State of the Field	Volume I, No. 1, Winter 2001

Stereotypes in Schooling:

Negative Pressures in the American Educational System on Hindu Identity Formation[1]

by Yvette C. Rosser

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. The first section of this paper explores the reactions of Hindu students who have studied about India in social studies classes in American secondary schools. The data was drawn from surveys distributed at the University of Texas at Austin to students of South Asian descent who attended high school in the USA, as well as from personal interviews with several American-educated students of Indian heritage.

The second section of this paper is a discussion of the coverage of India in four world history textbooks, with a closer look at the textbook that was used in the Austin Independent School District for six years during the 1990s. The final section is a statistical analysis of the preparedness of secondary social studies educators, graduating from the University of Texas at Austin, to teach about India and other non-Western regions.

This article is addressed not only to educators, but to parents and citizens from all ethnic groups concerned about fostering a non-prejudicial society and international understanding and cooperation. This paper offers no solutions. But, it is hoped that by pointing out the problems, remedies may be found to improve the discourse about South Asia and other non-Western regions of the world that predominates in World history classrooms and textbooks, and to encourage greater preparedness of secondary social studies teachers in the area of global/international education. Unfortunately, the dilemma of negative stereotypes about Hinduism remains endemic in American academia.

Negative attitudes and images about other cultures that mainstream North Americans are inevitably taught in school or at church or through the media, and misconceptions color our personal socialization experience. Sensationalist news stories about India often provide American schoolteachers with preconceived ideas that they bring with them into the classroom. Social studies teachers can play a critical role in eliminating cultural prejudices. But, if they reinforce stereotypes about cultures different from their own, and present biased information about non-Western traditions in their classes, the value of global education preparing citizens for the 21st Century is lost. A myopic, short-sighted focus on the world, solely through the eyes of the dominant culture, 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.

Several issues and questions were raised by this study. 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.

Several question emerge: Does studying India or Hinduism 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 our country and taint our perceptions of other nations and nationalities, ultimately resulting in a less sympathetic and less responsible citizenry?

Our school districts are increasingly diverse ethnically and culturally. It has even been posited that, due to the changing demographics of the U.S. classroom, Asian Studies could be reconsidered in the field of Ethnic Studies instead of Area Studies. Additional research is needed on how to best teach students from different cultures and backgrounds. 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 India, as well as countries such as Korea or Vietnam.

However, in general, India remains a misconstrued curiosity. In Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (Routledge, 1998), Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal succinctly state that:

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.

In American textbooks, Hinduism is referred to as one of the world's "five great religions" and yet paradoxically, Hindu beliefs and traditions are often represented as a superstitious localized collection of archaic cults. Hinduism is too complex, too dense, too unbelievable, on the level of Greek mythology but with too many gods who are even more bizarre than Zeus and the pantheon of Mount Olympus, who were at least the precursors of "Western traditions." 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. Students may also respond to these negative stereotypes by adopting a defensive posture vis- -vis the teacher's presentation, as they feel compelled to correct misperceptions.

Many Hindu-American students, after "coming of age," study their ancestral languages and other cultural courses about their heritage at the University level. 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 who take Malayalam and Hindi to fulfill their language requirements as well as other courses on Indian history and culture. Dr. Moag notes that this 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."[2] 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.

Obviously the presence of South Asian students in American university classrooms impacts the manner in which the material about India is presented. University professors, when planning a class on a topic such as the Ramayana, must be aware that there may be at least one student in the class who is a Ram bhakt. Kind hearted and intelligent philosophy professors may earnestly tell their students that "the West contributed activity and ambition, individuality, to world culture and the East gave us renunciation, impersonality and a sort of mushiness."[3] However well intended, such statements are misleading and counterproductive. Other, more articulate, post-modern professors, from both India and the West, may reduce Hinduism down to disconnected fragments that had no unity or identity until constructed from the outside by foreigners such as Afghan invaders or English imperialists. Regardless of who is teaching what from which perspective, the view of Hinduism is distorted. In response to these approaches, Hindu students often do some serious and productive soul searching which gives rise to a unique cultural hybridity.

The survey from which the comments included in this paper were taken was distributed during a meeting of the India Students Association at the University of Texas at Austin in the fall semester of 1995. Of the forty-three students who filled out the survey, thirty-two of them were born in the USA; eleven came from India with their parents when they were children. The survey asked them to evaluate the treatment of Asian topics in their secondary social studies experience:

• Describe any stereotypes and misrepresentations about India that were taught as fact.
• Do you feel, as a student of South Asian descent, that your presence in the classroom had an influence on the manner in which the course materials on India (or Asia in general) were presented?
• If Indian and South Asian topics were presented in your classes, what ideas were emphasized?
• Compare the coverage of South Asia with that of other areas of Asia.

When asked to list the topics that were emphasized in the study of India, most of the students listed these, enumerated by this American born student of South Asian heritage who had recently graduated from a high school in Houston: "Wars, disease, population, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, female infanticide, flooding, and starvation." "India," stated another student was "only thought of as a third world country considered inferior and totally ignorant of world events." Several students mentioned that the "economic backwardness of India" was "blamed on the superstitious and polytheistic nature of Hinduism."

This essentialist presentation of Indic Civilization can be summarized as the standard pedagogic approach which runs quickly from the "Cradle of Civilization" contrasting the Indus Valley with Egypt and Mesopotamia on past the Aryans[4], who were somehow our linguistic (and/or racial) ancestors to the poverty stricken, superstitious, polytheistic, "caste ridden" Hindu "way of life". . . and then somehow magically culminates with a eulogy of Mahatma Gandhi. A typical textbook trope presents the standard Ancient India Meets the Age of Expansion Approach with a color photo of the Taj Mahal. There may be a side bar on ahimsa or a chart of connecting circles graphically explaining samsara and reincarnation, or illustrations of the four stages of life or the Four Noble Truths. Amid the dearth of real information there may be found an entire page dedicated to a deity such as Indra or Varuna, who admittedly are rather obscure vis- -vis the beliefs of most modern Hindus.

In world history textbooks published in the USA, very few paragraphs are devoted to economic development and democratic institutions in independent India. India is not depicted as a viable political state. When dealing with Indic Civilization, the textbooks prefer to make sweeping metaphysical assumptions about religion and culture, but are far more circumspect when evaluating civil society and political culture in modern India. In fact, textbooks can, ironically, be strangely critical of the resilience and capacity for synthesis of "traditional cultures" such as India as they interface with modernity. It is as if the value of that geographical area resides only in its ancient contributions to human knowledge whereas its pathetic attempts to modernize or develop are to be winked at and patronized.

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.

Based on narrowly defined approaches to Indian history and culture, ideological portals have been fabricated within various academic or theoretical disciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, philology, critical theory, subaltern studies, and dialectical materialism, each convinced they are the "true" path to India. No doubt, each is a path to understanding a part. However in the process, Indian culture and society has been analyzed, reanalyzed and over-analyzed, from every multi-perspectival position possible. Scholars are often firmly entrenched in their philological or historiographical or Marxist interpretation of all things Indian. From these ideological towers they deny the whole; they see a fractal image much like the child on the back cover of the Amar Chitra Katha comic book who is looking at a picture of himself on the back cover of the comic book looking at himself looking at a comic book, and so on, infinitely. Quite often when "Westernized" scholars look at India, and in particular Hinduism, they are seeing themselves looking at India, looking at India, 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. Indic Civilization seems to have ended with the fall of Vijayanagar.

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 and were not verified by my experiences and understanding of the Hindu Dharma. There was an almost complete lack of spirituality or even an appreciation of spirituality. At this level, Hindu philosophy becomes a deeply insightful, amazingly complex curiosity.

In secondary schools, however, even this level of intellectualism is, needless to say, missing. The basic structure for the presentation of India for school students was described by the Indian-American students surveyed at UT Austin. 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 informants' 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." One 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, which can be said to form the structure of most high school classroom presentations. He cited, "Indus Valley, British occupation, Gandhi," and then added, "That's it!"

The comments of these heritage students, who were understandably sensitive to the representation of the area of the world from which they and/or their parents came, reveal the overall negative portrayal of India in social studies classes. Because these students are better informed about India and Hindu practices, they are aware of the stereotypes in a way that perhaps their Euro-American, African-American, or Hispanic classmates are not. They are also more able to sift through the misinformation whereas their classmates are subjected to this one-sided view of India, without any reference points, or any real desire to dispel the errors. Because of this, the negative stereotypes may be ultimately more detrimental for non-Indian students.

There was a consensus, among the students surveyed, that India, and Asia in general, were presented as technologically and socially backwards. Several students complained about the portrayal of women in South Asia. One student observed that his teacher told them that "Women are treated poorly, as if there are no rights for females." Another student stated that in his high school classes teachers stressed the "suppression of women" in South Asia. He complained that his teachers and other American "people have no idea about the culture, the background, the history. . . they assume it's all oppression." Ironically, employing the patriarchal idiom that is criticized by both South Asian and American feminists, he added, "[The condition of women] has a lot has to do with respect and protection." This student, who was from El Paso, was critical of the curriculum. He remembered that Asia was presented as consisting of "very primitive and incomplete ideas." He felt that "the same goes for South Asia as East Asia." Another student complained that "India wasn't really covered and when it was, it was shown as a poor, backward country that treats their women poorly and kills their baby girls."

