and realistic portrait of the American Indian/Alaska Native historical narrative. (2009, p. 26-‐27)
By putting the focus on the state, Journell is able to argue that it is the teacher’s and
school’s duty to students to provide a holistic narrative. The incorporation of
various viewpoints is important when talking about their utilization in the
classroom. He says this unification of varying history is all in the hope of advancing a
student’s understanding of tribal relations and accurate depictions of Native
Americans in order to support society’s development and awareness of minority
history and its relevance in the classroom.
Through an examination of these articles, which consider textbooks from the
last two decades, I provide an integrated approach to how textbooks have changed.
It is essential to include textbook analysis from more than 20 years ago as a way of
showing the development in representation over various years. O’Neill analyzes
various sources, who write about Native Americans, in order to provide some
conclusive evidence of how Native Americans are being understood through
historical representation. He interprets the research of Jackson (1976), Garcia
(1978), Coburn (1979), Garcia (1980), Wilson (1980), Decore, Carney and Urion
(1982), Hull, Knight and Barnett, (1982), Ferguson and Fleming, (1984), Fulford
(1984), and O'Neill (1984). In all, O’Neill considered 10 critical works, which
included dozens of elementary to college historical textbooks used in the 70s to the
80s, spanning from North America to Canada. O’Neill found that throughout the
books, Native Americans are constantly misrepresented. O’Neill concluded that
“most accounts of the North American Indian remain disjointed, distorted and
33
incomplete” and that “the Indian continues to be portrayed in extreme, simplistic,
stereotypical roles” (1987). This goes back to the section at the beginning of this
review exploring how historical stereotypes influence contemporary knowledge.
O’Neill also discuss this idea of contradictions within textbooks. He says “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” (1987). This was a common occurrence in many of the textual analysis
O’Neill cites. Conclusively much more needs to be done to adequately and
respectfully represent Native American history in the most authentic way as
possible. A few textbooks showed that Native American history has improved
slightly but advancement in history is not the same as comprehensive accuracy.
Stepping into the position of a student writing about Native history, and
going back to contemporary analysis, Emma Schmitter’s masters research project on
“Native American History and Perspectives in United States History Textbooks” and
Depree Shadowwalker’s dissertation, “Where Have All the Indians Gone? American
Indian Representation in Secondary History Textbooks” provides a much needed
perspective of American history throughout much of the early 2000s. Like Simpson
and Sanchez, Schmitter and Shadowwalker both carry out research on US history
textbooks. Schmitter uses two elementary levels , two middle school level, and two
high school level texts. Schmitter chose the books she analyzes based on two
criteria, the publisher and the incorporation of specific Native American content
between 1830 and 1876. From there she looked at five particular events important
to Native American history and how, or if, they were discussed in the readings. She
34
also examines how questions surrounding the information were presented to
students and how their critical thinking was challenged. Her conclusion was as
follows:
The textbooks in this study generally failed to include multiple perspectives but rather mostly provided a one-‐sided perspective leading students to make inaccurate assumptions about important historical events. (2013, p. 48)
Continuing, she adds,
The findings also suggest a prevalent lack of complexity and sophistication. The textbook information failed to demand deeper and more sophisticated understandings at higher-‐grade levels . . . The descriptions were dull, offered little to no opportunities to engage in historical empathy, and provide little, if any, incentive to engage with the content. (2013, p. 49)
Schmitter echoes Sanchez’s idea of educator intervention when it comes to the texts
they will be teaching, “teachers should be aware of the shortcomings of social
studies textbooks and make a deliberate effort to provide supplementary lesson
materials rather than solely rely on the textbook” (2013, p. 52).
Shadowwalker had similar conclusions to Schmitter, Simpson, and Sanchez.
He looked at eight US high school textbooks used in the Southwest in order to
examine the representation of Native Americans. He also looked at what was left out
of the history and, like Simpson, he commented upon how objective the writing was.
After various evaluation tests and methodology some of Shadowwalker’s findings
showed that “critical discourse analysis found Indians to be referenced in general
terms as one racial group,” also “American Indians’ status as sovereign nations
within the US was never addressed,” and lastly “terms or discourse to describe
nation-‐to-‐nation relationships were not clearly identified.” (2012, p. 103).
35
Shadowwalker’s approach to looking at these textbooks was less extensive
than the others, but the results were largely the same. Native Americans were
portrayed in unfavorable conditions in comparison to their White counterparts. All
four articles found that most textbooks examined carried a similar pattern of
misrepresentation of Native Americans. When looking at these articles one can see
that Native Americans, on average, are not given proper and respectful historical
treatment. Most Natives are viewed as a conquered primitive race that history
appears to have been forgotten. Their huge and important contribution to the
American identity has been ignored.
36
Chapter 2
Methodology: The Study of Textbooks
This thesis uses two modes of assessment, text analysis and teacher interviews, to
examine and discuss how textbooks used in South Dakota represent local tribes.
Through these modes of discussion surrounding Native American history, I explore
how accurately, objectively, and respectfully each textbook portrays specific events.
The first section of the analysis chapter provides historical background,
which is defined as the history of the area and surrounding tribes. I give a brief
background about what happened in South Dakota that is important to US history.
One of the main points that I review is what is being taught about Natives in the
area, the Oceti Sakowin or Seven Council Fires. These Native peoples are designated
by three nations, which include the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota. These groups are
represented in South Dakota but they also derive from surrounding areas (Montana
and North Dakota). Thus, it is important to note that just because this thesis will
focus on South Dakota that does not mean other areas outside the state will not be
included. Although this thesis does not spotlight each individual nation, the
importance lies in of the collective history of these tribes in and around South
Dakota, primarily how tribal history and state history relates to US history. The
background section of this thesis is relevant because it provides a starting point to
my textual analysis.
I look at three textbooks and one primary source book used in the South
Dakota school curriculum during the last 30 to 40 years. The textbooks I analyze are
as follows:
37
▪ Karolevitz, R. (1975). Challenge: The South Dakota story. Sioux Falls,
SD: Brevet Press. (Primary Source Book)
▪ Danzer, G., Klor de Alva, J., Krieger, L., Wilson, L., & Wilson, N.
(1998). The Americans. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell/Houghton
Mifflin.
▪ Lapsansky-‐Werner, E., Levy, P., Roberts, R., & Taylor, A. (2010). United
States History: Reconstruction to the Present. Boston, MA:
Pearson/Prentice Hall. (Supplementary Text)
▪ Appleby, J., Brinkley, A., Broussard, A., McPherson, J., Ritchie, D., &
Zike, D. (2008). The American Vision: Modern Times. Columbus, OH:
Glencoe/McGraw-‐Hill.
I found these books through the consultation of various individuals in Rapid City,
South Dakota. The current textbook used in the Rapid City area, The American
Vision, I found through outreach to the local board of education. A teacher at Rapid
City Central High School provided the titles of two past texts, The Americans and
United States History – Reconstruction to the Present. I chose these books because of
their use in the school system in the past decade. Other teachers in the Rapid City
School District confirmed that they recognized the titles, though they did not
necessarily use them in their own classroom. A retired history teacher provided the
fourth title. The difficulty with this particular title is that it is not a traditional
textbook but was published and printed in South Dakota specifically for South
Dakota studies classes. I chose to include it in the analysis because, even though it
38
might not be specifically a textbook, it was still refereed to as a main source in South
Dakota history classes.
Within these textbooks five major historical events are examined that are
influential to South Dakota tribal and state history. These events are looked at in
chronological order from oldest to most recent. The events are as follows:
1. The Ft. Laramie Treaty 1868
2. The Battle of Little Bighorn, June 25 – 26, 1876
3. Wounded Knee Massacre, December 29, 1890
4. Lakota Code Talkers, World War II,. 1940s
5. Wounded Knee Takeover (also known as the Wounded Knee Incident),
February 27, 1973
Table 1. The five historical events for analysis of the textbooks, 1868-‐1973.
