Discursive discrimination The prevalence of discursive discrimination in Swedish

history textbooks

Hannah Mannheimer

Bachelor thesis in Development studies, 15 credits, Fall term 2020 Department of Government, Uppsala Universitet Supervisor: Zelal Bal Number of words: 12 054

Table of contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..2

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………....2

1.2 Purpose………………………………………………………………...2

1.3 Research question…………………………………………………......3

2. Theoretical perspectives……………………………………………………..….3

2.1 Previous research ………………………………………………….….3

2.2 Theoretical framework………………………………………………...4

3. Method………………………………………………………………………….8

3.1 Methodological perspective…………………………………………...8

3.2 Analytical framework……………………………………………...…..8

3.3 Material selection and demarcations….……………………………...10

3.4 Other methodological aspects………………………………………..11

4. Results and analysis…………………………………………………………...12

4.1 Exclusion from discourse…………………………………………….12

4.2 Negative other-presentation………………………………………….18

4.3 Objectification………………………………………………………..25

5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….29

6. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..30

1

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

Anti-racist, non-discriminatory, humanitarian. Inclusive, a welfare state, a role model. These

are all words that for many come to mind when thinking about Sweden. However, there is a

societal debate about how much truth there actually is to this rather pompous self-perception,

and voices are raised pointing to a far less flattering image. The debate contributions that

discuss this put focus on how an important constitution of the Swedish self-perception is

based on a notion of being fiercely anti-racist, standing up for all people’s equal value in both

theory and practice, and being a welfares state for all. Sweden is often presented as an

extraordinary example in these settings: an exception with a rare moral compass among cruel

counterparts. However, this narrative is not necessarily true. The debate contributions point to

the fact that Sweden conforms to current colonial structures and that racism is an equally

grave problem here as in many other Western countries, if not more (Pallas, 2019; Hübinette

and Lundström, 2011: 42ff; Molin, 2012; Svärd and Bergwall, 2020; Forum för Levande

Historia, 2020a).

These perceptions, and ideological values over all, are arguably something that are

established at a rather young age and schools are presumed to play an important part in

guiding children in their ideological search and perceptions of the world. Therefore, schools

and education can both highly contribute to fighting racist structures and make these visible,

and to reinforce the same ones. Hence, it is very interesting to study how Swedish schools

address these issues. Which discourses on racism are prevalent? How are groups that are

perceived as non-white and/or non-Western described? Which narratives are allowed space

and equally interesting, which are excluded?

1.2 Purpose

The overarching purpose of this essay is to examine the potential prevalence of discursive

discrimination in educational material and, if it occurs, how it is manifested. More

specifically, it is discursive discrimination against non-white and/or non-Western people that

will be analyzed. There are quite a large body of research on racism and discrimination in

curricula, especially internationally. However, the supply is not as large in the Swedish

context and the specific focus on discursive discrimination has not been found. Therefore, this

essay can hopefully contribute to a nuancation and a slightly different focus to this field of

study.

2

1.3 Research question

- Is there prevalence of discursive discrimination against non-white and/or non-Western

groups in written educational material for the grades 7-9 of the Swedish primary

school and if so, how is it manifested?

2. Theoretical perspectives 2.1 Previous research

A report from the Swedish authority Forum för Levande Historia (Forum for Living History)

did in 2016 publish a report on how Swedish textbooks in social science and history for

grades 7-9 of the primary school are approaching issues regarding racism, xenophobia and

intolerance. It examines through a qualitative content analysis how and if these issues are

discussed, and also if the books articulate and conform to racist values (Johnsson Harrie,

2016: 7). The books chosen for this study have all been published, and they are written or

revised after the latest curriculum reform in 2011 (ibid: 5). The report also emanates from the

central content assigned for each respective subject. The results of the report argue that

neither of the books convey racist or xenophobic values, but that some of the social sciences

books a divide between “Swedes” and “immigrants”, as they are presented as two different

categories (ibid: 7). However, the study also testifies how Sápmi as indigenous people, and

the other Swedish national minorities are not given enough space in some of the examined

books. The question of how history can be used to create or strengthen national identities are

also inadequately addressed. The report concludes that the space the different examined topics

have been given in the textbooks varies to a great extent, but that quantity does not necessarily

determine quality in this case (ibid: 67f).

Lotta Olvegård explains in her chapter in the anthology “Kritisk läsning av

pedagogiska texter – Genus, etnicitet och andra kategoriseringar” (“Critical reading of

pedagogical texts – Gender, ethnicity and other categorizations”) how textbooks in history

largely revolve around white, Christian men and their narratives and that if precaution is not

taken, the history subject can work as an instrument to categorize people and exclude certain

groups from a national fellowship (Carlson et al, 2011: 281). She also argues that authors are

biased to their national and cultural assumptions when writing history textbooks, and that

therefore it is of great importance to maintain a contextual perspective on these books (ibid:

285). In her linguistic-discursive study on how the liberation of the African colonies during

3

the 20th century is portrayed in a few chosen history books, she finds that African countries

are portrayed as passive in this process, liberated by a hidden actor. Furthermore, she states

that the content of the history books at a first reading appears as objective, but that through

further analysis, interpretations and values are visible. An example of this is categorization

and homogenization of Africa as well as Europe, with a strong othering of the African

continent and its countries and peoples (ibid: 298).

Furthermore, there are several studies made on similar topics as this essay, but with

variation in context, method and/or focal areas. Bryan writes about how race and racism is

represented in the curriculum in Ireland, through performing for one, a critical discourse

analysis of textbooks, and also interviews with students in order to examine discrepancies

between the students’ perceptions of race and racism, and the ones conveyed through the

textbooks. She concludes that the textbooks and thus also the school system often reinforces

rather than challenges racist structures (Bryan, 2012: 599ff). Marmer et al perform a study

where the prevalence of racism against black people and stereotypical images of Africa in the

German school system are examined. The authors point to a clear result of prevalence of these

phenomena in both textbooks in the form of for example stereotypification, prejudice and

eurocentrism, and in the classroom by both teachers and fellow students (Marmer et al, 2010).

In the contexts of Canada and the USA, King and Simmons show the prevalence of

marginalization of black history in history textbooks while favouring and giving space to the

narratives of privileged groups with high social power (King and Simmons, 2018: 93ff).

As noticable, there are several studies touching upon the same or similar subjects as

this essay aims at doing. What makes this essay relevant however, is partly that it examines

the Swedish context, which there are not as many examples of. Furthermore, the method of

this essay sets it apart from for example the report by Johnsson Hassie, which otherwise is

extremely similar. It is argued that discourse analysis can provide other analytical tools than

the method of qualitative content analysis used by Johnsson Harrie, and therefore the results

might be diverging. Lastly, as opposed to the study by Olvegård, this essay aims at not only

focusing on a specific historical proceeding in the analysis, but rather to examine the books in

full.