In an interview with an American-born student of Panjabi descent, women's issues were discussed at length. After attending high school near Houston, this student enrolled at The University of Texas and took a class called, "Introduction to Hinduism." The respectful and objective way that Hinduism was presented in this lower division university class transformed the negative perspectives with which she had come to regard India based on her high school experience and she acquired a new appreciation and interest in Indian history and culture. She changed her academic goals and majored in Asian Studies. Discussing women's issues in South Asia, she felt that "to a large extent the feminist movement has had an impact on India, it's brought a lot of Indian women up. But," she added, "Western feminism's perspective of Eastern women, or how women are [treated] in Eastern society, has hurt India's image." Regarding female infanticide, she stated, "I think [it exists] in the rural settings. [It's] not necessarily killing, not just sticking [the girl babies] outside [on] a pile of dead bodies. But the incidence of females dying at an earlier age is high. [If] there's a male child around, especially, girls often take a back seat."

When the issue of female infanticide was mentioned in her high school history class, she remembered that the teacher "didn't discuss, [any of the sociological factors and it] came across as if all these Indians were taking their female babies out and dumping them." She added that in precollegiate classes it was made to seem as if all baby girls were mistreated in India. The fact that in most Indian families daughters are loved and nurtured and educated alongside their brothers was not mentioned. The role that women played in the independence movement was also not discussed nor was the fact that Indian women continue to be deeply involved in politics. In fact, at the local panchayat level, a rapidly increasing percentage of democratically elected gram pradhans, or village headmasters are now women. There is currently a bill in parliament to amend the constitution, guaranteeing that thirty percent of the seats in the Lok Sabha be reserved for women.

In the minds of many Americans, Indian women are to be pitied and the positive social progress made by many women in India is completely ignored. The very gradual development and eventual success of the often maligned Suffragette movement in the U.S. is never contextualized or compared to the social and political uplift of modern Indian women. The prevailing image is that if the unfortunate females survive a deprived childhood they are likely to be burned in a dowry death after their forced marriage to a complete stranger. Indian women are shown as downtrodden and powerless victims, unlike American women who have more freedom. Indira Gandhi is seen as an anomaly.

A young woman, born in the U.S. who went to high school in Dallas, observed that, "India was considered as really dirty and the people not too intelligent." Others, recollecting their experiences in U.S. high schools complained that the teachers and the textbooks generally approached Asia from a negative perspective and, "showed the desolate parts of India, not the beauty." Another student concurred with this observation, that "only lives of the poor" were represented and the treatment of Asia "showed only the problems." Students never learned that, in India, there is a middle class made up of approximately 300 million consumers. Another student complained that India is depicted as "just a poor country" and that the lives of the people are dealt with in a simplistic manner, "We just worship thousands of Gods. Nothing else!" Another student said that stress had been placed on "overpopulation and wars due to religion." According to these students, there was nothing taught about the progress that India the size of Europe, with a diversity of culture and territory of continental proportions has made as a democratic country. It was never mentioned that India is the seventh most industrialized country in the world.

This perception, that Asia was depicted primarily as an underdeveloped, economically backward, poverty-stricken region, was shared by most of the informants. One commented, "We're all poor with big families and not enough food." This student went on to say that the main aspects emphasized in the study of South Asia were "poverty, disease, and filth." Yet another student was taught that "There are only poor people in India," that, "only poverty exists there." This observation agrees with that of another student who remembers, from the content of his world history class, that in India "Almost everyone is poor. It was shown as mainly a slum area." He added, "But, some cities like Bombay are much like cities here!" From these comments it can be seen that the treatment of South Asia in many classrooms focuses overwhelmingly on the negative aspects of India and leaves no lasting impression of the greatness of the culture or its historical importance, much less of its role in world affairs. As one student described, "Asian countries are shown as being very primitive--as if people don't know what TV is, microwaves and other modern technology." Another student complained that "Topics related mainly to the ancient caste system. Nothing dealing with the current economic or political standings was presented."

One informant complained that "Hinduism" was described as "some sort of bizarre mystic religion in which people do dances and worship strange things. India is full of poor uneducated starving people, a country on the verge of collapse." Critical of the stereotype-as-fact orientation, another young man stated "The poverty of India was blown out of proportion and no Asian countries were credited with the artistic and literary contributions they made to the world. Islamic nations were presented as fanatical, China was the 'communist enemy', Japan was an economic and educational threat and India was overpopulated." The majority of the informants agreed that when India was studied, "Religion and the caste system were emphasized." Several noted that when studying Gandhi, in the context of Partition, "animosity between Hindus and Muslims" was discussed. There was no mention of post-independence secular India's efforts toward national integration of its minorities and low caste citizens.

Another informant contrasted the emphasis on South Asia "poverty, religion, reincarnation, British rule, Gandhi, caste" with the emphasis placed on China and Japan which focused on "forms of government, religions, main exports, imports." This essentialist stereotypical representation of India can be summed up by one student's list of topics, "polytheism and a poor and very big population, [which is] highly underdeveloped. . ." and, she adds as did many of the informants, "we worship rats and eat monkey brains."

The wholly fictional depiction of India in the Steven Spielberg film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, seems to have been taken as a valid portrayal of India by many teachers, since a large number of students surveyed complained that teachers referred to the eating of monkey brains. We all remember that the worshipping of rats was widely discussed during the "epidemic" in Surat in the early nineties. In my own experience, while training teachers to teach about India, I have been amazed at how many people really think that Hindus worship rats. When I point out this is an absurd way to think about Hinduism, and ludicrous to teach their students, they argue that they read it in an AP news wire. The way that I deal with this issue is to compare the worship of rats among Hindus, at an obscure temple in Rajasthan, to the worship, among Christians, of David Koresh at the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It is a good analogy since the teachers respond that though some Christians did worship David Koresh, it is certainly not a defining characteristic and actually abhorrent to most Christians. Thus it is for rat worship among Hindus.

Throughout their surveys the majority of the students noted these negative and stereotyped approaches to India, "They thought that Hindus worship cows and rats and eat monkey brains. They talked about the Hare Krishnas, as if that's India!" Several students commented that "Only Indian independence was covered thoughtfully." But, as others pointed out, what they did with their independence during the next fifty years is ignored. Besides the respect shown to Mahatma Gandhi, most students noted that the focus was on "religion . . . but only the alien and strange aspects." Hinduism is seen more as a curiosity than a "World Religion." In this context, Hinduism is referred to as "a way of life" rather than a "religion" as we understand the term in the West. Many Hindus and informed scholars would agree that the Western concept of religion is too narrow to adequately contain the scope of Sanatana Dharma. However, when Hindusim is called a "way of life" as opposed to a what we would call a "religion" it is made to seem like a disorganized collection of conflicting beliefs, not really a "world religion" at all.

In a study of the representation of India in World history textbooks, I noted that in one state-adopted textbook, a whole page was devoted to a discussion of the Vedic God Varuna, but Ram, Krishna, and Shiva are mentioned together in only one sentence. The popular deities, Hanuman, Lakshmi, and Ganesh were omitted completely. The obscure is exalted and the actual practices of modern Hindus ignored.

Through the years, I have presented numerous workshops for secondary Social studies teachers and spoken to many groups of American students about India. Without exception, the two most often asked questions about India are, "Why do women wear a 'dot'?" and, "Why, when there is so much poverty in India, don't they eat all those cows?" These questions bring up the issue of relevance and relating these non-Western practices to experiences familiar to the students in order to help them understand different cultures within a context they can comprehend. As the young woman, who had changed her major to Asian Studies stated, teachers should make associations "with something Western that kids can understand associate rebirth or moksha with a Christian principle. [They should talk about] the American flag and its symbolism, suddenly it would become clear what a symbol is. [Instead of just saying they are idolaters,] say that an idol is a symbol to them. [But unless the teacher explains it in their own terms] they think that 'these people are weird,' but if you explain about the symbolism of the flag, it becomes rational."

If information about India is contextualized and made relevant to the students' experience instead of exotic and inexplicable, students will have a better understanding of the culture. In answering the question about the eating of beef, I explain it in several ways. I mention the negative impact that raising beef for meat can have on the environment and, citing F. M. Lappe's statistics, explain that it is ecologically highly inefficient to raise cattle for meat. (It takes approximately sixteen pounds of edible vegetable protein and 44,000 gallons of water to make one pound of beef.) India can ill afford to waste that much protein. I then explain that cows are used primarily for milk, which is a staple and one of the main calorie sources in India. In addition, oxen are essential for pulling plows and carts and for crop irrigation. Just as importantly, the cow is the national symbol of the nation, much like the eagle is the symbol for the USA, where even to own an eagle feather, unless you are a member of a registered tribe, is a criminal offense punishable by a $5,000 fine. I explain that to many Hindus, cows are considered to be a part of the family, much like the family dog is treated in the USA. You would not eat Rover. Indians often feel the same about their cows. All Americans can understand this canine analogy. The thought of eating a cow is as repulsive to many Hindus as the thought of eating a dog or a horse is to most Americans. It should be mentioned that this practice does not preclude the eating of dogs or horses in other countries. It becomes clear that culinary habits are quite culturally specific.

Relating perceived oddities about India to aspects of American life can shine a light of commonality and clear up that which appears laughable or strange. The issue of the "dot" on the foreheads of Hindu women is also easily explained. Though originating from a mark of religious symbolism, still used by holy men and other religious persons, its contemporary forms, often made from velvet and glitter, play the same role in fashion as do lipstick or mascara for western women. Some fashion statements are shared across cultures such as the painting of women's lips and nails, and others are particular to a certain people, such as the "bindi," or dot. As can be seen by the growing popularity of nose piercing among western youths, and blue jeans among Indian teens, fashions borrowed from other countries can easily become the norm.