Date Event Tribe Region Key Figures
1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868
Sioux-Brule, Oglala, Mnicoujou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, San Arcs, and Santee-and Arapaho
Signed at Fort Laramie, Wyoming Territory
1876 Battle of Little Big Horn; Custer’s Last Stand; Battle of Greasy Grass
Hunkpapa, Blackfoot, Sans Arc, Mnicoujou, Oglala, Brulé, Cheyenne
Valley of the Greasy Grass, Montana Territory
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and General George Armstrong Custer
1890 Wounded Knee Massacre
Hunkpapa and Mnicoujou
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota
Spotted Elk (Big Foot) and 7th Calvary
1940s Lakota Code Talkers Lakota Stationed at various locations during the war
1973 Wounded Knee Takeover; Incident at Wounded Knee
Members of various tribes throughout the nation
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota
Russell Means, Dennis Banks, Clyde Bellecourt and Richard Wilson
39
These historical happenings are examined using three different criteria the first
being a word count of these events in comparison to similar events in US history,
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Battle of Antietam, Sand Creek Massacre, Navajo Code
Talkers, and Greensboro Sit-‐Ins. There is no way to determine that the events being
compared are equal or identical but they are included as a way of showing how
much of a certain event in history might be covered; a way of putting historical
Native events into perspective when looking at other major historical events. The
second method of critique is whether the events are even present in the textbooks
and, if so, are the facts presented accurately and correctly. The third method
examines whether Native Americans are being discussed with accurate/equal
representation throughout these five events. Particularly whether bias is being
shown when reviewing the history in relation to Native Americans. I also utilize an
outside source to check my biases in coding. I sent this outside coder an excerpt
from each text along with my coding chart and asked him to use this chart to analyze
the different sections of the texts. His codes will be included in certain sections
when relevant.
While coding the textbooks I find that each has its positives and negatives
when it comes to certain subjects in United States history. This analysis is not meant
to acknowledge one text as being better than another but is more of a tool to show
how certain parts of Native American history are being portrayed. As previously
mentioned, teachers in the Rapid City School District provided me with all four
titles. Rapid City is the second largest town in South Dakota, with a population of
40
70,812 (US Census Bureau, 2014), and by being so it has one of the highest
population of high school students in the state (Niche, 2015).
Upon starting my analysis of the textbooks and interviewing teachers, I
discovered that teachers often augmented textbooks with additional primary and
secondary sources. Some teachers only use the textbook; some hardly ever use it.
However, the actual classroom implementation of textbooks is not the primary focus
of this thesis but rather, simply what is being represented in the textbooks’ content.
The textbooks’ copyright dates range from 1975 to 2010. The 2010 textbook
was provided as a supplementary text, meaning the most current primary text the
teachers I interviewed are provided with is the 2008 The American Vision text. The
1975 book, Challenge: The South Dakota Story, is not, in the traditional sense, a
textbook but a paperback used as the main source in South Dakota Studies courses,
which are no longer implemented in the state. For the purpose of this thesis, we will
refer to all four of the books as classroom textbooks.
The mode of analysis for all four textbooks is through descriptive and
interpretive codes (Appendix A). The codes I use I established myself. I used the
coding in the other articles in a more generalized sense, an example would be one of
the articles looks at either positive or negative connotations with textbook phrasing,
similarly I have a code that is called “displacing responsibility” which looks at
phrases that appear to justify certain actions or place blame elsewhere. The
descriptive codes consist of what titles Native Americans are given throughout the
readings; whether they are referred to as Sioux compared to Lakota, Dakota, Nakota,
or were referred to by the actual names of the tribes within these groups. I also
41
examine whether the textbook provides names for the Native Americans they are
referencing (i.e., Sitting Bull, Dee Brown, Russell Means, etc.). I briefly look at how
the word “chief” is designated as it relates to certain leaders and whether or not the
term is appropriate.
“Chief” is an interesting and somewhat inaccurate term used to describe
Native leaders throughout history. After talking with a Stanford University professor
who focuses on American history it was said that Chief is often used as a designation
for Native Americans that the government saw as leaders or spokesmen for their
tribe and it was modified by White society to mean war chief. He goes on to say that
it “gets more complicated than that since first representatives of European empires
and then Americans regarded those who negotiated with them as chiefs, when they
were usually speakers for either civil leaders or a council rather than headmen
themselves” (White, personal communication, 18 April 2015). In conclusion he says,
“Europeans and Americans used the word chief to designate those who they
recognized as chiefs—giving them medals or other visible signs —who were not
always those whom bands or tribes recognized as headmen.” As can be seen the
term Chief is not something that Native Americans have historically called
themselves but a term that outside society has placed upon them. Wording is a very
interesting and tricky instrument when it comes to Native American history.
Much of my analysis is related to the wording and titles used (i.e., “battle,”
“massacre,” and “violated”). These terms will be explained further with examples
from the texts. The last two codes I use are interpretative; they are labeled
Contradiction (C) and Displacing Responsibility (DR). I give a section of a text a C
42
code whenever there is a contradiction in what was being said or what had been
said. A DR code was a little harder to analyze because of the tendency towards
subjectivity within the texts where objectiveness was needed. It is difficult to say
whether responsibility or blame (for lack of a better word) is being displaced within
the wording of certain events. Comparison between what is being said and what has
been said in similar circumstances was beneficial in giving a DR code. Another word
I use for DR is justification; whenever certain circumstances appear to be justified
when similar ones were not. This code is easier to understand. Almost all the
textbooks come from a different time in history. Nevertheless, I look at how these
gaps in years change the manner in which events are represented, starting from the
oldest text to the most recent.
The imagery and primary sources cited and used in the textbooks
surrounding these events are not a primary focus for these analytical critiques so
they will not be discussed in detail within this thesis. The incorporation of imagery
and primary sources in textbooks is important because they are one of the first
things a student notices when opening up their textbooks and would be an
interesting topic for further discussion however this thesis will focus primarily on
the texts.
The third and final method of research is through interaction with teachers
in South Dakota. Interviews were carried out with four educators in the Rapid City
School district who currently teach or have taught at the high school level. I asked
them questions regarding their class curriculum, in particular how they teach the
textbooks provided to them by the school district. Most of the questions focus on
43
what they are teaching and how; individual syllabi are not examined unless the
teachers mention particular coursework structure and, in this case, further inquiry
depends on subject relevance. I ask whether they are provided with any
supplementary resources to teach regional Native history or whether they have
created their own materials, curriculum, or class projects in order to enhance or
provide a different perspective of Native history than that provided in the
generalized textbook. I also ask how students tend to react to or absorb lessons
surrounding Native Americans. Specific questions the teachers are asked are
provided in Appendix B. In no way are these interviews generalized to apply to all
history teachers in the state. It is, however, relevant to include personal anecdotes,
however limited they are, when discussing how and why certain history is taught.
Within these methods the findings in this study are included in the next chapter.
From there a general discussion is constructed. The final section, focuses on what
future action can be taken in the field of historical representations in the classroom;
this includes the conclusion and closing remarks.
44
Chapter 3
Between Battle and Massacre
South Dakota has a rich and storied history. As I mentioned in the methodology, the
events analyzed in this thesis focus between the timeframe of 1868 and 1970 (see
Table 1). During these 100 years of tribal relations historical representations have
shifted drastically, particularly for the tribes within South Dakota. This state, located
in the heart of the Great Plains, is home to nine federally recognized tribes that are
further divided into three groups, the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota. All which
together form the Oceti Sakowin or the Seven Council Fires. For the purpose of the
events chosen to analyze the Lakota is the group within the Oceti Sakowin primarily
discussed in this thesis. It is important to mention the more prevalent name for the
Oceti Sakowin people is the Sioux, however, the word Sioux does not derive from
the Lakota, Dakota, or Nakota dialects2; to be as culturally accurate as this thesis
does not use Sioux as a designation instead they are referred to as their individual
groups titles or as the Oceti Sakowin to represent them as a collective group.
The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 is the first event analyzed. Take into
consideration that South Dakota did not become a state until 1889 so two of the five
events to be analyzed happened before statehood but after the Louisiana Purchase
had occurred. This treaty then refers to the territory west of the Mississippi river
and was technically in US governmental possession. The exception to this was land
designated to Native Americans through treaties like the Fort Laramie Treaty. One
aspect of this treaty (among other things) was the entrusting of the Black Hills to the 2 Makes Good, 2009. The word Sioux originated from the combination of Ojibwa and French terminology and is translated as meaning Serpent. It has no Lakota, Dakota, or Nakota roots.
