The Changing Image Of Ethnic Groups in Textbooks

IN PREPARING to write this article, I pulled from my bookshelf a dusty U.S. history text for secondary schools published in 1952 and one published in 1992 and skimmed each for its portrayal of minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics) and white ethnic groups (e.g., Jewish, Irish, and Italian Americans). Real changes in the depiction of these groups have occurred during this 40-year period. The portrayal of minorities has improved, and coverage of Irish, Jewish, and other white ethnic groups is evident. A look at other textbooks used in both elementary and secondary schools suggests that multicultural content has increased in the prose, illustrations, and highlighted material. Is such progress sufficient? Or should greater attention be directed at what some critics -- pressure groups inside and outside the education community -- allege publishers have failed to accomplish? Textbook publishers would want educators to focus on the "positive," while critics would want us to focus on the "continued distorted and stereotypic depictions of minorities in textbooks. " But is following the pronouncements of either of these camps an effective approach for examining this issue? Perhaps a broader look would prove more valuable in helping readers assess the depiction of societal groups in textbooks. One approach might be to discuss societal groups and textbooks within a historical context -- that is, to begin by examining why textbooks and minorities have become an issue and what progress, if any, has occurred in the portrayal of minorities and other societal groups in textbooks. The related issue of the influence of interest groups on the textbook industry would also be worthy of scrutiny. Finally, the discussion should focus on a concluding question, Do multicultural textbooks make a difference? That is, Do textbooks that attempt to chronicle accurately the experiences of minorities and other societal groups provide minorities with advantages that nonminority students experience (e.g., self-esteem, school success, cultural pride)? And do they afford all students a greater understanding of and sensitivity to the pluralistic nature of American society than do Eurocentric textbooks? HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE It may prove useful to take a look at the historical purpose of U.S. public schools and at the role of textbooks in them before discussing the treatment of societal groups in textbooks since the 1970s. According to William Reese, in the 19th century "public schools taught children and then adolescents that America was Christian, republican, and the greatest nation on earth. "[1] Given this perspective, textbook authors manufactured a world that Ruth Elson described as: a fantasy made up by adults as a guide for their children. It is an ideal world, peopled by ideal villains as well as real heroes. Individuals are to be understood in terms of easily discernible, inherent characteristics of their race and nationality as much as in terms of their individual character. Virtue is always rewarded, vice punished. [2] The textbook authors of the time were "mostly New England born, Protestant, white men who often attended college or other higher schools " -- an "atypical slice of the American populace. "[3] Individuals who were not white were omitted from the textbooks or received a treatment that reinforced widespread beliefs about their "proper" station in life. In the 19th century, while some authors spoke of American Indians as brave and alert, many more descriptions referred to them as cruel, vengeful, and barbarous. Textbook descriptions of Latin Americans from the same period were equally disdainful: The creoles have all the bad qualities of the Spaniards from whom they descended, without the courage, firmness and patience which makes the praiseworthy part of the Spanish character. …