The question of relevance and cultural associations bring up issues of Occicentric (Euro-American) pedagogical approaches in the presentation of Indian and/or Asian topics. 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. My whole elementary, junior high and high school education was very Euro-centric. East Asia was mentioned in connection with World War II, South East Asia was mentioned in the context of communism. India was hardly mentioned in my world history class.

These Eurocentric essentialized approaches to the study of Asia personally affect students in American high schools, not only those of Asian origins, but negatively impact non-Asian students by teaching and reinforcing stereotypes. One informant was acutely aware of the detrimental aspects of this perspective, "All Indians that live in India are poor, have lots of cows, they worship everything and everyone. The Indians who live here all have MDs, are rich and their children are all genius kids."

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 wasn't 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. She pointed out that

At the middle school age, you're 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 it's because they are so ignorant about the rest of the world. They don't know anything about India, they don't know anything about Japan and China and Taiwan and Vietnam. What they know about Vietnam is the war, an illegal war, that's what they know about Vietnam. All they know about Africa is that's where we got black people. (laughs) You know, there's more to Africa than that's where we got black people!

This young woman, of mixed heritage, saw the results of negative stereotypes in the attitudes of her classmates:

It was really sad to see some of my friends grow so racist. It's because they just didn't have the exposure. I have a friend who admitted that if he hadn't been taught [negative things] about other nations, he wouldn't be the way he is now. He has a closed mind because he's ignorant. But that's [the result of the way that] World history was taught to us. It was European history. I argued with the teacher several times, 'This is not supposed to be European history, it's world history', but between WW I and WW II there was never time.

This student complained that what material was available about India in the textbooks was not discussed:

The teacher would say, 'read this paragraph or that paragraph out of the book' [which focused on] poverty, or Mahatma Gandhi. We skipped over a lot. I read all of it, because I wanted to know. I was interested in it. I wanted to educate myself. I learned more about the world than just what the teacher wanted. But I think it's very sad that I had to do it on my own. The teacher was not willing to slow down and talk about India. He was always too worried about getting back to European history. The only way I can justify his actions is that he knew absolutely nothing about India or China or Japan. But even then, he should have read the book. It seemed more like he was avoiding it.

Teachers attending workshops on incorporating Asia into their curriculum have told me that India is more difficult to teach than other countries in Asia. They complain that it's too diverse, too ancient, too exotic, too many gods, with too many arms. Teachers are often overwhelmed. Never having taken a course on India, they are at a loss to understand the complexities. As a result, they often select one or two points, such as the Indus Valley Civilization and Mahatma Gandhi, and skip the rest. Often they will give their students a word list with includes Karma, Dharma, Moksha, Nirvana, the Rig Veda, the Mahabharata, etc., with short definitions. Students are made to memorize these terms for a test. But, they are not adequately explained. Many teachers will dwell on the evils of the caste system and there are even little games that are played, dividing the students up in to priests, warriors, merchants, servants and untouchables. The luck of the draw, not karma or samskaras, determines their caste. The context within which the caste system evolved is not discussed.

Misrepresentations are particularly severe regarding the presentation of Hinduism. Some of the comments from the informants are quite telling. The following is a illustrative string of quotes from several students about the portrayal of Hinduism in their classes: "Hindus worship stones;" "Hindus worship cows, rats, insects. . . There were total distortions and misconceptions about reincarnation;" "We worship cows and we worship statues (we really worship what that statue stands for);" "All Indians worship cows and run around naked and are starving;" "We worship rats, we're cheap. There was a big stress on religion, which was portrayed negatively and very little was understood about the people."

Quite a few of the informants felt that their presence in the classroom influenced the way that the material was presented and several stated that they were compelled to correct some of the misrepresentations they perceived. One student remembered that "Whenever India or South Asian countries were mentioned, the teacher or my classmates would look to me for answers." He evaluated this experience by saying, "In my opinion, India and South Asia were not covered adequately enough for students to actually understand or realize our culture." Many students felt the need to help the teacher present a more positive picture of India in their classes, "I told them about my visits to India and how the places where my parents were born differed from the ones studied."

One student astutely observed that "No matter how non-prejudiced a class is, the race of a student in that class usually influences the manner in which the material is presented." Concerning his presence in the classroom one student said, "The teacher would ask what I thought about a certain topic or how we celebrate a certain holiday." Several shared the perception of the student who said, "I think because I was present that these topics were discussed at all. If I had not been present, I think Asian topics would have been even more briefly discussed and possibly more misrepresented." This experience was shared by several students, "I believe being of Asian-Indian descent, I was able to contribute to the discussion. I'm sure if other Indians and I hadn't been in that class, certain stereotypes would not have been cleared up." One student remembered, "We spent maybe two and a half days in all on Asia and it was not talked about with importance or emphasis." Several students were glad to have contributed, "My input made everything seem 'real' and not some 'fact' in a book." All but a few of the students after enduring "Misrepresentations of the Hindu religion and way of life" felt it necessary to "correct the teacher."

That teachers need to be more informed about the topics they must teach can be seen in the comments of this young man,

The teacher told us 'Sikhs who practice Sikhism, which is a religion in India, carry weapons (small swords) with them.' The fact that some do and some don't and the reason for it was not explained. I am a Sikh and she asked me if that was correct. What I didn't understand was why she was telling that to the class when she didn't know if it was correct.

In his experience, "Only the stereotypical image is presented Indians are poor, they worship cows, etc. instead of correcting the stereotypes."

One student, born in the USA, whose parents were from Rajasthan, said "I tried to fix any misnomers and being Jain, I told them that Hinduism isn't the only religion. I also corrected the pronunciation and brought in more of the culture. I did an hour presentation on it." Several students felt that they were "expected to know about the topic when it was presented" and they thought "the teachers were much more hesitant of what they were saying when I was in the classroom. . . many times their information was quite incorrect." One of the informants felt as though "the teacher had to watch what was said. Sometimes they would state a fact and ask me if it was correct. If I ever did see it necessary to correct them, they would use my test paper to grade everyone else's."

Two of the students had taken electives where the material was presented in a different light. One said, "I took a Humanities class that was much better than the history. The teacher tried to discuss different cultural aspects that were relevant to the cultures represented in that class. It was a class that looked at India as beautiful in land and deeply traditional in culture." Another "took a World Affairs class in which religion was taught very well. I was really impressed." Unfortunately, according to the results of this survey and based on other research, these types of informed, thoughtful presentations of India are the exception. The sarcastic tone expressed in the following statement captures some of the more negative reactions that South Asian students have to their world history classes:

The emphasis was that India is just poor, dirty, cows everywhere. . . We never discussed Gandhi. To this day, some poor fool probably thinks that this is the best 'insult' to an Indian. Gandhi is all they know about India, anyway.

The majority of the students did not think that enough time was devoted to the study of Asia. As quoted above, in one class, only "two and a half days were spent on all of Asia." Other students shared similar memories, "We only spent four days on Asia." Another said, "Not enough time was spent on Asia. South Asia is an area rich in culture and deserves more time than is given." One student complained, "Inadequate time was spent [on India] and they gave the students inaccurate information." Another student remembered that "We spent a week on all Asian nations." He went on to state ironically that "Europe has 'more history' that's why we spent a whole freakin' month on WW II." Several students explained this phenomenon by correctly assuming that most teachers have studied European history but have very little background in non-Western cultures. One student observed that "Not many on the faculty were knowledgeable about Asian lifestyles and there were many misconceptions." She added: "Only the discussions of Gandhi and Mother Theresa were thoughtful."

When comparing the treatment of South Asia to that of other countries in Asia, there was a fair amount of agreement, "There was much more of a focus on China and Japan. There was no depth in the material when studying about India." A student noted that "There was hardly any time spent on India in comparison with the time spent on Far Eastern countries. I think this is because China and Japan affect the U.S. more economically." Two students echoed each others' observations when one stated "Not as much time was spent on India as it was on China," and the other, "China is always given a lot more time. In studying China, the Mao era was examined extensively." One of the students complained that "No time was spent on Asia, except Japan." Another insightfully observed that he was glad not as much time was spent on India, as was on the countries of East Asia, because it gave the teacher less time to distort the culture. When his class studied Japan they stressed "traditions such as tying Japanese girls up real tight so they couldn't walk." He continued: "luckily only about two percent of the time was spent on India and that was all about the evils of the caste system."

Several students commented that East and South East Asia "were generally covered in relation to wars in which the U.S. was involved WW II, Korea, Vietnam." Another commented that "East Asia was not represented with the exception of Tiananmen Square." The majority of the students shared the perception that "The quantity and quality [of time spent on India] was relatively less when compared to Japan and China. There has been and still is an obvious bias toward the Pacific rim in U.S. policy at all levels." One student summed up the observations of many when he said that the emphasis in South Asia was on "religion and culture" and the emphasis in East & South East Asia was on "new political formations and economic changes."

Concluding this narrative of the results of this survey of Indian American students is a statement made by one young man that can serve as an important lesson for teachers. When presenting other cultures and religions, teachers and professors should take care not to focus exclusively on strange or exotic images from the area under consideration. The experience of this student, who went to high school in Houston, is to the point, because it shows how the materials we choose to help teach about other cultures and religions may do more harm than good, "In World history, we were once shown a film which documented some isolated tribesmen who pierced their bodies in the name of religion it perpetuated Hindu stereotypes."

