Maya Chavez Akin

EDUC 1450; Final Paper

Dr. Margary Martin

Representations of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in US History Textbooks Adopted by

the State of Texas

“The Mexicans had had no experience in governing themselves, while the

American pioneers who settled Texas were among the most efficient, democratic,
and self-reliant people in the world.”
The Standard Building of Our Nation. 1955.
1955.

“By the end of the nineteenth century, cowboy heroes, such as those in Buffalo
Bill's Wild West Show, no longer wore serapes, sashes, and short jackets that
shared Spanish and Mexican Origins…Why would it matter that cowboy heroes
wore clothes that reflected Anglo origins, rather than Mexican?”
America Past and Present. 2003.
2003.

“The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is the omission or
de-emphasis of important data. The definition of important, of course, depends on
one’s values.”
Howard Zinn. Declarations of Independence. 1990.

Whether or not they acknowledge their subjectivity, American history textbooks present

historical narratives that are filtered through the paradigms of their authors’ and editors’ values

and biases, and shaped by their purposes in writing for for-profit publishing companies. That

American history textbooks have long been shaped by Eurocentric, patriarchal values, and

filtered through a white normative lens is evident in the selection of historical content they have

presented (King, 1991; Wolf, 1992; Nieto, 1994; Belkhir, 1996; Loewen, 1996).

American history textbooks have a long tradition of omitting, de-emphasizing and

misrepresenting people of color. (Fitzgerald, 1979; King, 1991; Salvucci, 1992; Wolf, 1992;

Nieto, 1994; Belkhir, 1996; Loewen, 1996; Rodríguez & Ruíz, 2000; Noboa, 2014.)
 Chavez 2

Prior to the 1960s, US history textbooks said little about African Americans and

generally ignored Hispanics, and Asians (Wolf, 1992). While coverage of people of color has

increased since then, textbooks have continued to marginalize minorities (Wolf, 1992; Salvucci,

1992; Amber-Belkhir, 1996; Rodríguez & Ruíz, 2000). Amber-Belkhir’s (1996) survey of US

history textbooks from 1970-1985, for instance, showed that women and minorities tended to be

marginalized and underrepresented.

In the 1960s, the largely homogenous white, Eurocentric curriculum presented in schools

began to be challenged as the Civil Rights movement led to demands for more diverse

educational content (Sleeter & Grant, 1987; Garcia, 1993; Amber-Belkhir, 1996). Supporters of

multicultural curriculum insisted that curriculum representative of more diverse groups would

contribute to students’ understanding of society, enhance racial relations, and facilitate increased

student achievement among students of color by raising their self-esteem through positive

teaching about the contributions of minorities to history, and society (García, 1993). Proponents

also argued that “culturally relevant” content would boost student achievement by facilitating

greater academic engagement among minority students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Ladson-Billings

(1995) argued that such content was essential to the achievement of students of color.

On the other side of the debate over multicultural curriculum stood those who insisted

that students needed to traditional Western curriculum, and that multicultural content would lead

to separatism and the “disuniting of America” (Schlesinger, 1992; p. 212). Despite objections,

multicultural education managed to gain traction and produce increased in the representation of

people of color in US history textbooks.

However, one of the most salient criticisms of this content has been that it has remained

peripheral to the dominant, white, Eurocentric narratives presented in history textbooks lens
 Chavez 3

(Fitzgerald, 1979; King, 1991, Wolf, 1992; Loewen, 1996). Wolf (1992) found in his study of

US history textbooks from 1945-1985 that, while overall minority coverage had increased,

textbooks still tended to portray events from the perspective of white Americans. Rather than

being viewed as a fundamental redefinition of social studies curriculum, multicultural curriculum

was interpreted through the dominant, Eurocentric paradigm that reduced it to “additive content”

served to students alongside largely unchanged curriculum (Nieto, 1994, p. 1). Instead of

enriching the national historical narrative with the histories and cultures of people of color, these

representations of people of color were decontextualized from the broader historical context, and

tended toward superficial content (Fitzgerald, 1979; King, 1991; Salvucci, 1992; García, 1993).

A significant criticism of the new diverse content was that it failed to convey why

understanding history from a diverse range of perspectives was important to understanding

history and society (Banks, 1993). Instead they focused on superficial content, such as, “random

holidays, isolated cultural artifacts, or ‘festivals and food’” that contributed little to students’

understanding of diverse cultures (King, 1991; p. 134). Salvucci (1992) described this type of

superficial content as “mindless mentioning (Salvucci, 1992; 61).