45
Oceti Sakowin within the Dakota Territory. The Black Hills (Paha Sapa) are
considered sacred to the Lakota (National Park Service, 2015). Many of their
creation stories and sacred ceremonies are housed within the hills so this treaty is
considered very important to the Oceti Sakowin yet today.
Eight years after the Ft. Laramie Treaty was signed the Battle of Little
Bighorn occurred. There are multiple names for this battle, including Custer’s Last
Stand and The Battle of Greasy Grass. The battle took place in Montana, which, like
South Dakota, was still a territory at the time. The battle was between the 7th
Calvary (under the command of George Custer) and the Lakota, Cheyenne, and
Arapaho. A major contributing factor to this event unfolding was the Black Hills gold
rush; keep in mind that the Black Hills are promised to the Lakota through treaty
rights. This battle is important because it was a sweeping victory for the Native
American tribes (Powers, 2010). It was also the battle in which Crazy Horse
(Lakota) was a key player, many people see him as one of the great Native warriors.
This battle was also one of the first times the US military was defeated. Many US
citizens did not take too kindly to the killing of Custer and the defeat of the military,
which is when a lot of conflict arose. Many people dub this time “the beginning of
the end to the Indian Wars”.
The Massacre at Wounded Knee is one of the most tragic and shameful
events in US history involving Native Americans; not only were hundreds of Native
Americans killed, around 20 to 30 medals of honor were awarded to the US cavalry
(Lone Hill, 2013; Wilkins & Stark, 2011, p. 203). Spotted Elk (commonly referred to
as Big Foot) was the leader of the Mnicoujou band of Lakota. During December of
46
1890 after the death of Sitting Bull in the Standing Rock Reservation, Spotted Elk led
his band of Lakota, including members of the Hunkpapa band of Lakota, south to
Pine Ridge. After certain events transpired with the US Calvary approximately 120
Lakota men and 200 women and children were killed and buried in a mass grave by
Wounded Knee Creek in the Pine Ridge Reservation. This event is often referred to
as the one that “ended the Indian Wars” (Lone Hill, 2013).
Almost 50 years after the Lakota ceased fighting with the US military, World
War II broke out. America joined the war in the 1940s. Among those who enlisted
there was surprisingly a large representation of Native Americans. Somewhere
around 44,000 Native Americans served. With the total of the Native population at
about 350,000 at the time, that was about 12% of the Native American total
population serving (Wilkins & Stark, 2011, p. 172). Many Natives contributed to the
war effort through their language. Codes were created phonetically by certain
groups of Natives based off of their Indigenous languages; the Lakota language was
one of the languages used. These codes were hard if not impossible to decipher for
the Axis powers considering that Native languages were not widely known let alone
understood. Numbers vary but there was four to eleven Lakota who used their
Native languages to help the war effort. This group of people became known as the
Lakota Code Talkers. Along with other Native code talkers in WWII, the Lakota Code
Talkers were highly influential in winning the war (Wilkins & Stark, 2011, p. 172).
The last part of Native history that will be discussed took place in 1973. This
event unfolded at the site of the Wounded Knee Massacre and it thus named the
Wounded Knee Takeover or the Incident at Wounded Knee. This event lasted 71
47
days and was the result of Native Americans being fed up with the federal
government. The American Indian Movement led the takeover of the town of
Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Throughout the 71 days the US government and AIM
exchanged continuous gunfire. The Native Americans were tired of broken treaty
rights and the treatment of Natives on the government's part. The Lakota in
particular were angered by the climate of tribal politics in the Pine Ridge
Reservation (Wilkins & Stark, 2011, p. 235). By the end of the siege, at least two
Native Americans were reported dead, and many questioned what good came from
the violence on both ends. However this incident did open up a dialogue between
the US government and Native nations to discuss the future of tribes and their
relationship with the US government (Wilkins & Stark, 2011, p. 206). There is no
specific detail or narrative I look for in each historical event, I simply look at how
the history is represented as a whole; whether there is equality and accuracy in the
representation.
Textbook Analysis
Challenge: The South Dakota Story3 Challenge is the hardest text to analyze because it is not a traditional textbook and is
completely focused on South Dakota history. Thus, there was no way to measure
how different events throughout history compare to one another within the book. It
was also difficult because the book is restricted to South Dakota, which allows for it 3 Karolevitz, R. (1975). Challenge: The South Dakota story. Sioux Falls, SD: Brevet Press.
48
to be more inclusive of information regarding the five events. The most interesting
part about this analysis is that even though Challenge has more detailed
information, quantity does not always equal objectiveness or inclusiveness.
Within the passages I examine, the word “Indian” is used to describe tribes in
the area at least 15 times. The use of this term is a lot more common than Native
American. Terminology surrounding Native Americans is always a point of
discussion. Historically speaking, Indian was not a term indigenous people of North
America called themselves; it is a term that was brought over and is contested
throughout Native America as a suitable term for indigenous people. When talking
about the American West, the term “Indian” has been used as a negative identifier
for Native Americans. The exclusive use of it in this text is an interesting occurrence.
Surprisingly Challenge mentions Native groups by their tribal names quite often,
even providing a table for the different tribes and dialects in the areas (Appendix C)
though this table is not completely accurate it is fairly close; again this is not
expected of the other textbooks, but just happened to be a unique circumstance.
Sioux is used only once in the passages I look at in reference to the tribes. The most
prominent contradictions and misrepresentations in Challenge are when the
Wounded Knee Massacre is discussed.
The actual events that occurred during the Wounded Knee Massacre are
constantly disputed. For the sake of this thesis contradictions do not apply to what
is thought to have occurred versus what the textbook says. Contradictions are
examined only within the texts themselves. As we can see in the excerpt below
Challenge refers to the leader of the Lakota at Wounded Knee as Big Foot (in red)
49
when in fact his proper title is Si Tanka (Spotted Elk) (Figure 1). A nickname would
not usually be an issue. The problem arises because of how the cavalrymen are
introduced (seen in blue below), their full names and titles are given. There is
clearly a discrepancy between how Spotted Elk is named and how the non-‐Natives
in this situation are named. The most prominent issue with this passage is when the
term “warrior” is being discussed.
As you can see in green there is a sentence that reads, “not even a third can
be classified as warriors” when talking about the dilapidated state of the Mnicoujou
people. The text then goes on to call the Natives warriors when the “fighting” was
about to commence (as seen in orange). The problem here is that when the events
began the tribe was presented as weak and barely able to fight but the second that
contention arose they were presented as warriors who could easily create
combativeness, let alone, fight.
50
Figure 1. The naming of key historical figures (Big Foot, Major Samuel Whiteside, Colonel James W. Forsyth) in Challenge (p. 200-‐201).
Overall Challenge has more quantity regarding the events, except when it
comes to the Lakota Code Talkers, about whom nothing is mentioned.4 The
Wounded Knee Takeover had only two sentences within the book that merely
mentions the incident in the 1970s. This is understandable considering that this
book was first printed two years after the takeover, when tensions were still high.
Even though the quantity might be there, the quality is definitely lacking, especially
in areas of contradictions and equal representations.
The Americans5
The Americans was published in 1998, almost 20 years after Challenge. The gap in
time does not mean that there are no textbooks in between these dates, but that
these are the only two titles I am able to locate. The Americans was used, to my
understanding, in the early 2000s before The American Vision was introduced.
Within The Americans only four of five events were represented. The Lakota Code
Talkers of World War II were not mentioned at all. Table 2 outlines the word count
and representation for each event along with its counter part.
4 The Code Talkers initiative was not declassified until 1968 (CIA), which could contribute to them not being included in the older textbooks. 5 Danzer, G., Klor de Alva, J., Krieger, L., Wilson, L., & Wilson, N. (1998). The Americans. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin.
51
Table 2. Word counts for the five historical events in The Americans.