2.2 Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of this essay will be based on two theoretical approaches: Critical

Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS). These two perspectives have a lot

in common and do largely address the same matters, but from slightly different approaches

4

(Rogers and Mosely, 2006: 466). Therefore, they can beneficially be merged, while giving the

theoretical framework more nuances. However, both of these perspectives are very rich and

compact, with a broad variety of concepts presented. Due to the scope of this essay, all of

these or even the majority will not be possible to take into consideration and therefore, only

the ones with uttermost relevance and compatibility with the chosen method will be elected

for the theoretical framework. The following section will begin with presenting the main

features of Critical Race Theory and Critical Whiteness Studies, and thereafter elaborate

further on the theoretical framework. Implications on how the framework can be used in this

particular essay will also be presented.

Critical Race Rheory focuses on different aspects of the issue of racism from a broad

and intersectional perspective, considering aspects such as history, context, economics, group-

and self-interests, feelings and unconscious processes (Delgado and Stefancic, 2017: 3). It

emanates from a legal perspective of scrutinizing the relationship between law, race and

racism in the US legal system, but is today applied to several other areas and disciplines, not

the least education. In this area, the CRT perspective can be used to analyze phenomena such

as hierarchies within the educational system and controversies over and inequalities conveyed

through curricula and historiography (ibid). The CRT perspective argues issues connected to

race and racism have to be understood from a historical perspective as denial of history and

the meaning of history for identity building will spur on racist structures (Razack and Jeffrey,

2002: 259).

The academic field of CWS defines racism as white supremacy, and examines

structures that produce and reproduce this and white privilege. It also puts emphasis on the

connection between white privilege and white complicity to racism, and that as long as

complicity is not recognized it is impossible to work against racist structures. The perspective

also seeks to make whiteness and white privilege visible (Applebaum 2016: 1f), and to

scrutinize the social construction of whiteness (Rogers and Mosely, 2006: 466).

Given the research questions and purpose of this essay, it is obvious that these theories

are highly suitable and applicable. An essay with research questions regarding racism

obviously needs a theoretical approach that addresses the same issue. The fact that especially

CRT is often used to analyze various aspects of the prevalence of racism in education does

further facilitate the analytical process.

The first concept of the theoretical framework that will be considered is the one of

white supremacy and othering of non-white people. The CWS approach argues that instead of

only using the term “racism”, also considering “white supremacy”. This term is used to

5

highlight and understand how racism actually is constantly present, affecting those exposed to

it on a daily basis. This perspective elaborates on the idea of othering, and argues that through

white supremacy, whiteness is constantly placed at the center of society, creating the

perspective that whiteness and white experiences and livelihoods are the norm. White

supremacy is furthermore something that is often overlooked, normalized and made invisible

(Applebaum, 2016: 3ff). When analyzing the textbooks that constitute the empirical material

for this essay, this concept is presumed to be a useful analytical tool for example when

examining the prevalence of euro- and ethnocentrism in the books, as these phenomena entail

implications on which groups are perceived as the norm, and which ones are perceived as

outside of it. It can also be used to analyze prevalence consequences of potential

generalizations of non-white and/or non-Western groups.

The second concept that will be considered is to be found in the CRT body of research

and refers to the silencing and exclusion from discourse of non-white people (Hartlep, 2009:

7). According to the CWS perspective, this can be done not just overtly through complete

exclusion but also for example by demanding space in a discourse for white narratives while

claiming to represent a marginalized group, inevitably silencing and excluding the

marginalized group that is argued to be represented (Nayak, 2007: 745). This silencing and

exclusion can also appear as conforming to a hegemonic and ethnocentric narrative

(Ladson-Billings, 2013: 41f). The CRT furthermore explains how white people as a group

benefit from racist structures and discrimination of non-white people, which can be an

incentive to allow for racist discrimination to prevail (Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 7). This

concept is arguably a useful one when analyzing if non-white and/or non-Western groups

actually are given space in the discourse, and also in which ways the authors choose to give

space to these narratives. This concept can, just as the previous one, be used to examine euro-

and ethnocentrism, but here the consequences for the inclusion or exclusion of other groups

are examined rather than a focus on norms and centrality.

The third aspect that will be considered is the social construction of race and is

touched upon by both perspectives. It is clearly stated that race is merely a social construct

that has no objective or inherent truth to it, other than the very small percentage that

represents certain physical traits such as skin colour. Race has no biological or genetic

connections, and is instead used to make up categories that are applied when it is beneficial

for people in power. The creation of race as a concept is a way of ignoring scientific facts that

races do not exist (Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 7f; Applebaum, 2016: 2; Nayak, 2007: 738f).

This aspect will be used primarily to investigate if an alleged race is argued to be an

6

explanatory and determinant factor for certain historical proceedings or for certain actions,

behaviors and characteristics.

The fourth aspect that will be lifted is the one of white privilege, which the CWS

perspective offers an elaborate reasoning around. White privilege stems from unequal access

to for example financial resources, education, health care and property rights (Barnes, 2017:

4; Nayak, 2007: 738). CWS furthermore distinguishes two forms of privilege that stem from

white supremacy: positive and negative one. The positive one refers to benefits that should be

enjoyed by everyone, but that are still far more commonly enjoyed by white people, such as

non-discrimination. Negative privilege however signifies harmful practices of maintaining

unequal power structures, and subordination and discrimination of non-white people.

Negative privilege is not only about being given certain advantages, but also about acting in a

privileged manner of arrogance and ignorance (Applebaum, 2016: 10f). A historical

perspective can furthermore be added through the notion that historical proceedings are

determinants for the privilege distribution today, and that today’s societal arena regarding

power and privilege is historically anchored (Aveling, 2004: 4). Lastly, it is argued that this

system of privilege is what indeed lays the foundation of white supremacy and racism.

Without acknowledging this, racism is presented as something individual rather than

institutional, placing the responsibility on certain individuals rather than the collective

(Applebaum, 2016: 5). The concept of white privilege are presumed to be most useful in

analyzing linguistic power manifestations and discrimination, such as oppressive

denomination, deindividualization or dehumanization, or that certain groups are portrayed in a

negative matter, creating bad associations to these groups.

The last aspect that will be considered is the CRT concept of essentialism.

Essentialism implies that all members from a certain group think, feel and act in the same

way. This is both based on stereotypes and can reinforce them, and CRT therefore strongly

contravenes this notion. Instead, an anti-essential and intersectional approach is advocated,

arguing that more factors than simplified and unidimensional categories are at play, both

among subgroups and individuals. A combination of for example ethnicity, sex, gender, class,

national origin, sexual orientation, ability, religion, culture and so on is important to consider.

Furthermore, discrimination is strongly connected to the notion of intersectionality. When

someone is marginalized or discriminated against, the discrimination can become even more

severe if the person lacks social power from more than one perspective, for example through

being both black and a woman (Ladson-Billings, 2013: 39ff; Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 9;

Nayak, 2007: 743). Regarding this concept, the analysis will examine whether non-white

7

and/or non-Western groups’ interests are portrayed as homogenous in the books, which could

be a sign of an essentialist perspective. It will also be examined how intragroup differences

and heterogeneity is portrayed and acknowledged.

3. Method

3.1 Methodological perspectives

For this essay, the method of critical discourse analysis (CDA) will be used. However, CDA

is a multifaceted term, and is divided into several approaches and concepts, each with

individual methodological traits and focal points (Hidalgo Tenorio, 2011: 183f). Therefore,

further demarcations are necessary. The analytical framework for this essay will be

constituted by a theory on discursive discrimination formulated by Kristina Boréus.