The limited, shallow accounts of people of color included in textbooks have also tended

to marginalize them by divorcing them from the broader historical context. Belkhir (1996) found

in a survey of introductory US history textbooks that representations of African Americans

tended to be described in separate features within the textbook rather than as part of the primary

narrative (Belkhir, 1996). Belkhir found that Latinos were similarly removed represented in

separate features (1996). The implicit message to students in presenting the history and culture of

people of color in separate ‘bonus’ features in the textbook is that people of color have been

peripheral to American history

 Chavez 4

American history textbooks have also continued to perpetuate negative stereotypes about

minority groups. A number of studies have focused specifically on the portrayal of Latinos in US

history textbooks. Frances Fitzgerald’s (1979) study of US history textbooks from the early

1970s found the representation of Latinos lacking in substantive historical content. Salvucci’s

(1992) survey of US history textbooks adopted in 1985 for use in Texas schools found the

textbooks’ coverage of the Mexican-American war contained “considerable stereotyping about

‘blood-thirsty’ Mexicans and ‘heroic’ Texans (p. 62). Rodríguez & Ruíz (2000) found that

textbooks’ substantial focus on agricultural labor in their coverage of Latinos contributed to the

impression that all Latinos are working class. Montforti & McGlynn (2010) found that textbooks

presented Latinos “primarily as immigrants and, in many cases, [as] illegal immigrants” (p. 311).

The negative messages textbooks perpetuate about Latinos have significant implications

for Latino students. US history textbooks constitute the “fullest and most widely disseminated

images of Mexico and its people to American high school students” (Salvucci, 1991, p. 58). The

socializing influence of textbooks means that the biases, prejudices, and negative stereotypes

presented by textbooks are transmitted to students, shaping their understanding of society’s

different grups, and influencing their own identities (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001;

Montforti & McGlynn, 2010).

Hispanic students now make up more than half of Texas’ public school students (Texas

2014). Textbooks’ marginalization and negative stereotyping of minorities also has potentially

important implications for their student achievement. Steele (1997) linked the triggering of

negative stereotypes to diminished academic achievement among the stereotyped group. Suárez-

Orozco & Suárez-Orozco (2001) write that students in environments characterized by “cultural

hostilities [and] identity threats” are unlikely to remain engaged in school (p. 95). When students
 Chavez 5

are faced with negative expectations from multiple social “mirrors” they can produce significant

negative psychological consequences, and undermine achievement (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-

Orozco, 2001; p. 99).

Current Study

The current study examines the representation of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in two of

the three high school United States history textbooks adopted by the Texas State Board of

Education for use until the 2016-2017 school year. The texts included are:

Cayton, Andrew; Perry, Elisabeth Israels.; Reed, Linda; Winkler, Allan M. (2003).
America: Pathways to the Present. (Texas Edition). Upper Saddle River: Pearson
(Prentice Hall).

Divine, R. Breen, T., Frederickson, G., Williams, R. (2003). America: Past and Present.
(6th Edition. AP Edition.) New York: Pearson (Longman).

The study seeks to examine whether US history textbooks adopted by the state of Texas promote

negative stereotypes and pereceptions about Mexicans, and Mexican Americans that could be

detrimental to students’ academic achievement.

Data Collection & Analysis

I collected data pertaining to the topics listed below:

The portrayal of Mexican and Mexican-American figures in history, politics, and culture

I identified the Mexican and Mexican-American historical figures included in each of the

textbooks. I tabulated the number of times each figure was mentioned. I determined which three

figures in each book received the most coverage, and tabulated the number of words devoted to

covering each of them. I used the following questions to guide my qualitative analysis of the

data.

 What facts are included about the historical figure?

 What descriptions and characterizations are associated with that figure? Do these
descriptions and characterizations have positive or negative connotations?
 Chavez 6

 What (if any) statements are made about the importance or impact of the
historical figure?
 What (if any) stereotypes are reinforced by the textbook’s representation of the
historical figure?

2. The portrayal of historical events involving Mexicans or Mexican Americans

I used the index to identify all of the passages that mention historical events involving Mexicans,

or Mexican Americans. I determined which events received the most coverage based on the total

number of pages, and mentions devoted to each as listed in the index.

 What facts are included about the historical event? What information about the
historical event is emphasized, de-emphasized or omitted? Is Mexico/Are
Mexicans portrayed as having an active or passive role in the event?
 How are Mexicans portrayed in the coverage of the event? What descriptions and
characterizations are associated with them? Do these descriptions and
characterizations have positive or negative connotations?
 What (if any) statements are made about the importance or impact of the
historical event?
 What (if any) stereotypes are reinforced by the textbook’s representation of the
historical event?

The portrayal of Mexicans and Mexican-American people and culture

I surveyed each textbook’s coverage of Mexicans and Mexican Americans living in the US from

the 20th century onward. After reviewing the book’s coverage, I excluded from my analysis

mentions of Mexico itself, and the Mexican government. I also excluded mentions of Hispanics,

except for where they were also specifically identified as Mexican.

Additional Data on Stereotypes:

From America: Past and Present, I gathered more extensive data on the prevalence of

stereotypes. I surveyed the entire text to identify the number of mentions of Mexicans and

Mexican-Americans in conjunction with the following words that are associated with common

negative stereotypes about Mexican-Americans. These included: illegal, alien, undocumented

and deported (and all of the various word forms and combinations thereof.)
 Chavez 7

The representation of multiculturalism and current immigration issues

I first identified all of the passages in each of the texts that explicitly addressed the topics of

multiculturalism, and current immigration. I surveyed the coverage devoted to the topics of

multiculturalism, and current immigration issues in the United States for references to

stereotypes. In analyzing these sections qualitatively, I examined the information presented

through the same framework of emphasis, de-emphasis and omission.