Analyzed Event
Comparable Event Representation:
1. Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
194
134 Slightly More
2. Battle of Little Bighorn
Battle of Antietam
279
103 More Than Double
3. Wounded Knee Massacre
Sand Creek Massacre
318
228 Slightly More
4. Lakota Code Talkers
Navajo Code Talkers
0
147 None
5. Wounded Knee Takeover
Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-‐ins Movement
89
157 Almost Double
Note. Event refers to the events analyzed in this thesis. Event 2 refers to events of comparable scale not discussed in this thesis.
In all, when it comes to events that were on a similar scale or had a similar effect,
such as treaties or massacres, the representation is pretty close. There are a few
proportions that are different, mainly dealing with battles or war in some capacity
but there is never really one event, which it is hugely disproportionate, except with
the code talkers where representation is not seen at all for the Lakota.
Moving into the second part of analysis within the textbook there are quite a
few common occurrences. The Oceti Sakowin in the book is almost exclusively
referred to as the Sioux. Only when specific Native Americans are named is tribal
identification given. The Americans differs from Challenge in that identifying
terminology for the tribes in South Dakota is not Indians but “Native Americans” is
typically used. When it came to the Ft. Laramie Treaty, it appeared as if they were
52
maneuvering around the history of treaty violations even though the text hinted that
treaties were not always upheld (Figure 2). The first contradiction came when the
book says, in reference to the Ft. Laramie Treaty “the Sioux signed the historic treaty
of 1868, in which they agreed to live on a reservation along the Missouri River” and
at the end of the next paragraph it reads, “the Treaty of 1868 had been forced on the
Sioux” (p. 384, emphasis added). There is a distinct contradiction between agreeing
to do something and being forced to do something.
Figure 2. Ft. Laramie Treaty in The Americans (p. 384).
What is interesting in this text is that when specific Native Americans are
quoted (Mary Crow Dog, Gall, Black Elk) the person’s name is used. However, when
talking about a few specific Native Americans (and usually in reference to them
dying) within the passages, with exception of the leaders and chiefs, it would simply
say, “some Native Americans” (p. 385) or “left one Native American dead and
53
another wounded” (p. 924) without regard for specifically whom these people were.
Again we have this issue of naming, even when people like Sitting Bull or Crazy
Horse are named they are given the title Chief. When it comes to Crazy Horse:
Everything I have seen indicates he was a war leader and not a civil chief. Sitting Bull was a leading warrior and spiritual leader, but I think by 1876 he was also acting as a de facto civil leader in defiance of older leaders, and after 1876 he clearly acted as the leader of his own band. I think whites would legitimately regard him as a chief. Textbooks often use the term so incoherently that it means little more than important Indian.6
Even when they use a Native American’s title along with their name it does not
mean that that description is accurate.
When talking about the Battle of Little Bighorn it appears as though
justification or sympathy for Custer losing the battle is trying to be attained; in
specific, the text states “his men and horses were exhausted” (p. 385). Why does this
matter? Because when Native Americans lose a battle there is no sympathetic
justification of outside forces like an exhausted horse or army; they are just simply
beaten. The use of the word battle is also questionable when looking at Wounded
Knee. They reference it as being the Battle of Wounded Knee twice within the
passage on the same page (p. 387). They do use the word “slaughtered” in reference
to the Native Americans that were killed but again a battle is defined as being “a
sustained fight between large, organized armed forces.”7 As stated in the text, the
Native Americans were starving and freezing and were all but forced to give up their
weapons. They were not organized, they were not armed, and they were not a
“force” based off of the image the passage paints. This means the word “battle” in
6 Richard White. Personal Communication, 18 April 2015. 7 Oxford Dictionary of English edited by Angus Stevenson (Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2010)
54
reference to this event is a misrepresentation. This is all but confirmed later in the
section about the Wounded Knee takeover. It reads “the U.S. cavalry had massacred
a Sioux village in 1890” (p. 924, emphasis added). There is clearly a contradiction
within the text about appropriate terminology for this event.
In the instance of the Battle of Little Bighorn the outsider coder I used for this
section found that when the text was describing Native Americans “in warpaint and
bonnets and with raised spears or rifles” (p. 385) he said it appeared as if they were
“making Custer sound civilized and Indian as savages.” Upon looking further at the
text I find that the US cavalry’s appearance was never noted. I agree with my outside
coder that this is an instance of unequal representation for Native Americans. He
also brought up another interesting point when he analyzed the section on the
Wounded Knee Massacre. The text reads,
As the shots rang out, Sitting Bull’s horse abruptly sat down and began performing the tricks it had learned in the Wild West Show with Buffalo Bill. For a moment, at least, it seemed to observers that the horse was performing the outlawed Ghost Dance. (p. 387)
The outside coder highlighted this section saying “this is necessary why?” in which
this research completely agrees. It is almost as if the text is saying that even the
Native American’s horses are outlaws. It is frankly and unnecessarily and ridiculous
to include this anecdote within the text. Stepping back and looking at the analysis in
a generalized sense, this textbook remains consistent with the identifying terms it
used (Sioux, Native American), but when it comes to quality of the representations
there is a huge gap between what is being said and what is being understood. This
will be discussed more in the discussion section.
55
United States History: Reconstruction to the Present8
As previously stated United States History is the supplementary text that is provided.
This textbook is not primarily used in the classroom. One of the teachers I talk to did
not recognize the title but two others from a neighboring school did. This is a text
that some teachers have access to and possibly others do not, I can only assume this
is based on departmental textbook decisions.
Table 3. Word counts for the five historical events in United States History.
Analyzed Event Comparable Event Representation:
1. Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
178
79 More Than Double
2. Battle of Little Bighorn
Battle of Antietam
202
77 More Than Double
3. Wounded Knee Massacre
Sand Creek Massacre
149
230 More Than Double
4. Lakota Code Talkers
Navajo Code Talkers
0
37 None
5. Wounded Knee Takeover
Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-‐ins Movement
169
196 Fairly Close
Note. Event refers to the events analyzed in this thesis. Event 2 refers to events of comparable scale not discussed in this thesis. Looking at Table 3 we can see that all the events are fairly uneven; the closest are
the civil rights movements. It is interesting to see how certain timeframes in history
8Lapsansky-‐Werner, E., Levy, P., Roberts, R., & Taylor, A. (2010). United States History: Reconstruction
to the Present. Boston, MA: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
56
are mentioned more often than others. As of right now, it appears as though these
two history books favor pre-‐20th century events.
As with The Americans, Sioux is the term most often used for the Lakota,
Dakota, and Nakota. Unlike the other textbook, United States History uses Native
American and Indians interchangeably. The main example of displaced
responsibility occurs when talking about the provisions and aftermath of the Ft.
Laramie Treaty:
Unfortunately, many Indian agents were unscrupulous and stole funds and resources that were supposed to be distributed to the Indians. Even the most well-‐meaning agents often lacked support from the federal government or the military to enforce the terms of the treaties that were beneficial to Native Americans. (p. 164, emphasis added)
This passage not only tiptoes around the blatant fact that treaty rights were
frequently violated, but it also attempts to justify the actions of those violating the
treaties by claiming that there just was not enough support. The most interesting
case of wording in this text had to be in the section on Wounded Knee (Figure 3).
They do not call it a battle, but they also do not refer to it as a massacre within this
particular section. However like with The Americans, when they talk about the AIM
takeover in the 1970s they do call the 1890 incident a massacre (keep in mind this is
about 500 pages later).
57
Figure 3. Wounded Knee never being referred to as a massacre in United States
History (p. 166-‐167).
The biggest issue the outsider found with the excerpt provided in this textbook was
the discrepancy in numbers. When talking about the Ft. Laramie Treaty there was a
huge gap in time that was not addressed; between 1824 and 1868 (p.164). The
numbers for the US cavalry during the Battle of Little Bighorn also appeared to
contradict with the other textbooks. Comparable with the previous text a lack of
identification to Natives Americans who are not being quoted or are not leaders is
prevalent in this text. United States History does mirror The Americans in a lot of
ways but there does appear to be a little less misrepresentation when it comes to
certain events. This very well could be due to the fact the word count decreases for
certain events within the span of the 12 years that separates these two texts.