As part of a thesis submitted for my Masters of Arts Degree in Asian Studies, I analyzed four high school world history textbooks, paying particular attention to the content on India and Hinduism. The text, as well as the overall presentation, or tone, of each textbook was considered, including the photographs, captions, subheadings, and review questions. In this paper, due to space considerations, I will summarize the analysis of only one of the textbooks included in that larger study. In the process, I will show not only are teachers negatively impacted by stereotypes about India in the popular media, but the textbooks themselves often perpetuate essentialisms. The book to be discussed, World History, People and Nations, by Anatole G. Mazour and John M. Peoples, published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in 1990, is of particular importance because it was used at most of the high schools in the Austin area for six years and therefore reflects the primary source from which local teachers present topics about India.

Another book in my thesis study, Links Across Time and Place A World History, was co-authored by the eminent Western historian, William McNeill. This book, published in 1989, a year prior to the book to be discussed, was even less informative about Indian history and culture and though it had some positive features, was heavily biased towards European history. Also included in the longer study was a textbook published by Houghton Mifflin Company in 1959 and 1961, The History of Our World, which was the most dated book. In the original study, the most recent book, World History: Continuity and Change, was published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1997, and co-authored by a team of area specialists. Among the three textbooks published in the 1990's, this last book was the only one that was both in-depth and sensitive, fact-filled, yet informing the student about conflicting theories. Interestingly, the textbook published in 1961, was by far more informative and contained more relevant material than the Mazour-Peoples book published thirty years later. Unfortunately, regardless of its depth of coverage, the late fifties era text was distastefully discolored by tirades against Communism and paternalistic discourses of development versus tradition. In 1960, the vogue rationale for studying world history was to introduce Americans to foreign lands as possible tourist destinations. This outdated rhetoric was thankfully not central to the narrative in the textbook to be considered here which, however, offered less misinformation in a more politically correct format.

The Mazour-Peoples textbook, World History: People and Nations, not counting the glossary and index, has 903 pages, a heavyweight in any student's backpack. At the beginning are eight pages of photographs, "Linking Past to Present," organized under themes. There was a distinct lack of information about the photos included as representative of Asia, whereas the Western images, which predominated, were adequately labeled.

Describing these "photo gallery" pages offers an excellent method of exposing the built-in bias of this textbook apparent right from the beginning. On the first two pages, "People and Society," there are thirteen photographs-- five from North America, two from Italy, two from Japan, two from South America, and two from Africa. The two images from Japan are labeled--first a painting: "Traditional stylized No drama in Japan," and second a photograph: "Kabuki performance in modern-day Japan."

The next set of photos, "Science and Technology," has ten photographs including race cars, the Apollo moon landing, an underwater research vehicle, a micro-chip, a laser beam, three Western scientists who are mentioned by name, an Arab dhow, and a wood block print of a medieval European astronomer. As I began my analysis, this omission not including even one image to acknowledge India or any of Asia's contributions or participation in the scientific and technological world sets the tone for the remainder of the book.

Under the heading "Visual Art," are sixteen photographs with images such as a "prehistoric cave painting," a "Russian icon," the "Transamerica Building" juxtaposed with the "Chartres Cathedral," "the Sphinx," as well as three paintings and two sculptures by Europeans captioned with the names of both the work and the artist Van Gogh, Picasso (twice), Raphael, Michelangelo. Also included were photos labeled, a "Chinese carving," a "Chinese print," a "Japanese painting," a "Buddhist temple" in an unidentified country, an "African Mask" also from an unidentified country, and a painting identified as "Islamic art," which is actually a Persian miniature. It is noteworthy that the European art is identified by title and artist, but the Buddhist temple and the Persian miniature are not even identified by country.

The next section, "Customs and Beliefs," has nine photographs: "Buddhist Temple in Gansu, China," "Hindu festival in India," "Shinto priests in Japan," "Muslims praying at mosque in Afghanistan." One picture depicts a "bar misvah at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem" and another an aerial view of Jerusalem, "a holy city to Muslims, Jews and Christians." There are also two photos of indigenous American peoples, both inadequately labeled as well as a wide-angle shot inside a church with the caption, "Protestant service at Christmas." That there is a preponderance of non-Western images in this photo spread devoted to belief systems is not surprising since World history textbooks often dwell on topics associated with religion, especially exotic aspects, when discussing India and other areas of the non-Western world, ignoring technological or political accomplishments. Witness the absence of photos from Asia in the science category, whereas in this photo gallery of beliefs, four out of the nine images were from Asia and two from the Middle East. Since two of the remaining photos were of indigenous American peoples, only one represented religious practices in the West. Certainly a television evangelist or the Pope-mobile are also evocative images which might bring relevance to the other photos of non-Western religious activities.

In Unit I, "The Beginnings of Civilization," the first two chapters discuss prehistoric times and the flowering of civilization in the "Four Great River Valleys," including the ancient history of Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria and Persia, as well as the ancient Hebrews. This chapter devotes 32 pages to the discussion of the ancient Middle East.

Chapter 3, "People Created Thriving Civilizations in India," commences with a full-page photo of two men on a ghat illuminated by the rising sun, "Hindus praying on banks of the Ganges River." This twenty-page chapter takes the student from prehistoric times through the Gupta Dynasty in 600 A.D. The previous chapter on the ancient Middle East, though it included several different civilizations in its scope, stopped at 600-400 B.C. Even though the number of pages devoted to ancient India is comparable, the treatment of the topics was less detailed and included a thousand additional years in its scope. The fact that India and China are given their own separate chapters is noteworthy, since in many World history textbooks, ancient India and China are included in the same chapter, though their civilizations are quite distinct and essentially developed independently of each other, except for Buddhist influences. Often, in dealing with Asia, all the civilizations of that continent are lumped into one chapter.

As this chapter about India begins, sensationalist stereotypes were employed in an obvious attempt to catch the students' attention. Since most teachers present the ancient world from a "Cradle of Civilization" approach the six-thousand-year-old sewer system at Mohenjo-Daro is particularly interesting to teach most students will be exposed to at least these initial readings about South Asia. Later in the school year, teachers may cite time constraints to justify skipping the chapter on Indian independence, but this first chapter on the Indus Valley Civilization is inevitably included in their lesson plans during the first weeks of school and lays the foundation for images of the subcontinent. Therefore, a statement on the first page of this chapter in large bolded italics, meant to stimulate interest, is even more objectionable since most teachers will undoubtedly require that their students read it:

Although many Hindu rituals no longer exist in India, some, such as walking across a bed of hot coals or lying on a bed of nails, are still practiced to gain forgiveness for sins or to build spiritual control. They continue to intrigue outsiders who have never experienced the rich cultural diversity of India.

This statement implies that such "rituals" are commonplace and "still practiced" in modern India. In reality, most Indians have never seen, let alone tried, this type of tapasya, or mortification of the flesh, unless they have gone to a Kumbha Mela or other spiritual fair, where Sadhus and holy men may indeed perform these tricks. This casual statement leads the reader to believe that these rituals are widely practiced in modern India. Making this sensationalist comment in bold italics at the very beginning of the chapter on India, immediately creates an exotic and strange picture in the mind of the student whose Indian teenage counterpart, after doing his or her homework, lies around on a bed of nails watching ZTV. If this book is the only source of information about India available to the students, they will certainly assume that there are few televisions in India. Indian teens may have nothing else to do but walk on coals and sit on nails. Perhaps such tapasya will become a fad in the US much like nose piercing and painting hands and feet with henna have become popular.

Among the six pages in this Indus Valley section, there is a half-page sidebar about the Indus Valley seals, with two photos and the statement

Because Harappan seals have been found in the Tigris-Euphrates region near the site of Sumerian civilization, scholars think that the people of the Indus Valley traded with the people of the Middle East (emphasis added).

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars more than "think" that the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) traded with Sumeria they are certain. It is essential to present the IVC as dynamic and involved in international trade. In many textbooks this is often one of the only sections on India, until the appearance of Mahatma Gandhi, were Indian civilization is shown as vibrant and thriving. The treatment of the early civilization in the Indus Valley in this textbook, dating from 2500 to 1500 B.C., focuses on the sophistication of urban planning but short changes its amazing history of commerce.

The story of the Indus Valley Civilization proceeds, "miracles of city planning and design. . . sewers, public baths, garbage chutes. . . kiln baked bricks, the citadels, granaries, and population estimates of 35,000." Throughout, the Indus Valley Culture is shown as a separate civilization and not a precursor to Hindu culture. In this and in most other world history textbooks there is a discontinuity between the ancient Indus Valley Civilization and later developments in Hinduism. In similar treatments of China, the continuity of the cultural traditions are usually stressed, but not in India, even though it is well known that many aspects of life in the IVC were carried over into later Hinduism--ritual bathing, fire ceremonies, reverence for the cow, games of dice and chess, the worship of the mother goddess, and the Shiva-like deity depicted on Indus Valley seals, to mention a few. There is no discussion of the discovery of the Saraswati River basin and subsequent excavations of dozens of IVC related sites in India during the last few decades which has greatly expanded our knowledge of this ancient civilization.

Peoples and Nations explains that the IVC was based on agriculture, but it is "difficult to know about irrigation since 12 feet of silt has now covered the area." In addition

Scholars know very little about the Indus Valley religion, but studies indicate that it was a form of animism, a belief that spirits inhabit everything trees and other natural objects, animals, and even people. The Harappans believed these spirits influenced a person's life; therefore, they tried to control them and please them.

