VII SUPPORTING LETTERS BY ACADEMICS AND SCHOLARS » Dr. Yvette Rosser
Fax sent to #: (916) 319-0175 on February 20, 2006
Paul Seave,
Chief Counsel,
State Board of Education
Glee Johnson,
President of the State Board of Education
Members, State Board of Education
I am writing to express the mounting concern of Hindu-American citizens who share grave misgivings about the manner in which Hinduism is presented to their children in Social Studies textbooks. According to the SBE Standards, education should “instill in each child a sense of pride in his or her heritage [and] develop a feeling of self-worth” and “enable all students to become aware and accepting of religious diversity”. Importantly, Social Studies education should “eradicate the roots of prejudice”. Remarkably, and contrary to the stated standards, there is a documented predominance of negativity applied to Hinduism, a subtle but ubiquitous critical slant that is absent in the presentation of other religious traditions written for adolescent California school children.
Hindu-Americans, who attended secondary school in the USA, have personally experienced this ubiquitous, if unintentional bias. Indian-American high school and university students took part in a study a few years ago, “Stereotypes in Schooling: Negative Pressures in the American Educational System on Hindu Identity Formation”. The Indian-American students complained about a predominance of sensationalism in the textbook approach to their heritage. One student, interviewed during her senior year in high school stated, “… middle schoolers have very open minds. Some of my friends from middle school are now very racist [….] a friend … admitted that if he hadn’t been taught [negative things] about [India] he wouldn’t be the way he is now. He has a closed mind [as result of the way that] World history was taught to us.” http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/tsa/VIN1/Rosser.htm#Yvette%20C.%20Rosser
A few years ago a teenage Indian-American student wrote an essay, My Experience in Middle School and High School Social Studies Classes, “Every day, young [Indian-American] children and teenagers are unreasonably tormented because of our perceived background. The school textbooks are half the cause. The average American doesn’t know … about India, and with the help of poorly researched textbooks, they learn nonsense. […] The sheer embarrassment of the situation is enough to make [Hindu] students everywhere wish we could have been ‘normal’ by American standards….” The student concludes her essay with a query, “But why do we put up with it? Jewish, African-American, and Orientals all have organizations against defamation and they are represented correctly in the textbooks. Why aren’t we? […] we should be able to at least correct the blatant misinterpretation of our culture.” This high school student then beseeches Hindu-American parents to contact the State Board of Education because “deshi” children “are being ridiculed everywhere in America because of what today’s modern student is learning. It’s not going to change unless we become part of the solution.” http://www.mcwret.org/hicad/Essay%20by%20Trisha%20Pasricha.htm
Hindu parents in California worked for months to interface within the pedagogical process prescribed by the SBE, in an effort to be part of the solution and work to rescue third-generation Hindu children from lingering misinformation and stereotypes. Many of the parents who are involved in this process are second generation Indian-Americans and they themselves endured the biased textbooks a decade ago. Now that they are adults with children of their own, they are motivated to solve the pervasive problem—so, they turned to the State Board of Education and followed the procedures, step by step working to remove bias that has skewed the narrative about their heritage.
Undoubtedly you are keenly aware of the on-going controversy concerning the content on ancient India and Hinduism in sixth grade Social Studies textbooks. Hindus all over California, and across the USA, have watched this process unfold. It was ironic, dismissive, and in violation of standard processes, that the SBE accepted at face value, the biased, last-minute derailment efforts of Professor Michael Witzel, a scholar who is often antagonistic towards contemporary practitioners. In a recent letter to his colleagues, he wrote, “The Hindus in North America (HINAs) are not just hiina,‘lost, abandoned’, but they (understandably) cling to their homeland in all manners they can come up with. ‘Reforming’ our schoolbooks according to an imagined Golden Age (Ram Raj), hoary India is just one of the expressions we can observe.” Witzel uses a Sanskrit word hiina to disparage American Hindus as lost and abandoned. This Sanskrit word carries derogatory meanings such as inferior, insecure, lowly and defective. Witzel mocks Hindu-Americans for “building crematoria”, for building “many temples”, having “Sunday schools” and sending our “daughters to study Classical Indian dance” which he erroneously claims is not a “highly regarded occupation back home”. He then mocks marriage customs and religious rituals, adding that such behaviors “add to the heady brew” that he dislikes in Hindu-Americans who can too easily adapt to the American environment while maintaining their ethnicity. Dr Witzel imposes his own imagined stereotypes on the Indian-American community. If he had said these words about another minority group, he would have been called a racist—but, instead, surprisingly, he was formally invited into the process by the SBE. Witzel is among a group of scholars who are afraid that “the study of Indic religion and culture is being ‘hijacked’ by practicing Hindus.” Professor Witzel wrote his letter to the SBE without examining the textbooks. He had not read the editorial suggestions prior to his strident condemnation since his letter was sent to the SBE before the approved edits were issued. In his letter he made no references to specific content, but simply strove to paint all of the editorial suggestions with the same broad stroke of denigration—sight unseen. In the process of attempting to tar the Hindu-American parents in California, he accused them of atrocities and blamed them for riots that occurred in India a few years ago. These Hindu-American parents had nothing to do with violence in India, and in fact rarely have the opportunity to visit the land of their ancestry since they have families and employment in the USA. Accusing the parents of California school children of genocide in order to discredit them is a misdirected and reprehensible strategy.