58
The American Vision: Modern Times9
Even though United States History was published two years after The American
Vision, I chose to analyze The American Vision last because it is being used in South
Dakota history classes today, and it is the text that almost all of the history teachers
interviewed recognized and utilize. Surprisingly there were two events that were
not represented in the current textbook. Neither the Lakota code talkers nor the Ft.
Laramie Treaty of 1868 were specifically addressed in any sort of detail.
Table 4. Word counts for the five historical events in The American Vision.
Analyzed Event Comparable Event Representation:
1. Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
0
81 None
2. Battle of Little Bighorn
Battle of Antietam
242
192 Slightly More
3. Wounded Knee Massacre
Sand Creek Massacre
161
192 Slightly Less
4. Lakota Code Talkers
Navajo Code Talkers
0
221 None
5. Wounded Knee Takeover
Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-‐ins Movement
91
289 Clearly Less
Note. Event refers to the events analyzed in this thesis. Event 2 refers to events of comparable scale not discussed in this thesis.
9Appleby, J., Brinkley, A., Broussard, A., McPherson, J., Ritchie, D., & Zike, D. (2008). The American
Vision: Modern Times. Columbus, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-‐Hill.
59
Solely based off of the publication dates and the word count it appears as though the
history is slowly shifting from a focus on older history to more contemporary
narrative. Almost like 20th history is slowly increasing in words while 19th century
history representation is decreasing. One possible reason for this transition is that
we are now 15 years into the 21st century so there is a wider gap between 20th
century history and today. Even things that happened in the 1990s are looked upon
as part of history because enough time has passed for them to be seen as such.
In The American Vision the terms Native American and Lakota are more
widely used compared to Indian or Sioux. This is surprisingly different from the last
three texts that tended to lean towards more commonly known names. Something
that is really intriguing about the section on Little Bighorn is that it appears as
though more blame is being put on the Cavalry Lieutenant George Custer than on
the cavalry itself or circumstances as a whole (Figure 4).
In this text, Custer not only miscalculated Lakota fighting abilities he also
disregarded orders and attacked in daylight on a huge group, the army basically had
the disadvantage from the beginning. This is a rare occurrence. Instead of displacing
blame, the text clearly places blame on one person and more notably that person is
not Native American.
60
Figure 4. Custer being blamed for losing the Battle of Little Bighorn in The American
Vision (p. 173-‐174).
This text also appears to be the first to use the words “violated” or “violating” in
reference to treaties whereas the others tend to stray away from certain
generalizations. Unfortunately when it comes to discussing the Wounded Knee
Massacre the text simply refers to the event as being a tragedy and later it says a
battle broke out:
61
Defying the orders of the government, the Lakota continued to perform the Ghost Dance, a ritual that celebrated a hoped for day of reckoning when settlers would disappear, the buffalo would return, and Native Americans would reunite with their dead ancestors. Federal authorities had banned the ceremony fearing it would lead to violence. (p. 174)
This is an example of displacing blame because almost at the very beginning of the
section they say the Native Americans defy the government's orders and then try to
justify those orders by mentioning the government’s fear of disorder. This rendition
very much ignores the fact that the government restricted Native Americans’ right
to practice their culture and focuses more on the fact that the Lakota broke the rules
first and the government just reacted in a manner that they believed would not lead
to violence, even though it did. The last part of this section is important because it
talks about how many people died at Wounded Knee. The exact number of soldiers
that died is mentioned whereas an approximation for the Lakota is given. This
happened in the other texts as well. The death toll for the massacre was never
absolute, in general it ranges from 200 to 300 but a reason for this lack of
information is never provided within the text, which is somewhat unsettling. The
outside coder for this section simply put that this “was a gross misinterpretation of
events” when the text states “On December 29, 1890, as troops tried to disarm them
at Wounded Knee Creek, gunfire broke out. A deadly battle ensued, taking the lives
of 25 U.S. soldiers and approximately 200 Lakota men, women, and children” (p.
175). I find it ironic that the only mention of the actual massacre was with these two
sentences, like the textbooks is trying to rush over the important details and focus
more on the outlaw nature of the Lakota in this instance.
62
As with the other texts Native Americans are hardly recognized by names
unless they were influential leaders. Unlike the other text even the Natives who
were quoted sometimes were not given a name. Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at
Wounded Knee is mentioned in this text as it is in others but in The American Vision
the author is not mentioned by name. The American Vision does a fairly accurate job
when it comes to tribal and social identifying names for Native Americans. Little
Bighorn was represented in a way that does not necessarily favor the cavalry, which
is a different perspective. Unfortunately, like the other texts, Wounded Knee and
individuals are not equally nor objectively portrayed.
Teacher Interviews
Four high school history teachers from Rapid City, South Dakota are the interview
subjects for this thesis. Over the course of two days interviews are conducted on site
with each teacher. The interviews range from 45 minutes to an hour and 15
minutes. The educators are informed that they will not be compensated for their
participation in any way and that their choice to participate in this research is
strictly voluntary. The teachers are referred to as T1, T2, T3, and T4 to ensure
anonymity. At the beginning of each interview the teachers are asked to discuss
their teaching credentials and their prior knowledge of Native American history.
This is helpful in examining where teachers’ understanding of Native history
derives. I give a background of each teacher below including a few insights into their
interview including major themes that emerged from the interviews. All the
questions used in the interview can be found in the appendix. Important quotations
63
from the interviews are included in the following discussion section. All four
teachers bring different perspectives to understanding how textbooks are used in
the classroom and each teacher uses textbooks differently. Thus what is portrayed
in the text is not the only thing students learn.
Teacher 1
T1 has been teaching for more than 30 years with 25 of those years dedicated to
teaching history. Other than a few courses T1 took during college he has not had any
formal education or coursework that pertains to Native American history. Any sort
of information researched surrounding native history has been self-‐pursued since
college. He put an emphasis on accuracy and objectiveness. T1 said that when
teaching a new history era or event, in relation to Native Americans, he starts with
the base of “vastly different cultures” and that from “the very beginning we were
destined to have a clash of culture.” He uses a “straight down the middle approach”
in the classroom. When discussing the textbooks T1 believes the text covers Native
American topics as well as they cover any other topic but he is not sure if he is
pleased with the representation most textbooks give, and he is not sure if students
get that message. This teacher also took an interesting stance when he said he
believes the text is too accommodating for certain subjects in some cases. When
asked about supplementary material and textual knowledge he “tries to know
enough [about a certain subject] to pass on a good level of knowledge.” T1 also
mentioned that he is always “Googling” subjects that he does not know much about
but he feels comfortable that there is something out there for him to “go off of” in
64
some capacity. When discussing the Oceti Sakowin curriculum standards (explained
in the next chapter) he said he is doing his best to make the adjustment. He tries to
incorporate this curriculum into the classroom but the coursework standards have
too much stuff to include and there is not enough time for all of it when the sake of
quality is involved.
Teacher 2
T2 has been teaching for 32 years, and teaching history specifically for 30 years. Not
only has she taught in South Dakota, she was also a (state specific) history teacher in
Arizona and Montana. T2 has taken a course on tribal government and a
multicultural class. Talking about Native Americans in textbooks, she says the
representation is not what it should be but there has been great effort to get it there.
She believes that there is not enough information provided for culturally accurate
teaching and what resources are provided are at such “base levels” for learning that
students are not able to perceive both sides. This is why T2 rarely uses textbooks in
her own classroom; “on a topic as huge and as diverse as Native American history I
don’t believe that any textbook does a good job.” She believes that if teachers are
willing to do the legwork there are good materials and resources available. T2 does
mention that the biggest issues for a teacher is time and covering the priorities. The
kids’ interest in the subject matter depends on the class but usually the students are
highly interested. As with T1, T2 tries not to be one-‐sided so she brings in outside
sources. T2 says the implementation of the Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings
is decided on a departmental level. T2 ended with the statement that teaching
65
history curriculum boils down to the big history and that this [South Dakota] is a
people’s place.