What stands out is the phrase "even people." How do they know this fact and why is it written in such a provocative tone stating that the inhabitants of Mohenjo-Daro "tried to control and please" the spirits because they inhabited "even people"? Actually, there is not much information on this aspect of Indus Valley culture, less in fact than about their irrigation practices. Regarding religion, the authors are willing to make assumptions which are not necessarily substantiated but they are less ready to describe the economy or technology on that basis.

This rendition of the "spirits" in which the inhabitants of Mohenjo-Daro are said to have believed is similar to a critical analysis found in James Loewen's book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, a fascinating and informative study of twelve American History textbooks. Loewen states that "textbooks treat Native religions as a unitary whole." He quotes a description of Native American religions found in The American Way:

These Native Americans [in the Southeast] believed that nature was filled with spirits. Each form of life, such as plants and animals, had a spirit. Earth and air held spirits, too. People were never alone. They shared their lives with the spirits of nature.

As Loewen points out, this type of narrative makes American Indian "beliefs seem like make-believe, not the sophisticated theology of a higher civilization."

Even though the IVC existed over four thousand years ago, their wells, drains and sewage systems, their vast trading area, their handicrafts, and the detailed toys that they made for their children indicate that they had developed a high degree of sophistication. Unequivocally stating that their religion was animism and they believed "spirits inhabit everything" makes them seem a very primitive culture.

In his critique of the above quotation describing American Indian religions, Loewen, tongue in cheek, writes in an analogous narrative style a "similarly succinct summary" about

Americans [who] believed that one great male god ruled the world. Sometimes they divided him into three parts, which they called father, son and holy ghost. They ate crackers and wine or grape juice, believing that they were eating the son's body and drinking his blood. If they believed strongly enough, they would live on forever after they died.

The rest of the description of the Indus Valley Civilization in the Mazour-Peoples textbook strives to paint a picture of a thriving environment, where "city dwellers worked primarily in industry or trade."

As early as 2300 B.C., they traded with people of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Indus Valley artisans produced fine articles, including cotton cloth, pottery, bronze items, and gold and silver jewelry.

Luckily, the authors again refer to the IVC trade with the Middle East. Unfortunately, they do not offer any substantial evidence such as terracotta seals unearthed in numerous sites, or cuneiform records of shipments arriving from the Indus Valley which included sandalwood, peacocks, and monkeys, or that DNA testing has revealed that cotton used for wrapping mummies in 2400 BC Egypt was of Indus Valley origin. Such fascinating details can be included in only one sentence with a minimal impact on the almost thousand page book. These connections make history more exciting and show relationships between cultures. The text goes on to state:

Although archaeologists have found no temples, shrines, or other religious writings, they believe that the people of the Indus Valley worshipped animals associated with physical power and fertility, such as bulls, crocodiles, and snakes. One of the most important symbols was the unicorn, a fabled animal with a single horn jutting from its forehead. Other evidence indicates that a sacred tree and a mother goddess symbolized fertility.

Though much more is known about commercial aspects of the IVC than about their religious beliefs, the authors devote more space to the latter. As mentioned, many archeologists consider the baths, the citadel, and the fire altars, which have been unearthed at Mohenjo-Daro, to be of religious significance, as they are in later Hinduism. The authors choose to ignore this theory of cultural continuity. Their map of the "Harappan Civilization" does not show the many IVC sites in India, except at the mouth of the Narmada, indicating the authors have depended on dated materials for their information.

In concluding the section on the IVC, the book states:

Scholars do not know why the Indus Valley Civilization declined. They speculate that tribes from outside lands conquered the valley. More recent evidence indicates that the salt content of underground water increased. Such an increase probably made agriculture impossible and may have disintegrated the baked bricks of the buildings.

Obviously, the second sentence above, which refers to the old discredited Aryan invasion theory, negates the subsequent sentence, based on the generally accepted theory of a geological upheaval and climatic changes. The text continues, in support of the newer theories:

Some evidence suggests that major earthquakes and floods struck the region about 1700 B.C. The discovery of several unburied skeletons, together with homes and personal belongings hastily abandoned, seems to indicate some disastrous event at Mohenjo-Daro. The evidence needed to verify the theory, however, remains incomplete.

It is significant that no mention is made, as most archeologists now believe, that these skeletons were probably squatters and by the time they were trapped by some calamity, the original population had long before abandoned their cities. The idea that the IVC ended due to natural disasters is called an unverified theory, but, as will be seen, the Aryan "invasion" is not called a theory and is assumed to be fact. The review section at the end of this chapter lists the words "monsoon," "citadel," and "animism," thereby reinforcing that the animism angle is not conjecture but essential enough to memorize for a test.

The next section, "Aryan Invaders Ruled India's Northern Plain During the Vedic Age," begins on page 54. The first paragraph states,

About 1500 B.C., a new group of people flooded through the Khyber Pass into India. They came from the region north of the Black and Caspian seas and spoke an Indo-European language.

There is no mention that, though formulated well over a hundred years ago by Orientalist scholars, the emergence of the Aryan tribes from the steppes of Russia is still considered a "theory." The process of piecing together the past, and changes in perspectives as new pieces are added, is certainly of interest to the student and brings the discussion about the ancient past to life. All too often the processes of historiography are not described in textbooks, depriving students the power of understanding that even interpretations of the distant past can change significantly due to on-going research. History is not moribund facts, but an alive, vibrant field. It is no wonder that so many students find history to be boring when their textbooks deprive them access to the dynamic nature of historical research.

Textbook writers are prone to present materials, which are contested and still under investigation, as fact, nonetheless. There may be a feeling that students need solid facts to remember and if seeds of doubt are sown, they may question other facts that are handed to them by writers of history books and curriculum committees.

My personal experience, while reading carefully over the Indian sections of this book and finding it full of stereotypes and assumptions, makes me question the veracity of other parts of the book, which I did not study. Since I approach the material on India from a more informed perspective, and though I have my biases and am using a critical methodology to survey the textbook, I can locate subtle negative and dismissive presentations which in turn make me question other details included by the authors as "fact" about cultural areas of which I am less informed. Most American students who read this material have very little knowledge about India or other cultures, therefore misinformation or skewed perspectives are not corrected and, in fact, become facts in their fledging knowledge base.

The first sub-heading of this section, "The Conquering Aryans," tells the reader:

The nomadic Aryans herded sheep and cows. In fact, their word for 'war' meant 'a desire for more cows.' Many strong and brave Aryan archers followed the horse-drawn chariots into battle. Skillful fighters, they conquered the Indus Valley and then moved eastward along the Ganges until they controlled the entire northern plain.

This paragraph perpetuates several discarded ideas about the Aryans. Firstly, it indicates that the Aryans "conquered the Indus Valley," yet there is strong indication from the archeological record that there was no conquest. This is not a newly formulated Hindu nationalist historical perspective, but accepted scholarship. Offering the students alternative perspectives of history and contradictory theories, instead of history-as-fact, stimulates interest and allows them to see the on-going process of piecing together the story of the ancient past by scholars from different nations.

The next misinformation that is stated as fact is the definition for the word "war." Mazour and Peoples tell us that the Aryans' "word for 'war' meant 'a desire for more cows.'" In Sanskrit, the word gaveshaNaa, "search for cows," came to mean research or any intellectual inquiry. Because Indra is considered a war god prayers to him for cows or spiritual powers are often interpreted as symbols for warfare. Many of the facts proclaimed in this book are based on now suspect Orientalist constructs of ancient India. Indology's best and most widely accepted bloopers form the bedrock of the World history narrative.

The next heading, "Aryan Civilization During the Vedic Age," gives the students bits of information about early Vedic beliefs, but does not share with the reader the importance that the concept of a unitary-ultimate source, or monism, would have on subsequent Vedic and Hindu/Vedantic religious thought.

The earliest gods mentioned in the Vedas include elements of nature, such as storms, water and rain. The Vedas personified these natural objects and forces that is, they regarded or represented them as people. Thus, the sky became a father, the earth a mother. Although the Vedas mention gods and goddesses, a very important hymn celebrating the creation of the universe suggests a concept of a supreme god, called 'That One,' who created universal order out of chaos.

In this analysis, I am quoting liberally from the text, to give an impression of the important omissions which significantly diminish the connections that Aryans had with Indo-Iranians and the impact they had on future Hinduism. For example, the text does not allude to the Iranian equivalent to Varuna, or early religious similarities with other religions in Western Asia and pre-Christian Europe. Creating opportunities for students to see civilizational interactions and shared characteristics encourages a more informed perspective of the ancient past and also makes it more interesting, rather than studying cultures in isolation.

In ensuing paragraphs the authors inform us that moral conduct was unimportant to the Aryans, which is easily refuted by the many Sanskrit eulogies to noble and virtuous character. The book explains that rituals consisted of "pouring the juice of the soma plant and liquid butter into the sacred fire." The significant statement follows: "The important point was to perform the ceremony properly. The good qualities of the person performing it did not matter." This seems to indicate that Brahmans were not bestowed with adequately "good qualities," when in fact, according to Vedic tradition, Brahmans were held to a stricter moral code than were other strata of society. They had to be in a state of ritual purity to perform the ceremonies and that included proper conduct. Statements such as this reinforce the perception that moral conduct, as found in Indian philosophy, is relative and unimportant. Compared to the later Semitic traditions, with their clearly articulated and specific lists of do's and don'ts, Hinduism can appear to have fluid views of morality when if fact there are detailed codes of behavior honesty and trustworthiness are highly valued.