Boréus argues in her article that discursive discrimination and especially racism has

gotten increased attention within the field of CDA, but that it nonetheless is lacking a clear

typology regarding what discursive discrimination is. In order to remedy this, Boréus presents

her own typology. As a basis of this typology, Boréus presents four different types of

discursive discrimination (Boréus, 2005: 119ff). She also presents the closely related concept

of othering, that is creating a psychological distance between oneself and people that are

perceived to have another group belonging than the own. Thus, a perceived “us” and a

perceived “them” is put into different categories with a distance in between. In order for this

distance to be regarded as othering however, the perceived differences between the group

need to be appointed and valued (ibid: 124ff). Furthermore, Boréus argues that a prerequisite

for all forms of discursive discrimination is categorization of people. Categorization does not

entail discrimination in itself, but is always prevalent when discursive discrimination occurs

(123f). The theory on discursive discrimination is highly relevant for the essay, as this is what

will be examined. The typology presented by Boréus offers clear directions in what to look

for when it comes to this type of discrimination, arguably facilitating the analyzing process

and creating the best prerequisits possible for a fruitful analysis.

3.2 Analytical framework

The analytical framework will as mentioned be based on Boréus’s theory, and will be

constituted by three of four forms of discursive discrimination presented in her article, namely

exclusion from discourse, negative other-presentation and objectification.

8

According to Boréus, the concept of exclusion from discourse comes in two forms:

exclusion of voices and invisibility making. Exclusion of voices means that members of a

group are not allowed to raise their voices in a certain matter or a debate, even though they are

affected by it. Quotation of members of the group can be considered as well as the author then

is at liberty to choose quotes that cohere with a certain purpose or world view. Invisibility

making on the other hand refers to when a group is not mentioned or represented in a

discourse. It can also occur when a main group is mentioned, but generalized to the extent that

subgroups are excluded (Boréus, 2005: 126ff).

Negative other-presentation occurs when a group that is perceived as different from

the own is presented as inferior. However, this form of discursive discrimination comes in

three subcategories. The first one is denomination, which occurs both when a negatively

charged word is used about a group even though neutral or positively charged synonyms exist,

and when negatively charged words are used due to lack of synonyms. The latter is

considered discursive discrimination as the discrimination in these cases are so deeply rooted

in the discourse that neutral or positive synonyms are non-existent. The second form of

negative other-presentation is description of groups, which occurs when individuals from the

group are described in a degrading manner or when a certain group is spoken about only in

negatively charged contexts, only is ascribed negative characteristics or repeatedly is made

invisible in neutral or positive contexts. The last form of negative other-presentation is

through associations, which is created when groups are presented in contrast to each other,

where one is portrayed in a positive manner and the other directly or indirectly is presented as

the opposite of this group, creating a negative association. General for all forms of negative

other-presentation is however that it is highly context-dependent and that a text can be

discriminatory in one context, but not in another (ibid: 129ff).

Objectification occurs when people and groups are referred to as objects.

Objectification too is divided into subcategories: instrumentality and denial of subjectivity.

Instrumentality occurs when people are described solely as a tool or a means to someone else.

However, unequal power relations between the people used as tools and the people using

them are required for discrimination to emerge. Denial of subjectivity occurs when people are

presented as not having feelings, needs and desires, or when these are overlooked (ibid:

132ff).

The last form of discursive discrimination, proposals pointing towards unfavourable

non-linguistic treatment, is the one that bridges the linguistic practices to non-linguistic ones.

This occurs when proposals that indicate or contribute to unjustified negative special

9

treatment are presented, that is suggestions that only apply to a certain group on unjustifiable

basis and hurt the members of the group either physically, mentally or socially (ibid: 134f).

This form, however, is unlikely to be found in the analyzed material. Opinions and proposals

with a political touch are not to be found in school books that does not suit their purpose, and

therefore it would be surprising to find this form of discursive discrimination in the texts.

3.3 Material selection and demarcations

The history textbooks that are chosen for this essay are the same as the history books analyzed

in the report by Johnsson Harrie for Forum för Levande Historia. Johnsson Harrie motivates

her selection through showing that the most popular book from each major Swedish publisher

of educational material is chosen, and one each from two smaller publishers. She has also

made the conscious decision of focusing on printed books, instead of online material provided

by the same publishers. She motivates this choice through showing that the vast majority of

sold material was indeed printed, and not provided online (Johnsson Harrie, 2016: 10). All of

the chosen books are furthermore published after the latest curriculum reform in 2011, and the

latest edition of the books have been chosen for this study. This is to keep the analyzed

material as relevant as possible, and to reflect which values regarding the chosen issues that

are presented in the history books currently.

Another motivation for choosing to focus the study on textbooks is that they are meant

to be comprehensive enough to provide all information needed in the subject they are written

for and to cover the whole curriculum (Carlsson et al, 2011: 30). This makes it possible to

exclude online material and still get a rather comprehensive overview of how the issues

analyzed and discussed in this essay are portrayed in the Swedish history curriculum. This

also facilitates the analysis a lot, as it would be impossible to consider all material used for the

chosen grades in the Swedish school, especially with regards to all accessible unpublished

online material.

Further demarcations are made regarding which grades that are chosen for the

analysis. Formulating the purpose of for example examining educational material in Swedish

schools, would entail that material from all grades of both primary and high school needs to

be examined in order to conform with the purpose. For obvious reasons of scope and time

restrictions, this would not be possible. The grades 7-9, being the last three years of Swedish

primary school, arguably are the most comprehensive when it comes to content and therefore

these grades have been chosen.

10

3.4 Other methodological aspects

A few aspects regarding the method that are very context specific for this essay need to be

lifted. To begin with, some denominations of groups that could potentially be found in the

textbooks will not be written in their full forms, but will be censored by substituting a vowel

with an asterisk. This will apply for denominations with strong racist connotations. One of the

most clear examples of such words is the n-word, although this is hopefully not found in the

texts. The reason for this choice is that I, and many with me, argue that these words should

never have been coined in the first place as they are rooted in racism and racist practices.

Therefore, I will do what I can not to contribute to further usage of these words.

Furthermore, the analyzed textbooks are considered examples of discursive

manifestations rather than individual entities. Therefore, there will not be a large focus on the

amount of discursive discrimination found in each respective books and similar aspects. Each

individual book is not as interesting as the ensemble they constitute together. Furthermore,

there are several further examples of discursive discrimination, similar to the ones presented,

that was found in the books but that cannot all be included due to the scope limitations of this

essay.

Additionally, a methodological problem that has been encountered, and not fully

resolved, has been how to refer to the groups that are targeted by the examined discursive

discrimination. Groups that have been included in the analysis are people of colour, people

with religions that are often not perceived as Western such as muslims, indigenous

populations, national minorities and people with cultures that are usually perceived as

non-Western. This is obviously an extremely diverse group, both on a group level and on a

subgroup level, and to find a term that refers to all of these has been nearly impossible in

order not to conform to the discriminating, stereotypical and categorizing structures that are

so hardly criticized in this essay. For example, it would be highly ignorant to refer to this

gathering of groups as simply “non-white”, even though this might seem natural when

examing racist structures and utterances. This is due to the fact that for example being a

muslim has nothing to do with skin colour, and that racism against this group is cultural rather

than biological. It also leaves out groups such as Sápmi people that are to be considered

white, but that still are discriminated against. Therefore, non-Western has been added, even

though this is not an ideal term either, as it is rather diffuse. It is furthermore possibly

problematic to categorize people based on the notion of being non-white and/or non-Western,

as this in the worst case arguably can contribute to placing whiteness and Westernness at the

11

center and as the norm, which is something that is critiziced in this essay. However, there

have been difficulties in finding a better alternative while maintaining as much clarity as

possible, which is why the terms are still used.

