Superficiality and Bias: The (Mis)Treatment of Native Americans in U. S. Government Textbooks

Abstract

Many of the problems facing Americans today stem from bias, stereotype, and basic misunderstanding on the part of non-Indians. As racist tendencies and generalizations begin at an early age, education and proper treatment in textbooks is essential in remedying the problem. However, education and learning do not end in one's teen years. Perceptions (both positive and negative) can be molded, reshaped, or solidified in later years. Thus, while adequate and accurate coverage of the role of Americans in the governmental system should be standard fare in college textbooks, it is not. In this paper we analyze the way in which issues are addressed in some of the leading government and democracy textbooks being used at the college level. Our examination considers the texts on two levels. First, we look at the amount of space devoted to Americans relative to other minority groups and between the federal government and other subnational units of government. An examination of index references and a simple word count should reveal where the priorities of various authors lie. (We assume that areas given greater weight by an author will be written upon more extensively.) Second, we examine the texts for any bias or the fostering of misunderstanding. For example, simply lumping Americans into a section on minority politics is inherently misinforming if the separate legal status of nations as well as individuals living in Country is not specified.' (By admission, our word count analysis appears to lean toward the same style of categorization but it is unavoidable since Americans are among the many ethnic minority groups in the United States; however, the term Indian or Native American also connotes a particular political or legal status). Other possible areas of bias include the discussion of tribes with regard to