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).