In their textbooks, Hindu children are subjected to a negative emphasis on many issues including women’s rights, whereas gendered issues are treated more sympathetically in sections on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The textbooks state that in Hinduism women are inferior. In ‘Ancient Civilization’, published by Holt, on page 154 is written, “Hinduism also taught that women were inferior to men. As a result, Hindu women were not allowed to read the Vedas or other sacred texts”. No such remarks are made for any other cultures or religions in the textbooks. Ancient Hinduism is unfairly singled out and judged per modern standards, using presentism, applying contemporary ideals, which have not been realized even in contemporary societies, to evaluate the past. It is questionable that women could not read the Vedas in the entire period of ancient India that this textbooks cover. There are numerous examples of women authors and teachers in ancient India. Amazingly, when Hindu groups in California asked the SBE to harmonize the description of women’s rights in ancient India with similar descriptions given for Judeo-Christian and Islamic societies, they are insulted and dismissed with pejorative labels by those who wish to retain the status quo.
The Hindu parents involved in the editorial process wanted their children to know that Hindu women were honored in ancient India, long before Indira Gandhi became modern India’s manifestation of feminine empowerment. In ancient India and also at the present time, many women in Hinduism are highly revered saints. For an excellent analysis of the textbook treatment of women in Hinduism, please see this essay, Women and Hinduism in U.S. Textbooks, written by David Freedholm, a high school history teacher: http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4564
As mentioned, before writing his protest letter to the Curriculum Committee, Dr. Witzel did not read the textbooks–even the sections on Hinduism. Neither did he, nor his co-signatories, investigate the representation of other religious traditions in the textbooks. Those narratives did not discuss historical legacies such as slavery, colonialism, and misogyny, which at one time were part of the history of Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, social practices like untouchability and “sati” are often presented as integral to Hindu religious customs. Textbooks usually fail to mention that these sorts of discriminatory and sexist social customs were also prevalent in other early non-Hindu societies. Importantly, the textbooks do not mention that many Hindu sacred texts, such as the “Ramayana”, were authored by “low caste” members of the society, or that since independence, several of India’s Presidents have been from formerly “untouchable” castes.
Contextualizing social oppression and sexism within the discourse of human rights, a teacher/textbooks could relate inequities in India to similar problems in Western society, and thereby avoid stereotyping class-based discrimination and gender violence as uniquely Hindu. Using “sati” to narrate Hinduism is tantamount to viewing Christianity through the lens of witch burning in medieval Europe. I am very curious to know if Professor Witzel seeks to deny Hindus the right to describe their own religion according to their beliefs. Textbooks narratives are not about the supremacy of one tradition over another. The Hindu groups requested subtle changes, such as the heading “Hindu Beliefs About Multiple Gods” should be replaced with the less sensational and more accurate phrasing: “Hindu Beliefs About Various Forms of God.” The requests were realistic and sensitive. Hindus believe that though “God is one, the forms are many”.
Many simplistic and easy to correct errors are often made in modern curriculum materials. For instance, one textbook stated, “As time passed, Indians began to question how the world came into being. These questions led to changes in Brahmanism.” The suggested editorial change was, “As time passed, Indians began to question how the world came into being. These questions led to changes in contemporary religious ideas.” This conveys more meaning to the student and is more in sync with Hindu self-concepts. “Brahmanism” is not a term that a Hindu would ever use. It was coined during the colonial era and is not used by Hindus to self-describe their religion, and in fact, is usually considered an insult. Referring to Hinduism as “Brahmanism” is tantamount to calling Catholics “Papists”—it is derogatory. Yet, tellingly, Professor Witzel vied for retaining that insulting wording.