In concluding the discussion of the Aryan religion, the authors state:

As time passed, the rituals of sacrifice became more complicated. The spoken language of the Indian people also changed, until it became quite different from the Sanskrit of the first Aryan invaders. Since they emphasized the importance of proper observance, priests who knew the proper forms and could read and write Sanskrit also became more important. These priests, called Brahmans, prepared the proper ceremony for almost every occasion in life and charged heavily for their services.

There are two items of significance here, firstly, the questionable term "invaders" continues to be used, and secondly, the moral character of the Brahman priests is again brought into question. There are many references from Vedic sources which indicate that many Brahmans were poor and often took only alms for their services. Obviously, many Brahmans became rich and powerful, and many were corrupt, but the fact that the authors state categorically that they "charged heavily for their services" omits the other side of the picture which is essential for a well-rounded understanding of Brahmans in the Vedic period.

From the perspective of Western Civilization, which we regard as liberal and egalitarian rising from the Enlightenment, we condemn hereditary castes and yet, in our own societies we have a very similar history divine right to rule, inherited aristocracies and class social divisions that persists, despite the Reformation, Humanism, or Marxism. The Brahman priest is a wonderful scapegoat to salve the Western conscience and assert our moral superiority over this type of religiously sanctioned inherited status, a common theme in history textbooks at the secondary level. Granted, in later Indian literature there are stories of "stupid Brahmans," but the spiritual power of such figures as Vishwamitra and Valmiki was seen as essential to the survival of the state. As Wolpert writes on page 40 of his book, A New History of India, Brahmans were "guardians and interpreters of that sacred lore," and as "officiators of the royal sacrifice, the Brahman priesthood maintained its special privileges and courtly influence." Though this perspective allows the Brahmans social worth, there is even here a tone indicating their ultimate political uselessness and self interest.

In fact, in the eyes of the rulers and other members of the Hindu community, Brahmans were charged with the maintenance of spiritual and religious continuity. Certainly there were power hungry Brahmans and Hindu history has condemned them. However, countless Brahman priests undoubtedly took their duties to the community seriously as well as their own personal sadhana or religious practice. In many texts written in the West, Brahmans are uniformly shown as irrelevant hangers-on to the royal court and exploiters of the people. In the post-Enlightenment Occident, the importance of politics and government are primary in the historical narrative and the place of religion and its role in the everyday functioning of Vedic society is not adequately addressed. Brahmans are therefore always suspect and unnecessary.

On the same page, a quarter-size photograph titled, "Learning from pictures" shows two carved figures from Gandhara, which is misspelled in the book as "Ghandara." The caption explains that "two young Brahmans raise their hands in a gesture meaning 'do not fear.'" These are, in fact, Buddhist figures and they do not appear to be wearing the traditional Brahman thread. They may indeed be Brahmans, but since they are from a much later century they are probably not representative of the pre-Buddhist period. Their hand mudras are more accurately interpreted as a sign of blessing.

In most textbooks there is a great emphasis on caste and its presumed impermeability, even though research indicates that there was considerable social movement in the pre-modern period. The book states that "Light-skinned Aryans," passed laws "prohibiting marriages between Aryans and valley dwellers." The question must be asked, "Which 'valley dwellers'?" Secondly, it should be pointed out that this simplistic statement uses the convention of presentism to interpret the past--superimposing modern methodologies and value systems onto historical reconstructions--analyzing the activities of ancient peoples outside of their own context. The authors seem to indicate that the ancient Aryans had a judicial system like the one with which the students are familiar. Obviously, rules are made in response to something in general practice. The merger of Aryan/Vedic and pre-Aryan ideas is not mentioned here and there is no discussion about how this synthesis manifested. The section concludes:

In addition to providing information about Aryan religion, the Vedas provide a great deal of information about family life in the Vedic Age. Marriages took place by kidnapping, by purchase, or by mutual consent. A woman considered it a great compliment to be stolen. To be bought and paid for was more flattering than to be married by consent. Men could marry more than one woman and owned their wives and children.

In this paragraph, before I attempt to point out a couple of glaring inconsistencies, I must state that I am not a Vedic scholar by any means, and the information that I have concerning the Vedic period is based on reading the works of others. That being so, I would like to comment on the statement that "women considered it a great compliment to be stolen." From my understanding, this type of marriage, rakshasa-viveha, was not desired by Aryan women and the favored method of matrimony was svayam-viveha, or the self selection of the groom by the bride.[5]

Mazour and Peoples end this section with the statement that sons were expected "to perform the correct rituals at their fathers' funerals." This would have been an ideal opportunity to show the continuance of Vedic practices in popular Hinduism but the authors make no allusions to this phenomenon, though the continuity-of-culture approach is used several times when discussing other civilizations. In this particular textbook, I have found a consistent effort, intentional or accidental, to disempower Indic Civilization and divorce it from its many roots. Though the authors do credit the Aryans with contributing to Indian Civilization there are numerous missed opportunities to point out those links as they arise. There is also, as examples above have shown, a propensity towards sensationalism and stereotyping.

The final segment on the Aryans under the sub-heading, "The Aryan Economy," discusses " farming in the Indo-Gangetic Plain," and presents a fairly balanced picture of the material sphere:

they raised barley as their principal crop. Rice, the most important food in India today, was apparently unknown in Vedic times. Each village divided its land among its families, but the whole village shared the responsibility for irrigation.

To conclude this section Mazour and Peoples summarize, "The Aryan invaders made significant contributions to the civilization of the Indian subcontinent." These contributions include "a new social order of classes, a new language, and new religious interpretations of how the world works." They then state that over time, "Aryan contributions blended with the previous civilization of Indus Valley people." It is redundant to point out the repeated inconsistencies in dealing with the relationship between the Aryans and the Indus Valley Civilization. A discerning reader might question the efficacy of "laws passed" by the Aryans against co-mingling with the indigenous peoples when the ultimate outcome was a complete blend. Recent studies by historical linguists of the morphology of topographical names in the subcontinent have questioned whether Sanskrit was indeed imported into India from afar.

The last sentence in this section states, "Religious values changed, and social classes became more rigid and closely identified with ritual purity." In most popular treatments of India and Hinduism, caste is the defining criteria. Here, as in other books which I have examined, caste is stressed above all other elements. It is represented as inherently evil, in complete contrast to the ideals of Western society. By capping the discussion of the Vedic Age with the rigidity-of-caste as the summation the authors have exalted caste over all other contributions.

Caste, used as the defining feature of Indian civilization, is an approach I have seen repeated in World history and World Geography classrooms. As mentioned, there are games that students play, drawing lots to determine into which caste they have, by chance, been born. They must then abide by prescribed hierarchical rules which proscribe certain behaviors and allow privileges to a select group, namely the inherently power-hungry Brahmans.

The youthful trust in equality and fairness which American students have been taught as the substance of our free and democratic society will obviously make most students respond negatively to the privileged Brahman minority. Students playing the role of the Brahmans gleefully lord their status over their classmates, commanding them to do demeaning chores. There is rarely a discussion of the concepts of karma and samsara upon which the caste system is based. If being born into a certain caste is chance, like the drawing of lots, then it is certainly unexplainable, cavalier, and unfair. But, if the caste system is explained in the context of a broader epistemology, including a discussion of dharma and responsibility, it does not seem so inherently evil, but rather a rational system of social preservation. This is usually not explained to schoolchildren who are in fact taught that "Brahmanism" is the opposite of the American Way. I am not offering this as an apologist for the caste system, but rather as an alternative to negatively objectifying caste as the evil other that ultimately becomes the hallmark of Indian civilization.

In the review questions at the end of this section the students are asked to identify the words: "Brahman, rajah, Aryans, Varuna," and to geographically locate the "Black Sea," and the "Caspian Sea," neither of which are even in India! The students are asked to discuss the Vedas and "important beliefs and rituals of the Aryan religion." Unfortunately, the shallow depth with which the authors have approached these topics offers scant opportunity for the students to elaborate beyond the pouring of "soma" into a sacrificial fire. The last review question asks the students to "Describe how class divisions began," once again stressing, in finality, that the most important characteristic of Indian society is caste. Were the caste system explained more adequately and not portrayed as the opposite of freedom and justice for all, it would help to eliminate many of the negative stereotypes that persist when American students learn about India.

Section 3 of this chapter is "Buddhism and Hinduism Took Hold in India." The text mentions that

Brahman priests . . . became increasingly influential in Aryan society. [They] gained even more importance when they composed the Upanishads, complex philosophical explanations of the Vedic religion, [because] ordinary people did not understand the Upanishads any more than they could the Vedas.

This statement actually does not make much sense and does not take into account that in the Upanishads teenagers and women are shown to be disciples. The process through which the Upanishads emerged indicate that philosophy had become more accessible to those who were not priests. The authors seem annoyingly confused.

The textbook goes on to say that ordinary people "could understand simple stories that made these ideas about Vedic religion clearer." These stories are the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, "retold from generation to generation [and] eventually combined into two epics. . . describing heroes and great events." No mention that elements of both epics reflect a synthesis of Dravidian or pre-Aryan culture with Vedic traditions. The epics are not to be considered a simplification of the Vedas and Upanishads but another, more folk-based expression of culture. That they were "simple stories that made . . . Vedic ideas clearer" is underestimating the content and evolution of these epics.