4. Results and analysis

The analysis of this essay will obviously proceed from the analytical framework, and will be

structured in a similar way. The analysis will have one headline representing each analytical

tool, namely the three forms of discursive discrimination presented as relevant for this essay.

Under each headline, the results of the analysis will be presented and also applied to the

theoretical framework.

4.1 Exclusion from discourse

Exclusion from discourse can occur through exclusion of voices and invisibility making

(Boréus, 2005: 126ff), and there are several examples of both types of exclusion from

discourse to be found in the books. Exclusion of voices can for example be found through a

very eurocentric and ethnocentric focus in the books. Many of the textbooks put large

emphasis on Western and/or white narratives, even in contexts where more parts of the world

and/or non-white people were affected as much, or more. An ethnocentric example is when

the situation for black people in the US during the latter part of the 1950s is only described

very briefly, while emphasis is put on a white elite (Nilsson et al, 2013: 273ff). Another

similar, but rather eurocentric than ethnocentric, example appears when the era of imperialism

is mainly described from a European perspective. Imperialism and colonialism obviously

affected groups in other parts of the world in a far more severe way than in Europe, but the

content in the textbooks are still focused on Europe and European groups, inevitably

excluding voices of others affected by these practices (Almgren et al, 2014). The same

principle furthermore applies when consequences of the world wars are mainly discussed

from a Western perspective, excluding other voices and narratives (Almgren et al, 2014:

430fff; Molund, 2013: 141ff; Hildingsson and Hildingsson, 2013: 304ff; Nilsson et al, 2013:

190ff; Lindholm 2013: 136ff).

Theoretically, this euro- and ethnocentrism has connections to silencing as well as

othering. It is arguable that maintaining a focus on white experience and history in the books

contributes to placing whiteness at the center of society, which according to the theoretical

12

framework makes white experience and livelihoods appear as the norm. This generates

othering of non-white and/or non-Western people (Applebaum, 2016: 3ff). As mentioned, this

type of narrative presentation can also be theoretically understood as silencing. The

framework explains that exclusion from discourse of non-white and/or non-Western people

can occur through an ethnocentric narrative, which is what is presented here (Hartlep, 2009:

7). This process is also to be understood as a hegemonic practice as it reproduces exclusion

(Ladson-Billings, 2013: 41f).

Another type of examples of exclusion of voices in the textbooks is when experiences

and opinions of non-white and/or non-Western groups are written about from the authors’

perspective, without an explanation on how the information was obtained or without quotes or

narratives from members of the groups that are being discussed. On the other hand, Boréus

does write that quotation is not necessarily a sufficient remedy for the exclusion of voices, as

the author can choose which parts of a testimony that is quoted (Boréus, 2005: 126ff).

However, in the specific context of history books, quotation or other equivalent reference to

members of the groups in question might be the closest to an inclusion of voices possible.

Several concrete examples of this type of exclusion of voices can be found, more than will be

presented here due to the scope of the essay. In the book by Almgren et al, the following

quote is to be found about the Tanzanian island Zanzibar:

The majority of the people living here are poor families, but if you knock on any

of the heavy doors and ask to be let in, most people would just think it is nice. Or,

as you say in swahili: - Hakuna Matata! No problem!

(Almgren et al, 2014: 106f)

In this example, the authors are taking the liberty to presume how the majority of the people

in an island they are not from would react to a visit from a stranger asking to come inside.

This is not only very generalizing, but also an example of when a group of people is presumed

to act in a certain way, without any reference to the group in question. This is arguably a clear

example of exclusion of voices. Another example of this is to be found in one of the books by

Molund. He writes a section about Sápmi and attempts to address the Sápmi people’s history

with Swedish settlers. This part of Sweden’s history is a brutal one, where Swedish

companies and the government colonized parts of Sápmi, a practice that is still prevalent

(Forum för Levande Historia, 2020b). Being aware of this highly discriminatory history, it

becomes a clear example of exclusion of voices when Molund only states that the Swedish

13

settlers “changed” the life of the Sápmi people, not mentioning anything about colonization or

oppression (Molund, 2011: 21). Although Sápmi people are mentioned, their voices are

excluded due to this arguably very clear downplaying of their experiences. The last example

along these lines that will be brought up is the following quote:

Through this, it was the English men that got the Indians to start feeling like they

were one people. That feeling became important for the Indians when they started

fighting for their independence.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 224)

In this example, the authors take it upon themselves to explain what was important for a group

of people in their struggle for independence from a former colonizer. This claim is made

without any real motivation as for why it is presumed, or without any reference to people in

this group. It does moreover obtain an ethnocentric perspective, as it put British/white people

at the center of the independence struggle fought for by Indian/non-white people.

Furthermore, although it is argued that quotation is as good as it gets when it comes to

inclusion of voices in textbooks, there are also examples to be found when the problematics

with and insufficiency of quotation becomes clear. For example, the book by Ivansson et al

provides first hand testimonies from black people abducted as slaves for the transatlantic slave

trade and the triangular trade. However, these testimonies do by no means reflect the brutality,

gruesomeness and severe assault that was the rule rather than the exception during this time

period (Ivansson et al, 2019: 277f). The risk here is that when the authors are at liberty of

choosing which testimonies that are given space, the one downplaying in this case brutality

and violence are chosen, creating an image that is not representative.

This way of biasedly describing non-white and/or non-Western groups’ experiences

and opinions can also be theoretically understood as silencing, although in a slightly different

form. According to the framework, silencing can occur through demanding unrighteous space

in a discourse for the own narrative while claiming to represent the silenced group (Nayak,

2007: 745). This is arguably exactly what is observed in this case: the authors of the history

books claim to represent non-white and/or non-Western groups by writing about their

experiences and opinions as perceived or found convenient by the author. This arguably leads

to silencing of the groups in question, even though they are mentioned.

A last, but important point to be made regarding exclusion of voices is that a lot of the

reasoning above is the most relevant for textbooks with white and/or European/Western

14

authors, as is the case with all the books chosen for this essay. With regards to this however, it

is possible to argue that in order to be truly inclusive of voices in a curriculum, it is necessary

to consider educational material and books from a diversity of authors, and not just white,

Europeans or Swedes.

Moving on to the other form of exclusion from discourse, invisibility making, this can

occur either when a certain group is not represented or mentioned in a discourse, or when the

main group is mentioned but generalized to the extent that the subgroups are excluded

(Boréus, 2005: 126ff). In the textbooks, this is visible for example through various

manifestations of severe generalizations about Africa as a continent and people with African

descent. This is done both with regards to past events and present ones. Here follow one

example of each:

The merchants, the slave traders and the ones buying the slaves, or allowed the

slavery, do all carry responsibility for the abuse of Africa’s population.