Both the petitions, from Dr. Witzel and from FOSA, compared the process in California to the recent controversies over the historical narrative in textbooks in India. The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in New Delhi has used the very same textbooks for over thirty years. These textbooks, which many Hindu-American parents read while in school in India decades ago, should not be used as litmus to judge textbooks in California in 2006. The issues are very different and should not be conflated or politicized.
I was appalled that Professor Witzel concluded his letter with a threat that if California’s State Board of Education accepts the textbook edits suggested by Hindu-Americans, it “will lead without fail to an international scandal”. He did not express the same hysteria concerning the changes requested by the Jewish or Muslim groups. His unsupported tirade singled out one group simply because they are Hindus, not because their editorial suggestions were invalid. Certainly, as a scholar of South Asian Studies, he would not suggest that the textbooks retain this: “The people of the Indus Valley developed a civilization that lasted for over 500 years.” He knows very well that the IVC lasted far longer than five centuries. He would have to agree with the recommended edit, “The people of the Indus Valley developed a civilization that lasted for over 1300 years.” Correcting such errors is not political and has nothing to do with Hindutva or Neocons anymore that the changes requested by the Jewish representatives regarding Exodus are examples Zionism.
A simplistic polarized understanding–racist/humanist, patriot/traitor– emerges from dogmatic attachment to a particular historical perspective. This attitude of “you’re either with us or against us” that was used by President George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was also expressed by Senator Bob Dole on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1995 during his very vocal and hyper patriotic condemnation of the overly multicultural stance he perceived in the U.S. History Standards. This either/or compartmentalization highlights the dynamic process of contesting historiographies, but it leaves little room for debate. The vulgar use of this strategy against Hindu parents in California is uncalled for and reprehensible.
In conclusion, I would like to call your attention to a recent article by a second generation Indian-American: Forgetting the Child - the Heart of the Matter, by Niraj Mohanka 10 February 2006: http://www.india-forum.com/articles/90/1
“[….] These textbooks have dozens of factual errors related to India and Hinduism. For e.g., Hindi is said to be written in the Arabic alphabet! But even worse, they present an obsessively negative picture of ancient India, include clichéd pictures of scavengers and untouchables cleaning latrines, scrawny cows eating garbage on streets (with gratuitous remarks like “Where is the Beef”, or statements like “even if Hindus are starving, they will not eat beef”). Students are taught that only Hinduism ill-treats women or other men. For other religions, these topics are either not discussed, or white-washed. Or even if issues of slavery and gender inequality are mentioned, they are de-linked from the respective religions, and treated only as distant historical and/or social issues. Hindu religious beliefs are presented in ridiculous terms like “according to the Karma theory, if you do bad deeds, you may be reborn as a pig or an insect”, whereas the teachings (“revelations”) of other religions are taught in a very profound manner. Hindu holy books are just “poems”, ‘songs’ (like Madonna’s pop-songs?), or “myths” whereas the Bible and the Quran are “revealed scriptures” whose accounts are historical facts. The list of such errors of fact, bias and disparity with other faiths in these textbooks is endless.
“But wait, there’s more. If, by chance, there is anything positive in Hindu culture, it is neglected. No mention is made of the fact that Hindus alone worship God in Her Feminine Form. No mention is made of the fact that Hindus were the only society where slavery did not exist. No mention is made of the fact that religious wars were rare in Hindu society. No mention is made of the fact that many ‘untouchables’ compiled the greatest of Hindu scriptures, and became Hinduism’s most famous saints. And certainly no mention of the fact that India was historically the most tolerant nation in accepting differing religious beliefs in the world – not just ‘tolerating’, but welcoming Jews, Zoroastrians, Atheists, ‘heretical Christians’, ‘Qaramatian Muslims’ and others who fled persecution elsewhere.
“It does not take a psychiatrist to understand or imagine what a disastrous effect such a negative description of Hindu and Indian heritage could have on the minds of an 11 year old child, especially if she or he is a Hindu or of Indian descent. These students will be made to feel ashamed of their heritage, and may become objects of ridicule and contempt by their classmates. They would either want to deny their heritage completely, causing a lot of friction with their elders, or even develop feelings of shame, embarrassment and inferiority.
