inaccurate, distorted? What is the effect upon the student, when he learns from his textbooks that one race and one alone, is the most, the best, the greatest; when he learns that Indians were mere parts of the landscape and wilderness which had to be cleared out to make way for the great "movement" of white population across the land; and when he learns that Indians were killed and forcibly removed from their ancient homelands to make way for adventurers (usually called "pioneering goldminers"), for land grabbers (usually called "settlers"), and for illegal squatters on Indianowned land (usually called "frontiersmen")? What is the effect upon the young Indian himself, who is also a student in the school system, when he is told that Columbus discovered America, that Coronado brought "civilization" to the Indian people, and that the Spanish missionaries provided havens of refuge for the Indian? Is it reasonable to assume that the student of whatever race, will not discover at some time in his life that Indians discovered America thousands of years before Columbus set out upon his voyage; that Coronado brought death and destruction to the native peoples; and that the Spanish missions, in all too many cases, forcibly dragged Indians to the missions?

No member of the commission or the Board of Education attempted to answer these questions. There appeared to be general acceptance of the Indians' textbook evaluations. There was also general agreement that the matter was of grave concern to the teaching profession as a whole, as to curriculum development and the development of new textbook material.

But the "meat" of the matter was a different thing entirely. When the critiques of specific books were made known, a general cry of distress was heard from three quarters: from descendants of gold miners who began to telephone school administrators and State legislators in outraged protest; from the chairman of the Conference of California Historical Societies, who issued a general pronunciamento opposing the proposed criteria, and from one priest.

Here are some of the specific criticisms made of certain textbooks, only a few among the total number of 43 that were evaluated:

"The Story of American Freedom," a basic textbook in fifth grade history: When dealing with Indians this book handles the subject as though discussing a fossil. It is at best a superficial treatment of the Indians in our history. No Indian tribes are mentioned. The treatment is one of extensive generalization. On page 130, it is stated: "Settlers had gone beyond the Appalachians. The Indians made war upon them. The

President had to see that the settlers were protect ror Seven additional passages were quoted, indicating and history was being written on behalf of and from vas point of view of a particular dominant race. wo authors were queried: Is it true that the Indians man war upon the settlers? Or is it rather true that ird settlers had seized Indian land, destroyed Incar hunting grounds and homesites, and were forcing he Indians to defend themselves against further encroas ment and even to defend their very lives? Did he President not have a duty to protect the Indiansife. well?

"California, Our State Today," a basic text 84 fourth grade, was found to be entirely lacking in Cal consideration of the Indian in the State's history: Tere book discusses the Jewish synagogues, Negroal Spaniards, and Mexicans. But not the Indian. Ehe the missions are briefly described. But the writer 0 this book is capable of treating the missions with es even mentioning the Indians who peopled them, bụ v them, worked for the padres and the Spaniards, ap gave up their land for them. hr

"The Story of Our Country," basic fifth grade bed tory, contains this statement: "How do we know aband the Indians? We know . . . from the books that wher men wrote when they first came to America. . . Thing described the weapons and tools that the Indians males and everything that seemed interesting and strangles There are many Indians today who know their histoind who have written books, given authentic history he eminent scholars who have written and translated bei understood Indian life, languages, and culture. Qui page 112, it is stated: "Settling in towns helped in people of Massachusetts. They could more easily spa fend themselves against Indian attacks than if settle lived far apart." It is a fact that the colonists seiztat and confiscated Indian-owned land, with the exceptiar of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania-that the first cleor ing was made by digging up Indian cornfields contatiti ing a full winter's supply of food. Should not txt defense of Indians against white colonizing encroador ment be described? On page 279 of the same bodol "In order for the cattlemen and their families to titi safely, the Indian tribes that ruled the Plains had to fed defeated." In fact, the cattlemen continually demandhe further expansion. Further expansion could occur witeg the taking of Indian lands, which the United Stator Government had promised would belong to the IndiaTh "forever." So the cattlemen engaged in an illegal aFe unconscionable war against the Indian tribes of fins Plains, who were forced to defend themselves as dib they could. The enforced removal of Indian triband

m one area to another, pushing them into smaller 1 more miserable bits and parcels of isolated lands, s an open violation of treaties, agreements, and orn promises. To state that all this was done in the ne of "progress," is a failure to note the extralinary efforts and the willingness of the tribes to rn new ways, to farm whenever possible, to speak alien languages, to abide by the alien laws. It s the insatiable demand for more land that forced removals, the murders, the destruction of Indian