Findings

Overall Coverage of Mexican and Mexican American Historical Figures

Overall coverage of Mexicans, and Mexican Americans was sparse. The AP textbook

surveyed for this study, America: Past and Present, included 13 different Mexican or Mexican-

American figures, two of whom were ordinary people mentioned only in passing. Of the eleven

historical figures mentioned, only three received more than 100 words of coverage. The average

number of words devoted to each figure was 90.6. The figures who received the most coverage

were César Chávez (205 words), Don Martin De Leon and his "posterity" (147 words), General

Antonio López de Santa Ana (137 words.) As a point of comparison, while the textbook only

makes room for 205 words about César Chávez, the book devotes a full two pages to the Monika

Lewinsky scandal, and finds room for six photographs of Ronald Reagan, including a full-page

photo spread on his attempted assassination.1

America: Pathways to the Present mentions only five Mexican, and Mexican-

American figures in its index: César Chávez, Porfirio Díaz, Henry B. Gonzalez, Antonio López

de Santa Anna, and Rubén Salazar. These five received an average of 169 words of coverage. A

number of other Mexican, and Mexican-American figures not listed in the index were mentioned

1 For comparison’s sake, John F. Kennedy’s assassination receives just over 300 words of coverage and includes no
photographs, or other graphics. The outright political bias in these texts was impossible to overlook, though it is not
adequately addressed in this study.
 Chavez 8

in the text itself. As in America: Past and Present, César Chávez and Santa Anna are among the

three figures who received the most coverage in text (557 words, and 93 words, respectively.)

The other figure among the top three was Rubén Salazar, who received 178 words of coverage.

The selection of figures included in the texts appeared arbitrary. That Santa Anna

received significant mention in both texts was a function of the fact that both texts devoted more

attention to the Mexican-American War than to any other historical event involving Mexico or

Mexicans. Coverage of César Chávez was a clear nod to multicultural education, but the lifeless

narrative offered students little in the way of truly understanding Chávez on a personal, or

ideological level. The other figures, however, seemed to be pulled at random from history. Don

Martín De León, who along with his “posterity” received the third highest total coverage of

Mexican Americans in America: Past and Present, is a totally peripheral figure in history.

That America: Past and Present devotes so much coverage to Don Martin De León and

his "posterity" is perplexing. De León and his descendants almost three times as many words as

are given to Porfirio Diaz, and nearly twice as much as is devoted to the famous Mexican

historical figure Pancho Villa. The focus on De Leon is surprising given the very minor role he

played in shaping US history (Vizcaya-Canales, 1973). Several of the other Mexican historical

figures included are of dubious historical importance. That the textbook focuses on such minor

characters gives students the impression that Mexican and Mexican-Americans have done little

that is worthy of note. Why would the textbook devote all this attention to history’s forgotten

Tejanos if there were other more worthy figures of study?

The trouble is, of course, that there are other figures more worthy of study. That eminent

Mexican American historical figures are left out of the narrative presented to students in

America: Past and Present suggests that textbook authors were more concerned with the token
 Chavez 9

inclusion of Mexican and Mexican-Americans than they were with the actual historical content

to be included about those figures.

Neither of the textbooks included any meaningful coverage of a Chicana figure in history,

culture or politics. Dolores Huerta was mentioned once in connection with César Chávez in

America: Pathways to the Present, but no information is offered about her and her name is not

included in the index. Huerta received no mention in the AP text. The invisibility of Chicanas

reflects their marginalization in society, and contributes to the stereotype that men have been the

natural leaders throughout history, while women have been merely peripheral. While finding no

room for Huerta or Kahlo, the editors of America: Pathways to the Present found room for 34

separate listings for Ronald Reagan, as well as nine former photographs of the former president.

Coverage of César Chávez

The textbook’s portrayal of Chicano historical figures was sparse, and tended describe

their significance and impact in vague, abstract language that would likely not be easily

accessible to students. The texts describe the figures, but don’t include primary accounts from

the figures themselves beyond attributing a slogan or brief quotation. The coverage of César

Chávez in the AP textbook exemplified this omission of primary accounts from Chicano people.

In 205 words, the authors of America: Past and Present managed to say nearly nothing about

Chávez himself. Vague phrases such as “Chávez appealed to ethnic nationalism” give students

little context for understanding Chávez’s message (p. 898). The description, “the march took on

the character of a religious pilgrimage” is similarly abstract and inaccessible to students (p. 899).