(Nilsson et al, 2013: 89)

During the Swedish Empire, 1565-1721, people arrived in Sweden from the most

countries in Northern Europe, among them walloons from what is today Belgium,

Dutchmen, Germans, Balts, Fins, Danes and Norweigans. [...] Here live Japanese

people, Chinese people, Indians, South Americans and Africans – Sweden has

indeed became a multicultural society, where the new Swedes make invaluable

contributions to worklife, sports and other culture.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 483)

Both of these quotes refer to persons with African descent as one people, rather than multiple

ones. This is highly problematic as it does indeed create such generalizations about the very

broad group that is Africans, that subgroups are excluded, making them invisible in the

discourse. In this case, it is even subgroups on more levels than just one, as each African

country has its own people, which have subgroups in themselves. A further problematic

aspect is visible in the second quote where for example European and Asian peoples are

referred to by nationality, while African and South American peoples are generalized by

continent. The generalization and invisibility making is moreover further perpetuated when

Africa is portrayed as a country rather than the continent it is, such as in these examples:

15

We are going to look at what happened in India, China and Africa during this

period.

(Nilsson et al, 2014: 154)

But the rich were reminded of other peoples and cultures through silk fabrics

from China, spices from India and gold and ivory from Africa.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 108)

When Africa is brought up as one example among other countries, it is inevitably portrayed as

a country rather than a continent. This arguably fuels the generalizations and invisibility

making of African peoples.

These generalizations about people with African descent and Africa that are argued to

lead to invisibility making, can theoretically be applied to the concepts of essentialism and

othering. The way of describing people with African descent as one group or one people is

arguably an essentialist point of view, as it stems from a presumption of homogeneity in this

group. This homogeneity is arguably based on generalizations and stereotypes, as it would not

be possible to make such a generalizing categorization otherwise. According to the theories,

essentialism is both based on and reinforced by stereotypical perceptions. Furthermore, an

intersectional approach is obviously completely overlooked, contributing to further

generalizations (Ladson-Billings, 2013: 39ff; Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 9). This in turn is

furthermore connectable to the concept of othering, as the generalizations arguably make

non-white and/or non-Western groups appear as a homogenous mass of “others”, in contrast

to the more nuanced description of those who are considered white (Applebaum, 2016: 3ff).

Another category of invisibility making observed in some of the textbooks is that the

very overarching group name “mulsims” is sometimes generalized through pointing to certain

oppinons that allegedly is shared by basically all people believing in Islam. These following

quotes are all examples of such problematics:

The critique against the Western society and culture would now instead be first

and foremost based on religious grounds with islam as the major power.

(Molund, 2011: 124)

What the muslims criticized was not capitalism. Instead, they turned against the

non-religious – the secularized – that was born in the Western world and that was

attempted to be imposed in the colonies.

16

(ibid)

Many people in the muslim world acclaimed Usama bin Ladin as a hero that had

dared to challenge the USA.

(Hildingsson and Hildingsson, 2013: 405)

Not only are these quotes problematic due to implications about the overarching group that is

muslims, which will be further discussed in another section of this analysis. They are also

problematic due to the fact that they are implicitly arguing that opinions are shared by the

whole muslim population in the world, which is arguably very homogenizing and contributes

to invisibility making of subgroups of muslims that assumebly diverge in a lot of areas and

just as much as people of any other religion, or atheists. Regarding the last quote, all muslims

that actually constitute the majority of al-Qaida’s victims (TRT World, 2019) and the vast

majority of mulsims that strongly condemn terrorism are also made invisible when it is

claimed that many muslims support this terrorist leader.

The homogenisation of muslims is theoretically a clear example of essentialism, as it

lacks an intersectional perspective and above all, as muslims are presented as sharing

thoughts, feelings and actions only based on group belonging. This makes this

homogenisation problematic from a theoretical point of view as well (Ladson-Billings, 2013:

39ff; Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 9; Nayak, 2007: 743).

A third category of invisibility making tendencies in the textbooks is that Romani

people are sometimes excluded from parts about the genocides that took part during the

Second World War. All books do acknowledged that Romani people were targets for the Nazi

regime and that many were killed during the Holocaust. However, this is not unproblematic as

they were not killed during the Holocaust. The genocide on Romani people is a seperate one

with a seperate name: Porajmos (Woolford and Wolejszo, 2006), and should be recognized as

this with the same emphasis as the genocide on Jews. Otherwise, Romani people and their

experiences are arguably made invisible regarding the discursive genocide aspect. However,

only two of the books refer to the genocide on Romani people as a seperate one (Hildingson

and Hildingson, 2013; Lindholm, 2016), and only one mentions its name (Hildingson and

Hildingson, 2013). The other ones refer to the genocide on Romani people as part of the

Holocaust. Sometimes, it is not even recognized as a genocide, such as in this example where

genocide is substituted with the arguably less strong term of racist persecution:

17

For a long time after the war, the abuse of the Romani people was not

acknowledged as racist persecution.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 356)

Theoretically, the concept of silencing is applicable here as well, but in the form of more

overt exclusion of an important part of the narrative (Hartlep, 2009: 7; Nayak, 2007: 745).

4.2 Negative other presentation

Moving on to negative other-presentation, all forms of this can unfortunately be found in the

textbooks as well. Starting with denomination, this is used in all textbooks but the one by

Lindholm (2016). The most clear and common example is that the Swedish word

“indi*n”/“red indi*ns” is constantly used about the indegnous populations of North and South

America (Nilsson et al, 2013; Almgren et al, 2014; Molund, 2011; Molund, 2013; Ivansson et

al, 2019; Hildingson and Hildingson, 2013). This is a degrading term to describe the

indigenous populations, as it stems from colonial practices and is based on misperceptions of

and generalisations about the populations (Lundberg, 2011: 660). This term is used without

any problematizations of its origins. Similar problematics can be found when words such as

“zig*nare”/“g*psy” (Molund, 2013: 148; Ivansson et al, 2019, 356) “l*pp” (degrading term

for the Sápmi people) (Molund, 2011: 38; Almgren et al, 2014), “eskim*er”/“eskim*s”

(Almgren et al, 2014: 546) and “t*ttare”/“c*ird” (Ivansson et al, 2019: 329) are used. These

words are not used directly to describe the groups they are referring to, but rather as in these

following quotes:

The Eastern European peoples should work as slaves for the Germans. They were

a lower kind of humans. The Jews and the g*psies belonged to an even worse

group of people. He resembled these with bacteria that infected healthy Germans

and made them sick. Therefore, these detrimental peoples have to be

exterminated.

(Molund, 2013: 148)

“In Sweden and Finland the word l*pp was previously used when talking about a

Saami person. Today, the word persists in certain compound words such as

Lappland and fattiglapp.”