“Peer pressure and acceptance becomes increasingly strong and irresistible in teenage years, and it is inappropriate to subject sixth grade students (10-12 years) to such a predominantly negative and patently biased presentation of their heritage. While it is desirable at the College level to expose students to both sides of the story, impressionable and delicate sixth grade students should be taught material that is positive, and reinforces a sense of self-confidence and pride in what they are. After all, is this not the basic purpose of teaching world cultures to 11 year old children?
“But certain scholars with a track record of India-bashing and anti-Hinduism are insisting that in the name of historical accuracy, Hindu-American students should be subjected to such an obsessive negative coverage of their heritage. Why don’t they use the same yardstick for other cultures and religions? There is so much good in all cultures and civilizations. Why just dig out all the mud in Hinduism and throw it on innocent faces? Is it surprising that these same scholars and ideologues have actually done nothing in the past to improve narratives on India and Hinduism in textbooks?
“And how many of these academics are school teachers in the first place? Do they even realize that elementary school children do not deserve to be treated as cannon fodder in their divisive and sterile University level academic debates? Do they understand that 11 year old children should not be subjected to negative, repulsive and contentious issues in an obsessive manner, as these textbooks do with regard to Hinduism?
“These issues are very personal for me because I was that unfortunate 11 year old child. As an Indian-American born and brought up in Upstate New York in the 1970s, I was one of very few Hindus in my entire school system. Even outside of History or Social Studies classes, I was often teased and asked “What tribe I’m from?” Occasionally, I was told to “go back to my country” even though America was and is my country. During Social Studies class, I was forced to learn about the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory which involved ‘Aryans’ (white people) conquering India and suppressing the black natives (Dravidians) thereby inventing a new religion called ‘Hinduism’ which was built primarily upon the infamous and evil ‘caste system’ (very much akin to the apartheid system). I had to agree with this theory in order to get a good grade in my class. It did not matter that the theory didn’t make any sense and completely disagreed with everything I was taught by my parents about India’s ancient heritage – which was continuous and did not recall any invasion or migration of foreigners who created the religion and subjugated all the natives. In the past ten years, I’ve read a copious amount of research to show that this ‘Aryan Invasion or Migration’ theory has no basis in archaeology or anthropology or in the thousands of scriptures of Sanathana Dharma (Hinduism). I cannot think of a more racist theory that is still being taught today. I certainly do not want my children to be taught about some ‘master Aryan race’ that conquered India.
“My frustration with the way my heritage was taught to me was not limited to racism however. There was also a total obsession with poverty too. I had a teacher once who went to India for two weeks and then showed the entire school her slides from that trip. She spent one week photographing the people living in the slums of Calcutta and the other week at the Taj Mahal. Needless to say, I got a lot of questions about India being one huge, gigantic slum with one nice stone building in the middle. The fact that I had visited India many times and seen a completely different picture didn’t matter. The teacher was right and I was left embarrassed and ashamed…and silent. Those events were not forgotten after just a few years, but rather they have stayed with me my entire life. I have made every effort to make my children proud of their heritage and religion, but it does not help if the educational system is completely against me.
“The obsessively negative and discriminatory manner in which American school textbooks treat our religious and cultural heritage is simply unacceptable. During a talk at Harvard University on February 3, 2005, Professor Michael Witzel insists on retention of these negative descriptions of India and Hinduism in sixth grade school textbooks and instead of wanting to help the thousands of Hindu parents in this country, he along with many of his peers in academia are actually threatening to continue their anti-India and anti-Hinduism crusade beyond California. He stated at that talk, “We have been late in California, but wait for Texas two years from now. It will be much more messy”. He mocks at the genuine protests of thousands of Hindu-American parents in California as “motivated by Hindutva nationalism”, and arrogantly connects them with thousands of murders in Gujarat in 2002. Why this politicizing and demonization of Hindu parents who simply want their children to grow up not hating themselves? [….]
“As a proud 2nd generation Indian-American with three school-going children today, I want to remind all those out there who seek to corrupt this issue with politics or hatred that I and many thousands of concerned parents like me, will do whatever we can to protect our children from bigotry and discrimination. The truth is that this issue is not about academics versus “right-wing, Hindu fanatics.” This is not even about anti-India and anti-Hindu academics versus concerned parents. At the heart of this textbook controversy is my child …and your child …and every child. Enough is enough.”
I hope that the information contained in this letter is of use to you in your deliberations. Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Yvette C. Rosser, PhD
Center for Indic Studies
University of Dartmouth
yrosser@umassd.edu