Nothing is said of Chávez’s class-conscious message of social justice (Jensen & Hammerback,

2002).
 Chavez 10

The text minimizes Chávez’s impact, and implies he may of done more harm to Latinos

than good. The book credits Chávez with winning a “hard-fought victory over the growers,” but

then states that success “came at an enormous cost—95 percent of the farm workers involved

had lost their homes and their cars” (p. 898). The book finally credits Chávez with successfully

raising the minimum wage and with helping to “spark an outburst of ethnic consciousness among

Mexican Americans” (p. 898). Again, the book offers students little context for understanding

these abstract terms, and for relating Chávez to the broader history.

Chávez’s commitment to social justice is lost in the sparse narrative presented in

America: Past and Present. The text omits one of the central issues behind Chávez’s infamous

boycott: the dangerous pesticides and other agricultural chemicals that farm workers were

exposed to and which were linked to cancer and other health problems among the migrant

worker community (Jensen & Hammerback, 2002). Though Chávez was well known for his

rhetorical style, none of this words are included for students to read.

America: Pathways to the Present offered readers more insight into Chávez’s impact and

ideology. The text acknowledges that migrant workers were exploited, and suffered in miserable

conditions. The authors even state that Chávez “became a hero to millions of Americans, both

Latino and Anglo” (p. 772). The text offers students insight into Chávez’s ideology via an

historical parallel the text draws with Martin Luther King Jr. While the text’s overall coverage of

Chávez is more content rich than what the AP text offers, it nonetheless omits important

information about Chávez and the UFW. The text de-emphasizes the class-conscious element

that was a key part of Chávez’s political ideology. The text also says nothing of pesticides, and

of the agricultural companies themselves, and it certainly does not bring up the matter of the

FBI’s surveillance of Chávez, or its efforts to undermine his movement through undercover
 Chavez 11

agents who infiltrated Chávez’s ranks. The text does include two sentences of Chávez’s own

words, but provides little context for readers to understand his political ideology.

Overall, both texts presented limited representations of Chávez that provided students

with little insight into his ideology, or into the issues of exploitation, and social justice that

surrounded the United Farm Workers’ Movement. Chávez appears in the text as the de facto

representative for Latinos in American history, but his significance is de-emphasized by the

limited coverage he receives, and by the textbooks’ avoidance of the central issues of social

justice.

Coverage of Historical Events Involving Mexicans, and Mexican-Americans

The survey of the two texts also revealed a dearth of coverage of historical events

involving Mexicans, and Mexican-Americans. From the 20th century forward, America: Past

and Present included only five historical events related to Mexico and Mexicans: the Mexican-

American War, US Policy in Latin America under FDR, Mexican Nationalization of Oil, Zoot

Suit Riots, and the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

By far the historical event that received the most coverage in the two texts was the

Mexican-American war. The coverage of the Mexican American war tended to be distorted. Its

extensive use of the passive voice obscured the fact that the war was an act of conquest by the

United States. For instance, the textbook authors wrote that“ new territories were wrested from

Mexico in the 1840s” (p. 392).

Furthermore, in the textbooks’ coverage, Mexico is misrepresented as an aggressor and

an instigator. America: Past and Present presents the Mexicans as the responsible party in

initiating military conflict between the two countries. That the United States ultimately

conquered and annexed Mexican territory is pre-emptively justified by this distorted version of
 Chavez 12

history. At no point does the text highlight what is essential in understanding the history of this

conflict: that an American president with an expansionist agenda sent military forces into land

that had historically belonged to and been lived on by Mexicans (Zinn, 1995).

The description of events set forth in America: Pathways to the Present was also skewed.

The text, for instance, completely glossed over the US’s role in initiating hostilities. The authors

also presented President Polk’s factually inaccurate justification for the war completely at face

value: “Expressing outrage at the loss of ‘American blood on American soil,’ Polk pushed for a

declaration of war” (p. 136).

The overall coverage of the Mexican American war in both textbooks was ultimately so

distorted as to border on outright historically inaccurate. The narratives presented consistently

portrayed Mexico’s actions as aggressive and unwarranted, and systematically omitted details of

the historical narrative in order to portray the United States in a more benign light. The result is

that students are left with an inaccurately negative impression of Mexico’s actions that

contributes to the textbooks’ overall negative representation of Mexico and Mexican Americans.

That the primary focus of the textbook’s coverage of America’s history with Mexico

focuses on a war that last just under two years contributes to an overall negative portrayal of the

country. By devoting so much focus to a relatively brief military dispute in which Mexico was an

enemy of the US and ignoring other events, students’ are left with a distorted perspective of

Mexicans in history.

Negative Stereotype Reinforcement, Eurocentricism, and the Normative White Framing of

History

Both texts consistently reinforced stereotypes about Mexicans being synonymous with

low socioeconomic status, unskilled labor, and poverty. In America: Past and Present, the topics
 Chavez 13

Mexicans were mentioned most in connection with immigration, deportation and labor

competition from immigrant workers. They also received substantial mention in connection with

socioeconomic status, and unskilled labor. To contextualize these numbers, Mexicans were

mentioned in connection with immigration, deportation, and/or labor competition nearly four

times more than they were mentioned in connection topics related to equal rights, social justice,

and/or ethnic identity. The topic of discrimination against Mexicans appeared only twice.

