|
“A
Century of Progress”: The Portrayal of Indians in
American History Textbooks
|
Most of us probably learned most of the “basics” of
American History from the textbooks we used in school. Few of these
textbooks could ever be considered great (or even good) literature.
Many are frightfully dull. In attempting to cover the widest possible
range of topics, most high school and college textbooks present
only simplified overviews of historical events—nuance and
complexity require too much space and pose intellectual challenges
to readers that go beyond the scope of most introductory or survey
courses. Nonetheless, these textbooks provide excellent overviews
of whatever “grand narrative” of American History was
generally accepted at the time of their publications.
American Indians rarely fare well in them.
If you want to listen to a classroom presentation on this topic
as you read this essay, just click on this audio link.
|
One
of the first best-selling college history texts, John Clark
Ridpath’s History of the United States illustrates
this. The subtitle of Ridpath’s “Century Edition” of
this work (1899) makes clear the author’s dismissive
attitude toward the roles played by Native people in American
History. Not quite legible in this picture, it reads, “The
Progress of Civilization in America from the Coming of the
White Races to the ?????”. |
Consider the implications of this subtitle:
- History
is something that arrived in the Americas only with Columbus—nothing
before that time matters
- “Civilization” presumably
arrives at the same time
- Cultures
other than those falling under the narrow heading of Euro-American “civilization” are
unimportant—and
destined to be overwhelmed (and probably eliminated) in the name
of “progress”
- American
History also, it seems, is solely a history of the “White
Races”
As
Ridpath tells it, American History was a story of “Civilization” and “Progress.”
It was also a story of heroes—White heroes. This
image of the heroic death of George Armstrong Custer in
1876,
is one of the last in Ridpath’s text. Why do you
think this is so? How does Custer’s defeat at Little
Bighorn fit into the “Progress of Civilization in
America”? |
|
For
Ridpath and other writers, Custer’s defeat functioned
as a sort of climax of American history. It was a moment where
the “savages” temporarily checked the advance of civilization…but
Custer’s actual defeat proved a moral victory. By the time
Ridpath completed his “Century Edition,” the Indian
wars had ended. The massacre at Wounded Knee had put an end to
overt acts of Native American resistance and could be interpreted
as “Civilization’s” revenge against the Lakotas.
Custer had lost, but America had won. For Ridpath, that was America’s
story—and civilization’s destiny.
But
Ridpath’s textbook is an easy target. Few histories
published over a century ago would measure up to today’s
standards of cultural sensitivity. More recent textbooks must be
better, right?
Read this paragraph from ?????’s
?????? (198?):
“For thousands of centuries—centuries in which
human races were evolving, forming communities, and building
the beginnings of national civilizations in Africa, Asia, and
Europe—the continents we know as the Americas stood
empty of mankind and its works. The human species was not
born to
the Western Hemisphere. It had to find it. And it did so
in two great waves of immigration. The first from Asia, beginning
between 25,000 and 40,000 years ago; the second from Europe
and Africa beginning in the sixteenth century. For humans
at
least, the Americas were indeed what awestruck Europeans
of 400 years ago called them: the New World.”
|
How different
is this than Ridpath’s textbook from 90 years
earlier? ???? describes American Indians as the first wave of immigrants.
Would most Native Americans agree with this characterization of
themselves and their origins? Is there not a fundamental difference
between the arrival of Europeans and Africans 400 years ago and
Paleoindians at least 20,000 years earlier? And perhaps 40,000
years earlier?
Why would this 198? Textbook present this sort of argument?
For ?????,
the difference between a Paleoindian and my immigrant grandmother
is largely a matter
of timing. The United States is
portrayed as a place of inclusion—a melting pot and a nation
in which people from many cultures come together to create a new
identity. In this version of American history, differences between
human being are not portrayed as being insurmountable—and
perhaps not even important. We all become Americans…eventually.
But
what does this suggest about an individual’s racial,
ethnic and cultural heritage? Are these things that should be cast
off? Tribal sovereignty and cultural preservation are issues that
generations Native people have struggled to maintain. Is there
any indication of this in ?????’s
introductory paragraph?
Continue with this Online Essay
|