| School Curriculum Hurts Indian-Americans |
 |
That’s the disturbing conclusion of U.S. curriculum expert Dr. Yvette C. Rosser who analyzed the contents of recent high school textbooks, and followed it up with extensive student interviews. The Rosser study addresses teachers as well as parents who are concerned about fostering international understanding.
In her article ‘Stereotypes in Schooling’ in the journal ‘Teaching South Asia,’ Rosser concludes that the dilemma of negative stereotypes about India and about Hinduism remains endemic in American academia – some 75 years after Katherine Mayo’s blistering attack.
More than 25 years ago, after a critical evaluation of 27 textbooks, Prof. McKim Mariott of the University of Chicago had this to say: “I have inspected the collection of twenty-seven current textbook treatments of South Asia with distressing results. Two thirds of the texts are filled with factual fallacies…and seems to me wholly devoid of social scientific value. Four fifths of the texts seem to me definitely negative and damaging in their educational effects, setting the reader in opposition to the materials and alienating him from the subject civilization.
Bonnie R. Crown, an educator who was involved with the Asia Society textbook evaluation project wrote in 1977: ‘We are constantly measuring other countries with our own yardsticks of what the good life is, not with those of the society being measured. In using the approach of looking in from the outside through our own cultural screens, no country is presented in textbooks as more strange and bewildering to Americans than India. We find that the content selected for these texts has much more to do with the concepts and skills of Western disciplines than with Indian priorities or preoccupations and Indian values and achievements.’
Surprisingly, not much has changed, according to the evaluation conducted recently by Dr Yvette C. Rosser in her study at the University of Texas.
After analyzing high school curriculum content and interviewing South Asian American students, Dr Rosser observes: “Stereotypes about India and Hinduism when taught as fact in American classrooms may negatively impact students of South Asian origin who are struggling to work out their identity in a multicultural, predominately Anglo-Christian environment.”
Rosser observes that beginning from school and church and on through the media, mainstream American society is taught negative attitudes about Indian culture, thus reinforcing stereotypes. This biased information about non-Western traditions, presented solely through the eyes of the dominant culture, results in a myopic, shortsighted focus on the world. And it ultimately undermines the oft-stated goal of U.S. Social studies education—to create citizens who are proud of their role in a pluralistic society and able to relate to other societies from an informed perspective, argues Rosser.
Inevitably, Rosser’s study raises several issues. When the life styles and world-views of other peoples are not approached appropriately and respectfully, prejudicial misconceptions are perpetuated. If children of South Asian descent are taught mostly negative stereotypes about India in American classrooms, it can impact their identity formation. This is especially important during the formative and sensitive years of secondary education for students who may feel culturally somewhat set apart from their peers.
Other questions too emerge from Rosser’s study. Does studying South Asia in a world history or other social studies class have a negative impact on the self-image of American students of South Asian descent? In U.S. classrooms, do representations and stereotypes about India and other non-Western regions of the world perpetuate racism within the country and taint our perceptions of other nations and nationalities, ultimately resulting in a less sympathetic and less responsible citizenry?
The changing demographics of the US classroom means that school districts are becoming increasingly diverse ethnically and culturally. It also means that the presence of Asian-American students in today’s classrooms has made Social studies teachers more guarded in their presentation and has stimulated a closer scrutiny of curricular materials. However, in general, India remains a misconstrued curiosity. In Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (Routledge, 1998), Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal of Harvard University succinctly state: ‘in the Western popular consciousness the Indian subcontinent tends to evoke two contrary images. On the one hand it is lauded as an ancient land of mystery and romance, extraordinary wealth and profound spirituality. On the other hand it is denounced for its irrationality and inhumanity and derided for its destitution and squalor.’
Rosser points out that in American textbooks, Hinduism is referred to as one of the worldīs "five great religions" and yet paradoxically, Hindu beliefs and traditions are often represented as a superstitious localized collection of archaic cults with bizarre gods. During the impressionable teenage years, these negative portrayals can cause shame and embarrassment among Indian-American students regarding their ancestry and can engender a dislike for India, warns Rosser.
Dr. Rodney Moag, professor in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, has investigated identity formation among students of South Asian descent and notes that their taking courses in South Asian studies may represent a stage in which students are trying to work out their identity—"a sequential process, and a response to being subjected to negative stereotypes about South Asia arising from their mainstream American educational experience." Rosser observes that negativities may persist in classes at the University level, in which Hinduism is represented as myth, rather than a living tradition embodying universal truths—as Hindus would naturally perceive it.
Often when "Westernized" scholars look at India, and in particular Hinduism, they are seeing themselves looking at India, but India is not being seen. Their analyses are a reflection of their negation of what India is/was not. In order to avoid anything that remotely resembles essentialism, relationships are fragmented, decentered, and dislodged. India, intellectually, ceases to exist, notes Rosser.