Mexicans and Mexican Americans were most frequently mentioned in relation to the topic of

immigration, including in terms such as, “alien,” and “illegal.” Whereas the image of Mexicans

as undocumented immigrants is reinforced by its repetition throughout the text, the topics of

discrimination and prejudice barely warrant mention. The result of this pattern of coverage is to

emphasize the stereotype that Mexicans are predominantly immigrants engaged in low-paying

work, and living in poverty, while at the same time obscuring the role that discrimination and

social inequality has played in contributing to the overall lower socio-economic status of

Mexican-Americans.

The textbooks’ coverage of Mexican-American immigration tended to frame it as a

problem for the United States. The textbooks’ characterization of Mexican-Americans

perpetuated negative stereotypes via their selection of information. One of the most overt

examples of the negative stereotyping of Mexican-Americans (in this case, included under the

broader category of Hispanics) came in America: Past and Present in a passage called “The

Surging Hispanics” (which stood in stark contrast to the passage on the following page entitled

“Asians on the Rise”) (p. 987). The passage associated Hispanic immigrants with characteristics,

such as high fertility rates, poverty, and low rates of high school graduation. The text added to
 Chavez 14

the narrative of white superiority, and the marginalization of Hispanics describing them as

having “lagged behind mainstream America” (987).

The textbook also reinforced the stereotype that Mexicans are engaged only in low-

paying manual labor. In America: Past and Present, Mexicans, and Mexican Americans were

mentioned five times in connection with agricultural, and construction work; three times in

connection with low wages; and once in connection with factory work, service work, migrant

work, and unskilled labor, respectively. Mexicans were also mentioned twice in connection with

poverty, and three times in connection with welfare use and dependency on government services.

With the exception of the historical and political figures included in the text, there were no

mentions of Mexicans being employed in professional jobs that typically require a college

degree. The textbook thus presents a stereotypical representation of Mexicans to students while

simultaneously reinforcing the negative stereotype that Mexicans are only employed in, or even

suited to a particular type of labor. By only mentioning Mexicans in connection with this type of

employment, students are given the subtle message that their people have a certain place in the

societal structure.

While the primary problem with the textbooks’ coverage of Chicano figures was

omission, America: Past and Present also included incidents of outright distortion that served to

reinforce negative stereotypes about Mexican Americans. the brief description of Salazar hardly

does justice to his legacy, or to historical accuracy for that matter. the text states that Salazar was

killed in a “Chicano anti-Vietnam War demonstration” (p. 771). Though it made front page news

in the Los Angeles Times in 1973, no mention is made of the fact that Salazar was killed by a

tear-gas canister fired into the crowd by a sheriff’s deputy, or of the fact that his family was

awarded $700, 000 in a wrongful death suit against Los Angeles County. Not only does the text
 Chavez 15

omit this information, the textbook’s authors give a distinctly misleading impression of the

events that took place, one that makes Salazar’s death out to be the result of out-of-control

rioters, whom police were simply unable to contain. The text states: “Salazar was killed in the

rioting that broke out after police tried to stop a Chicano anti-Vietnam War demonstration” (p.

771) The text unabashedly distorts the historical record.

The information selected about Mexican culture drew upon symbols of stereotypical

Mexican culture that offered little information to students. For instance, an excerpt from a feature

entitled “The Spanish-Speaking Population of the Southwest US in the 19th Century” in

America: Past and Present states, “After winning independence in the 1820s, the Mexicans

brought new laws and ranching methods as well as chaps and the burro” (p. 504). That chaps and

burros are chosen to represent Mexicans’ cultural achievements served to reinforce the

stereotype of Mexicans as primarily being suited for and engaging in agricultural, and other low-

wage work. Brief mentions of Mexican Americans in America: Pathways to the Present

provided students with only superficial information about their cultural contributions, which

included things, such as “ranching equipment” and “dress” (p. 269).

The narrative of white superiority was impossible to overlook in America: Past and

Present. That the book is written from a distinctly Eurocentric perspective is evident from the

first passage:

New World conquest sparked unexpected, often embarrassing contests over the alleged cultural
superiority of European culture. Not surprisingly, the colonizers insisted they brought the
benefits of civilization to the primitive and savage peoples of North America. Native Americans
never shared this perspective, voicing a strong preference for their own values and institutions. In
early seventeenth-century Maryland the struggle over cultural superiority turned dramatically on
how best to punish the crime of murder, an issue about which both Native Americans and
Europeans had firm opinions (p. 3)

While the textbook’s authors were careful to qualify the phrase “cultural superiority” by

prefacing it with the word alleged, the implication of the passage is clearly that European culture
 Chavez 16

ultimately proved to be superior to that of the Native Americans. Students all know how this

history ends. To present it as a beginning with a struggle for superiority is to necessarily suggest

to students which group that whites ultimately proved to be superior.