Teacher 3
T3 had been teaching for 33 years, with at least 25 of those years dedicated to
history. This teacher no longer teaches within schools. Her past coursework that
pertained to Native history is very limited; saying she took a few Native American
night classes on cultural awareness but other than that, nothing. The textbooks, she
believes are “terrible.” Claiming that accurate representation in the classroom
depended greatly on the teacher and his/her approach, “personal values dictated
what was taught . . . [and that it’s] possible that that still happens.” Like the two
previous teachers, T3 brought in outside sources to help her teach NA history. She
brought in materials from her personal library and research in order to be as
accurate as could be using the information she had available. T3 feels the school
curriculum absolutely does not do an adequate job of incorporating Native history
into the classroom, but she is quick to point out that she does not believe the fault
lies in any one area. Interestingly, she made the remark that “one Native American
studies [course] does not make a Native American studies teacher.” T3, unlike the
other two teachers, spent a great deal of time talking about student participation
within the classroom and with these subjects, remarking, “we do not do a good job
and it takes time, you build trust in your classroom with students and there has to
be time for questions, real civil dialogue.” T3 also dove into the politics and
sensitivity involved when teaching hard subjects. T3 ends by saying that students
66
hopefully realize that they should know more than they do, and they demonstrate
the importance of learning the whole history and wanting to learn more. T3 really
hopes her students and future students learn to be curious.
Teacher 4
T4 coordinates curriculum for one of the school district in South Dakota. She has
been a teacher for at least 10 years in South Dakota and Minnesota. She taught both
middle and high school. Her past coursework that pertains to NA history is
primarily from her time at college. T4 took a few courses on tribal law and politics
and she is trained as a historian. Similarly with the other teachers, T4 says a lot of
classroom curriculum depends on the teacher, on them taking the standards and
“creating viable teachings from them;” teachers essentially create their own
curriculum. This teacher also emphasized the idea that “every kid has the
opportunity to learn the same information regardless of what school they are at.” T4
believes that if, a teacher is only using a textbook in their classroom then, culturally
accurate teaching is not achieved. “Most teachers step way beyond the confines of a
textbook and find more materials on their own.” She goes on to say that teachers are
very eager to learn but do not feel as confident in context. As it relates to students
learning history of the surrounding area it really does make history so much more
real for them to see their place in history. T4 said she uses a lot of primary and
supplementary sources when she teaches history and she does a lot of analysis of
these outside sources with her students. As it pertains to the Oceti Sakowin
standards, she says there is no formal training on this curriculum to this day but it is
67
being utilized in classrooms. T4 ended by stressing the idea mentioned earlier that
what students take away from the classroom is completely dependent on the
teacher and how the textbooks are portrayed.
68
Chapter 4
Discussion
From the text analysis and speaking with the teachers I conclude that there is not
one text or way of utilizing the textbook that is superiority to others. To reiterate,
this thesis is not to see what textbooks have the best ranking or represent Native
Americans best. This research is presented to show how in specific areas or events
displayed in textbooks from 1998 to 2010, textbooks misrepresent certain history.
When looking at the word count it is interesting to see how over the 12 years span
the words used for each of the events analyzed have decreased. If we are going by
publishing date the Ft. Laramie Treaty and the Wounded Knee Takeover are the
only two events that increased in words. As mentioned earlier this could be due to
the fact that the takeover is now considered far enough in the past that the term
history can be applied to the event. It is possible that contemporary relevance plays
a role in representation. What is important to 21st century activists and movements
is being highlighted more in the texts.
The Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868 gave the Black Hills back to the Lakota,
Dakota, and Nakota people. Recently there have been bigger issues arising
concerning reclaiming the Black Hills as Native lands, including a Supreme Court
case where the wrongful taking of the Black Hills was acknowledged.10 Along with
this the American Indian Movement has remained somewhat active especially in
recent years, and the racial tensions within South Dakota between Natives and Non-‐
Natives has increased incredibly (Estes, 2014). Historical representations play a role
10 United States v Sioux Nation of Indians. 1890.
69
in contemporary tensions. As is seen in the examples above from the texts there are
a lot of historical portrayals that have been mismanaged. If people do not
understand even the small inaccuracies, like the proper titles for Native Americans
from the area, how will civil dialogue and cultural understanding ever be attained?
T3 gave an intriguing account of cultural competency in the classroom, in response
to question 5 (Appendix B):
I think it all depends on the teacher . . . Our own personal values dictated and I think . . . it’s possible that that still would happen. If you have a teacher that’s interested in [and] honors Lakota history that teacher is going to try to do the best job he or she can with the materials available. If you have a teacher that isn’t interested at all, you know if you have a teacher that is prejudice, which unfortunately, we have them just like every other profession in the world then you’re going to get a completely different slant. You know there’s not going to be much effort to be accurate.
Critical thinking of history begins in the classroom, which eventually impacts a
student’s perception of their surroundings; a lot of this does lie in the textbooks but
just as much lies in the classroom atmosphere and how a student is being taught.
When looking at the textbooks we have already seen how misrepresented Native
Americans are; it is common for these misrepresentations to be not only inaccurate
but also unequal. We see how on average Native Americans are not given names, the
designation of their entire tribe is usually bestowed upon them. By not including the
names of Natives involved it is almost like saying that specific people don’t need to
be remembered in history. It also shows a lack of research and consideration on the
author’s part. The wording in each textbook was also concerning. Countless times
we see that Wounded Knee is referred to as either a battle or a tragedy, it is not until
later in the textbooks that they use the word massacre. When looking at the sign
posted at the Wounded Knee memorial in the Pine Ridge reservation one can see
70
where a plaque reading “massacre” has been placed over the original word
“battlefield.” The tribes and the local area recognize this incident as a massacre so
why can’t the textbooks? Continuing off this concern over wording, there were
clearly words that textbooks were trying to avoid, massacre being one, another
being violated.
One loses track when trying to count the number of treaties between the US
government and Native tribes that were violated or broken, yet textbooks rarely use
the word violated in reference to treaties. Instead textbooks appear to move around
the word. If students are required to learn history, then it is only fair that they learn
an accurate one. Promoting patriotic history is no excuse for misrepresenting that
same history. Textbooks need to place more effort on the smaller issues in order for
students to takeaway equal and accurate histories. Focusing on specific areas is not
practical for textbooks that are supposed to cover all of the United States but if
certain events involving Native Americans are going to be included (as they should
be), there can at least be an effort to make this history authentic and unbiased.
From looking at the interviews with the teachers we can see a similar
sentiment unfolding; textbooks do not do enough for students. T1 made the point in
saying, in response to question seven11,
I’m not sure I’m pleased with the presentation that most textbooks give. I’m not sure the student gets that message, and I’m not saying . . . this is my preference I would like students to get that message right from the get-‐go. And whatever we learn on top of that I’m always saying, “remember clash of cultures here.” You know before we start labeling actions of one or the other.
A similar opinion is expressed by T2 in response to question four12,
11 Appendix B.
71
I rarely every use textbooks because the information is so minimal well then if your going to dive into a topic like that, okay, so you aren’t going to do that in a day, I don’t think, and do any justice to it, you know what I mean? And so that’s my frustration in trying to do something adequate that’s sort of represents the event and what happened.
An emphasis is put on the students, as teachers should. The point of teaching history
is not for students to simply know what happened but also for students to
comprehend why specific events occurred and to make sure certain events never do
again. With the information that teachers have on hand they are doing as good a job
as any to get the history across, but as we have seen, the information provided in the
textbooks is not only inaccurate but also incomplete. This causes teachers to go
above and beyond to find other sources to counteract the textbook. Teachers need
more textual support and resources to provide holistic and accurate Native
American history for students, especially in areas with high Native populations like
that of South Dakota.
New strides have been made in South Dakota in the last decade with the
incorporation of the Oceti Sakowin Essential Understanding and Standards (OSEUS)
curriculum in 2007. This curriculum mandated state-‐wide standards in relation to
Native American coursework in hopes “that citizens who are well educated about
the Oceti Sakowin history and culture will be more likely to make better decisions in
the arena of Indian issues and to get along better with one another” (Dr. Craig Howe,
2010 as quoted in the handbook)13. As discussed briefly before there are a lot of
issues between Native Americans and the majority society in South Dakota. There is 12 Appendix B. 13 This Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings and Standards is a handbook that can be found on the South Dakota State Library: Digital Collections page at http://cdm16384.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15307coll3/id/11523.
