In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 13 the question of whitewashing in american history and social science David N. Gibbs When one considers how insidious and overwhelming the language of conquest (i.e., cultural hegemony focused on anti-Indianism) has been in academic publications , school curriculum, media, and institutions, and how intensely it has dismissed or disparaged authentic Indigenous voices, perspectives, and contributions , one must consider the ways in which such hegemony stems from the consciousness of the dominant social classes, as well as the degree to which it is intentional. In this chapter, David Gibbs extends Devon Mihesuah’s specific argument about the hegemony that exists within universities’ Native Studies programs by revealing the close connections between the U.S. intelligence services and academia since 1945. This chapter will not focus on anti-Indigenous hegemony per se, but will instead serve as a case study in how academia has been and continues to be co-opted to serve the interests of the powerful. Consider, for instance, a report I received moments ago about a respected and popular professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was fired after he published a scientific paper regarding the uncontrolled contamination of irreplaceable native Mexican corn varieties by genetically engineered corn. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, whose article was published in the science journal Nature, was denied tenure due to pressure from the biotech company Monsanto, in spite of almost unanimous approval (32 to 1) of his department members and tenure recommendations from his department chair and the dean of the College of Natural Resources.1 This is only one of a growing number of such cases across the country where universities pressure faculty to tow the progovernment, procorporate, promilitary agenda, and Dr. Gibb’s illuminating piece helps us understand how this can be happening. David Gibbs received his PhD in Political Science from MIT and is an associate professor of history and political science at the University of Arizona. He is the author of The Political Economics of Third World Intervention and numerous chapters/articles on topics relating to social science propaganda and the historical imperialism of U.S. policies. *** david n. gibbs 2 0 8 They came to you under the guise and pretense of friendship and by the use of base flattery and hypocrisy gained your confidence, only to lead you into the crooked path of ruin and destruction. —keokuk (sauk), 1832 A major theme of this volume has been that the victors have been writing the history (and the social science as well) with regard to the experience of Indigenous People. There is a clear if often unstated bias in much of U.S. social science that implicitly celebrates and apologizes for the onward march of colonialism and neocolonialism, while it slights the perspective of its numerous victims in North America and elsewhere. The history of the American Indian is, obviously, a part of this history of colonial conquest, and the present volume’s focus on presenting the Indian perspective is a most welcome corrective. In this chapter, I will explore some of the causes for the unstated biases—the procolonial “hegemony” that forms a major theme of the book—and will argue that at least one cause has been the close connections between the U.S. intelligence services and academia since 1945. This chapter will not focus on the issue of American Indian politics, but will instead serve as a case study in how academia can be co-opted to serve the interests of the powerful. The close collaboration between academia and U.S. foreign policy had its origins during the First World War, when numerous academics worked for the Committee on Public Information, which disseminated propaganda in favor of the war. Such ties also were established during World War II, with the creation of the Army’s Office of Special Services, whose staff included some of the most distinguished academics and intellectuals of the era. With the coming of the Cold War and the creation of the CIA in 1947, the alliance between academics and U.S. expansionism became a permanent feature of university life. During the 1950s, the CIA and military intelligence were among the main sources of funding for the social sciences, having supported such institutions as Columbia’s Russian Research Institute, Harvard’s Russian Research Center, and MIT’s Center for International Studies. Outside the campus setting, major research foundations, including the Ford Foundation and the Asia Foundation, were closely integrated with the Agency. The field of...

Share