Native Americans have their own fable that corresponds to the West’s “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” In their cosmology, they’re not worried about the wolf, so much; as author Tony Hillerman points out, “some Native American tribal beliefs cautioned against a human in wolf’s clothing.”
The principle is the same, however, and it applies to the American Indian/Native Studies course just reapproved by the Texas State Board of Education.
We should study our history—the good and bad alike. However, a dive into the actual standards of this course reveals a much, much more problematic worldview—a worldview that tries to portray America as oppressive, white people as villains, and Native Americans as helpless victims, which twists history into divisive political propaganda.
How does it twist history? To answer that, you must look deep into the course standards, which can be found online here.
First, and foremost, is the obvious problem—on page 3, in the geography section (c)(4)(G), the standards state that students are expected to
describe the practice of land acknowledgement statements as a way to honor ancestral Indigenous people and their local Native land histories, recall Tribal sovereignty, and recognize the continued presence of contemporary American Indian/Native peoples.
Of course, aside from the obvious land acknowledgement requirement—which absurdly suggests that Americans are effectively thieves and is arguably contrary to state law—the course communicates its problematic agenda through its historical standards. The balance of the course is negative—painting Europeans as “colonizers” and Native Americans as the oppressed.
For example, on page 6, the standards ask students to analyze “describe how factors, including enslavement, trade route disruption, Mississippian dispersal, and disease, impacted American Indian/Native Nations.” While all of these ills should be discussed—and are often discussed in the U.S. History course—and we should not turn a blind eye to the negative parts of our history, this section also completely skips the positive things—like the introduction of new technologies, medicines, and trade—that happened as a result the Native American contact with Europeans.
Later, on the same page, there is a focus on the enslavement of Native Americans, but no mention of how the San Antonio Missions—a key part of Texas history with Native Texan tribes—served as a beacon of hope for the Coahuiltecan peoples and a bulwark against raids from the Lipan Apache and Comanche.
Part of page 7 focuses on sovereignty. However, as worded, it misrepresents the historical relationship between the Native American tribes and our constitutional structure and promotes viewing them as entirely separate nations within the United States, which is not accurate.
Outside of the history sections, other minor concerns can be found—from page 3’s assignment to “explain the American Indian/Native concept of the living universe as the interdependent relationships between humankind and the natural world;” which dramatically over-generalizes the variety of Native American attitudes towards nature in favor of the “noble savage” mythos (which is also discussed on page 6), to the section on Recommended Resources and Materials on page 10, which states that “Sources should reflect American Indian/Native voices and should be from an American Indian/Native recommended materials list,” a position that is neither scientific or balanced.
Overall, this course is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or a human in wolf’s clothing—or, perhaps, Critical Race Theory in historical clothing. While proponents argue the course touches on important parts of our country and continent’s history, high school students should be focusing on building a foundation of knowledge through general history.
Without such a foundation, students are susceptible to divisive interpretations that promote racialized, oppressor/oppressed viewpoints. This Marxist style of thinking should not be promoted in our schools, and Texas should remove this elective immediately