72
the issue of the Black Hills and who are the true owners (or protectors)14 of the land.
The Oceti Sakowin believe they are the true guardians of the sacred Black Hills
because in the Ft. Laramie Treaty they were named as such. The actual land owners
and governments refuse to put the land in trust or acknowledge the Native’s claim
to the land because history does not focus on the broken treaties or the promises of
land as much as they should. Thus we have this “clash of cultures” that T1 describes.
This is even more relevant with the keystone KXL pipeline issue. The pipeline is
mapped as going straight through the Rosebud Indian Reservation; the government
has done very little to acknowledge the fact that tribes are political sovereign
nations whose lands are in trust and have a right to say what happened within their
territory. The former president of the Sicangu Lakota Oyate (Rosebud Sioux Tribe)
Cyril Scott called the pipeline “an act of war” (Hart, 2014). Very little, if anything,
about tribal sovereignty is presented in the history books that I examine, the OSEUS
provide new curriculum to combat this in the hope of providing a new narrative for
tribal governmental relations. The OSEUS encourages students, teachers, educators,
and community members to gain more knowledge and understanding of cultural
competency within classrooms. As of right now, the OSEUS is being utilized in some
classrooms whose teachers I interviewed however it is not applied at the level it
should be, a good start would be to provide required training for school districts. As
of right now, training is offered through Indian Education in Rapid City but it is not
required. Educators and legislature across the state need to do more to build upon
14 Lakota people do not believe in the concept of land ownership. They do not view land as property. They see themselves as protectors or guardians of the land.
73
the OSEUS especially since the textbooks are clearly lacking in respectful and
accurate representations.
74
Stepping Beyond the Confines of the Textbook
Textbooks are great sources for educational purposes as long as they remain fair in
their treatment of various histories and cultures. The textbooks I look at are lacking
in holistic accuracy of the Native American tribes and events that I examined.
Textbooks used in South Dakota should, at the very least, be authentic in the
representation of South Dakota history. Part of the issue falls on local school
districts to choose more accurate textbooks but also people have to realize that
textbooks can not include everything in a credible fashion; where they fall short it is
the state and school district’s job to vet, provide and implement other sources.
The beginning process to rectify these inadequacies is being done through
the Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings and Standards. However, remedies are
not at the level that they should be. It is also a teacher’s responsibility to know what
should provide students with sufficient and complete information and that students
should understand that there is more than one narrative when it comes to history.
The only way for accurate and respectful curriculum implementation in the
classroom is for dialogue to occur between educators, school administrators and
state legislators.
As we saw the textbooks fall short in names they use (Sioux vs. Lakota,
Dakota, Nakota; Native American vs. Indian), the facts they present (battle vs.
massacre; violations of treaties) and materials overall. The interviews with the
teachers can attest to these inaccuracies in that almost all of them utilize outside
materials to provide more accurate information to students. Teachers are moving
well beyond the confines of the textbooks to provide an alternative narrative but
75
more still needs to be done. A suggestion this researcher has is to provide, not only
outside materials to students, but also to insist upon alternative viewpoints from
members of the Native community. The best way to learn about history is through
the eyes of those you have experienced it or whose relatives have experienced it.
The AIM takeover only happened 42 years ago, there are still members alive today
who participated in this event that could be a prime source for students to speak
with. Unfortunately the last Lakota code talker died a few years ago, but their sons
and daughters and relatives are still alive and stories from their family member’s
perspective would be a unique and beneficial experience in any classroom. Schools
have history right at their fingertips and yet they refuse to grasp it. The only way for
cultural understanding and respect to occur is for students to see Native people as
living in the present. For the longest time society placed Natives in history books as
romanticized and primitive people, unfortunately many still see them as such. The
only way to change this perception is to change how we choose to talk about Native
Americans. The best way to hear the Native narrative, in textbooks and in the
classroom, is from a Native perspective.
Further research needs to be done on how states choose textbooks they
provide along with how textbook publishers decide what histories to include in
their texts. This thesis falls short in that only teachers from one side of the state
were interviewed and that the texts used were specific to certain school districts
within South Dakota. Using more textbooks and teachers statewide would
strengthen future research on similar topics. My hope for this thesis is that
educators and students alike see that history is constantly changing. My hope also is
76
that they keep up with the multiple narratives that need to be utilized and
implemented within state curriculum. I hope that Native students in the future will
not feel as disappointed with their cultural and historical curriculum as I was. In
order to bridge a better future for Natives and non-‐Natives alike, improvements
need to be made for cultural understandings and histories in the classroom.
77
References
Appleby, J., Brinkley, A., Broussard, A., McPherson, J., Ritchie, D., & Zike, D. (2008).
The American Vision: Modern Times. Columbus, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-‐Hill.
Brayboy, B. (2003). Visibility as a Trap: American Indian Representations in Schools.
In Invisible Children in the Society and Its Schools (2nd ed., pp. 35 -‐ 52).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coburn, J. (1979). Oregon Indian textbook review project, Final Report. Portland, OR:
Oregon: Pacific Northwest Indian Reading and Language Development
Program. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Danzer, G., Klor de Alva, J., Krieger, L., Wilson, L., & Wilson, N. (1998). The Americans.
Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin.
Decore, A., Carney, R. & Urion, C. (1982). Native people in the curriculum. Edmonton,
Alberta: Alberta Department of Education.
Deloria, P. (2004). Indians in Unexpected Places. Lawrence, KS.: University Press of
Kansas.
Deloria, P. (1998). Playing Indian. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Estes, N. (2014, September 5). Racist City, S.D.: Life is Violent, and Often Deadly in
Rapid City. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/09/05/racist-‐city-‐sd-‐
rapid-‐city-‐where-‐life-‐violent-‐and-‐often-‐deadly-‐156754
78
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.
Giago, T. (2012, October 4). Red and White Race Relations 22 Years Later. Retrieved
May 17, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-‐giago/red-‐and-‐
white-‐race-‐relaio_b_1939804.html
Hart, A. (2014, November 16). Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL
Pipeline An ‘Act Of War' Retrieved May 16, 2015, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16/rosebud-‐sioux-‐keystone-‐
war_n_6168584.html
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 Education. (2012). Where do South Dakota’s Native American Students
Attend School?. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from
http://indianeducation.sd.gov/documents/IEhighden.pdf
79
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, HI: ERIC ED 133 250
Journell, W. (2009). An Incomplete History: Representation of American Indians in
State Social Studies Standards. Journal of American Indian Education, 48(2),
18-‐32.
Karolevitz, R. (1975). Challenge: The South Dakota Story. Sioux Falls, SD: Brevet
Press.
Lane, C. (2014, November 6). What the AP U.S. History fight in Colorado is really
about. Retrieved May 16, 2015, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-‐
partisan/wp/2014/11/06/what-‐the-‐ap-‐u-‐s-‐history-‐fight-‐in-‐colorado-‐is-‐
really-‐about/
Lapsansky-‐Werner, E., Levy, P., Roberts, R., & Taylor, A. (2010). United States
History: Reconstruction to the Present. Boston, MA: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Loewen, J. W. (1995). "Why Is History Taught Like This?" Lies My Teacher Told Me:
Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (pp. 265-‐291). New
York, NY: New Press.
Lone Hill, D. (2013, February 18). The Wounded Knee medals of honor should be
rescinded. Retrieved May 17, 2015, from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/massacre-‐
wounded-‐knee-‐medals-‐honor-‐rescinded
80
Makes Good, S. (2009, March 10). Sioux is not even a word. Retrieved May 17, 2015,
from http://www.lakotacountrytimes.com/news/2009-‐03-‐
12/guest/021.html
Mihesuah, D. A., & Wilson, A. C. (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming
scholarship and empowering communities. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
National Park Service. History of the Black Hills. (2015, May 16). Retrieved May 17,
2015, from http://www.nps.gov/wica/learn/historyculture/history-‐of-‐the-‐
black-‐hills.htm
Navajo Code Talkers and the Unbreakable Code. (2008, November 6). Retrieved May
16, 2015, from https://www.cia.gov/news-‐information/featured-‐story-‐
archive/2008-‐featured-‐story-‐archive/navajo-‐code-‐talkers/
2015 Niche Rankings. (2015). Largest School Districts in South Dakota -‐ Niche.
Retrieved April 17, 2015, from https://k12.niche.com/rankings/public-‐
school-‐districts/largest-‐enrollment/s/south-‐dakota/
O’Neill, G. P. (1984). Prejudice towards Indians in history textbooks: A 1984
profile. The History and Social Science Teacher, 20(l), 33-‐39.