Numerous biased statements throughout the text promote this white, ethnocentric

perspective of history and American society. One passage from the text contrasts Mexican and

Spanish styles of dress with the clothing worn by “cowboy heroes” (p.510). The passage states:

By the end of the nineteenth century, cowboy heroes, such as those in Buffalo Bill's Wild West
Show, no longer wore serapes, sashes, and short jackets that shared Spanish and Mexican
Origins…Why would it matter that cowboy heroes wore clothes that reflected Anglo origins,
rather than Mexican? (p. 510)

Not only are white Americans glorified by the term “cowboy heroes” in the passage, but

Mexicans are somewhat disparaged by the passage, which alludes to “cowboy heroes’” negative

perceptions of Mexicans.

Multiculturalism and Diversity

The textbooks also tended to frame current social issues through a distinctly white

normative lens. For instance, America: Pathways to the Present included a brief piece on

multiculturalism that stated: “Another effort to make diversity work was multiculturalism, a

movement that called for greater attention to non-European cultures in such areas as education.

For example, advocates of multicultural education argued that school textbooks should include

more information on the contributions of people from all groups” (p. 914). The textbook’s white

normative approach is evident in it proceeding from the premise that diversity is primarily a

problem that society must address. The text offers no information about why multicultural

education might be valuable, yet goes on to present a perspective that challenges the value of

multicultural education:

Others disapproved of this approach. Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., referred to multiculturalism as
‘ethnic cheerleading.’ He criticized the use of history to make people feel good about themselves rather
than to discover the truth about the past. Other critics worried that extreme versions of multiculturalism
 Chavez 17

could damage the unity of society. They argued that the approach emphasized differences between groups
rather than the shared values and experiences of all Americans (p. 914).

America: Pathways to the Present presents a biased perspective of multicultural education. No

substantial content is offered as to the value of multicultural education, and none of its

supporters’ views are presented in the text. Yet opponents of multiculturalism are given seventy-

one words of coverage—a significant amount given that same textbook devotes a total of three

hundred words to César Chávez. The authors’ presentation of the perspective of opponents of

multiculturalism leaves logical inconsistencies in their argument unexamined, and presents

biased and misleading statements without qualification. The text also presents without

contextualization or analysis the derisive term “ethnic cheerleading.” The text includes a

distorted definition of multicultural education that dismisses the value of such learning as

“history to make people feel good about themselves” (p. 914). Again, the textbooks’ authors fail

to turn a critical eye to this biased, and inaccurate description of multicultural education. In

including Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. on the side of opponents of multicultural education, the

textbook suggests to students that experts fall to one side of the debate over multicultural

education. Schlesinger’s status as an expert, or authority on the matter is emphasized to students

by the inclusion of the title Professor. The absence of an alternative perspective leaves students

with a deeply biased impression of multicultural education. The implicit message of this passage

on multiculturalism is that people of color have not really earned their place in American history

textbooks, but are being included out of the generosity of whites, so that they can “feel good

about themselves” (p. 914).

America: Past and Present also covers the topic of multiculturalism in a feature titled

“Melting Pot or Multiethnic Diversity?” (p. 988) The text begins:

The new awareness of ethnic diversity manifested itself in many ways. In public education, blacks led a
crusade against Eurocentric curriculum and demanded a new emphasis on the influence of African culture;
 Chavez 18

on college campuses, the call for multicultural courses and separate departments for African American,
Asian American, and Hispanic studies created controversy. Citing the forecasts of a declining Anglo
dominance and the rise of minority groups in the next century, ethnic leaders advocated cultural pluralism
(p. 989).

Just as in the first text, the book’s coverage of multiculturalism is fraught with biased language

presented without qualification to students. The word crusade carries with the suggestion of

fanaticism and violent conflict between opposing people. The book’s description of multicultural

education is highly misleading; the text makes it sound as if the purpose of such pedagogy is for

minority groups to break away from the broader society. This portrayal underscores the

association of diversity with factionalism and the breakdown of societal cohesion. Furthermore,

the text implies that the rise of multiculturalism and the diversification of America is coming at

the expense of white Americans. Thus, multiculturalism is portrayed as being a source of

instability that is against the interests of white Americans.

While associating multiculturalism with negative outcomes, the text does almost nothing

to inform students about what multiculturalism is. The description provided in the text is loaded

with abstract, content-specific terms that are likely unfamiliar to students, such as “Eurocentric,”

“Anglophile,” and relies on vague descriptions such as, “[America’s] new conception of itself as

a pluralistic society” (p. 989). The text offers no specific examples to support students’

understanding of the aim of multicultural education, while associating the topic with negative

societal consequences. The textbook thus subtly transmits a negative, yet entirely baseless,

impression of multiculturalism to its readers. It also underscores the recurring theme in the

historical narrative, which is that non-whites are a source of problems that white society must

figure out solutions to. For Latino students the implicit message is that their presence in the

United States is a problem.