As example Rosser cites her own experience in academia. “My own experience as an M.A. student in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas in the mid-nineties alerted me to some of the biased assumptions that appeared to direct the study of India among western academicians. I also began to question the interpretations of some of the more well-known, leftist-oriented scholars from India who dissect the nascent nation-state and, for whatever reasons, along with their Western counterparts, regularly demonize India’s national urges, deconstructing and disempowering the world’s most enduring and resilient civilization.”
Rosser, who earned her Ph.D. in curriculum development from the University of Texas, goes on to explain: “Many of the things I was taught about India and Hinduism in Asian Studies courses at the University of Texas, seemed somewhat out of sync with current research going on in India. At times I witnessed a dismissive, patronizing attitude towards indigenous Indian intellectuals who write from an "Indian" perspective. Some of the assumptions and methodologies used in courses I took were at variance with my knowledge of Indian Civilization.”
The high school students Rosser interviewed for her survey of secondary school curriculum painted a bleak picture of the manner in which India was presented in the classroom. One enumerated the topics covered: "Taj Mahal, famine, hunger, Gandhi" Another stated that "Indian and South Asian topics were seldom presented in classes. They only presented the Indian leader, Gandhi. That was all." Another concurred that the topics emphasized were "population, poverty, and Gandhi."
The majority of the informantsī comments agreed with this list of essentialisms. Though most stated that "Hinduism, the caste system, poverty, third world country inferiority" were the aspects of India that were stressed, one student did state that her teacher "dealt only with the independence movement."
Another articulate informant complained that, in her classes, India was not depicted accurately and "only negativities were enforced, [India was not presented through] a wide picture." She continued by summarizing the gist of the treatment of India: "We all starve. We eat monkey brains. We worship rats. We worship cows." Ultimately she observed that "Only Gandhi and ancient India were covered with any respect." Another informant reinforced this assessment with his list of topics that form the structure of most high school classroom presentations. He cited, "Indus Valley, British occupation, Gandhi," and then added, "Thatīs it!"
The question of relevance and cultural associations bring up issues of Eurocentric pedagogical approaches in the presentation of Indian and/or Asian topics, says Rosser. In many instances, countries of Asia are introduced only through their relationships to Europe and the West. One student noted that when she learned "There is over population and pollution in the countries of South Asia, not much was presented about how these countries got this way." Another student added that "Asian countries were dealt with strictly as the European colonies that they once were." And another stated "The history of Asian countries before contact with Europeans was completely ignored." Most of the students surveyed thought that Asian topics were summarily treated, if at all. One student noted that "The teacher whipped through all of Asia in three weeks—all from a very Euro-centric point of view." Another student articulated, from a globally aware perspective, that Asian topics were only discussed when they were in contact with western nations.
Rosser reports: ‘I interviewed a student, who was in her last year of high school. Her mother is from India and father is Euro-American. She was very sensitive about the way that India was disregarded in her World history class at her high school here in Austin. The feelings that she expressed are worthy of quoting in detail. India "was not important. There was never time for it." She complained that the teacher would just touch on India and other countries, and then "jump back to Europe or the United States. It wasnīt going back to South America or Mexico. It was the United States or Europe." She felt that this dismissive approach to the study of non-U.S. cultures had a detrimental impact on her classmates.
“At the middle school age, youīre still learning things, and a lot of middle schoolers have very open minds. Some of my friends from middle school are now very racist, and itīs because they are so ignorant about the rest of the world. They donīt know anything about India; they donīt know anything about Japan and China and Taiwan and Vietnam. What they know about Vietnam is the war, an illegal war, thatīs what they know about Vietnam. All they know about Africa is thatīs where we got black people. You know, thereīs more to Africa than thatīs where we got black people!”’
Rosser is an American citizen who spent several formative years of her life in India. She has since nurtured a life-long appreciation for the culture and history of the Indian Subcontinent. “Since my youth, my respect and admiration of Indiaīs religious traditions, spiritual inheritance, and rich historical legacy has continued to grow as my knowledge of the region increased along with my professional development,” acknowledges Rosser.
Armed with a B.A. in Asian Studies (University of Texas, 1981) and teaching certifications in Social Studies and English, Rosser taught high school for several years, while raising three children. She then returned to graduate school receiving her M.A. in Asian Studies in 1997. Her Thesis: an analysis of the treatment of India in the American secondary social studies curriculum, includes a study of the negative impact that the standard presentation of India, in American classrooms, has on the identity formation of Indian American high school students.
Her Ph.D. dissertation, in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, is a study of the politics of history in South Asia and looks at social studies textbooks in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with a particular focus on the rewriting of history in India.
Rosser has designed and led several workshops for high school teachers to help better understand and teach about India. She is also active in the Peace movement.