O'Neill, G. (1987). The North American Indian in Contemporary History and Social
Studies Textbooks. Journal of American Indian Education, 26(3). Retrieved
December 8, 2014, from http://jaie.asu.edu/v26/V26S3nor.htm
Powers, T. (2010, November 1). How the Battle of Little Bighorn Was Won.
Retrieved May 17, 2015, from
81
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-‐the-‐battle-‐of-‐little-‐bighorn-‐
was-‐won-‐63880188/?sessionguid=3720c493-‐2ea9-‐a752-‐1aa9-‐
062e83999a57&page=8
Reinhardt, A. D. (2005). Defining the Native: Local Print Media Coverage of the
NMAI. The American Indian Quarterly 29.3: 450-‐65. ERIC. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Sanchez, T. R. (2007). The depiction of Native Americans in recent (1991–2004)
secondary American history textbooks: How far have we come?. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(4), 311-‐320.
Schilling, V. (2014, June 29). 5 Things Educators Should Know Before Teaching
Native Culture and History. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/23/5-‐things-‐
educators-‐should-‐know-‐teaching-‐native-‐culture-‐and-‐history-‐155810
Schilling, V. (2014, July 23). 5 Things Educators Should Know Before Teaching
Native Culture and History. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/23/5-‐things-‐
educators-‐should-‐know-‐teaching-‐native-‐culture-‐and-‐history-‐
155810?page=0,0
Schmitter, E. (2013). Native American History and Perspectives in United States
History Textbooks. Athens, OH.
Shadowwalker, D. M. (2012). Where have all the Indians gone? American Indian
representation in secondary history textbooks.
82
Simpson, M. W. (2010). American Indians at Wounded Knee in Current US History
High School Textbooks: Discourse Analysis Using the Appraisal Judgment
System. Indigenous Policy Journal, 21(2).
Student Enrollment Data. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2015, from
http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/enrollment.aspx
United States Census Bureau. (2014, July 8). Retrieved December 8, 2014, from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.htmlhttp://quickfacts.censu
s.gov/qfd/states/46000.html
Wilkins, D., & Stark, H. (2011). Indigenous Political Participation: Patriotism,
Suffrage, and Partisanship. In American Indian politics and the American
political system (3rd ed., pp. 165 -‐ 187). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wilson, R. (1980). Native Americans in college textbooks. The Indian Historian,
13(2), 44-‐47.
Wineburg, S. (2012-‐2013). Undue Certainty: Where Howard Zinn's A People's
History Falls Short. American Educator, 27-‐34. Retrieved December 8, 2014.
Zinn, H. (2011) "Columbus and Western Civilization." Howard Zinn on History (2nd
ed., pp. 179-‐203). New York, NY: Seven Stories.
83
Appendix A Coding Chart CODE DEFINITION EXAMPLE TYPE NOTES TO SELF S
The use of the word “Sioux” to describe the Lak., Dak., Nak,
Wovoka promised that if the Sioux (S) performed a ritual call the Ghost Dance, the vision would be realized.
Descriptive
L
The use of the word “Lakota” instead of Sioux
Custer underestimated the fighting capabilities of the Lakota (L) and Cheyenne.
Descriptive
M
The use of the word “massacre” in reference to Wounded Knee
In 1970 Dee Brown published Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, about the 1890 massacre (M) of Sioux at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.
Descriptive Can be used in the title or description of the event or used as a word of general description. Can also be mentioned in the takeover in the 70s.
B
The use of the word “battle” in reference to wounded knee
This event, the Battle of Wounded Knee, (B) brought the Indian wars-‐-‐and an entire era-‐-‐to a bitter end.
Descriptive Only looking at the 1890 Wounded Knee event and not the takeover in the 70s unless they are using the word to reference the 1890 event.
NA
When Native Americans (people or tribes) are not mentioned by name
In early June 1876, the Sioux and Cheyenne held a sun dance, during which Sitting Bull had a vision of soldiers and some Native Americans (NA) falling from their horses.
Descriptive Can be a specific person or as a way of generalizing all Natives in specific groups.
V
When the word “violated” is used in reference to treaties.
The Lakota saw no reason they should abide by a treaty that American settlers were violating (V) so many left the reservation that spring to hunt near the Bighorn Mountains in southeastern Montana.
Descriptive
Con.
Any time a contradiction is used to describe one of the historical events
(Being of a particular paragraph) In return, the Sioux signed the historic Treaty of 1868, in which they agreed to live on reservations along the Missouri Rivers. (skip to the bottom of the paragraph) In addition, the Treaty of 1868 had been forced on the Sioux.
Interpretive This particular example of a contradiction begs the question did the Lakota willingly sign and agree to the treaty terms or were they forced to? Can also look for contradictions between each text, an example would be when talking about AIM one text might say that 2 Native Americans died while another might say only one died and another was injured. Contradictions like that are helpful.
I
Use of Indian compared to specific tribe
Cries from revenge motivated army forces to track down the Indians (I).
Descriptive Similar to Native American but also important to look at whether they specific American Indian from just the word Indian in general.
C
Use of the word “Chief” in reference to Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse
When the Sioux led by chiefs (C) Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, assembled to drive them out, the U.S. Army sent its own troops against the Native Americans.
Descriptive This is included because I am trying to find a historical timeline or some information of these two figures even being considered chiefs or if they were just medicine men and/or tribal leaders, which would be different.
DR
Displacing Responsibility or Justification for certain actions or events
Defying the orders of the government (DR), the Lakota continued to perform the Ghost dance . . .
Interpretive This particular example is in reference to the Wounded Knee Massacre and with this particular wording I felt that the text was almost placing the blame on the Lakota for “defying orders” compared to where it lies in the actions of the cavalry.
84
Appendix B
Interview Protocol:
1. How long have you been a teacher and how long have you been teaching history in a High School setting?
2. What type of education or coursework have you received that pertains to
Native history?
3. How about any professional development have you received pertaining to local Native or Lakota/Dakota/Nakota history?
4. From a teaching standpoint how do you rate your school district’s selection
of textbooks that promote indigenous learning and history?
5. Do you feel Native Americans are represented accurately in the textbooks used in the Rapid City high schools?
6. As a teacher, do you feel the provided textbooks and resources afford
adequate grounding for culturally accurate teaching?
7. When it comes to teaching Native American history do you feel comfortable with the information you have on hand? Do you ever wish for more materials surrounding these issues?
8. In a state with a population of around 70,000 Native Americans do you feel
the school curriculum does an adequate job of incorporating Native history into the classroom?
9. What are some of the historic events that you teach from this area? (Depending on answer I will ask if they teach any of the following)
o Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 o Battle of Little Big Horn o Wounded Knee Massacre o Lakota Code Talkers of WWII o Wounded Knee Takeover of 1973 o Current tribal politics
10. What is the student interest level in learning the history of the surrounding
area as it relates to Native narrative? o Black Hills (Bear Butte, Pe Sla, Wind Cave) o Badlands o Wounded Knee
85
11. In the textbooks provided there are primary sources listed (ex. Bury My
Heart at Wounded Knee quote), do incorporate them and how do you encourage your students to examine them further?
12. In your own classroom do you use supplementary materials as it relates to teaching Native history and/or narratives? Please elaborate on these materials.
13. Do you know anything about the Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings
Project? o If YES -‐-‐ How are you incorporating these understandings into your
curriculum o If NO -‐-‐ How do you feel about its incorporation into the classroom? o If NOT FAMILIAR -‐-‐ Explain what it is and ask their initial opinions on
the project. 14. What do you think your students take away the most when it comes to
curriculum surrounding Native American history? o Columbus o Trail of Tears o Indian Wars
86
Appendix C Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires) tribal breakdown in Challenge (p. 9).