"Westward the Nation," states on page 118: "In 16, there were approximately only 700 Americans in lifornia." There is complete ignorance being fosFed in this textbook. It is a fact that in 1846, in lifornia, there were approximately 75,000 people in State, of which about 700 were Americans, about O were Spanish, Mexican and Negroes; and the st were Indians. On page 121: "The gold rush was wild, exciting period. Men poured across the rivers,

over the steep, jagged snowy mountains, and rough the burning, waterless deserts. Nothing stopd them-not sickness, death, wild animals, or savage dians." Is it indeed proper and moral to make Froes and pioneers of the goldminers, who seized dian land, killed whole bands and families, ruthsly taking what they wanted? Is it moral to scribe the Indians as "savages"? The California dians were the most peace-loving, friendly people on continent. They were complete, complex human ings, with a complex society and a complex economy itable for their period of human existence and their vironment at the time they were encountered by the Saniards.

"This Is Our Land," fifth grade supplementary, ites: "Today the Indians go to school, join the rmy, live where they please. They are no longer the rgotten Americans. They are just like all the other izens of the United States: Americans." This is an traordinary over-simplification of one of the most mplex problems in American jurisprudence and litical life today. It is true, today the Indians are izens and can vote. But their relations with the deral Government make them a special section of population. Their lands are controlled by Federal gulation. They cannot use tribal funds without the nsent of Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. eir lives as Tribes are controlled by the Code of deral Regulations, Title 25 (Indians) which in many stances abrogates the civil, political, and personal perties accorded other sections of the population der the Constitution of the United States. They are

governed by a "Department" of the United States Government. There is no doubt that changes are coming, but there is still the idea that Indians are the recipients of "handouts," receiving per capita payments from Uncle Sam regularly. It is not known, and certainly it is not revealed in the textbooks, that such per capita payments if and when made, are doled out by a wellmeaning government to Indians who have tribal rights, out of funds belonging to them, produced from their land and their resources.

"Negro American Heritage," fifth and eighth grade supplementary, states on page 44: "The Battle of Little Big Horn, better known as 'Custer's Last Stand,' lasted only twenty minutes with General Custer and his army being massacred by the Sioux Indians under Crazy Horse." Now this particular book is part of a new series, presumably seeking to remedy the distortions and misinterpretations practiced in the textbooks as to the treatment of minorities in the books. One has a right to expect that such distortions would be avoided. But it is a distasteful fact of life, that even the more progressive writers of textbooks have fallen into the same old ideological format. One might ask: Why is a victory a "massacre" when your opponent wins, and a heroic feat when you yourself win? The Sioux are placed in the position of being aggressors, when in fact they were defenders of their lands and their families. The truth about Custer is not revealed nor even indicated. Material exists in profusion that he was an aggressor, a killer of Indian children, a marauder upon Indian-owned lands.

Why is it necessary to "angle" history, to distort facts, to neglect the truth, or to ignore the very exist ence of a people whose help made possible the survival and ultimate prosperity of an alien race of white people, who came ostensibly to live in peace and lived at last to conquer by force and violence?

A dedication in a supplementary book, "Stories California Indians Told," carries this brief but "touching" (!) statement: "For all boys and girls who like Indians and animals." It is a fair observation that any Indian who reads such a dedication, if he has any knowledge whatever of his heritage, will be grossly insulted. The California Indians were, and let it be known in resolutions and letters to the publisher.

The above quotations and citations are only a few of the practical evaluations made in the 26-page report to the California State Board of Education. They suffice to give the picture, for there was not one book in all 43 which was free from inaccuracies. A further evaluation of books adopted in certain local school districts was made, since California State law requires

MMER 1968

that local districts study the history of their area and provide a textbook in connection with this study. What was found in the "local" histories was infinitely worse than what was criticized in the State-adopted textbooks.

The American Indian Historical Society realizes full well the immensity of the task that is here involved. Among the leaders and members of the Society there are teachers who happen to be Indians, professors and scholars who happen to be Indians, resource native historians who have worked long and unselfishly with linguists and anthropologists and archaeologists to reveal all the truths about their tribes. The Society, faced with this mass of negative criticism rather than positive contributions, has published numerous documents, bibliographies, guides for teachers, and suggestions as to utilization of better materials.