(Nilsson et al, 2013: 309)

18

“Eskim*s” you said earlier.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 546)

But there were groups that were not considered to fit in the new Sweden, for

example “c*irds”, romani people and other outcasts. A lot of these lacked

permanent residence and work. People considered the traveling people, that were

usually called c*irds, to be lazy and thievish and that they made a lot of babies

they did not take care of.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 329)

In these examples, it is not the authors own denominations that are used. They are rather used

to refer to a previous language use. However, as visible in the quotes, the words are not

problematized either. It is only acknowledged that these are historical terms that are not used

anymore, not that they have racist connotations, which could possibly lead to a normalization

of these terms which in turn can contribute to manifesting racist structures. The same

problematics is to be found when using the word “n*ger”/“n*groe or “n*gger”/“n*gger”, such

as in the following quote:

The jazz the young people danced to was called swing and came from the USA.

Such “n*groe music” was disapproved of by many adults.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 333)

A similar example is to be found in Historia B by Molund (2011: 50). The terms n*groe and

n*gger are severely racist terms, coined by racist colonizers, abducting and selling black

persons as slaves, and the ones that bought them as property (Rahman, 2011). However, the

terms n*groe and n*gger are also used in another way in the book by Ivansson et al. The book

reads:

The american word n*gger is an example of how history is used to give meaning

to words. But also of how words can be used to show new ways of looking at the

history and what has happened [...] Black Americans [...] refused to use the slave

owners' old word. In the USA of our time, the word n*gga has become an

example of how words are reconquered and given a new meaning. Instead of

n*gger* [...] a lot of black people started in the late 1900s to use the word n*gga

to talk about their own group with pride.

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 11f)

19

The American rapper Tupac Shakur is furthermore quoted about the difference between the

terms:

“N*ggers was the ones on the rope, hanging off the thing; n*ggas is the ones with

gold ropes, hanging out at clubs.”

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 11)

Through portraying the use of the n-word in this way, the aspect that the word still has racist

connotations is overlooked. It is arguable that this word still should not be used by white

people and that a lot of people, white and black, still consider usage of the word to reinforce

racism and racist language use (Rahman, 2011).

A last example of denomination is when the word “färgade”/“coloured” are used about

black and other non-white people in the book by Nilsson et al. This might not appear as

obviously discriminating but when analyzing its implications and historical background, it is

clear that it can be considered denomination. For one, labeling a group of people “coloured”

can be understood as implying that being white is normal or the standard, and that something

else has been added to people that are not white, making them an exception from the norm.

This is obviously not a correct notion, and it also misses the point that white is to be

considered as much of a colour as black or brown. Furthermore, the term coloured in

reference to non-white people were coined and used by apartheid regimes in South Africa and

the USA in order to create and uphold segregation between people that were considered to

belong to different perceived “races” (Posel, 2001). Therefore, the term coloured clearly has a

negative association to it and should be considered an example of denomination. An example

were on were this word is used is the following:

In the American South, discrimination of the coloured would prevail for a long

time.

(Nilsson et al, 2013: 162)

Looking at these various types of denomination from a theoretical perspective, it is the most

fruitful to apply the concept of white privilege, both positive and negative one, but mainly the

latter. All the examples of denomination in the textbooks are arguably manifestations of the

negative privilege of perpetuating harmful practices of maintaining unequal power structures,

20

and subordination and discrimination of non-white and/or non-Western people. As most of

these denominations are to be considered overtly racist, and all of them to be considered

deeply problematic and discriminatory, they arguably contribute to perpetuating unequal

power structures, especially since these words were coined in a context where the groups they

were used for were severely oppressed. This is, according to the theoretical framework, an

important part of the negative privilege. The use of these words is furthermore, which is also

in line with the negative privilege, both arrogant and ignorant as no discussion of the

problematics is made (Applebaum, 2016: 10f). However, the notion about positive privilege is

applicable as well, as it becomes clear that positive privileges that should be enjoyed by

everyone, such as nondiscrimination (ibid), are at least partly reserved for white and Western

people even in this context of a school system that is claimed to be non-discriminatory

(Skolverket, 2006: 44). Furthermore, the theories argue that it is these systems of privilege

that allow for racism and white supremacy to prevail (Applebaum, 2016: 5), which becomes

evident in this case as racist denominations are continually used due to the negative privilege

of being ignorant and discriminatory. Lastly, it is clear that the current power distribution is

historically anchored, as claimed by the framework (Aveling, 2004: 4). Words and

expressions that were coined in a racist context are still prevalent and thus, do inevitably

reproduce an unequal access to power and privilege.

Regarding the type of negative other-presentation that is description of groups, there

are multiple examples of this, but of rather different types. For one, there are examples from

the textbooks where groups that are non-white and/or non-Western and their members are

ascribed negative characteristics that entail certain implications about these groups that

enforce further stereotypication and discrimination. One example of this is in the following

quote:

The red indi*ns completely lacked an immune system against the diseases the

European brought over the seas. They also lacked resistance against the germs

brought by the black slaves from Africa.

(Molund, 2013: 86)

Here, the group referred to as “black slaves” is described as bringers of so-called germs to the

American continents, something that is to be considered a negative description due to its

negative associations. It is also highly problematic that while the Europeans are claimed to

bring diseases, the Africans are claimed to bring germs. It is arguable that the term germ is

21

more connectable to being dirty and intrinsically carrying illness, while the term disease is

rather something separate from the person with it and something that this person was also a

victim to. A last, and maybe the most problematic, aspect of this quote is that the author for

some reason choses to specify that it was black people who allegedly brought the “germs”,

even though this does not add any important information to the context. Instead, it implies that

blackness is a determinant for carrying germs. All these aspects combined create a highly

discriminatory description of the non-white and/or non-Western group that is referred to

(Boréus, 2005: 129ff).

Three other similar, but perhaps not as multifaceted, examples of discriminatory

description of groups are the following:

The ginormous China was conquered by the feared Mongoles until the end of the

14th century.

(Molund, 2013: 89)

The Japanese showed that a “retarded” people could catch up.

(Ivansson, 2019: 227)

The crusades were seen as both a pilgrimage and a holy war against the unfaithful

ones – the muslims.

(Molund, 2013: 55)

In these examples, each respective group – Mongoles, Japanese people and muslims – are

ascribed one negative characteristic each. The word feared creates negative associations for

obvious reasons and becomes problematic to use about a group as it for one assumably does

not apply to all people in that group, and secondly as it is not explained why the word was

used. The word “retarded” is problematic for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it should

not be used at all, as it is arguably offensive to people with disabilities, something that

unfortunately cannot be elaborated on here due to lack of relevance for the purpose of the

essay, but that still is necessary to mention in order to not contribute to the reproduction of

discrimination of any group. It is also highly problematic to use the word to describe a whole

people, as it implies that all Japanese persons have less mental capacity. The word retarded is

written with qoutation marks and it is probably meant to refer to the colonial discourse of

seeing the colonized peoples as inferior. However, this is not explicitly explained and does

22

therefore leave room for unclarities and interpretations, and the utterance can therefore

contribute to perpetuation of racist stereotypes through this description. The same problem

arises when muslims are described as unfaithful. It is possible, maybe even likely that this is

not the author’s own opinion but rather the crusade knights’ justification of their practices, but

it is not for certain and therefore it arguably normalizes this kind of description of groups

which is to be considered discriminatory according to Boréus typology (Boréus: 129ff).

Another example of a problematic description of a group is the following:

Six thousand Assyrians and Syrians had arrived there [to Södertälje, my

parenthesis] in a short time. It was a big adaptation and it arised myths and

stories about their weird behaviour.

(Molund, 2011: 157)

Here it is not just implied, but explicitly stated that the members of the mentioned group

behave in a so-called “weird” way. This is certainly a way of negatively describing the group

and its members, as “weird” inevitably has a negative and distancing ring to it.

Lastly regarding discriminatory description of groups, there is a tendency in some of

the textbooks to mention muslims and islam only in direct or indirect connection to negatively

charged phenomena such as war, terrorism, gender discrimination, dictatorship and

immigration portrayed as burdening (Almgren et al, 2014). This, if applying Boréus’s line of

reasoning (2005: 129ff), creates an image of muslims as for example violent, as it is only or

mostly connected to such circumstances the group is referred to, while it is largely excluded

from neutral or positive contexts. This problem is moreover further reinforced when the term

“islamism” is used to refer to terror organizations that operating in the name of islam

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 331, 439). This creates negative associations about islam as a religion

that advocates terrorism, or that terrorism is an intrinsic part of islam. This is not the case, and

even though it might be lacking neutral and positively charged synonyms, the term is still

problematic and discursively discriminatory. However, it should be considered denomination

rather than description of groups, but can arguably reinforce the negative description of

muslims pointed to in the beginning of this paragraph.

Regarding theoretical applications for this form of negative other-presentation, a

similar line of reasoning regarding the negative white privilege of reinforcing discrimination

and unequal powerstructures can be applied, only this time it is the discriminatory ascription

of negative characteristics that are at focus. However, the concept about the social

23

construction of race, stating that the concept of race has no biological truth to it (Delgado and

Stefanic, 2017: 7f; Applebaum, 2016: 2; Nayak, 2007: 738f), can be applied here as well, with

the quote about “black slaves bringing germs” (Molund, 2013: 86) especially in mind. In this

quote, perceived race is arguably put forward as a determinant factor of carrying bacteria, and

through this race is obviously considered more than a social construct. The theories argue that

the concept of race is applied to make up categorizations when it facilitates for people in

power (ibid), which might be what is at play here. Claiming race as a determinant for different

proceedings might be a way of simplifying the complexity of history, or to shift focus from

the guilt carried by white people for both the enslavement of black people and for spreading

the diseases that are referred to in the quote.

The last form of negative other-presentation is associations, which occurs when a

group implicitly is portrayed as contrasting a positively charged group (Boréus, 2005: 132).

This too is occurring in the textbooks. Under the headline “Islam and Western culture”, the

following quote can be read:

In recent revolts in North Africa and the Middle East, the groups of youth clearly

state that they do not want any authoritarian governance, where a small group

runs the politics. They demand democracy and freedom, just as in democratic

countries.

(Molund, 2011: 125)

Observed out of its context, the quote should be considered unproblematic. However,

considering the context, it can be argued to be discriminatory through the form of

associations. The headline for the paragraph is as mentioned “Islam and Western culture”.

This implies that it is Western countries that are the democratic ones in the quotes, while

countries in the areas that are referred to as North Africa and the Middle East are the

authoritarian ones. As the headline refers to Islam, it is implied that these countries have

islamic regimes. This creates a binary that the Western and North African/Middle Eastern are

contrasting poles to each other, and hence that Western equals democracy and that Islam

equals dictatorship.

As in the other two types of negative other-presentation, the theoretical concept of

negative privilege is applicable here as well (Applebaum, 2016: 10f). However, another

important concept to consider here is essentialism and intersectionality. Through pinning two

groups against each other as done in the quote mentioned above, domestic differences within

24

each group are arguably reduced and the individuals of each group are homogenized, creating

an essentialistic narrative, completely lacking an intersectional perspective (Ladson-Billings,

2013: 39ff; Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 9; Nayak, 2007: 743).

4.3 Objectification

The last category of discursive discrimination presented by Boréus is as mentioned

objectification, which in turn is divided into two subcategories. The most prevalent example

of the first type, instrumentality, is found in the way that people that were enslaved for the

triangular trade are described. See the following quotes:

When the red indi*ns died, they were therefore replaced with slaves from Africa.

(Nilsson et al, 2013: 87)

The ships were loaded brimful with slaves that were shipped over the Atlantic to

the West Indies.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 160)

In Brazil and the West Indies plantations, that is large-scale agriculture, were

constructed where sugar, coffee, tobacco, cocoa and cotton were harvested with

African slaves as labour.

(Lindholm, 2016: 48)

The merchants could now receive five times as high payment for the slaves

compared to what they had paid for them in Africa.

(Ivansson, 2019: 126)

For centuries Europeans had sailed to Africa and Asia. They kept close to the

coasts and were satisfied as long as they could fill their ships with treasures to

bring home: gold, ivory, slaves and much more.

(Ivansson, 2019: 216)

In the docks, the merchants used their payload to buy slaves.

(Hildingsson and Hildingsson, 2013: 171)

25

All of these quotes can be seen as clear examples of instrumentality. In all of the quotes, the

people referred to as slaves are described only as tools for their perpetrators and as a means to

getting a certain job done, which is the criteria for instrumentality. Furthermore, as Boréus

writes in her typology, unequal power relations between the people used as tools and the

people using them are required for discrimination to emerge (Boréus, 2005: 132f). This is

clearly the case here and this instrumentality is therefore a clear sign of discursive

discrimination. Furthermore, the objectification becomes even more evident in one of the

quotes by Ivansson et al, the one where “slaves” are listed as one of the “treasures” Europeans

brought home from Africa and Asia, along with material things such as gold and ivory

(Ivansson et al, 2019: 216). Here, the people that were abducted as slaves are described as

merely a material asset which is deeply problematic from an objectification point of view. It is

moreover arguable that the term slave is objectifying in the form of instrumentality in itself.

Using this term in the way that it is used in the examples above implies that there were or are

people that are indeed slaves and thus, a means to fulfill someone else’s end. However, people

referred to as slaves are abducted and abused humans, deprived of their freedom through

coercion. They were not born to be slaves, and do not intrinsically belong to that category. A

slave is arguably created through the perpetrator and was not to be considered a slave before

the violation was committed. The quotes also seem to argue that it is possible to buy a slave,

when the actual process is nothing but human trafficking. This is an important distinction, as

the people referred to as slaves are dehumanized and thus, turned into objects.

Another example of instrumentality is to be found in the following quote:

India was valuable to Great Britain. With its resources the country was the “jewel

in the British crown”.

(Nilsson et al, 2013: 155)

This creates an image of India as an asset for Great Britain, a tool to make the former empire

prosperous. Another example of instrumentality in the textbooks, describing a more current

societal phenomena, is the following, also analyzed formerly in the essay:

During the Swedish Empire, 1565-1721, people arrived in Sweden from the most

countries in Northern Europe, among them walloons from what is today Belgium,

Dutchmen, Germans, Balts, Fins, Danes and Norweigans. [...] Here live Japanese

people, Chinese people, Indians, South Americans and Africans – Sweden has

26

indeed became a multicultural society, where the new Swedes make invaluable

contributions to worklife, sports and other culture.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 483)

However, for this section, the focus lies on the last part of the quote. Although the new

Swedes are given credit for contributing to the Swedish society, there is a somewhat

problematic part of this way of expressing it too. Through only referring to these people as

valuable because of certain actions and contribution to Sweden as a country, they are arguably

at least from this perspective reduced to tools used to improve the Swedish society. Therefore,

this quote too can be seen as a manifestation of discursive discrimination through

objectification and instrumentality.