The textbook gives both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana paragraph-length descriptions which, considering space limitations, is at least adequate. The book explains that in the Bhagavad-Gita "doing one's moral duty according to one's responsibilities marks the highest fulfillment in life." It mentions Rama and Sita who "symbolize the ideals of Indian manhood and womanhood." The next statement is strange. It claims that from these epics and the

Upanishads and the Vedas themselves, scholars have pieced together the origins of the two most important influences in Indian history the caste system and Hinduism.

This textbook, published in 1990, can not be expected to be free of Euro-centric jargon, but it should not perpetuate the patronizing perspective that scholars have "pieced together" the essence of India and through their reconstructions have discovered the origins of Hinduism, based primarily on the caste system. Though this may be a subtle complaint, it represents the overall tone found in this type of presentation of Indian civilization the burden of preservation by occidental scholars. Though this makes reference to the work of scholars, this phrasing in no way offers insight into the processes of historiography.

The textbook again turns its attention to the caste system, exoticizing it as a "form of social organization unlike any developed elsewhere in the world." As mentioned before, there are other examples of class systems which are hereditary. Comparisons could make the caste system more understandable, not by justifying it, but by showing that it is simply a more defined version of class or hereditary guilds. The text devotes three additional paragraphs to the caste system stating, "[when] invading Aryans (emphasis mine) laid down rules prohibiting marriages between themselves and peoples they had conquered" they laid the foundation for the caste system. Kshatriyas, Brahmans, Vaisyas, and Sudras, as well as untouchables are discussed. Ultimately, more space is devoted to the caste system than all the other characteristics of Hinduism combined. Few other aspects of Hinduism are considered relevant.

Section three of this chapter on India ends with a half page summary of Hinduism and a photo of a "dancing Shiva" statue. The first paragraph states that Hinduism, "India's major religion, developed through Brahman priests' interpretations of the Vedas." No mention of the synthesis of pre-Aryan and Aryan in is this simplistic summation. The textbook continues:

When Hindus say that Brahma and Atman are one and indivisible, they mean that God and human beings are one. We call this idea monism.

Mazour and Peoples are only partially correct. Hindus think that Brahman, the ultimate, and Atman, the individual soul, are one. Brahma is the name of the "creator god." These two words are very similar, and Brahman in the Sanskrit nominative case does become Brahma. However, most scholars writing an introductory text about Hinduism, will use Brahman to mean the universal soul and Brahma to mean the creator god in order to avoid confusion.

The description of Hinduism found in this textbook is woefully inadequate even considering the limited space allowed in a comprehensive text such as this. It is perhaps a blessing that the section devoted to the discussion of Hinduism is less than a page long since stereotypes and misinformation are central to the discourse--there are fewer opportunities to get it wrong. The textbook offers a childish interpretation of "illusion called Maya, which betrays people, giving them sorrow and pain." To most Indians, Maya is seen not as an outside entity but as a mental condition. The book explains that Hindus believe in "reincarnation--the transmigration or rebirth of the soul."

According to this belief, the soul does not die with the body but enters the body of another being, either human or animal, and thus lives again and again.

Luckily, the authors mention that "two major elements in the theory of reincarnation are known as dharma and karma" and that "Dharma is the fulfillment of one's moral duty in this life so that the soul can make progress toward deliverance from punishment in the next life." Perhaps the concept of "punishment," however, more closely relates to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic perspective of the afterlife. The book continues:

According to Hinduism, good persons are rewarded and evil ones are punished. Reward means that the soul enters the body of someone of a higher caste. Punishment occurs when the souls of evil people are reborn in the bodies of people of lower castes or of insects.

Numerous times I have seen textbooks explain that if a Hindu is "bad," he or she will "come back as an insect." This statement may get the attention of the young American students in the classroom. It is not, however, something that Hindus would say was very likely. By the time a soul has acquired a human body, the most precious and difficult of all forms to obtain, it is rare that they would backslide far enough back down the ladder of spiritual evolution to be reborn as a bug. The text goes on to explain:

Since Hindus believe that all souls make up part of the Universal Soul, or Brahman, Hindus respect the sacredness of life in all forms. Members of the Brahman, or highest caste, have to be particularly careful not to bring injury or violence to any living thing.

By this point, Brahmans have been so maligned that their imperative towards ahimsa is lost in the shuffle. At least the word "Brahman," to mean the "Universal Soul," is used correctly in this paragraph, even if it doesn't match the previous usage.

The next sub-heading, "Hindu religious practices," consists of four brief paragraphs offering shallow descriptions and interpretations:

Hindus commonly practice yoga, a physical and mental discipline harmonizing body with soul. A Hindu practicing one form of yoga might, for example, sit for many hours in a certain position in order to free the mind of bodily concerns.

This description makes yoga seem almost silly. Students would be better served by telling them that the word yoga is related to the English word, yoke, and that it is the science or system of mental and/or spiritual practices meant to bridge the individual soul, Atman, with the ultimate, Brahman, terms that were defined previously.

The following description is so simplistic that it is, ultimately, erroneous. The textbook describes the characteristics of Brahman, representing the universal soul, indicating that it is made up of "a basic trinity, or three closely related persons or things." This trinity is not made up of "persons or things," but of gods. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are cited as part of this Hindu trinity, along with "many other gods, represented in the spirits of trees, animals and people." The more the authors try to explain Hinduism, the more illogical it appears.

I have found fault with most of the narratives on India and Hinduism presented in this textbook. The perspective expressed in the next paragraph could have gone a long way towards correcting some of the earlier sensationalisms. Unfortunately, the tone of the statement, seems to negate its intent:

To Westerners this religion of many gods sounds polytheistic. However, Hindus insist (emphasis mine) that it is monistic that the basic trinity and all the other gods are merely different representations of the oneness of the universe.

Once again, in concluding, the authors state that:

the caste system and Hinduism ranked as the most important developments of Indian history. These two ideas become interwoven in the fabric of Indian society.

The caste system has received far more space than anything else about ancient India. A total of nine paragraphs have been devoted to the topic of caste, to the exclusion of any mention of the famous poet Kalidasa, or ragas and rasas systems of aesthetics, or statecraft. This book implies that nothing in India is more important than the caste system.

The next heading, "Buddhism," begins after the four pages devoted to Hinduism stating that "Buddha did not accept the Hindu gods," and "Although he did not attack the Hindu caste system openly, he did not accept it."

"The Spread of Buddhism" is discussed with a half-page map showing the location of populations of Hindus and Buddhists and the journey Buddhism took from India to Southeast Asia to China, from "ca. B.C. 500 - A.D. 600." The writers can not resist another jab at Brahmans, who "opposed Buddhism," because it "taught that people, regardless of caste, could reach nirvana without help if only they were good." Brahmans were afraid that Buddhism might "undermine" their position in the society. The section on Buddhism concludes, "Despite the strong opposition of the Brahmans, Buddhism gained many followers in India over several centuries and then slowly declined." In the review at the end of this section a question asks, "What were the origin of caste the system?" Other items to identify include monism, dharma, karma, yoga, and nirvana, all of which were ill-defined in the book, providing the students scant resources with which to respond. Outside sources of information about Hinduism are often unavailable to them.

This chapter on Indian history includes sub-sections on the Mauryas and Guptas and a two-paragraph discussion of Southern India. The book states that Chandragupta "learned the science of government and methods of warfare from the Macedonians who had conquered Persia." This disguises the fact that the Arthashastra by Kautilya, which detailed the proper behavior of a king, originated during this period and the Greek ambassador Megasthenes described the bureaucracy of the Mauryan kingdom, based on taxation practices of previous dynasties. By no means was the Mauryan "science of government" based on Alexander's near encounter with India. The section on the Guptas is very scant, and no photos are included of Gupta art.

The last section of this chapter, "Civilization Flourished in Ancient India," devotes two and a half pages to topics such as "Economy and Social Life," "Literature," "Art and Architecture," "Education," "Mathematics and Astronomy," and "Medicine." In these pages trade with ancient Europe and the Middle East is discussed, as is the status of women along with a description of "suttee":

Another practice that became common during the Gupta period, especially among the upper castes, was suttee. In this practice a widow would commit suicide by throwing herself on top of her husband's flaming funeral pyre.

Most sources indicate suttee was the exception even among the upper classes in the Gupta period whereas this textbook indicates that it "became common." Without mentioning Aesop of La Fontaine by name, the literature section states that the Panchatantra is the source for many stories which have been popular in Europe for hundreds of years. "Next to the Bible," the text states, "the Panchatantra is the most widely translated book in the world today." The section on "Mathematics and Astronomy" is particularly positive, if short; "Indian Mathematicians learned to deal with abstract numbers[. . .] Indians actually invented the numeral system we call Arabic 1 through 9 and the zero." There is a discussion of negative numbers and the Indian mathematician, Aryabhata, who computed the value of pi. On page 65, the sub-heading "Medicine" is a far too short but has an intriguing description of plastic surgery, inoculations, and "the sterilization of wounds, a procedure unknown to the West until modern times." Fortunately, some of these astounding facts are thrown in before the end of the chapter. In the review section, of the three words given, one is polygamy, another suttee, and the last, stupa two out of the three worth remembering are of questionable or unacceptable practices.

The next chapter, "Ancient Chinese Civilization Developed Lasting Traditions," devotes 21 pages to China, ending the discussion with the Han Dynasty before the turn of the millennium. At the end of the sections on both India and China are sub-headings on scientific accomplishments. In the photo montage at the beginning of the book some type of scientific image could have been included. The 18 pages devoted to India in the previous chapter span a significantly longer period of time with the treatment of China appearing to be more balanced. Much is made of Chinese governmental and philosophical developments. The tone of this section on China seems to be more in line, attitudinally, with accepted approaches to the discussion of history less sensational and more balanced. India does not fare well in comparison.

This marks the end of Unit One in which there were 92 pages. Twenty pages were devoted to India and 24 to China, and 23 to the "Great Civilizations" in ancient Egypt and the Fertile Crescent. Ten pages discussed prehistoric times and most had review exercises. There is perhaps, statistically speaking, adequate space allotted to the study of ancient India and Hinduism. The content of these pages has, however, been called into question.

To invite comments about the treatment of ancient India found in this textbook, I sent excerpts via email to two Indian scholars, seeking their opinions. The responses that I received were simultaneously serious and amusing. One friend, a professor at a university in Louisiana, who was instrumental in developing an excellent teacher resource book on ancient India[6], simply commented, "I agree with your criticisms of Mazour's work. Very shoddy stuff."

Another friend from Madras, who received his Ph.D. in History from the University of Pennsylvania, after reading the sections on India which I sent to him, wrote: "Objectifying and negatively portraying India will not change unless the publishers consider the issue more seriously." He suggested, partly in jest and, undoubtedly with great seriousness as well, that American textbook publishers should be approached with a traditional American solution. Indians should "hire a high-powered lawyer and sue textbook publishers for character assassination. How else could you get their attention so they would reconsider their treatment of South Asia except through a method that they all understand. Sue them for libel!" Obviously, this is a bit drastic and sarcastic. Hopefully there will be attention paid to studies illuminating problems in the representation of non-Western cultures, and particularly South Asia, which are found in U.S. World history textbooks.

Unit II, "Civilizations of the Mediterranean World" has 84 pages, which include subheadings such as "Greek Civilization Triumphed During the Golden Age and the Hellenistic Age" and "Rome Rules the Western World for Centuries," spanning a period of time from the Greek city-states to the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine.

Unit III is "The World in Transition." The first chapter, "The Byzantine Empire Preserved the Heritage of Rome," ends with a discussion of the Mongol invasions of Europe. In the next chapter, "Islam Became a Powerful Force from Spain to India," the first section is "Outward from Arabia," and the second, "Muslims Created an Advanced Civilization." Here on page 210, the sub-heading, "Society and Art," paints a comparatively positive picture of life in a Muslim family. Most of the comments made about Islam in this treatment are very similar to the way that Islam is described by traditional Islamic historians. Many of the dismissive attitudes that were encountered in the treatment of Hinduism are not used here. I quote liberally:

In Islamic families, as in many other cultures and religions, the father was the absolute head of the household. The family provided the individual with both economic security and physical protection. Muslims respected the elderly and showed concern for the needs of all members of the extended family parents, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Women had a clearly defined position in Islamic society. The Koran says, 'Good women are obedient.' A father or husband accepted responsibility for a woman's behavior. Parents arranged marriages for their children, and the groom gave his bride a special marriage gift called a sadaq or mahr, meaning dower. This gift did not represent a purchase price, but rather a gesture of love. In the event of a divorce, the bride kept this money.

The Koran extended more rights to women than they had received under traditional Arab law. For example, many Muslim women obtained an education and owned property. The Koran also forbade the killing of unwanted infant girls, a traditional Bedouin custom. And if a man divorced his wife, he had to continue to support her. She also was free to remarry. Although Muslim women later lost many of these rights, they still received the protection of either their husbands or brothers.

Compare this excerpt on the status of women in Islamic society to marriage by kidnap and the emphasis on sati in discussions of Hindu women. The above description of the rights of women in Islam neglects to mention that though women are extended support after a divorce, it is only required that the husband offer such support for three months, for reasons of paternity. It is also not explained that only men can easily seek divorce by simply repeating the phrase, "I divorce you," three times. Women, however, must go through a much more arduous process to divorce their husbands and usually lose custody of their children, and as mentioned, usually receive support for only three months. Laws in some modern Muslim countries may make it somewhat more complicated, but divorce is still quite common. I point these omissions out, not to promote a more negative portrayal of Islam, but to encourage a more balanced treatment of Hinduism.

On page 213 the authors state that "Mathematicians of India developed the system of Arabic numerals, but the Arabs transmitted the system to the West. The Arabs also contributed the concept of zero to mathematics." This implies that zero was an Arab concept, though the authors previously mentioned that the Arabs had transmitted zero from India. Which is it? The text does say that Arab views of a spherical earth with hemispheres is attributed to a Hindu idea.

In the third section of this chapter, "Muslim and Mughal Rulers Brought Important Changes to India," the authors do not mince words when describing the violent interface between Islam and Hinduism:

At first the Muslims ruthlessly slaughtered Hindus. Later they seemed content to confiscate land, leaving village life to go on as it had in the past. Even so, many Hindus converted to Islam, either to gain favor with the conquerors or to escape from the Hindu caste system.

There is no mention of the influence of wandering sufis who incorporated bhakti into their message, nor of forced conversions, or the economic imperative to escape the discriminatory taxation of non-Muslims.

In the above excerpt a finger should be pointed at the tired image of the toiling Indian/Hindu farmer plowing his plot, following behind his team of oxen century after century while opposing imperial armies, with mounted cavalry and war elephants in full array, battle in the next field. This over-used image is often employed to explain how Hindu culture managed to survive centuries of dynastic changes and the onslaught of Islam. Debunking this time-honored construct of an ahistorical, despotic, cyclical "superstructure overlaying a persistently discernible social infrastructure" Nicholas Dirks[7] argues that this reified conception of the "organic and integral Indian village community" and "its essentially changeless autonomy" is based on nineteenth century sociological views of India which considered the social structure to be autonomous from the political superstructure. Dirks draws from the segmentary state model of Burton Stein, exploring center-periphery inter-relationships. The myth of eternal Hindu villages, somehow peripheral to the center, masks the traumas incurred when changes in official decrees impacted tax collection policies at harvest time, much less temple centered patron-donor relationships, the status and education of women, and other traditions which were impacted by invaders and power struggles. The World history textbook by Mazour and Peoples serves up a buffet of crusty old discarded Orientalist constructs.

According to this textbook, numerous differences caused conflict between Hindus and Muslims such as the worship of many idols, the use of music in religious ceremonies, the caste system, which "contradicted Muslim belief in the equality of all people before Allah," seclusion of women and dietary concerns. More about these types of comparative lists of religious beliefs will be discussed below. In the pages devoted to the Mughal Empire, Akbar is praised for making significant contributions to Indian civilization because "He fostered toleration for all religions, one of his greatest contributions to Indian civilization." The critical reader could point out that the reverse was more obvious, since the tolerance found in Indian civilization was what impacted Akbar's ideas. Aurangzeb is shown as he is usually depicted by historians, "A fanatical Muslim, [who] began a campaign of persecution against people of other faiths. . . which led to revolts throughout his empire. . ." In these three pages covering Mughal India a large photo of the Taj Mahal is included.

The next three chapters deal with the Medieval period--feudalism, and the Catholic Church, as well as the development of "nationalism in Europe." Chapter 12, "Civilization of East Asia Reached New Heights," offers a fairly well-rounded presentation. There are maps, artwork, discussions of literature, government, tax collection, and religion in the Tang and Song dynasties. Three pages are devoted to the Mongols. The third section of this chapter, "Japan Developed its Own Government, Society, and Culture," covers the early history, feudalism, and Zen. The section concludes with a page describing how "Civilization Developed in Korea." In many World history textbooks China and Japan are allotted their requisite place, but Korea, Vietnam (except in the context of the Vietnam War), Cambodia, Thailand and other countries of East Asia are neglected. When they are discussed it seems more like a footnote. The last chapter in this unit, "Africa and the Americas Produced Complex Civilizations," also seems to have been added as a cultural footnote.

The next unit, "The Emergence of Modern Nations" includes chapters on European nationalism, the scientific revolution, monarchies, and ends with "The French Revolution Changed the Course of World history." In the four chapters on European developments, 127 pages are devoted to the Renaissance, the Reformation, scientific discoveries, English history, and French nationalism. Chapter 18, "The Countries of Asia Experienced a Transition," begins with China under the Ming and Qing dynasties and continues, citing the Chinese interface with the Portuguese and English. Section 2 discusses Japan under the Tokugawa Shoguns and in six pages covers a period from 1467 through 1868, a comparatively detailed discussion.

The first sentence in section 3 of this chapter, "The Islamic Empires of Asia Declined," states, "Followers of the Muslim faith spread the word of Allah from the Iberian Peninsula to the East Indies." In reading this, I noted the tone with which the authors approached Islam in comparison with the way that Hinduism was dealt with in previous chapters. In the above sentence, it is "the word of Allah," not "the teachings, which according to Muslims, was the word of Allah." Contrast this to the quote cited above, that even though "Westerners" think that this "religion of many gods sounds polytheistic [. . .] Hindus insist that it is monistic."

The comparative religion technique used here is similar to narratives found in many textbooks, including the one by Ross E. Dunn and William H. McNeill, Links Across Time and Place-A World History, which under the heading, "Islamic Influence in India," compares Islam to Hinduism. This text explains that there were "conflicts between Muslims and Hindus," because

Muslims considered the beliefs of Hindus offensive to God. Muslims worshipped one God, Allah; Hindus honored several gods. Muslims believed all people to be equal in the sight of Allah; Hindus followed the caste system. Muslims rejected the use of statues; Hindus created beautiful statues of the gods they worshipped.