Conclusions & Discussion

 Chavez 19

Overall, the textbooks surveyed presented, limited, superficial content about Mexican

Americans. The content about Mexican Americans emphasized group characteristics, such as

below-average socio-economic status, while giving little attention to racial discrimination,

systemic inequality, and the other factors that contribute to Mexicans’ overall lower socio-

economic status. The decontextualized pieces of information about Mexican Americans left

students to infer the reasons for their lower socio-economic status through the lens of the

textbook’s narrative of white American superiority. The textbooks’ presentation of negative,

decontextualized information about Mexican-Americans therefore served to perpetuate negative

stereotypes about Mexican Americans as being inclined to poverty, manual labor and low

educational attainment.

The textbooks both continued to marginalize Mexican Americans by presenting them

largely outside the context of the broader historical narrative. Their inclusion of superficial

information about Mexican-American figures in history contributed to the impression that their

inclusion was based more on historical tokenism than on the merit of their contributions to social

history. The coverage of César Chávez in particular de-emphasized Chávez’s significance by

largely ignoring the social justice imperative at the root of Chávez’s movement, and instead

presenting a sanitized narrative that avoided raising essential issues, such as the human cost of

capitalism, that lay at the heart of Chávez’s work.

Adding to the overall negative portrayal of Mexicans, and Mexican-Americans was the

textbooks’ skewed presentation of the Mexican-American War, which obfuscated America’s role

as the aggressor in the conflict by distorting the historical narrative, and making extensive use of

the passive voice to de-emphasize the United States’ agency in what amounted to a war of

conquest. That the Mexican-American war is the event involving Mexico, Mexicans, or
 Chavez 20

Mexican-Americans that receives the most coverage contributes to the textbooks representation

of Mexican-Americans’ interests being contrary to those of white America.

The textbooks’ trivialization and negative coverage of multicultural education was one of

the most striking examples of the textbooks’ white, normative framing of history, and social

issues. Their presentation of multicultural education contributed to undermining multicultural

content included in the books by suggesting that it amounted to historical tokenism.

James Loewen (1995) wrote in The Lies My Teacher Told Me, “Helen Keller has been

made mute by history” (p. 15). In these state-adopted history textbooks, it’s Chicana women who

have been silenced. Mexican-American women were completely invisible in both textbooks.

Neither mentioned a single Mexican-American figure in history or politics. The textbooks’

presentation of history reinforces Mexican-American women’s marginalized status in society.

Mexican American women were completely absent in both of these textbooks,

emphasizing their marginalized status. The invisibility of Mexican-American women in a state

where Mexicans comprise nearly one-third of the population sends a clear message about their

relative value, and status in society. The exclusion of Chicanas from the historical narrative

disempowers Chicana students who are left with the impression that Mexican-American

women’s contributions to society, culture, and history have been so insignificant as to not even

warrant mention in textbooks that each exceed a thousand pages in length. Their absence is

powerful. What message is sent to Chicana students, female students, and all students in general,

about the place of women in society by a textbook that devotes multiple pages of coverage to the

Monika Lewinsky scandal, but excludes Dolores Huerta’s struggle for social justice for migrant

workers, leaves out Frida Kahlo’s art, and says nothing about the lives, struggles and histories of

a population that numbers over four million?

 Chavez 21

Multicultural content had been envisioned as a means of challenging “whiteness” and the

“structural and arrangements and ideologies of racial dominance” associated with it (Castagno,

2013, p. 101). However, these textbooks, like other surveyed (Loewen, 1996; Castagno, 2013),

continued to ignore the origins and continued impact of racial inequality. By obscuring

entrenched inequality, and inaccurately portraying society as essentially meritocratic, textbooks

perpetuate what Bonilla-Silva (2014) described as an ideology of “powerblind sameness” and

“colorblind difference” that is grounded in a false narrative of “racial innocence” and which

serves to implicitly justify white privilege (p. 3). By perpetuating the myth of meritocracy,

textbooks misrepresent racial inequality as the natural outcome of a system in which race no

longer plays a significant role thereby implying that people of color are themselves the cause of

socio-economic inequality. Montforti & McGlynn (2010) stated textbooks shape students’

perspectives and perceptions of minority groups. These textbooks therefore contribute to

promoting negative stereotypes about Mexicans already pervasive in society and to reinforcing

their marginalized status. The two textbooks also served to promote low expectations for

Mexican American students through their presentation of decontextualized information about

Hispanics’ low average rates of academic achievement, and socio-economic status.

The negative portrayal, and marginalization of Mexican-Americans in the text triggers

stereotypes about their inferior status and contributes to negative “social mirroring” and “cultural

hostilities” that have been shown to interfere with student achievement (Suárez-Orozco &

Suárez-Orozco, 2001). The overall effect is that these textbooks, adopted for use by the Texas

State Board of Education, are potentially detrimental to the academic achievement of Mexican

and Hispanic students who now now make up more than fifty percent of Texas public school

students (Texas, 2014).