What can we teach the child, when we teach him the truth about Indian history? What can we add to the basic understanding of the child, in terms of fundamental scholarship, when we teach him the unvarnished facts of the relationship between the Federal Government and the American Indian? And what can we add to the stature of the child as a future citizen, when we teach him the truth about the present situation of the Indian in our society? The answers come in these words:

We can give the child a deeper appreciation of the fact that mankind grows, makes mistakes, tries to correct them, and step by stumbling step, Man reaches for understanding, knowledge, and a better way of life.

We can teach the young student to understand other peoples, other cultures, other races. And first of all we teach him to understand the people, the culture, and the race which is entirely native to this land of ours. In this way we can strike a blow at prejudice more powerfully than any picket line.

We can give the child the proud and unique herita which belongs to the history of the American Indi These, among others, are some of the things which Indian has contributed to the Nation and the wor the uses of plants, trees, the soil, protection of fores and conservation. Among many other contributio made by the Indians are the use of potatoes, co beans, squash, tobacco, cotton, pumpkins, chocola tomatoes, peanuts, strawberries, avocados, Jerusal artichokes, tapioca, quinine, maple syrup, chicle, nilla, cashew nuts, pepper, cocaine, arrowroot, cha ing gum, pecans, as well as the hammock, the can snowshoes, moccasins, the uses of the sweat house.

We can learn much from the Indian philosophy human relations, the uses of medicinal plants, ability to live with nature, the habits of bodily healCon the discipline of family life, the respect for one's eldejus and the intense love for one's historic past. he

but

der

The whole history of man is a history of small Rig ginnings, of error and correction of error, of progroro and regression. In studying the history of the Amecon can Indians, who made such slow but tremend The progress, within their own culture, in conditions pur such simple environmental influences, we study history of mankind. In teaching these things, we te the child that the history of mankind through t ages is the broadest and most generous understandi m of human relations that he can have. He might lea that Man must live with nature even with a porcelare bathtub in his house, and that all mankind has had h. small, tortuous, and slow beginnings, in one form Dem another, through the ages-no matter what his race. of JEANNETTE HENS p

reg

the

Miss Henry is editor of The Indian Historian, pan lished by the American Indian Historical Society per San Francisco, California.

gro

inte

E

ahe

has

reg

pol

thr

has

anc

ing

con

bee

gen

the

ΤΟ

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, following upon the mands of the civil rights groups for direct Federal gistration of Negroes, has been a very real success facilitating registration and voting. More than half e Negroes of voting age, the Commission reports, Fe now registered in every Southern State. Those asho remember witnesses for the Mississippi Freedom femocratic Party telling the Credentials Committee is the 1964 Democratic National Convention that only percent of the Negroes in Mississippi were registered, n rejoice in the fact that today the figure is 60 Spercent. And this increase in registration of Negroes

the Southern States has brought with it more Neoes elected to office and more recognition of Negro terests by political office holders generally. But, as always in the civil rights field, the road ead looms as long and as rocky as the road that s already been traveled. Precisely because Negro gistration has been so successful, new roadblocks to litical participation throughout the South have been rown up at every available point. The Negro vote s been diluted by switching to at-large elections d by redrawing election district lines, thus diminishg the influence that would otherwise be drawn from ncentrations of Negro voting strength. Negroes have en prevented from obtaining office by such stratams as extending the incumbent's term, abolishing e office, raising filing fees, withholding information,

and the like. Negro poll watchers have been excluded from polling places and even out-and-out frauds against Negro candidates have not been unknown. While the worst offenders, of course, are the usual culprits of Mississippi and Alabama, the Commission's findings cover other Southern States as well.

It is in the area of participation within the Democratic and Republican Party structure that Negro progress has been most disappointing. Thus, the Commission reports that out of the approximately 1,700 persons who served on the State party executive committees in the 10 Southern States last year, only about 10 or less than .6 percent were Negroes. While the situation is undoubtedly somewhat better on some county party executive committees in some of these States, no Negro served on any county executive committee in Mississippi last year. Inclusion, not exclusion, may be the rule of the major political parties in most of the Nation, but it certainly has no application to Negroes in the old Confederacy.

The Civil Rights Commission put the blame for this deplorable state of affairs just where it belongsupon the national political parties-and recommends stern action on their part. The Commission proposes that the national parties require their State organizations, as a precondition to the seating of delegations at the national conventions, to eliminate all vestiges of discrimination at every level of party activity, to publicize all meetings, procedures, and qualifications for office within the party, and to take affirmative steps to open activities to all party members regardless of race. In so doing, the Commission has proposed a new direction in party discipline over State units. Instead of insisting that delegations to the national conventions be integrated, which has been the area of conflict in the past, the Commission is saying that the State and local parties must themselves be integrated before their delegations can be seated at the convention.

In this respect, an analogy might be drawn to the recent struggle over representation at the forthcoming Olympic Games. Initially South Africa was to be received at the 1968 games as long as it sent an integrated delegation of athletes. Now, however, South African athletes are not to be accepted at all because of the apartheid policies at home. So here the Commission is saying that delegations from State political parties which discriminate against Negroes at home should not be admitted to the national conventions no matter how much they dress up their delegations to the conventions. And, of course, the Commission is right in its broad proposal. The State delegation to the national convention is only the part of the iceberg

that is above water. What really counts is what the party is doing back home and it belies any contention of racial integrity on the part of a national political party to recognize State organizations which discriminate against Negroes.

Actually, this is the position which the Democratic National Convention appears to have taken in 1964 as a result of the challenge of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. It will be recalled that the Freedom Party's challenge resulted in the ouster of the regular lily-white Mississippi delegation and the offer of seats to Aaron Henry and Rev. Ed King, two of the leaders of the Freedom Party delegation. But the challenge also evoked a change in the permanent rules of the Convention that State parties sending delegates to future Democratic conventions assure to all persons the right "to participate fully in party affairs" regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin. Since the issue had arisen in the context of the color of the State delegation not of the State party, this pledge of full participation in party affairs may have been more by accident than design and it will be up to future conventions to decide.

Actually, however, mere exclusions of delegations sent by offending State parties is only the beginning. The thing that really matters is the filling of the seats of the excluded delegates with Negroes and their local white allies. Thus, the regular Mississippi delegates made it perfectly clear all over the Democratic National Convention in 1964 that they did not give a tinker's damn about what happened to them, but they were determined not to have their seats filled by the Freedom Party delegation. Indeed, it was reliably reported during that Convention struggle that Governors John A. Connally and Carl Sanders told President Lyndon B. Johnson that the other Southern delegations did not care about the exclusion of the regular Mississippi delegation, but they would all take a walk if the contesting Negroes were seated.

This is, of course, "practical" Southern politics. Exclusion from the national convention does not affect control of the local party; indeed, standing up to the national party has only too often been "good for home consumption." But if a rival group is seated and thus given recognition by the national party, this might indeed affect local party control back home. Who is included at the national convention may well be more important than who is excluded.

A step in the right direction was taken by the Special Equal Rights Committee of the Democratic National Committee last year. This Special Committee was appointed pursuant to the mandate of the 1964

Convention; its report, adopted by the Democr National Committee, provides that if any State d gation is not "broadly representative of the De crats of the State", their seats will be declared vac and the Credentials Committee should "fill those s with a delegation broadly representative of the De crats of that State." Despite the fact that this ple is couched in terms of the composition of the dele tion not the actions of the State party, if the De cratic National Convention lives up to its pledge Chicago in August, a very important step will h been taken toward reforming the State Democra parties of the South.

Less is known about the plans of the Republi Party for their coming convention in Miami. The has, of course, been less attention over the years mo the integrated or segregated nature of the delegati hea to the Republican national conventions coming fraf the States of the South. In part at least this flow from the absence of a strong Republican Party on many Southern States. But now that this situation changing, equal interest may soon be focused on an issue at Republican conventions. Roy Wilkins, ChaRi man of the Leadership Conference on Civil Righa recently addressed a letter to Republican Chair Ray Bliss as well as Democratic Chairman John Babyo asking about their plans for the seating or unseatic of delegations which do not adequately represent black minority in their State parties. As of the timi this article was being prepared, neither Chairman S responded despite the imposing strength of the Leadda ship Conference which represents more than 100 ci rights, labor, religious, civic, fraternal, and other ganizations. No doubt neither Chairman has finan determined the course he and his party will fol this summer on this most touchy issue.

ba