Reinventing History: Exploring Bias in Texas Public School History Textbooks
BY Olivia Storck
Introduction
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
– George Orwell
As a product of the Texas public school system, I often questioned whether the history I was being taught was biased, as so many difficult parts of our past seemed to be omitted, glossed over, or obscured by a counter narrative. However, it was not until I moved to D.C. during my junior year of high school, I realized the depth of those omissions and obfuscations. While taking an AP U.S. History class that year, it felt as though I was learning a very different version of history, revealing just how much information in my textbooks, and thus classroom, had been redacted, altered, or skewed to portray our past in a different light or from certain points of view.
In this essay, I draw from my experience in the Texas public school system to explore how history can be manipulated over time, including how the narrative surrounding major historical events can be influenced by a collective societal memory. Although it is commonly believed that the issue of bias in textbooks is a topic of the past, I will highlight discrepancies from textbooks used in my former schools to contradict that belief. Notably, how one understands history can shape their self-identity, the perception of their role in society, and how that role relates to others. The manner in which history textbooks in Texas portray marginalized groups is an example of how manipulated historical accounts can actively reinforce societal divisions, and prevent equitable growth in society. It is imperative that we have open discussions surrounding the regulation of history curriculums to ensure that students receive a balanced account of historical events. Otherwise, such altered narratives can perpetuate and even deepen the societal divisions and biases that continue to plague our nation.
I. The Significance of Collective Memory
To understand the impact caused by faulty historical accounts, it is worth stepping back to first look at the impact of “collective memory” in society. As American historian Carl Becker concluded, “there are two histories: the actual events that once occurred and those that we have remembered” (Cantrell et al. 2). Historians often use a combination of human documentation and memory to interpret the events of the past, in an effort to discover objective truth. Unfortunately, when historians rely too heavily on biased sources, the objective nature of their work will naturally be impacted. That is not, however, entirely the fault of any particular historian, since it is nearly impossible to recreate the events of the past with complete accuracy. However, for that reason, historians must diligently study and chronicle historical events to best ensure that they have accurately portrayed such events.
That diligent effort requires historians to search for subjective bias both in their own view as well as those around them. As Becker notes, a historian’s documentation of the past is often the “product of the historian’s environment, upbringing, education, sex, intelligence, nationality, ethnicity, and political persuasion” (Cantrell et al. 4). A historian must, therefore, take into account their own potential bias and the bias that surrounds them in society when looking for an objective recounting of history. When a historian – consciously or unconsciously – ignores such bias, it is inevitable that it will color their account of historical facts and events. This is where we can see the true impact of “collective memory” in documenting history.
As American historian W. Fitzhugh Brundage notes, the concept of “collective or historical memory is not simply the articulation of some shared subconscious but rather the product of intentional creation” (Brundage XIV). He emphasized that collective memory “forges identity, justifies privilege, and sustains cultural norms” (Brundage XIV). Significant issues arise when the collective memory of a societal group begins to influence the ideology or perception of trained historians, which can then lead to the misinterpretation of events. In this instance, the adoption of collective memory, despite the inherent bias it contains, can soon be accepted as objective truth. It is the “collective memory” that becomes an important factor in understanding how history is explained in Texas school books. Further, Brundage states that an altered view of historical events is a prevalent issue in the interpretation of southern, and more specifically, Texas history, where “a ‘distorted’ version of the past has become the dominant view and is used to suppress other views of the past” (Cantrell et al. 4). These suppressive historical accounts are exactly what necessitates open discussions of how to regulate history curricula to ensure that students are receiving a comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased education.
Such historical views did not evolve overnight, however. While many of these views can be traced back to the first “Anglos” colonizing North America, it was events following the Civil War and the Reconstruction era that solidified many of the views we see in Texas history books and public schools today. It was in the ashes of the Civil War and a society based on slave ownership that many of these altered views really took hold and formed a collective memory.
II. The De-Evolution of History
A. The Origins of the Texas Historical Perspective
In looking at the evolution of Texas history and how it has been memorialized over time, Professor Laura Lyons McLemore argues that there have not been any significant changes in the collective Texas Anglo memory since the first Anglos came to this region of America (Cantrell et al. 7). McLemore argues that from this early point in time, “Anglo Texan memory has valorized noble Anglo sacrifices at the Alamo, ignored the history of Tejanos who fought against Mexican tyranny, validated confederate heroism, vilified Reconstruction reforms including freed slaves, and, finally, exalted Texas Rangers who fought ‘perfidious Injuns and Mexicans’” (Cantrell et al. 7). However, historians writing both during and about this period of time had little involvement in the shaping of the Texas collective memory, as they were notably “less concerned with their legacy to posterity” and “more concerned with persuading a contemporary audience for immediate financial gain or political ends” (McLemore 17). A shift can be seen in the purpose behind historical writing following in the late 19th century, when the University of Texas established History as a discipline at the university and when the Historical Association was founded (McLemore 15). However, by this point, early historians found it to be increasingly difficult to make any alterations to the ever deepening Anglo collective memory, and those who did were often ignored, attacked, and even, in some cases, discredited.
In the decades following the Civil War, different societal groups in the south had their own version of the collective memory, where the “white” viewpoint was centered on defeat, most others reflected quite the opposite and circulated that in a more discrete manner (Cantrell et al. 5). Nevertheless, as the last of the white confederate Americans passed on, their wives, children, and grandchildren began to actively work toward shifting the narrative of the Civil War from a story of defeat to one of courage, honor, and heroism (Cantrell et al. 6). This agenda became a driving force behind the creation and purpose of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, where we see a deliberate effort to engineer and create the collective memory.
B. The United Daughters of the Confederacy and Reshaping the Narrative
Few groups have been as influential in shaping Civil War history as the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). Following Reconstruction, the UDC, “assumed the task of raising funds, hiring sculptors, or purchasing ready-made statues to honor the dead and living who fought for the vanquished southern nation” (Cantrell et al. 9). In many ways, this view differentiated the “vanquished” south from the remainder of the United States, where the south would have its own distinct Confederate heroes and its own history to honor. At a UDC meeting in the Hauschild Opera House in Victoria in May, 1869, UDC member, Kate Wheeler, expressed the necessity of building Confederate statues and monuments in honor, quoting a poem, she stated that southern soldiers had been “slain for us; and the years may go, but our tears will flow o’er the dead who have died in vain for us” (Galveston: Clarke and Coats).
Wheeler’s quote underscores the UDC’s drive to reshape history into a story of fallen Confederate heroes, where despite their defeat in the war, the cause that these soldiers fought and died for was one that deserved to be honored and memorialized. As one UDC member expressed, “a people who have no monuments erected to perpetuate heroism and virtue have no history, and we must have our shining shafts of marble pointing to the fadeless stars, fit emblems of their [the Civil War generation’s] lofty aspirations” (Tyler: Sword and Shield Publishing). The UDC was focused on advancing their view of history and the Civil War in an almost mythological manner, regardless of whether that view was accurate.
Notably, it was the UDC that was responsible for building over fifty of the sixty-five large scale Confederate monuments in Texas, which often portray Confederate leaders and battles in a heroic light (McMicheal 96). The UDC fought publicly for the right to display these representations of past events, which they saw as their duty and mandate. They aggressively pursued that path, regardless of any scrutiny, such as the controversy that later arose over their historical account of the Alamo, which both scientists and historians had greatly criticized by 1910 (Cantrell et al. 6). The UDC understood the power of reshaping historical narrative and the use of symbolism. They transformed war memorials from public art recognizing loss and the need to heal, into historical symbols with a specific political and cultural purpose in mind. For example, Confederate generals were portrayed as patriots and gallant leaders seeking to preserve a “southern way of life” (rather than as defenders of an agricultural hierarchy built upon the horrors of slavery). In fact, the process of choosing what will be represented in a monument, the raising of funds for its construction, the building of the monument, and even the manner in which it was unveiled to the public were all designed to provide a singular group the opportunity to alter society’s collective memory. It was through this process that the UDC helped to create a “shared remembrance” and “the memories lend a group sense of the past and an aspiration for the future” (McMicheal 96).
By being the primary group responsible for the remembrance of the Confederacy and the Civil War in Texas, the UDC recognized the “cultural power potential” that they would be able to obtain as “the creators of shared public values and identity” and that they used such power and influence to further their own interests (Cantrell et al. 9). The UDC used these war monuments to not only represent a lived experience of individuals, but also to serve as lessons for the generations to come, so as to shape future generations (McMicheal 96). As a result, the UDC’s influence in shaping public perception of the Civil War allowed them to take their own collective memory and expand it into a larger general collective memory – where that perception ultimately has contributed to the ways in which historians have interpreted the past.
C. The Impact of Unconscious Biases in Texas History
In addition to targeted efforts in reshaping history, such as those of the UDC, there is also the issue of a historian’s own unconscious bias. Indeed, a universal question that has long been a point of focus among historians is whether “historians have succeeded in shaping society’s memory of the past” or if they “have themselves been shaped by it” (McMicheal 15). In looking at the discourse of Texas history, we see very good examples of the latter. As McLemore noted, “memory is often a more powerful force than written history” and that rather than shaping collective memory, Texas historians often affirmed it (Cantrell et al. 7). There are several explanations for how this occurred. In some cases, this newly established collective memory became so deeply ingrained in society it created an unconscious bias within historians, impacting their own ability to objectively piece together historical events or to differentiate where the truth lies in that memory. Additionally, when early Texas historians attempted to make any revisions to historical interpretations, they were met with tremendous resistance from what had become the “dominant culture” (McLemore 16). Not only did this prevent historians from having the ability to correct discrepancies in historical accounts, but it also left historians with little choice but to affirm the established collective memory as “truth” in shaping recent events.
Additionally, the collective memory in Texas and related documentation of historical events has often been portrayed and retold in an overwhelmingly nostalgic manner, similar to the UDC’s mythologized monuments. However, as Cathy Corman, a writer for the Texas Observer stated, this nostalgia is “necessarily predicated on the illusion of a rosy past” as “horseback riding and bluebonnets are things to savor; racism and cultural amnesia are not” (Corman). Even in the present day, many Texans desperately cling onto popular glamorized and distorted interpretations of history, choosing to believe in the “heroic pioneer” and a “revolutionary past” that has been dramatically symbolized by events such as the Alamo (Cantrell et al. 12). These historical interpretations also permeate the idea that slavery was relatively benign and insignificant in Texas and that Reconstruction was an era of “carpetbagger domination and corruption” (Cantrell et al. 12). But as Professor Randolph B. Campbell notes, the tendency towards selective memory has led to an inability to confront real issues and topics that might be deemed uncomfortable, which is why many people choose to remain voluntarily ignorant rather than accept the interpretations of modern historians (Cantrell et al. 12).
This selective memory is therefore not only a byproduct of but also fuels the collective memory, which, in turn, continues to shape society’s understanding of the past (Cantrell et al. 12). As a result, societal views within that collective memory can become insulated from outside challenges to the accuracy of these historical accounts. Indeed, to question the basis of those accounts can quickly be seen as a challenge to the moral character of those holding such views, creating a historical “echo chamber.” All of which reinforces the need to have a more comprehensive dialogue on how historical accounts are portrayed in textbooks (and beyond), as well as the dangers of collective memory and how it can impact such accounts.
III. The Battle for Historical Perspective Infiltrates Student Textbooks
A. Collective Memory and State Education
It should come as no surprise that the same factors involved in shaping the collective memory would appear in school textbooks. In addition to monuments and other physical representations of the past, the UDC also understood the importance of teaching their account of history to future generations of Texans. At the turn of the 20th century, the UDC was more than displeased with the depictions of slavery and what they perceived to be the vilification of the south’s secession from the Union. Edward A. Pollard, a significant wartime editor for the Richmond Examiner, was the first person to coin the term the “Lost Cause” back in 1866 (Pollard). The Lost Cause promoted ideas such as the Civil War being caused by the south’s secession, rather than by slavery, portraying slavery to be a benevolent institution in which those that were enslaved were completely dependent on their masters, unable to sustain themselves on their own, and emphasized the valor Confederate soldiers (Weisman 4).
During segregation, the UDC also heavily supported this ideology and began to take an active role in the education of white public school children and their curriculum, in order to shape how history was taught to future generations. As a result, the UDC formed their own textbook and educational committees to review history textbooks throughout the south, and after deciding which textbooks they felt needed to be replaced, they sent suggestions to the various school boards for what they would recommend in its place. The UDC began to cultivate relationships with superintendents, principals, teachers, publishers, as well as textbook authors to integrate themselves into the education system and gain influence over public school curriculum (Weisman 5). Throughout the early 20th century, the UDC was incredibly successful in integrating their version of history into classrooms. And while their influence diminished over time, the impact of their efforts in promoting white supremacy and related historical narrative can still be seen in textbooks today.
B. The Board of Education and Textbook Selection
Manipulating historical information in school textbooks – or collective memory for that matter – is by no means unique to Texas. However, the immense size of Texas and the manner in which it handles textbook selection sets it apart from many other states. Texas has the second largest population of students at textbook reading age, with 5.4 million students enrolled in the state’s K-12 public school system as of 2017 (Lucy et al.). In addition to its unique “system of government,” Texas has set its process of textbook selection apart from other states. (Collins 108). What is more, the immense size of its textbook market and cost of production has influenced national publishing companies to alter their textbooks in order to meet the standards required by Texas. For example, when developing a biology textbook could cost upwards of $5 million, it can be incredibly risky for companies to do anything other than conform to what Texas deems acceptable (Collins 110). Exploring these factors helps to explain how the collective memory is built into school textbooks, and how that itself further reinforces that same narrative.
1. The Evolving Role of the Texas Board of Education
In Texas, the state Board of Education (BOE) is responsible for determining the guidelines and standards for the curriculum in public schools, including selecting and approving the textbooks used by schools. The BOE has fifteen members, serving to represent fifteen districts (which are separate from congressional districts). The BOE holds staggered elections for member positions, often occurring during off years in which voter turnout is expected to be particularly low (Collins 109). As American journalist Gail Collins notes, the “State Board of Education is selected in elections that are practically devised by voters, where wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts of money to help their favorites win” (Collins 108).
A significant number of very wealthy Texans have become involved in one way or another with BOE, “putting their money at the disposal of conservative populists” (Collins 111). A good example is James Leininger, a physician from San Antonio who developed an intense interest in school vouchers and heavily backed “Texans for Governmental Integrity,” an organization that was particularly involved in BOE elections (Collins 111). In 1994 this organization mailed an image of a black and white man kissing to a Texas district claiming that the opposing democratic incumbent had voted in favor of textbooks that “promoted homosexuality,” which created a strong reaction (Collins 111).
2. Hijacking the Board to Reshape the Narrative in Textbooks
The structure of BOE elections and involvement of wealthy individuals and organizations has allowed for individuals who were unqualified and unfit to obtain positions of power and influence over the Texas education system. Not surprisingly, this amount of influence can impact not just the political persuasion over the BOE but also the content of the textbooks it is responsible for overseeing. In 2009, for example, the BOE worked to develop and approve a new science curriculum under the leadership of chairman Don McLeroy, an individual who was anti-evolution, and who saw evolutionary science as “hooey” (Collins 108). In an interview with the Washington Monthly, McLeroy stated, among other things, that when he is selecting social studies textbooks, one of the first things he looks at is how the book has portrayed Ronald Regan, stating that “he needs to get credit for saving the world from Communism” and “for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes” (Blake). It is important to note that this perspective on Regan’s presidency is not universally accepted by historians, and represents just how easily personal beliefs and bias can influence schools’ curriculum when there are no clear regulations in place.
The process in which the BOE constructs curriculum standards and selects textbooks can be described as nothing short of incomprehensible. When the science curriculum had been brought under review in 2009, the process began with a collaboration of expert consultants and teachers to determine what updates were needed. However, as time progressed, the number of “expert” consultants gradually increased, “frequently becoming less and less expert, until the whole process ended in a rash of craziness” (Collins 112). Nathan Bernier, a reporter for public radio station KUT in Austin, described how when the curriculum was initially being curated, there were people with PhDs working together with members of the State Teachers Association all of whom had been working tirelessly to create textbook guidelines and standards (Collins 112). But just before the textbook was finalized, a “mysterious document” with alternative guidelines for the textbook was slid under some of the BOE members’ hotel room doors, which contained significant variations from the planned scope of the text, but which somehow ending up in the completed guidelines for the textbook (Collins 112).
3. The Board Shifts its Focus to Rewriting History
It was also in 2009 that the BOE became more deeply involved in the curriculum of history textbooks. While the team that had been initially placed in charge of creating the guidelines for these textbooks was predominantly composed of teachers, as the BOE became increasingly more involved, they put together a panel of “experts” intended to advise the team on appropriate “standards” for history. These so-called “experts” were not education specialists, rather they were political and conservative advocates. For example, one such “expert” was as a part of the Minutemen militia (which, present day, is a right-leaning militia group, focusing on anti-immigrant measures and other such matters) and another argued that any progress in the area of civil rights and liberties of minorities was due solely to the efforts of the white majority, since only they can “expand political rights in America’s constitutional society” (Collins 113). In the end, such individuals have offered more in the way of subjective bias, rather than any expertise in education, teaching methods, or history.
Under McLeroy’s leadership, the BOE continued to move further from objective historical facts to a more biased curriculum, where board members and their alleged expert consultants would remove and alter information at will, without any regulations or boundaries to limit their control. In the final curriculum, the BOE had, for example, rejected references to the Crusades during the Middle Ages, as it reflected poorly on Christianity and transitioned discussions of Islam to focus on “Islamic fundamentalism and the subsequent use of terrorism by some of its adherents,” without any other meaningful discussion of the second largest religion in the world (Collins 114). Any language that the BOE disliked was substituted with a more “acceptable” alternative, this can be seen in how “capitalism” was replaced with “free enterprise system” and “natural law” was replaced with “laws of nature and nature’s God” (Collins 114). Such re-wording would often reshape or even completely alter the meaning of a word, phrase, or topic, fostering the collective memory and related biases.
While the Texas state legislature has since limited some of the influence the BOE has over the state curriculum and what textbooks local districts purchase, the board’s prior efforts and influence will be felt for generations to come, and the BOE still has a voice in controlling the overall direction of education in Texas. Moreover, rather than correcting historical inaccuracies, the average textbook will include a general narrative that is accompanied by sidebars presenting a variety of subjects such as biographies, notes on different historical events, and social issues (Collins 115). But despite any limitations on the BOE’s power, which would allow publishers to change these altered textbooks, including on topics such as gender and racial equality, it would cost publishers millions to correct those narratives (Collins 116). We are now left with the unfortunate reality that, regardless of efforts by historians to correct textbook inaccuracies, publishers shy away from using clear, distinctive language out of concern that they may later receive backlash based on the pressure they received by the BOE over the years, especially given the costs involved in changing the textbooks.
In 2011, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an educational think tank issued an evaluation of U.S. public school history standards. This institution had heavily pushed for the inclusion of women and minority groups in every aspect of history. When examining the Texas history curriculum, they reported that, besides the inclusion of “all the familiar politically correct group categories,” they found that the “document distorts or suppresses less triumphal or more nuanced aspects of our past that the Board found politically unacceptable (slavery and segregation are all but ignored, while religious influences are grossly exaggerated)” (Stern 142). This has resulted in the material becoming a confusing and unteachable mixture of information (Stern 142). This further demonstrates the overall impact of bias in the school textbook selection process, and the lasting impact it can have on the generations of students to come.
C. Continued Biases in Modern Texas History Public School Textbooks
One would assume that, in the decade following the Fordham Institute study, there would be some progress in reversing the bias and correcting misinformation. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In 2020, almost ten years later, Stanford University conducted a study analyzing the content of Texas history textbooks regarding gender, race, and ethnicities through natural language processing (lexicons, word embedding, and topic models) (Lucy et al.). The recent technological advancements made in natural language processing (NLP), a form of artificial intelligence, has allowed for researchers and historians to begin answering long existing questions surrounding the social and political aspects of education (Lucy et al.). Research such as the NLP review is incredibly important since textbooks are a direct reflection of the power imbalances within our society (Moreau). The social and cultural values that are perpetuated in textbooks significantly impacts the perspectives of students’ have of individual and ethnicities that are different from their own (Cornbleth; Greaney).
1. The Stanford Study and Use of NLP in Understanding Remaining Bias
The Stanford study used NLP to analyze the content of fifteen of the most frequently used history textbooks in the state of Texas from 2015-2017 (which captures the very textbooks I read as a public school student in Texas). What the study revealed was disturbing, and telling. Despite an increased push to shift how history is taught to include multiple differing perspectives of the past, the textbooks used in Texas remain dominated by politics and continue to reflect the same bias and misinformation as in years past (Lucy et al.). The study revealed that in these textbooks, among other inaccuracies, marginalized groups continued to be under and misrepresented, that historical facts regarding race and slavery continued to be significantly subdued, and that women were most commonly discussed or referenced in the context of marital status, work, and the home.
One of the guiding research questions in this study analyzed the amount of allocated space for different groups within these textbooks. This is particularly important because past research has emphasized the “importance of culturally relevant education, such as students seeing their personal identities represented in school curriculum, in improving students’ learning outcomes” (Lucy et al.). Despite demographic data showing that around 52.42% of students enrolled in Texas public school systems are Latinx, across all 15 textbooks, Latinx people were only mentioned 961 times, accounting for only 0.248% of individuals mentioned in general, and 2.23% of individuals mentioned that have been marked by terms related to race or ethnicity (Lucy et al.). Additionally, it was noted that these references were made in the context of the Mexican American and “in contrast to incoming White settlers” (Lucy et al.). Drawing upon a past Texas history textbook, an example of such representation appears as the following: “[Early pioneers] left the Oregon Trail … and mostly settled in the interior along the Sacramento River, where there were few Mexicans” (Bedford American History, Henretta 413). The representation of indigenous peoples was also tremendously scarce. This all begs the question of why such groups, who have played an important role in US history, and Texas history, have been almost entirely excluded from Texas history books.
The study also explored who were identified as the most famous and commonly mentioned individuals in the textbooks. Unsurprisingly, the information they gathered showed that the most frequently mentioned individuals were almost entirely white men in politics (Lucy et al.). There was a significant amount of emphasis placed on these individuals as well, where one out of every five sentences referenced at least one of the top fifty most commonly mentioned figures (Lucy et al.). Of the top fifty, the only woman to appear on that list was First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (28th), who when mentioned, was most commonly discussed in reference to her husband (Lucy et al.). The individuals of color that appear on the list were President Barack Obama (29th), Martin Luther King Jr. (30th), and Dred Scott (42th) (Lucy et al.). It is remarkable to see that out of this top fifty, all but four were white men, emphasizing how present history curricula are dominated by a singular group.
2. The Correlation Between Textbook and Community Viewpoints
When exploring the correlation between which textbooks are purchased and the political standing of Texas counties making the purchase, researchers discovered that counties that were found to be predominantly conservative and Republican would purchase Pearson’s U.S. History textbook, whereas more liberal-leaning and democratic counties would purchase the textbook Give Me Liberty (Lucy et al.). Of the people mentioned in the textbooks purchased by Republican counties, Black people accounted for only 1.82% and women only accounted for only 4.87% or people mentioned (Lucy et al.).
Conversely, in the textbooks purchased by more liberal counties, Black people accounted for 8.58% and women accounted for 6.82% of individuals mentioned (Lucy et al.). Though the representation of these groups overall is still strikingly low, the statistics nevertheless highlight how the purchasing of textbooks can be fueled by personal and political beliefs, where more conservative counties opted to select textbooks with less representation of minorities and women. Additionally, we have Jarrett’s Mastering the TEKS, which is a textbook adhering to Texas specific curriculum standards and has even less levels of representation and, unsurprisingly, is also a popular textbook among Republican counties (Lucy et al.). Moreover, in all cases, the level of Latinx representation is extremely scarce across the board (Lucy et al.).
3. Language as a Proxy for Belief Systems and Bias
In analyzing how different groups are portrayed within these textbooks, researchers explored what words were most commonly associated with them. They found that Black people most often described using words related to slavery, some common examples being “free” and “runaway,” and were not associated with words related to politics like “political” or “federal” (Lucy et al.). Women were seen to be most frequently described with words that related to their marital status, rather than military or government, which is “consistent with other stereotypical portrayals of women in media” (Lucy et al.). Researchers were unable to find any words commonly used to describe Latinx people, as they were so infrequently mentioned. The results discovered from this analysis are, therefore, “consistent with the historical exclusion of non-men and non-White people from politics, and further illustrate the kinds of contexts in which these groups are portrayed” (Lucy et al.).
The study also looked at the connotation of verbs associated with different groups, finding that Black people were depicted with “less power and agency than any other social group” (Lucy et al.). This is due to the textbooks almost exclusively referencing Black people in the context of slavery and racial oppression and being described with verbs with incredibly negative connotations such as owned and barred, as well as adjectives such as slave and inferior (Lucy et al.). This contradicts historical research recognizing the agency Black people had in freeing themselves both from enslavement and racial oppression (Lucy et al.). White men are most commonly described with verbs that are associated with high levels of agency and power, particularly with verbs that are tied to the performance of political actions like veto or initiate and are described with adjectives such as victorious and furious (Lucy et al.). And the words used to describe women holding an oddly positive but limiting sentiment, with common examples being marry or help (Lucy et al.).
By comparing how different groups are associated with one another in textbooks, researchers found that women were heavily associated with domestic activities and in searching what words were associated with women such as “woman”, “women”, “female”, “she”, “her”, “hers,” the most common results were “woman’s husband,” “wife and mother,” “housewife,” “breadwinner,” and “husband” (Lucy et al.). However, when that process was followed for men, they found that men were most frequently associated with words of achievement (Lucy et al.). In recent textbooks, women have been frequently associated with “work” and “the workplace,” rather than portraying this in a feminist perspective, the textbooks place a heavy emphasis on women’s “choice” to work, rather than their “need” to work (Lucy et al.).
Finally, researchers found that women were associated with social movements (such as the women’s suffrage) and family, whereas men, while also associated with family, were predominantly tied to the military, decision making, morality, and references in quotes (Lucy et al.). When it came to race and ethnicity, whiteness was “unmarked unless it is contrasted with minority ethnicities,” whereas Black people were associated with slavery, and social movements or civil rights, and Latinx people were most frequently tied to the context of territorial claim (Lucy et al.). Analyzing the topics different groups are tied to highlights how “discussion of minority ethnicities is dominated by topics where the relationship of the minorities to the majority group is highlighted in some way” (Lucy et al.). Such associations, therefore, continue to marginalize minority groups by limiting any discussion of them to comparisons with or in the context of white culture, further supporting the collective memory and related bias.
Overall, the Stanford study shows how the use of language can be a proxy for personal belief and bias, as well as reflect specific perspectives regarding different groups in society. It offers us an objective way to not only understand these limitations in the text, but also how they can reinforce the collective memory discussed above.
4. The Impact of Textbook Language and Reinforced Collective Memory
Historians have long analyzed the behavior of different groups after they have come to grasp their own identity through collective memory, which historian David Blight refers to as “the politics of memory” (Brundage 3). This is a particularly important subject as “collective memories, as wielded by powerful groups, have had a tendency to shape and define that which is acceptable, that which should be remembered, that which should be forgotten, and what may be allowed entrée into positions of economic or political ascendancy” (Brundage 3). However, the impact of collective memory is not linear. On the contrary, the collective memory that can alter historical accounts and fuel limitations in school textbooks and curriculum, can then, in turn, shape the belief systems of the children who learn from them – thereby reinforcing that same collective memory.
As a result, if we do not challenge and explore the objective nature of our textbooks as well as the process in creating their content, we can easily create a revolving bubble of collective memory, which can often be dictated by outside forces and agendas we may not be aware of. As such, we cannot ignore that “societal norms related to power, class, gender, and race may be redefined through cultural hegemonic forces as seemingly benign as memories of the past” (Brundage 3) and, as a result, we must be diligent in understanding what we are projecting in our schools and how that is represented in the textbooks we offer children.
Conclusions and Considerations
While I have focused on the Texas public school system in this essay, the issues identified above are not unique to Texas. The impact of collective memory and manipulation of historical narrative can have a significant and lasting impact in any community. That risk is especially true when those historical views become embedded in school textbooks, where the next generation in our communities are offered such information as truth. For many today, the belief is that this altered view of history is itself a relic of the past. But as discussed and demonstrated by the Stanford study, the impact of this reshaped historical narrative is alive and well, and an ongoing issue in Texas public schools. Indeed, it is telling that efforts which began over a century ago to rewrite historical events following the Civil War and Reconstruction can still be seen in the textbooks that are in the hands of students today – and in the very classrooms I once attended.
Further, and equally important, this history we learn and internalize can often shape who we are, how we see others, and how we interact with one another in society. Altering historical accounts to benefit some at the expense of others can create an unconscious bias that upholds hierarchical structures built upon inequality. If we refuse or are unable to look at history objectively, we will never be able to truly see and understand one another, which will continue to foster anger, resentment, and divisions in society. It is, therefore, up to each of us to ensure that our recounting of history is not manipulated or taken for granted, and to protect the next generation students from being subject to any altered views of the past. Otherwise, we may be faced with a slippery slope where history becomes a series of subjective viewpoints, rather than a search for objective facts. We must, therefore, each do our part to protect against such distortion, or we will all continue to suffer the long-term consequences in society. The first step in breaking the cycle of collective memory and bias in history textbooks, is to have an open dialogue and acknowledge the issue. I am hopeful that this paper is one step closer in opening that dialogue.
Works Cited
Blake, Mariah. “Revisionaries: How a Group of Conservatives Is Rewriting Your Kids’ Textbooks.” Washington Monthly, January 1, 2010. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2010/01/01/revisionaries/ (Accessed May 1, 2023).
Brundage, W. Fitzhugh. “Foreword.” Memory and History in Texas, Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest 27, edited by Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007, pp. Xiii- Xvi
Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner. “A Study of History, Memory, and Collective Memory in Texas.” Memory and History in Texas, Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest 27, edited by Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007, pp. 1-14.
Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, eds. Lone Star Pasts: Memory and History in Texas. Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest 27. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007.
Collins, Gail. As Texas Goes… : How the Lone Star State Hijacked the American Agenda. 1st ed. New York: Liveright Pub. Corporation, 2012.
Corman, Cathy. “Take Me Back to Texas,” Texas Observer, May 12, 2000, pars. 6, 9. https://www.texasobserver.org/902-afterword-take-me-back-to-texas/ (accessed April 29, 2023).
Cornbleth, Catherine. “Images of America: What youth do know about the United States.” American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), June 2002, pp. 519– 552. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039002519
Pollard, Edward A. The Lost Cause: a New Southern History of the War of the Confederates: Comprising a Full And Authentic Account of the Rise And Progress of the Late Southern Confederacy–the Campaigns, Battles, Incidents, And Adventures of the Most Gigantic Struggle of the World’s History : Drawn From Official Sources, And Approved by the Most Distinguished Confederate Leaders. (New York: E.B. Treat & Co.) 1866.
Greaney, Vincent. “Textbooks, respect for diversity, and social cohesion.” In Roberts-Schweitzer E. (Ed.), Promoting social cohesion through education: Case studies and tools for using textbooks and curricula, 2006, pp. 47– 69, 2006. World Bank.
Henretta, James A., et al. . America’s history. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014.
Lucy, Li, Dorottya Demszky, Patricia Bromley, and Dan Jurafsky. “Content Analysis of Textbook via Natural Language Processing Findings on Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Texas U.S. History Textbooks.” Stanford University 6, no. 3, September 2020, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420940312.
McLemore, Laura Lyons. “Early Historians and the Shaping of Texas Memory.” Memory and History in Texas, Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest 27, edited by Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007, pp. 15-38.
McMicheal, Kelly. “Memories Are Short but Monuments Lengthen Remembrance: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Power of Civil War Memory” Memory and History in Texas, Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest 27, edited by Cantrell, Gregg and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007, pp. 95-118.
Moreau, Joseph. Schoolbook nation: Conflicts over American history textbooks from the Civil War to the present. University of Michigan Press, January, 2003.
UDC, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Convention of the Texas Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (Tyler, Tex.: Sword and Shield Publishing, 1899), 17; Southern Tribute Magazine 1 (May 1898): 289; Confederate Daughter 1 (Jan. 1900): 1.
United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), Minutes of the Texas Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (Galveston, Tex.: Clarke and Coats, 1898), 22.
Stern, Sheldon, and Jeremy Stern. “The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute, February 16, 2011, 142.
Weisman, Zoey M. “Southern Harm: The UDC’s Educational Crusade Promoting Lost Cause Ideology in the Progressive Era South.” University of Pennsylvania, March 30, 2022, 102.
About the Author
Olivia Storck is a sophomore at Fordham University’s Rose Hill Campus. She is pursuing a double major in Political Science and International Studies, with a minor in Spanish. In her free time, she enjoys exploring New York with her friends, skiing, baking, and traveling. Originally from Texas, Olivia moved to Washington, D.C. during her junior year of high school. This shift in location brought to her attention the discrepancies in how history was taught, ultimately inspiring this essay.