 Chavez 22

Recommendations

 Students must be taught about structural inequality and racism in order to combat essentially

racist theories that ascribe socio-economic inequality to intrinsic cultural characteristics of

people of color. Students must be taught to question the dominant falsely “colorblind” and

“power blind” (Bonilla-Silva, 2014) ideology in order to develop a better understanding of

the realities of socio-economic, and racial inequality that stand as a counter-narrative to

theories, such as the “culture of poverty.”

 Students must be exposed to rich historical narratives about people of color that include

context, primary documents, and which promote critical thinking around issues of social

justices.

 Students must be explicitly taught social studies skills related to identifying bias, not only in

primary texts, but also in secondary texts.

 If teachers do choose to use textbooks occasionally as a curricular resource, they must

encourage students to identify biases, omissions, instances of emphasis and de-emphasis of

particular groups, and incongruities with the historical narrative. Teachers must teach

students to think critically about the content contained in textbooks, and must never present

them to students with qualifying them and elucidating some of their biases and shortcomings.
 Chavez 23

Reference List

Amber-Belkhir, Jean Ait. (1996). Multiculturalism and Race, Gender, Class in American Higher

Education. Race, Gender & Class, Vol. 3, No. 3. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675341

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. (2014). Racism Without Racists. (4th Edition.) New York: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers.

Banks, James A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and

Practice. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167339

Barker, Eugene C., Commager, Henry Steele., Webb, Walter P. (1955). The Standard Building

of Our Nation. Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company.

Brown, Anna. Hugo, Mark Lopez. (2013) Mapping the Latino Population, By State, County and

City. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/08/latino_populations_in_the_states_counties_a

nd_cities_FINAL.pdf

Castagno, Angelina E. (2013). Multicultural Education and the Protection of Whiteness.

American Journal of Education, Vol. 120, No. 1. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673121

Cayton, Andrew; Perry, Elisabeth Israels.; Reed, Linda; Winkler, Allan M. (2003). America:

Pathways to the Present. (Texas Edition). Upper Saddle River: Pearson (Prentice Hall).

Divine, R. Breen, T., Frederickson, G., Williams, R. (2003). America: Past and Present. (6th

Edition. AP Edition.) New York: Pearson (Longman).

 Chavez 24

Chapman, Thandeka K., Grant, Carl A. (2010). Thirty Years of Scholarship in Multicultural

Education. Race, Gender & Class, Vol. 17, No. ½. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41674722

Fitzgerald, Frances. (1979). America Revised. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Fitzgerald, Kathleen J. (2012) A Sociology of Race/Ethnicity Textbooks: Avoiding

White Privilege, Ahistoricism, and Use of the Passive Voice. Sociological Focus, 45:4.

Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2012.712866

Garcia, Jesús. (1993). The Changing Image of Ethnic Groups in Textbooks. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405020

Jensen, Richard J. Hammerback, John C. (Eds.) (2002). The Words of César Chávez. (2002).

College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

King, Joyce E. (1991). Dysconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of

Teachers. The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 2. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2295605

Loewen, James W. (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History

Textbook Got Wrong. 2nd Edition.: Touchstone.

Montforti, Jessica Lavariega. McGlynn, Adam. (2010). Aquí Estamos? A survey of Latino

Portrayal in Introductory US Government and Politics Textbooks. Political Science &

Politics. Vol. 43. Issue 2. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPSC

%2FPSC43_02%2FS1049096510000181a.pdf&code=d236b5c75d46a6c1a8274c4fdfabc

a59
 Chavez 25

Noboa, Julia. (2006). Leaving Latinos Out of History: Teaching US History in Texas. New York:

Routledge.

Nieto, Sonia. (1994). Moving Beyond Tolerance in Multicultural Education. Multicultural

Education. Vol. 1. No. 4. Retrieved from

http://www.sonianieto.com/OLD/PDF/Moving%20beyond%20tolerance%20Mult%20Ed

%201994.pdf

Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics (2010). Retrieved from

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Rodríguez, Joseph A., Ruíz, Vicki L. (2000). At Loose Ends: Twentieth-Century Latinos in

Current United States History Textbooks. The Journal of American History, Vol. 86,

No. 4. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2567584

Salvucci, Linda K. (1992) Getting the Facts Straight: New Views of Mexico and Its Peoples in

Recently Adopted U.S.History Textbooks in Texas. The Public Historian, Vol. 14, No. 4

University of California Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3377860

Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (1992) The Disuniting of America. New York: W.W. Norton

Company.

Sleeter, Christine E., Grant, Carl A. (1987) An Analysis of Multicultural Education in the

United States. Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 57. Retrieved from

http://her.hepg.org/content/v810xr0v3224x316/fulltext.pdf

Suárez-Orozco, Carola. Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (2001) Children of Immigration.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 Chavez 26

Texas public school enrollment climbs. (2014). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/news_release.aspx?id=25769810475

Wolf, Alvin. (1992). Minorities in U.S. History Textbooks, 1945-1985. The Clearing House,

Vol. 65, No. 5. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30188715 .

Zinn, Howard. (1991). Declarations of Independence. New York: Harper Perennial.

Zinn, Howard. (2003) A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins.