The Journal of Social Studies Research

The Journal of Social Studies Research

Volume 36, Issue 4

359

African American History, Race and Textbooks:

An Examination of the Works of Harold O. Rugg and Carter G. Woodson1

LaGarrett J. King

Clemson University

Christopher Davis

University of Texas, Austin

Anthony L. Brown

University of Texas, Austin

This paper proposes that as a way to broaden the theoretical and historical

context of social studies foundational literature and curriculum history,

attention must be given to issues of race and racism related the experiences of

African Americans. First, race and racism should be used as an analytical tool

to examine longstanding foundations topics. Second, historically marginalized

social studies scholars need to be recognized and theoretically situated within

the existing literature of social studies foundations. Last, there must be

comparative work that examines African American and White progressives’

similar and divergent conceptions of K-12 social studies curriculum. As a way

to address these limitations in the social studies foundations literature, this

paper provides a comparative examination of the different ways in which

Harold O. Rugg and Carter G. Woodson rendered race and racism in the

textbooks they authored during the early twentieth century. This article

concludes with a discussion about the implications of this study to social studies

foundations scholarship.

Introduction In the fall 2009 special edition of Theory and Research in Social Education

(TRSE), social studies scholar Christine Woyshner challenged the field of social

studies foundations to expand on its historiography on the important aspects that

led to the theoretical and practical components of social studies education. In her

view, the social studies foundation research agenda has been dominated by three

interpretive frameworks: the progressive era analysis, history vs. social studies

debates, and biographies of “old masters” of the field (p. 428). In agreement

African American History, Race and Textbooks: An Examination of the Works of Harold O. Rugg and Carter G. Woodson, pages 359-386.

Copyright ©2012 The Journal of Social Studies Research

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.


Volume 36, Issue 4

360

with Professor Woyshner, we propose that it is time for the field to explore new

research questions that challenge these traditional approaches to social studies

historiography. Much work is needed, however, to revisit these traditional

topics and examine their limitations, especially with regards to the racial

structures so prevalent in segregated educational communities in the early 20th

century.

The purpose of this manuscript is to broaden the intellectual and historical

context of social studies foundational literature and curriculum history on three

highly important but overlooked areas of social studies foundations. First, there

is a need to attend to race and racism as an analytical tool to examine

longstanding social studies foundations topics. Second, the literature needs to

theoretically situate individuals neglected in social studies foundations

scholarship. Last, the field of social studies foundations needs to explore

comparisons that highlight the similar and different ways in which African

American and White progressives addressed curricular issues during the same

historical period (Watkins, 2006). As a way to address these limitations in the

social studies foundations literature, this paper provides a comparative

examination of the different ways in which Harold O. Rugg and Carter G.

Woodson rendered race and racism in the textbooks they authored during the

early twentieth century.

Drawing from the theoretical frameworks of critical race theory (Delgado

& Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2003) and revisionist ontology (Mills,

1995), we examine Rugg and Woodson’s social studies textbooks, specifically

noting the ways the narrative of African Americans are depicted in each text.

We understand that investigations of the limitations of narratives of African

American history in social studies and history textbooks is not a new

phenomenon (Alridge, 2006; Banks, 1969; Brown & Brown 2010; Loewen,

2007; Nash, Crabtree & Dunn, 1997), however, attention paid to the way in

which Rugg and Woodson characterized African Americans in history has not

been thoroughly explored in social studies literature.

It is important to examine the works of Harold O. Rugg and Carter G.

Woodson because they both represent a segment of the academic community

during the early years of the 20th

century that attempted to define and/or

reconstruct social studies curriculum. Rugg’s curriculum was intended to help

expand and transform democratic principles by highlighting the “American

Problem” within classroom spaces (Evans, 2007). Woodson, although not

traditionally considered a social studies theorist or reformist, is instrumental for

social studies scholars to study because of his interdisciplinary focus on the

study of African Americans in U.S history and African Diaspora topics through

World history (King, Crowley, & Brown, 2010).

We note for instance, that Rugg’s textbooks portrayed African Americans

as insignificant to global histories as well as portrayed African Americans as the


Volume 36, Issue 4

361

stereotypical “happy slave” and as helpless and naive historical actors during

Reconstruction. Despite Rugg’s “progressive” label, the historical narratives in

his textbooks regarding African Americans mirrored many of the stereotypical

depictions of African Americans found in mainstream textbooks of the early

twentieth century (Phillips, 1916; Reddick, 1934).

By way of comparison, Carter G. Woodson sought to dispel popular

ideologies and characterizations of African Americans. Carter G. Woodson is

considered one of the forefathers of the Black history movement (Banks, 1992;

Dagbovie, 2010; Meier & Rudwick, 1986). We examine Woodson’s textbook

narratives not as a process of recognition of historical African American

characters, but as an effort to repudiate the racist syllogisms created by early

White educators. In other words, we posit that Woodson’s work was not only

responding to the revision of historical narratives, but his project was also

committed to the revision of larger racial ontological meanings of African

Americans within the public imagination (Brown, 2010).

We begin our manuscript by highlighting the research on Rugg and

Woodson, giving specific attention to how both scholars are characterized in the

academic community. Second, we provide a literature review about how race

and social studies foundations are situated within the field. Third, we then lay

out the theoretical frameworks that guided our analysis, which are critical race

theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2003) and revisionist

ontology (Mills, 1998). Fourth, we provide an historical context of the

“American problem” that was prevalent throughout the early twentieth century.

Next, we draw from our ideas regarding Rugg’s and Woodson’s conceptions

about African Americans in textbooks. This article concludes with a discussion

about the implications of this study to social studies foundations scholarship.

Harold O. Rugg

Scholarship on Rugg has received significant attention through the various

disciplines of social studies (Evans 2007; Riley and Brown 2004; Whelan 1991),

curriculum studies (Pinar, et al. 2000; Rosario, 1979; 1988; Schwatz, 1979;

Watkins, 2006) and educational history (Nash, 1995; Goodenow, 1975). A

renowned educator and one time leading textbook writer, research on Rugg has

explained in detail his social studies contributions (Carobone, 1971, 1977; Evan,

2007, Mraz, 2004; Stern & Riley, 2001), pedagogical beliefs and theories

(Boyle-Baise & Goodwin, 2009b; Nelson, 1977, 1978), curriculum and

textbooks (Bisland, 2010; Boyle-Baise and Goodwin, 2009a) and controversial

status (Evans, 2004, 2006). Simply put, Rugg is considered a “giant” of social

studies and curriculum scholars, particularly his ideas regarding the advent of

social studies and how the subject is implemented in classrooms.

Rugg is credited in some scholarly circles as one of the founders of what we

know as the social studies field (Evans, 2007). He proposed that one general


Volume 36, Issue 4

362

course of social studies rather than separate courses such as history, geography

and civics was needed to understand life and how it came to be. His social

studies curriculum is lauded as revolutionary for its time and relevant to

contemporary social studies practice. Instead of approaching the subject as

decontextualized rote memorizations of facts, Rugg proposed a curriculum

centered on the troubles of society. His focus on issue-centered curriculum,

which approached the study of social studies, sought “to prepare students to

participate in life activities and equip them to be constructively critical of

contemporary society” (Evans, 2007 p. 40).

Rugg boasted an impressive body of scholarship. Among the most noted

consisted of his textbook series titled Man and His Changing Society which

included An Introduction to America Civilization (1929), Changing Civilization

in the Modern World (1930a), A History of American Civilization: Economic

and Social (1930b), A History of American Government and Culture (1931), An

Introduction to the Problems of American Culture (1931) and Changing

Governments and Changing Cultures (1932). The goal of these textbooks was to

present students with evidence of salient issues and problems that underlie an

American democracy. Evans (2007) states that the curriculum would help

students review the “evidence which is necessary for the consideration of all

aspects of a given problem and would entail “an unpartisan, open minded review

of the evidence on both sides” of the question (p. 41).

There however, were some glaring omissions to Rugg’s issue–centered

approach in the social studies, despite his attention to immigration and other

societal concerns, his texts tended to give only surface attention or completely

overlook the racial atrocities against Black Americans such as lynching, race

riots, eugenics and Jim Crow laws (Gilje, 1996; Goldsby, 2006; Gould, 1999). If

Rugg’s curriculum and textbooks were designed to approach critical issues

within American democracy, the exclusion of race is a direct oversight of the

atrocious and salient racial events that troubled social equality. It is our view

that social studies and curriculum foundations scholars have neglected to

investigate racial issues and how curriculum writers explored ways to alleviate it

through curriculum. Moreover, social studies and curriculum studies scholars’

attention to White progressives/social reconstructionist scholars has not

provided guidance on the issues of race and racism addressed during this period.

Carter G. Woodson Carter G. Woodson is widely known mostly as a historian who set out to

legitimatize the historical traditions of people of African descent. The writings

about Woodson has centered on his critique about limited history curriculum

that has disregarded African Americans as viable historical characters. His most

famous and widely cited work, The Miseducation of the Negro, is lauded as a

literary classic (Banks, 1992). Throughout the book, Woodson focused his


Volume 36, Issue 4

363

writings on the problems facing African American education, with one being the

lack of knowledge about Black history. Woodson believed that with increased

knowledge about Black history one could eliminate racist thoughts and

perceptions that many persons (both White and Black) internalized against

African Americans.

Woodson’s plight as an educator and textbook writer is a much

underdeveloped and consequently underappreciated topic within education and

history literature. It could be argued that he was the most prominent Black

textbook writer of this period. Before his death in 1950, he would have written

over 20 books, which included the following six resources in this manuscript:

The Negro in Our History (1922), Negro Makers of History (1928b), The Story

of the Negro Retold (1935), The African Background Outlined (1936), African

Heroes and Heroines (1939) and African Myths, Together with Proverbs

(1928a).

Central to Woodson’s project was to invalidate the existing axiom of

historical thought found in the school curriculum about African Americans.

Woodson emphasized that everything in the curriculum from the textual writing

to the aesthetics of the Black citizen could be internalized and create a

dangerous racial schema (Fanon, 1967) that would also develop amongst White

citizens about African Americans. He further maintained that the mayhem that

occurred from racial bigotry was a direct outcome from traditional education

(Woodson, 1933, p.3). To correct the racial problem was to provide students,

both Black and White, a counter curriculum that spoke directly to the popular

discourses about the inferior nature of African Americans.

Race and Social Studies Foundations

A relatively young field, social studies foundational literature has

encompassed a diverse set of issues and topics concerning its beginnings. Every

major social studies research journal has had special editions that have

contributed to the field’s foundational knowledge. The majority of the

foundational literature, however, has catered to familiar narratives which center

on the origins of the field of social studies (Bohan, 2003; Keels, 1988; Saxe,

1991), theoretical and practical definitions of social studies (Brady, 1993; Davis,

1993; Watras, 2004; Wilson,1982) and on the Old Masters and Founders of the

field (Evans, 2007; Fallance, 2009; Keels, 1994; Lybarger, 1983; Whelan,

1994). Traditional social studies foundations research has not thoroughly

explored the racial dimensions in social studies thought, although, the writings

imply that race and racism of Black Americans in social studies foundations

existed and was problematic to its creation. Social studies scholars agree that the

conceptual development of social studies had negative racial undertones

especially expressed through Thomas Jesse Jones’ social studies curriculum

(Dilworth, 2004; Kliebard, 1994; Saxe, 1991; Watkins, 1990, 1991). Lybarger


Volume 36, Issue 4

364

(1983), for example, suggested that Jones wrote about the importance of manual

training for Black children but believed that democratic forms of education was

out of the intellectual scope for African American school children. Saxe (1991)

notes the contradictions of Jones’s social studies program as repressive to

minorities through the Hampton curriculum by abiding to the status quo of

political disenfranchisement, social degradation, and economic servitude.

Although these negative racial beginnings are accepted axioms in the

scholarly community, little foundational research has moved the field to explore

the implications of these racist beginnings. While the U.S was inundated within

the confines of Jim Crow and other institutional barriers that prevented an

inclusive educational curriculum, the literature is incomplete on how social

studies was theorized within ethnically and culturally diverse communities.

Understanding the racial dynamics during the early twentieth century has not led

many in the social studies foundations community to explore specifically issues

related to race and racism directed toward African Americans. Simply put,

social studies historiography has been slow to recognize the racial foundations

of social studies within African American communities during the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century (Howard, 2004; Watkins, 1993, 2006).

There has been research literature throughout the general social studies

community that has attempted to broaden our understanding about the topic of

race by explicitly uncovering the limitations of social studies curriculum and

practice. These bodies of work are direct responses to the glaring absence of

race and racism in the field of social studies research, curriculum, and teaching

(Ladson-Billings, 2003). Investigations regarding the issues of race in the

curriculum (Brown & Brown, 2010; Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995; Nelson & Pang,

2006; Rains, 2006), students’ and teachers’ perspectives on race (Cornbleth,

2002; Epstein, 2000, 2009; Urietta, 2004), and teaching about race in the social

studies classroom (Chandler, 2009; Howard, 2003, 2004; Tyson, 2003) have

been the focal points of many social studies scholars.

Chandler (2010) and Lintner (2004), have extended the conversations on

critical race theory as a useful theoretical framework to challenge social studies

educators, researchers, theorists, and practitioners to structure race-specific

teaching in U.S. history classes. The fall 2004 issue of Theory and Research in

Social Education, titled “Race and the Social Studies” and Critical race theory

perspectives on social studies an edited book by Ladson-Billings (2003) both

provide an important insights about uses of race in the social studies.

This insight, however, has not been thoroughly explicated within the

foundation’s subset of social studies. There is a growing research base that has

detailed African American involvement within foundational circles (Banks,

1992; Brown, 2010; Crocco, 2003; Dilworth, 2004; Howard, 2004; Grimes,

2007; King, Crowley, & Brown, 2010). These scholars’ research has been

informative about the various African American individuals and communities


Volume 36, Issue 4

365

that have aided in the development of social studies thought. For example,

Margret Crocco (2003) noted how African American scholars fought for social

education “to uphold its commitment to democracy, citizenship and equal

rights” (p. 112). Patrice Preston-Grimes (2007) examined the history of civic

education through the perspectives of African American teachers and students.

Bohan & Randolph (2009) and Bair (2009), highlighted research attending to

distinctive and diverse histories of social studies education, which included

articles on social studies and desegregation in Atlanta public schools (Bohan &

Randolph 2009) and African American women school founders who have

developed character education programs (Blair, 2009). In addition, Dilworth

(2004), King, Crowley, and Brown (2010) and Brown, Crowley, and King

(2011) have examined the nuanced ways in which Carter G. Woodson has

contributed to social studies through citizenship education, African history, and

community engagement.

Critical Race Theory and Revisionist Ontology

Critical Race Theory

The prophetic words of professor, scholar, and activist W.E.B. Dubois has

rang true throughout the twentieth century when he proclaimed that the color

line between Black and White citizens would be the most salient issue in society

(Dubois, 1903). This sentiment can be extended to think about the historical

legacy of the egregious ways in which social studies and history scholars,

through textbooks and curriculum guides, have mistreated and misinformed

school children about the accomplishments of African Americans. These

problematic narratives still influence textbook authors’, teachers’ and students’

conceptions about African Americans (Alridge, 2006; Brown & Brown, 2010;

Epstein, 2009).

As a way to underscore the salient issues about race that are ever-present in

social studies thought (Ladson-Billings, 2003), some social studies scholars

have used critical race theory (CRT) as a medium to explore and critique the

marginalized nature the topic of race and racism has had within the field of

social studies (Chandler, 2010; Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2003; Lintner,

2004; Tyson, 2003). Critical race scholars sought a theoretical framework to

expose the racial inequities within the U.S legal system. CRT, currently, has

expanded within the fields of education and has been used as an analytical tool

for social studies scholars (Chandler, 2010; Howard, 2004; Ladson-Billings,

2003; Lintner, 2004).

Ladson-Billings (2003) states that CRT can serve as the analytical tool to

explain the systemic omissions, distortions, and lies that plague the field.

Howard (2004) suggested that a proper utilization of CRT would require

examining the curriculum, research, theory, and practice that silence the issues

of race (p. 488). These sentiments stated by Ladson-Billings and Howard align


Volume 36, Issue 4

366

with one of the hallmarks of CRT, historical revisionism. Delgado and

Stefancic (2001) proposed that revisionist history “reexamines America’s

historical record, replacing comfortable majoritarian interpretation of events

with ones that square more accurately with minorities’ experiences” (p.20).

Therefore, we posit that CRT’s purpose in this study is to broaden the

intellectual scope of social studies foundations and to examine longstanding

issues within the field. While the literature on Rugg is expansive and he is

lauded for his curriculum work and pedagogical suggestions about social studies

practice, little scholarship has carefully examined his work through a racial lens.

It is our purpose therefore, to reexamine Rugg’s work through an analysis of

how race is rendered.

CRT also advocates for the recognition of individuals that are marginalized

in discussions concerning the creation of social studies (Delgado & Stefancic,

2001). New narratives are needed not just to recognize individuals such as

Woodson as important, but to situate their work within the existing literature

that highlights the diverse ways in which social studies thought and practice was

conceptualized by communities of color. This directly implies that historically

underserved communities played a major part in the theoretical and practical

components of social studies theory.

Revisionist Ontology

Revisionist ontology is the process of reclaiming and reinventing a racial

group’s identity, which has been for centuries overtly normalized by popular

historical narratives (Mills, 1998). “Revision” as proposed by Mills is

theoretically different from what CRT scholars would classify as “revisionist

history.” The approached offered by Mills does not solely focuses on new

historical narratives but also on systematically challenging categories of

race normalized by racist historians. In other words, historically, the racial

discourses that permeated society had a profound impact on how

African Americans and other minority groups were viewed in school

curriculum.

These curricula and textbooks created an image of African Americans as a

race that has been naturally selected as inferior to the White race or what Mills

(1998) referred to as a “sub-person”. In her exhaustive study of twentieth

century textbooks, Ruth Miller Elson (1964) proclaimed that a direct correlation

existed between the “darkness of color and weakness of intellect” (p. 88). The

African Negro, she stated, was clearly regarded as the most degraded of the

races and evidence in school textbooks solidified assumptions of African

Americans incapability of improvement (p. 87). Therefore, racist beliefs that

have been perpetrated in society had school curriculum and textbooks reinforce

those beliefs, thus created an ontological truth about African Americans.


Volume 36, Issue 4

367

Black historians and educators have a long history in repudiating the racist

syllogisms created by early White educators (Dagbovie, 2010; Meier &

Rudwick, 1986). Since the antebellum period, many African American writers

sought to reinvent the racial images of Black Americans. We employ this theory

to situate the work of Carter G. Woodson as revisionist ontological work (see

Brown, 2010). In other words, Woodson’s work was not only responding to the

revision of historical narratives but his project was also committed to the

revision of larger ontological meanings of African Americans within the public

imagination. We decided to highlight Woodson because of his systemic

approach to Afro-diasporic topics. He approached the study of African

Americans through three initiatives: the community, colleges and universities

and K-12 education through Negro History Week and school textbooks (King,

Crowley, & Brown, 2010). Before we explicate on the works of Rugg and

Woodson, it is important to provide the historical context on how race informed

the construction of African American history in school textbooks.

Race and Society: The American Problem

The issues of race and racism within the context of African Americans’

lives was not by any stretch of the imagination an obscure American problem, if

anything it was “The American Problem”—or as Gunner Myrdal (1996 [1944])

called the “American Dilemma”. Throughout this historical period, racial fear,

hatred and ignorance of Black Americans spread throughout the country as

evident of the rise and acceptance of White supremacy groups such as the Klu

Klux Klan and the Sons of Confederacy. Movies such as the widely acclaimed

Birth of a Nation helped validate fears and White supremacist beliefs. Children

books such as Little Black Sambo, perpetrated the “pickaninny” racial

stereotypes of African Americans. Advertisers exploited stereotypes of the

Black body to sell its products, a process termed commodity racism

(McClintock 1994). These racist depictions and organizations, along with

federal and state government policies (or lack thereof) would be the catalyst for

racial violence, Jim Crow segregation and Black persons’ exploitation in the

justice system, which continued throughout the first half of the

twentieth

century.

The accusations of rape of White females by Black males and the ideology

of the Black male as an overhyped sexual deviant provided the excuses for the

heinous act of violence by White mobs through lynching (Goldsby, 2006). As a

result, there occurred a mass exodus of African Americans from southern states

to northern and western states to escape the mentality of White racist

southerners. Consequently, because of racist beliefs and the fight over economic

and other resources, bloody and deadly confrontations between Black and White

citizens occurred in northern and western cities. The Red Summer of 1919

produced twenty-six racial riots in cities and towns, resulting in major


Volume 36, Issue 4

368

causalities, mostly Black citizens defending themselves from White agitators.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the belief in White

intellectual superiority dominated academic discourse. For example,

anthropologist Samuel Morton’s craniometry studies, psychologist G. Stanley

Hall’s recapitulation theory and Alfred Binet’s IQ testing were used to propel

racial discourse about the physical, social and intellectual superiority of White

persons (Gould, 1981). Although anthropologists, Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict,

and sociologist Robert Park provided anti-racist work against hegemonic

discourses, the eugenicist racial discourse of this time remained to have a great

influence on many educational ideas including the foundational social studies of

Thomas Jesse Jones. Despite the influences of pioneering literature and

horrendous events concerning race and racism against Black Americans, the

curriculum of the leading social reconstructionists were void or glanced over

race as an important dynamic in American society that needed to be addressed.

Instead, mainstream textbooks continued to construct the Black subject as

inferior, history-less and negligible.

Racialized and Propaganda Textbooks:

The Lazy, Confused and Happy Negro Noted historian, Leon Litwack (1987), professed that no group of scholars

was more deeply implicated in the mis-education of American youth and did

more to shape the thinking of generations of Americans about race and Blacks

than historians (p. 326). The words of popular historian Arnold Toynbee

illustrated this point by stating that of all the races of human beings, only the

Black race “had made no productive contribution to civilization” (cited in

Winston 1975, 462). Many of the prominent historians such as David Muzzey,

U.B. Phillips, Hilary Herbert and Claude Bowers accepted the inferior status of

African Americans and wrote mainstream textbooks that reflected these ideas

(Dubois, 1935; Nash, Crabtree and Dunn, 1997; Reddick,1934; Zimmerman,

2001). History and geography textbooks, consequently, solidified and affirmed

the inferior state of African Americans.

During the early twentieth century, attention paid to African Americans in

school textbooks received little to no attention. When Black Americans were

presented in textbooks, the topic of slavery was the most common topic.

However, slave life in these textbooks was void of the brutality of slave culture

and the narrative of Black resistance. Nash, Crabtree and Dunn (1997) noted that

scientific racism was prevalent in the writings of historians by explaining to

schoolchildren “slavery was a blessings because it rescued Africans from eternal

darkness in their savage homelands” (p. 60). Popular historian U. B. Phillips

(1918) and his textbook, American Negro Slavery, characterized the conditions

of slavery as necessary because it helped “civilize” the Black race. A textbook

adopted by the American Legion in 1924 took the stance that African


Volume 36, Issue 4

369

Americans’ standard of living increased because of slavery (Nash, Crabtree and

Dunn, 1997). Lawrence Reddick (1934) in his review of 16 state history

textbooks recalled that although much of the content was diverse in nature, the

common theme around slavery was one of acceptance and contentment of

Blacks. For example, Thomas Marshall’s textbook, American History (1930),

stated, "Although he was in a state of slavery, the Negro of plantation days was

usually happy. He was fond of the company of others and liked to sing, dance,

crack jokes, and laugh (cited in Reddick, p. 342).

Progressive educator/historian, David Muzzey’s work also adhered to the

racist scientific scholarship of this time. For example, Muzzey’s textbook,

History of the American people (1927), gave school children information that

African Americans were incapable of leadership and even chastised

reconstruction policies for allowing African Americans to serve as political

officers (p. 408; cited in Dubois, 1935). Other textbooks lauded the efforts of the

KKK and other racist organizations as saviors to the South for controlling the

newly freed and savage Black man. Textbooks rarely looked upon African

American historical actors that achieved prominence and helped contribute to

the social, economic and political climate of the United States.

As we noted, race was an important aspect in society in the early parts of

the twentieth century. Racist ideology extended from the greater society to the

schoolhouse. It was evident that race was an “American problem” that needed

attention within social reconstructionist thought. As a “giant” in the field of

social studies and issue-centered curriculum, we ask the following questions

about Rugg’s curriculum: In what ways did Rugg’s issue centered curriculum

take in account the racial atrocities in American society. Did Rugg’s textbooks

attempt to provide clarity to the issue of race as it pertains to African

Americans? In what ways did the narratives about African Americans differ

from the popular textbooks during the early part of the twentieth century? The

next section, explores these questions about Rugg’s ideas concerning race and

its connection with the “American problem.”

Under Rugg’ s Ideas of Race and Racism

As a major theoretician of the social reconstruction and the social studies

movement: How did Rugg’s textbooks respond to the narrative of African

Americans presented by Muzzey, Phillips and Marshall? Rugg’s textbooks are

in need of a closer examination about his ideas concerning the plight of African

Americans during the early 20th

century. A few scholars have mentioned that

Rugg’s views on race, for its time, were more liberal than many of his

contemporaries (Boyle- Baise & Goodman, 2009a; Evans, 2007; Goodenow

1975; Sterns & Riley, 2001). For instance, Ronald Evans (2007) examined

Rugg’s earlier writings in a ninth grade pamphlet, America and Her immigrant

(1926), “stating that he [Rugg] devoted significant space to multicultural issues


Volume 36, Issue 4

370

and offers a relatively forward looking treatment of those [racial] issues” (p. 70).

Investigating Rugg’s pamphlets of the 1920’s, indicates his awareness of issues

of race and his desire to present a critical history that questioned White

hegemony. In addition, he gives an enslaved African American a voice by

chronicling an interview about his experiences in slavery as well as his

participation in the Underground Railroad. However, the knowledge dispersed

within the framework of his pamphlets did not transfer to his textbook series,

which were more influential because of the depth of readership and what

propelled his popularity. Within the considerable corpus of Rugg’s scholarly

work he made few pronouncements directly concerning African Americans, race

and racism. The few times he attempted to discuss issues regarding African

Americans, they were rather truncated or adhered to status quo historical

narratives of African American history.

Rugg’s Textbooks and African American History

In A History of American Civilization (1930b), Rugg discussed the

institution of slavery in a way that positioned the conditions as normal and

simply an economic strategy for wealthy southern landowners. When slavery

was first introduced in a paragraph in chapter four, the Africans were described

as a “new source of man power” (p. 93) and in chapter seven, Rugg used the

term “triangular voyage” (p.188), which was void of the egregiousness of the

actual event. In addition, in a brief section on "Negro Slavery After the

Revolution “(p. 259-261), Rugg outlined the spread of slavery, restrictions on

slaves, and slave resistance. The section however, concludes with the phrase

"many plantation-owners [who] were kind to their slaves, feeling a deep sense of

responsibility for their comfort and welfare"(Rugg 1930b p. 261; cited in Nash

1995 footnotes).

This last statement regarding the practice of slavery was a common

disclaimer found within K-12 and the academic historical discourse on slavery

during the early part of the twentieth century. This construction of slavery

suggested that many slaves lived relatively comfortable lives, as well as the

belief that many slave plantations did not engage in the customary racial

violence such as flogging, lynching, and rape. Rugg situated African Americans

solely as slaves in this textbook excluding Black citizens’ military service in the

American Revolution and Civil War. He did not write about free Black

Americans in the North and after Reconstruction, African Americans were

largely constructed as invisible.

In another text, A History of American Government and Culture (1931)

Rugg answered the question: What part did the Negro play during

Reconstruction in the following way?


Volume 36, Issue 4

371

They [black people] were like bewildered children. They had been long

held in slavery and had long been denied education and political rights.

It is little wonder if in their ignorance they became the tools of

unscrupulous carpetbaggers and scalawag. (p. 366)

This characterization of new freedmen suggested that African Americans

did not play an influential role during Reconstruction. In many ways, this

statement posits that during Reconstruction African Americans had no agency

towards their intellectual and social realities and were worthless or victimized

historical characters that propagated the conditions of former Confederates.

Rugg’s section on Reconstruction seemed to straddle the fence between

acknowledging racist acts against Blacks and being apologetic to White

Southerners. For instance, he mentions the KKK’s victimization of Blacks and

voter disenfranchisement, but justifies the actions made by Klansmen:

The force used by the Klan was sometimes brutal and wrong, but so

were the things the carpetbaggers were doing. The latter were often

corrupt, and their Negro tools were, with a few exceptions, illiterate

and incapable of governing. Thus the white planters, deprived of other

means of protection, attempted through a secret organization to “fight

fire with fire.” (Rugg, 1931 pp. 367-368)

In most of Rugg’s writings the continent of Africa was invisible or was told

in relation to the colonization efforts of England, Germany, and France. As a

colony of England, he acknowledged the rich resources of the continent,

introduced the natives as “savage Blacks” and chronicled the White man’s

exploration in the terrifying terrain. In Changing Civilizations in the Modern

World (1930a), Rugg summarized in the introduction about ten countries that

students will study within the pages of the text. No country in Africa was

represented on the list. Moreover, in providing the explanation of why the 10

countries were to be studied, Rugg gives three reasons, which provides insight in

his thoughts about people of the various African countries and their culture: 1.

The countries consist of large proportions of the world population, 2. These

countries include the chief races on the earth, and 3. The countries selected will

play important contributions to the modern world (p. 15-16). It is clear that

Rugg did not believe school children needed to understand African culture

without the influences of European colonizers. To disregard African countries as

significant was a major oversight because of the advancement of certain

civilizations that superseded many European nations (Woodson, 1936). Again,

Rugg positions Europeans as important historical subjects and Africans as

insignificant actors.


Volume 36, Issue 4

372

The only textbook in which Rugg wrote about African American

achievement was in the An Introduction to Problems of American Culture

(1932), in the chapter, “Assimilation of Different Nationalities and Races.” The

section about African Americans in this 37-page chapter involved six pages at

the end of the chapter. The narrative stated that, “he [African Americans] has

steadily worked his way “up from slavery” and has fitted more and more surely

for a place in the life of the nation (pps. 584-585). Rugg writes about

educational achievements made by Black citizens, especially the contributions

of Booker T. Washington and the “self supporting” (p. 585) curriculum of the

Tuskegee Institute. He gives attention to Black Americans in the art by listing

the works of well-known poets and authors such as Countee Cullen, Langston

Hughes, and Jean Toomer. Rugg is complementary to the successes of African

Americans in his short descriptions.

Rugg also acknowledged that after the Civil War, African Americans

gained notoriety, had talent, and were willing to improve their way of life.

However, the chapter marginalizes the contributions of African Americans by

focusing much attention on the musical and artistic talents of only a few African

Americans. Rugg totally ignored the achievements of African Americans in

business, science, government, and the military. By highlighting educators of

the Tuskegee Institute, he completely disregarded the vastly different

educational philosophies offered by W.E.B. Du Bois and other African

American educators and scholars (Anderson 1988). He mentions Du Bois as

only a novelist without giving credence to his prolific body of scholarship.

Rugg also contradicted himself in the chapter by painting a picture that

during the pre-Civil War era, “ it was almost impossible to think that the Negro

could ever become a creative artist” (p. 585). Then four pages later, one

paragraph was devoted to Phillis Wheately and Jupiter Hammon, both slaves,

admitting that more than 30 Black Americans published poetry, essays,

pamphlets and books for 100 years (p. 589). In sum, all of these examples from

Rugg, presented two themes about the histories/status of African Americans,

either as manipulated, malleable towards Whites and/or limited in their

achievements.

The only direct address to race and racism directed toward African

Americans appears after the peak of Rugg’s popularity in his text, Social

Foundations of Education (1955), a work he co-authored with William Withers.

In a chapter “Education and Minorities: Racial and Social Conflict in America”

Rugg & Withers (1955) mentioned Black Americans but they were not his main

thesis. Rugg briefly mentioned racial riots and outlined the various racial myths

that inundated the minds of U.S. citizens, but the majority of the chapter

consisted of a chronology of immigration and class conflicts. The chapter ends

with suggesting that Black persons along with Catholics, Jews, and liberal-

progressives were scapegoats or whipping boys of American History. Our


Volume 36, Issue 4

373

overall analysis is consistent with William Watkins (2006), who suggests that

most of the arguments about the race and racism in the texts were superficial at

best.

Woodson’s Revisionist Ontological Textbooks

Woodson saw his textbooks as a response to the inaccurate and racist

depictions and myths concerning the image of African Americans

(Goggin,1993; Dagbovie, 2007; Meier and Rudwick, 1986; Brown, 2010; King,

Crowley, & Brown 2010). Woodson’s project was more than a text to help build

the self-esteem of African American students; it was critical social commentary

that called into question the existing racial discourses about the African

American (Brown, 2010). Although Woodson’s textbooks would be classified as

history, a close reading reveals Woodson’s interdisciplinary social studies

approach to the study of African Americans. Similar to Rugg’s thoughts about

proper social studies education, Woodson infused history, geography, civics,

and economic concepts into his texts to help students understand and clarify the

complexity of African American history and culture. The next section is an

analysis of Woodson’s textbooks that responded to the dominant racial

discourses of that time.

Woodson and the Black Intellect

Woodson skillfully implemented African American historical narratives,

which responded to a preponderance of racial theories during this period found

in textbooks and academia. For example, rather than present African Americans

as victims without achievements, it was common to have entire chapters in these

texts dedicated to the achievement of African Americans—with titles such as: “

Creating Achievement” (Woodson and Wesley, 1935), “Genius in Spite of

Handicap” (Woodson and Wesley, 1928), “Evidence of Progress” (Woodson

and Wesley, 1928), and “Achievement in Freedom” (Woodson and Wesley,

1922). These chapters represented the mental capacities of African Americans

that were void within mainstream textbooks. In The Negro and his History

(1922), the student notices the various entrepreneurial and business pursuits

made by African Americans. Business organizations such as the National

Business League, National Bankers’ Association, the National Association of

Funeral Directors, and the National Negro Retail Merchants’ Association were

highlighted throughout the pages (p. 459). George Washington Carver was

honored for his achievements in science (Woodson and Wesley 1935 p. 411).

Woodson would also laude the accomplishments of Charles Drew (doctor), Dr.

Elmer S. Imes (Professor of Physics) and Dr. Percy Julian (Professor of

Chemistry) to emphasize the intellectual rigor of African Americans.

African Americans’ Civic Contributions and the Military


Volume 36, Issue 4

374

Another key emphasis of Woodson’s work was to reveal African American

civic contributions in U.S. history. The recasting of the story of the African

American soldier in U.S. history through the pages of his textbooks served as

one example because of the nexus between military service and patriotism.

According to Woodson, Black persons, both free and enslaved, were influential

in protesting against the taxation policies implored by the King of England

(Woodson 1922). In fact, one of the reasons the Boston Massacre occurred,

Woodson (1922) wrote, was because a slave, who was present in the crowd,

insulted a British officer out of devotion to his country (p. 120). Woodson would

emphasize that despite mistreatment by fellow White soldiers and officers,

Black soldiers remained loyal. Woodson’s text overall, emphasized that African

Americans respected and abided by the democratic virtues the country upheld.

These narratives were in direct contrast to the racial construction of the Black

citizen as incompetent, unpatriotic, and not contributing to his country.

African American Agency: Slavery and Reconstruction

The happy slave narrative, which Rugg characterized in A History of

American Civilization (1930a), was another common portrayal in the

mainstream characterization of the enslaved African. In speaking against such

characterizations, Woodson (along with Wesley) highlighted several slave

uprisings and transgressions. It is important to note that the intent was to show

that these acts were not impulsive events by angry enslaved Africans but to

underscore that the events were part of an intentional and planned political and

social agency. For example, the following from Negro Makers of History (1928)

symbolizes these efforts:

In those sections where such efforts of friendly whites were few the

Negro fugitives were left to their own initiatives. As they did not know

any geography, they usually followed the North Star. They had learned

that towards the North they would find friends. With such assistance,

sometimes, they had themselves shipped as freight by way of steamers

and railroads in boxes and barrels to points in the North where escape

was easy. (p. 92)

In addition, Woodson and Wesley’s textbooks explicated major resistance on

plantations as well as resistance on slaveships in which many Africans killed

and steered vessels away from their destinations to free ports.

The narratives of Reconstruction were told to highlight the willingness for

African Americans to better their social, political and economic situations.

Woodson’s text highlighted the important Black politicians during that era to

contrast and discredit Muzzey’s characterizations of the Black politician as

ignorant, superstitious, and gullible (Nash 1995) and Rugg’s notion that Black


Volume 36, Issue 4

375

politicians were “pawns” for northern carpetbaggers. In Negro in Our History,

Woodson and Wesley (1922) focused on the economic mobility and strength of

Black citizens in the South. As African Americans migrated outside of the

South, they had opportunities to use their leverage as the South’s economic

backbone In his texts include the stories of Henry Adams of Louisiana and

Benjamin “Pop” Singleton of Tennessee, who attempted to mobilize anywhere

from 100,000 to 200,000 African Americans to leave the South as a way to

threaten the South’s economic stability and illustrate the importance of Black

agricultural labor (p. 429). The text highlighted other strategies by African

Americans to leave the South to the North and West for better economic

opportunity. Additionally, the desire for education in the Black community

resulted in the Freedom Bureau and many religious organizations to establish

schools and universities for African Americans. Central to Woodson’s argument

throughout each of the texts was to highlight the efforts of African Americans to

improve their standard of living after the Civil War.

African History

Woodson’s project on Africa was to counter the stereotype that African

Americans were a history-less people. He wrote that, “Most Europeans and

practically all Americans have regarded the Negro merely as an undesirable—an

undeveloped person constituting a problem in not being able to keep pace with

others” (Woodson 1936, v). Rugg’s exclusion of countries in Africa in his text

and his total disregard to the rich cultural heritage of the content solidified

Woodson’s statement. The rationale for reconceptionalizing Africa was to

explicitly state that people of African descent were a people of profound literary,

scientific, and intellectual accomplishment. For example, the supplemental

textbook, African Myths, Together with Proverbs, told stories originating from

the continent that pertained to the philosophical and ethical questions of

mankind such as friendship, love, justice, foresight, thrift and knowledge

(Woodson 1928). Woodson also correlated Africa’s accomplishment with

European history to provide evidence of the advancement of African people

(Woodson and Wesley, 1928, pp. 6-7). Woodson and Wesley’s (1922) analysis

also provided the students with the contradictions of the Western world in

relation to Africa:

The supposedly low depths of the native Africans emphasize the so-

called heights attain. As a matter of fact, however, the African

civilization does not suffer in comparison with the civilizations of other

members of the human family. All have intermingled and borrowed the

one from the other. In science, then, there is no such thing as races.

Because of lack of opportunity in an unhealthy environment, some may

have not accomplished as much as others more favorable


Volume 36, Issue 4

376

circumstances; but wherever the climate conditions and opportunity for

development have been similar, the cultures of various members of the

human families have tended to be very alike. (p. 4)

We agree with the assessment of Woodson’s work as stated by Dagbovie (2010)

that the purpose for his revisionist ontological work was to focus not only on

how African Americans were victimized, but to demonstrate the global

influences and contributions of Black persons.

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this manuscript was to utilize an analytics of race to

examine social studies historiography, particularly as it pertains to African

American historical issues. Because social studies historiography has under

theorized African American scholars who contributed to the field, further work

is needed to highlight the diverse ideas and efforts of African American

curriculum revisionists (Woyshner, 2006; Watkins, 2006). The case studies of

Rugg and Woodson highlights three ways in which social studies foundation

scholars can help in achieving a more holistic historiography. It must be noted

that we use African American experiences as an example and these suggestions

can be implemented within the various historically underserved communities

that contributed to social studies thought and practice.

First, more social studies foundations research should attend to the race

question and use race as a tool of analysis. Rugg’s attention to race during his

textbooks’ formidable years seemed to ignore the presence of race and racism as

an important “American problem.” If social studies/ social education goals were

to bring attention to the school children about society issues, then Rugg and

other reconstructivist scholars failed to meet the theoretical and practical needs

of their ideology. Key to the tenets of CRT is the acknowledgement of the

normalcy and permanence of race and racism. Through historically situating

race within the confines of social studies thought, gives the field a more holistic

understanding of the “American problem.”

Unlike Rugg, Woodson’s purpose was to attend to the racial silences that

were apparent within most of the mainstream curricular text of this period. This

historical revisionism was explicit because it was clear that much of the

historical narratives of African American accomplishments from early American

history through the 1930s had not been addressed at all in school text.

Foundation scholarship needs to situate this racial discourse within existing

traditional literature already present in foundations research. Social Studies

foundations scholars need to explicitly recognize that race and racism existed in

thought and practice of early scholars of the field. It is important to note, CRT

professes that in order for an authentic research agenda that recognizes the

salience of race in social studies ideas, we have to center our literature on the


Volume 36, Issue 4

377

legacy of racism. We continue to have questions about the ways in which Rugg

and other scholars and/or organizations advocated democratic values yet

hypocritically ignored it in practice.

Second, we recognize our work on Woodson adds to the growing literature

of historically marginalized scholars in social studies foundations. We posit that

more revisionist history is needed to expound on marginalized African

American scholars and organizations. However, such work needs to move

beyond biographical sketches that simply introduce them to the academic world.

Although, biographies can be useful in certain settings, the research needs to be

theoretically grounded.

While Woodson’s work clearly reflects the most substantive critique and

revision of curriculum about African Americans through the social studies and

history curriculum, his work is situated within an on-going and enduring

curriculum project that traces back to the early nineteenth century. In the U.S.,

numerous African American scholars critiqued and developed texts for African

Americans with an awareness of how the social studies and history curricula of

this time helped to circulate and perpetuate the most racist and egregious

historical narratives about African Americans (Banks, 1992). From this

understanding, there were two central approaches taken to the revision of

curriculum about African Americans. These approaches were most evident

through the curriculum work of Carter G. Woodson.

Woodson and other African American scholars sought to challenge the

racial discourse of the time by tending to the constructions and silences in social

studies textbooks. The topics of slavery, reconstruction, and Africa detailed in

Rugg’s textbooks were part of a long tradition of curriculum writers that often

constructed African Americans as history-less people. The “Black savage”

reference in Rugg’s, Changing Civilizations in the Modern World (1930a), is

indicative of how mainstream academics characterized African Americans

humanity as subpersons (Mills, 1998).

Vital to the philosophical notion of racial ontology is how individuals and

groups exist and fit within a constructed racial hierarchy. In the context of a

racialized society such as America in the early twentieth century, “whiteness”

was constructed as the apex of intelligence, beauty, loyal and morality—while

“blackness” was fashioned as antithetical to this rendering of whiteness and

White people—often marked as unintelligent, ugly, disloyal, and immoral.

Given this racial ontological context, Woodson’s work deliberately challenged

and revised the ontological meanings associated with blackness and Black

people by highlighting their achievements in all walks of life.

Future work in social studies foundations should attend to the work of other

African American scholars with social studies ties such as W.E.B. Dubois, Merl

Eppse, Anna Julie Cooper, Alain Locke, Mary McLeod Bethune, Edward

Augustus Johnson, Lelia Amos Pendleton, and Laura Eliza Wikes. Research


Volume 36, Issue 4

378

should be expanded in scholarly and practitioner journals outside the

mainstream social studies journals such as the long standing Journal of Negro

Education, Journal of Negro History, Negro Digest, and the Negro History

Bulletin. These respected research journals can provide scholars with alternative

perspectives on social education and pedagogical practices. Moreover,

foundational scholars can investigate historic national, state and local Black

teacher organization’s publications, which can add value in our understanding of

how social studies were used in other communities. Extricating knowledge from

these resources can help social studies scholars reveal other racial theories that

can help the field understand our origins in its complexity.

Last, the work on Rugg and Woodson should provide more research that

attends to comparisons between the traditional social studies foundations topics

with the curriculum experiences of historically underserved groups. For

example, social studies foundation scholars should compare and contrast Black

organizations such as the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History

and the Association of Social Studies of Negro Teachers with the organizations

such as NEA’s Committee of Social Studies and the National Council of Social

Studies. This type of research allows for the field to highlight the similar and

divergent ways social studies thought was developed in various communities

(Watkins, 2006).

As a whole, Rugg’s textbooks appeared to reify existing historical

narratives about African Americans such as “ the savage” and the “happy slave.”

Even the examples when Rugg tried to give credence to African American

culture in An Introduction to Problems of American Culture (1932), his focus

was too narrow to change attitudes about African Americans. An additive

approach highlighting a few African Americans in literature and the arts, did not

balance out his approach of mischaracterizing or ignoring African Americans in

previous writings.

Conversely, Woodson’s work, deliberately and carefully challenged

existing racial theories and ontological beliefs about African Americans. Given

the context of race and racism in the 1930s and 1940s it seems almost peculiar

as to why Rugg’s project so deliberately missed issues of race and racism,

especially since social studies and curriculum studies scholars have heralded his

curriculum work as social reconstructionist (Evans, 2007; Mzar, 2003).

Nevertheless, both scholars’ works attended to the “American Problem” in

vastly different ways and believed that their narratives could elevate instruction

in the various communities they served.

Conclusion

The field of social studies knows little about how social studies developed

in African American communities. Although, our call for more attention to

communities of color is not new (Woyshner, 2006, 2009), we propose that


Volume 36, Issue 4

379

scholars situate these new foundational topics within racial discourse of critical

social theory. By situating the knowledge of African American schools and

communities, as a field we are giving credence to what Mills (1998) calls

alternative epistemologies. Since traditional epistemologies are limited because

of its racial overtones, alternative epistemologies are essential to unpack

because traditional paradigms are “inadequate to explain how we know and

understand the world” (cited in Dixon & Rousseau p. 217). Simply put,

knowledge is not monopolized by traditional social studies foundations topics

and we need to understand social studies through alternative epistemologies that

can aid the field as we mature as a multicultural and multilingual nation.

We conclude by stating that exploring such topics will help to further

account for the voluminous and vitally important scholarship African Americans

have offered to the fields of social studies and curriculum history. Despite

Rugg’s or any other “old master’s” intentions, social studies foundational

scholarship is in need of revision of its historiography. Much work is needed in

social studies to examine how social studies founders thought about African

Americans. In addition, the general field of social studies cannot expand its

notions on the continuous issues of race without a cooperative partnership with

its foundations counterparts. Foundations scholars should be the example in

exposing how the permanence of race has influenced the ideologies that exist

within a contemporary context.

References

Alridge, D. (2006). The limits of master narratives in history textbooks: An

analysis of representations of Martin Luther King, Jr. Teachers College

Record, 108, 662–686.

Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bair, S. (2009). The Struggle for community and respectability: Black women

school founders and the politics of character education in the early twentieth

century. Theory and Research in Social Education, 37 (4), 570-599.

Baise, M. & Goodman, J. ( 2009a). What would he say? Harold Rugg and

contemporary issues in social studies education. Interchange, 40 (3), 269-

293

Baise, M. & Goodman, J. ( 2009b). The influence of Harold Rugg conceptual

and pedagogical considerations. The Social Studies, 100 (1), 31-40.

Banks, J. (1969). A content analysis of the Black American in textbooks. Social

Education, 33, 954–957.

Banks, J. (1992). African American scholarship and the evolution of

multicultural education. Journal of Negro Education, 61 (3), 273-286.


Volume 36, Issue 4

380

Bisland, B. (2009). Two traditions in the social studies curriculum for the

elementary grades: The textbooks of Paul R. Hanna and Harold O. Rugg.

Journal of Social Studies Research, 33 (2), 155-196.

Bohan, C. H. ( 2003). Early vanguards of progressive education: The committee

of ten, seven and social education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,

19, 73-94.

Bohan, C & Randolph, P (2009). The social studies curriculum in Atlanta public

schools during the desegregation era. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 37 (4), 543-569.

Brady, H.R. (1993). The nature of social studies and the problem of definition.

International Journal of Social Education, 8, 7-22.

Brown, A.L. (2010). Counter-Memory and race: An examination of African

American scholars’ challenge to early 20th

century K-12 historical

discourses. The Journal of Negro Education, 79 (1), 54-65.

Brown, A. L. & Brown, K. D. (2010). Strange fruit indeed: Interrogating

contemporary textbook representations of racial violence towards African

Americans. Teachers College Record, 112 (1), 31-67.

Brown, A.L., Crowley, R.M., & King, L.J. (2011). Black Civitas: An

Examination of Carter Woodson’s Contributions to Teaching About Race,

Citizenship, and the Black Soldier. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 39(2), 277-299.

Chandler, P. (2009). Blinded by the white: White teachers, social studies, and

raceless pedagogies. Journal of Educational Thought, 43(3), 259-288.

Chandler, P. T.(2010). Critical race theory and social studies: Centering the

native American experience. Journal of Social Studies Research, 34 (1), p.

29-58.

Cornbleth, C. (2002). Images of America: What youth “do” know about the

United States. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 519-552.

Cornbleth, C., & Waugh, D. (1995). The great speckled bird: Multicultural

politics and education policymaking. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Crocco, M. (2003). Dealing with difference in the social studies: A historical

perspective. International Journal of Social Education, 18(2), 106-126.

Davis, O.L. (1993). Theoretical storm over practical reality: The nonproductive

dispute between school history and the social studies. International Journal

of Social Education, 8, 23-30.

Dagbovie, P. (2007). The early black history movement, Carter G. Woodson and

Lorenzo Johnston Greene. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Dagbovie, P. (2010). African American History Reconsidered. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New

York, New York: New York University Press.

Dilworth, P. (2004). Competing conceptions of citizenship education: Thomas


Volume 36, Issue 4

381

Jesse Jones and Carter G. Woodson. International Journal of Social

Education, 18(2), 1-10.

Dixson, A. & Rosseau, C. (2006). Critical race theory in education: All God’s

children got a song. New York, New York, Routledge.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935). Black reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. New

York: Atheneum.

Elson, R. (1964). Guardians of tradition: American schoolbooks of the

nineteenth century. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Epstein, T. (2000). Adolescents’ perspectives on racial diversity in U.S. history:

Case studies from an urban classroom. American Educational Research

Journal, 37(1), 185-214.

Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and pedagogy

in classrooms and communities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Evans, R. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children?

New York: Teachers College Press.

Evans, R. (2006). Social studies vs. the United States of America”: Harold Rugg

and teaching for social justice. In K. Riely, Studies in the history of

education, 45-69 Greenwich CT: Information Age

Evans, R. (2007). This happen in America: Harold Rugg and the censure of

social studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Fallace, T. (2009). John Dewey’s influence on the origins of the social studies:

An analysis of the historiography and new interpretation. Review of

Educational Research, 79 (2) 601-624.

Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Gilje, P. (1996). Rioting in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

Goggin, J. (1993). Carter G. Woodson: a life in black history. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University Press.

Goodenow, R. (1975). The progressive educator, race, and ethnicity in the

depression years: An overview. History of Education Quarterly, 15 (4),

365-394.

Goldsby, J (2006). A spectualtular secret. Lynching in American life and

literature. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press

Gould, S. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W.Norton. [Original

published in 1981]

Grimes, P. (2007). Teaching democracy before broan: Civic education in

Georgia’s African American schools, 1930-1954. Theory and Research in

Social Education, 35 (1), pp.9-31.

Howard, T. (2003). The dis(g)race of the social studies: The need for racial

dialogue in the social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race

theory perspectives on social studies: The profession, policies, and

curriculum (pp. 27-44). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.


Volume 36, Issue 4

382

Howard, T. (2004a). “Does race really matter?” Secondary students’

constructions of racial dialogue in the social studies. Theory and Research

in Social Education, 32(4), pp. 484-502.

Howard, T. (2004b). Social studies during the civil rights movement. In C.

Woyshner, J. Watras & M. S. Crocco (Eds.), Social education in the

twentieth century: Curriculum and context for citizenship (pp. 127-141).

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Keels, O. M. (1988). Herbert Baxter Adams and the influence of the American

Historical Association of the early social studies. International Journal of

Social Education, 3(3), 37-49.

Keels, O. M. (1994). In the beginning-Albert McKinley and the founding of the

social studies. The Social Studies, 85 (5), 198-206.

King, L.J., Crowley, R.M., Brown, A.L., (2010). The Forgotten Legacy of

Carter G. Woodson: Contributions to Multicultural Social Studies and

African American History. The Social Studies, 101, 211-215.

Kliebard, H. (1994). That evil genius of the negro race: Thomas Jesse Jones and

educational reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10, 5-20.

Ladson-Billings, G., (Eds.) (2003). Critical race theory perspectives on social

studies: The profession, policies and curriculum. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave: Critical race theory, racial

stereotyping, and the teaching of American history. Journal of Social

Studies Research, 28(1),p. 27-32

Litwack, L. (1987). Trouble in mind: The bicentennial and the Afro-American

experience. Journal of American History, 74 (2), 315-337.

Loewen, J. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history

textbook got wrong. New York: Touchtone.

Lybarger, M. (1983). “Origins of the Modern Social Studies: 1900-1916.”

History of Education Quarterly 23(4), 455-68.

Marshall, T. (1930). American history. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.

McClintock, A. (1994). ‘‘Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and

Imperial Advertising,’’ in George Robertson, Melinda Mash, Lisa Tickner,

Jon Bird, Barry Curtis, and Tim Putnam (eds.) Travellers’ tales: Narratives

of home and displacement, pp.131 – 55. London: Routledge.

Meirer , A. & Rudwick, E. (1986). Black history and the historical profession,

1915-1980. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Mils, C. (1998). Revisitonist ontologies: Theorizing white supremacy. In C.

Mills (ed.), Blackness visible: Essays on philosophy and race. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University press.

Mraz, M. (2004). Harold Rugg and the foundations of social studies.

International Journal of Social Education, 19 (1), 1-7.

Muzzey, D. (1911). An American history. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company.


Volume 36, Issue 4

383

Muzzey, D. (1927). History of the America people. Boston, MA: Ginn &

Company.

Myrdal, G. (1944/ 1996). An American dilemma: The negro problem and

modern democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Nash, G. (1995). The history standards controversy. Journal of Social history,

29, 39-49.

Nash, G, Crabtree, C., Dunn, R. (1997). History on trial. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Nelson, J. (2001). Defining social studies. In William Stanley (Ed.) Critical

issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 16-37). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age

Nelson, M. (1977). The development of the Rugg social studies materials.

Theory and Research in Social education, 5 (3), 64-83.

Nelson, M. (1978). Rugg on Rugg: His theories and his curriculum. Curriculum

Inquiry. 8 (2), 119-132.

Nelson, J. L., & Pang, V. O. (2006). Racism, prejudice, and the social studies

curriculum. In E.W. Ross (Eds.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes,

problems, and possibilities (pp. 115-135). Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Rains, F. (2006). The color of the social studies: A post-social studies reality

check. In E. W. Ross (Eds.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes,

problems, and possibilities (pp. 137-156). Albany: State University of New

York Press.

Phillips, U.B. [1918] 1966. American Negro Slavery. Baton Rouge: Louisiana

State University Press.

Pinar, W, Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., Taubman, P. (2000). Understanding

curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Riley, K & Brown, J. (2004). Dare the NEA build a new social order? Harold

Rugg and the 1934 annual meeting. American Educational History Journal,

31 (2), 211-217.

Reddick, L. (1934). Racial attitudes in American history textbooks of the south.

Journal of Negro History, 19, 225–265.

Rosario, J. (1979). Aesthetics and the curriculum: Persistency, traditional

modes and a different perspective. JCT, 1 (1), 136-154.

Rosario, J. (1988). Harold Rugg on how we came to know: A view of his

aesthetics. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourse (343-

358). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Rugg, H. O. (1929). An introduction to American civilization: A study of

economic life in the United States. Boston: Ginn & Company.

Rugg, H.O. (1931). A history of American government and culture: America’s

march toward democracy. Boston: Ginn & Company.


Volume 36, Issue 4

384

Rugg, H.O. (1930). A history of American civilization: Economic and social.

Boston: Ginn & Company.

Rugg, H.O. (1930). Changing civilizations in the modern world. Boston: Ginn &

Company

Rugg, H.O. (1931). An introduction to problems of American culture. Boston:

Ginn &Company

Rugg, H.O. (1932). Changing governments and changing cultures. Boston: Ginn

& Company

Rugg, H.O., Withers, W. (1955). Social foundations of education. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Saxe, D. (1991). Social Studies in schools: A history of the early years. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Saxe, D. (1992). Framing a theory for social studies foundations. Review of

Educational Research, 62, 259-277.

Schwatz, J (1979). The world of Harold Rugg and the question of objectivity.

JCT, 1(2), 100-238.

Stern, B & Riley, K. (2001). Reflecting on the common good: Harold Rugg and

the social reconstructionist. The Social Studies, 92 (2), 56-59.

Tyson, C. A. (2003). A bridge over troubled water: Social studies, civic

education, and critical race theory. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical

race theory perspectives on social studies: The profession, policies, and

curriculum (pp. 15-26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Urietta, L. (2004). Dis-connections in "American" citizenship and the post/neo-

colonial: People of Mexican descent and whitestream pedagogy and

curriculum, Theory and Research in Social Education , 32, 4, 433-458

Watras, J. (2004). Historians and social studies educators. In C. Woyshner, J.

Watras, & M. S. Crocco (Eds.), Social education in the twentieth century:

curriculum and context for citizenship (pp. 192-209). New York: Peter

Lang.

Watkins, W. (1990). W.E.B. Dubois versus Thomas Jesse Jones: The forgotten

skirmishes. Journal of Midwest History of Education Society, 18, 305-328.

Watkins, W. (1991). Thomas Jesse Jones: Social studies and race. The

International Journal of Social Education, 10, 124-134.

Watkins, W. (1993). Black curriculum orientations: A preliminary inquiry.

Harvard Educational Review, 63, 321-338.

Watkins, W. (2006). Social reconstruction in education: Seeking out black

voices. In Karen Riley (Ed.), Social Reconstruction: people, politics and

perspectives (pp. 211-234),). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wilson, A. (1982). Roots and wings: The meaning of the history of social

studies for social studies educators. Journal of Thought, 17 (3) 125-136.

Whelan, M. (1991). James Harvey Robinson, the new history and the 1916

social studies committee. The History Teacher, 24, 191–202.


Volume 36, Issue 4

385

Whelan, M. (1994). Albert Bushnell Hart and the origins of social studies

education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22, 423–440.

Woyshner, C. (2006). Notes towards a historgraphy of social studies: Recent

scholarship and future direction. In Keith Barton (Ed.) Research methods in

social studies education: Contemporary issues and perspectives (pp.11-38).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Woyshner, C. (2009). Introduction: Histories of social studies thought and

practice in schools and communities. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 37 (4), 426-431.

Woodson, C. G.(1922). The Negro in our history. Washington, DC: Associated

Publishers.

Woodson, C. G. (1928). African myths, together with proverbs. Washington,

DC: Associated Publishers.

Woodson. C. G. (1928). Negro makers of history. Washington, DC: Associated

Publishers.

Woodson, C. G. (1936). African background outlined. Washington, DC:

Associated Publishers.

Woodson, C. G. (1939). African heroes and heroines. Washington, DC:

Associated Publishers.

Woodson, C. G. [1933] 2000. The miseducation of the Negro. Trenton, NJ:

Africa World Press.

Woodson, C. G., and C. Wesley (1935). The story of the Negro retold.

Washington, DC: Associated publishers.

Zimmerman, J. (2000). Each ‘race’ could have its heroes sung: Ethnicity and the

history wars in the 1920’s. Journal of American history, 87(1), 92-111.

Notes

The authors would like to thank Ronald Evans, Terrie Epstein, and the Editor

and reviewers of The Journal of Social Studies Research for their thoughtful

comments on the manuscript.

About the Authors

LaGarrett J. King is an assistant professor of Secondary Social Studies

Education in the department of teacher education at Clemson University. His

research focuses on African American history education, curriculum and social

studies foundations, race and multicultural teacher education.

Christopher Davis is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Austin in

Social Studies Education and a teacher and social studies department chairman

at a middle school in the Austin Independent School District. His work focuses

on examining the work of Professor Sylvia Wynter as a neglected addition to the

canon of social studies curriculum and instruction.


Volume 36, Issue 4

386

Anthony L. Brown is an associate professor in the department of Curriculum &

Instruction and affiliated faculty at the John L. Warfield Center for African and

African American Studies (CAAAS) and Cultural Studies in Education (CSE) at

the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests focus on the

educational experiences of African American males and the historical

representations and depictions of African Americans in the K-12 official and

hidden curriculum. Anthony’s work has been recently published in Teachers

College Record and Race Ethnicity and Education.

Documents

The Journal of Social Studies Research