For the theoretical application of this part, it is highly applicable to the notion of white

supremacy and of whiteness as a perceived norm, placed at the center of various narratives

(Applebaum, 2016: 3ff). When presenting non-white and/or non-Western groups as tools at

white or Western people’s disposal, it can arguably be considered an ultimate utterance of

white supremacy and power. It is also evident that whiteness is placed at the center in these

examples, as white people’s needs arguably are presented as the main priority through the

instrumentalization of non-white and/or non-Western groups.

The second form of objectification is as mentioned denial of subjectivity, which

occurs when people are discussed as they lack feelings, needs and desires of their own

(Boréus, 2005: 132). One such occurrence can be argued to actually stem from the

instrumentality example of how for example people that immigrated to Sweden are valued

only in terms of the fact that they contribute to the Swedish society (Almgren et al, 2014:

483). This does not only present them as a tool, but it also fails to consider the feelings, needs

and desires of these people, creating a denial of subjectivity.

Another example of denial of subjectivity can be found in the following quotes:

In the conflicts of the present day in Africa, large streams of refugees towards

Europe occur.

(Molund, 2011: 139)

In the 1990s and now during the 21st century as well, it has come and comes a

constant stream of Somalis to Sweden.

(Molund, 2011: 157)

27

During the 1980s, a wave of refugees came to Sweden where many citizens felt

worry and frustration over their deteriorated economy and others disliked

watching their country change.

(Molund, 2011: 157)

In these examples, it is the way that the words “stream” and “wave” are used that creates the

objectification. Through reducing people, in this case refugees and Somalis, to a stream or a

wave, they are presented as an object that lacks feelings and needs. It is also problematic what

kind of associations these words generate in the context. Describing people as streams or

waves, it is arguable that they are associated with an uncontrollable mass invading the country

they arrive at, impossible to stop and similar to a wave on the shore. It puts a perceived

experience of the receiving country at the center, marginalizing the experiences and feelings

of the people that come.

Lastly, denial of subjectivity can arguably occur when reducing people to unspecific

numbers, such as in the following quotes:

Loads of red indi*ns were killed.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 547)

It came tens of thousands of soldiers from India to fight on the British side.

(Hildingsson and Hildingsson, 2013: 311)

Through talking about people in this manner, not only in terms of a number, but even an

unspecified number, it is arguable that the people that constitute these numbers are

deindividualized and certainly not described as individuals with feelings, needs and wishes.

Along the lines of Boréus’s typology, this certainly is an example of denial of subjectivity

(Boréus, 2005: 132).

Lastly, a rather explicit example of denial of subjectivity will be discussed, namely the

following quote:

Already in the end of the 17th century, slaves from Africa began to be used on

the plantations. They could manage the hard work in the heat better than whites

and red indi*ns. Still the mortality rates among the slaves on the sugar plantations

were extremely high.

(Almgren et al, 2014: 161)

28

In this quote, it is implied that the people abducted as slaves could manage the hard work due

to their skin colour, as they are put in contrast to white people and native American people.

This is deeply problematic, not the least because it completely neglects that the enslaved

people managed the work in the plantations due to severe coercion and a constant risk of

being violently punished if the work was not fulfilled, often even to the point of death

(Nudelman, 2015). Through this neglection, these persons’ feelings of fear and needs to work

to survive are overlooked, creating the denial of subjectivity Boréus explains (Boréus, 2005:

132)

This form of objectification has strong connections to the theoretical concept of

silencing. This concept refers to the exclusion of certain groups from a discourse (Hartlep,

2009: 7). Even though the groups that are argued to be excluded are mentioned, denying them

subjectivity is arguably also a form of exclusion and silencing. Regarding the last example

brought up, the concept of the social construction of race is once again relevant, as enslaved

black people are argued to manage hard work in the heat better due to their skin colour. As the

theories state, race as a concept is often used when it is beneficial for people in power

(Delgado and Stefanic, 2017: 7f; Applebaum, 2016: 2; Nayak, 2007: 738f). Here, the concept

of race is possibly used to somewhat justify the exploitation of black people with the

explanation that they were the ones best fit for the job. This might not be on a conscious level,

as all the books condemn slavery, but it might be an unconcious way of escaping the feeling

of guilt that is possibly connected to the white history of enslavement of other peoples.

5. Conclusion

After an analysis of the chosen empirical material, it becomes evident that discursive

discrimination of people that is perceived as non-Western and/or non-white is very much

prevalent in the textbooks. All three forms of discursive discrimination presented by Boréus

and analyzed in this essay occur, allowing discriminatory and many times rather explicitly

racist structures and expressions to prevail. This is something that conforms poorly to the

values of equality and the notion about refuting intolerance and xenophobia with objectivity

and discussion that is supposed to be conveyed through the Swedish school system. It also

becomes evident through this analysis that there is indeed every reason to question and revise

the Swedish self-perception written about in the introduction to this essay and that an

29

increased humility and improved self-reflection regarding this matter would be appropriate

and necessary.

To conclude, implications for future research in this field will be briefly discussed. It

would indeed be interesting to see an even deeper and more comprehensive study of the same

or similar material, applying more discourse analytical concepts and perspectives to the

analysis. For example, a study that examines if certain narratives about Sweden and/or other

Western countries are excluded, such as colonial history or participation in the triangular

trade, possibly in order to benefit a certain moral self-perception would be highly interesting.

6. Bibliography

Almgren, B., Tallerud, B., Torbjörnsson, H., & Isaksson, D. (2014). PRIO

Historia Stadiebok 7–9. Stockholm: Sanoma.

Aveling, N. (2004). Critical whiteness studies and the challenges of learning to be

a" White Ally". Borderlands: E-journal, 3(2).

Applebaum, B. (2016). Critical whiteness studies. In Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Education.

Barnes, M. E. (2017). Practicing what we preach in teacher education: A critical

whiteness studies analysis of experiential education. Studying Teacher Education,

13(3), 294-311.

Boréus, K. (2005). Diskursiv diskriminering: en typologi. Statsvetenskaplig

tidskrift, 107(2).

Bryan, A. (2012). ‘You’ve got to teach people that racism is wrong and then they

won’t be racist’: Curricular representations and young people’s understandings of

‘race’and racism. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5), 599-629.

30

Carlson, M., von Brömssen, K., Carlsson, M. A., Lunneblad, J., Eilard, A.,

Knudsen, S. V., & Olvegård, L. (2011). Kritisk läsning av pedagogiska texter.

Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (Vol.

20). NYU Press.

Fischer, L, & Samuelsson, C (2006) I enlighet med skolans värdegrund?. Skolverket.

Forum för levande historia. 2020. Afrofobi i samtidens Sverige. Available at:

https://www.levandehistoria.se/fakta-fordjupning/olika-former-av-intolerans/afrof

obi/afrofobi-i-samtidens-sverige [Accessed 2020-12-30]

Forum för levande historia. 2020. Kolonisation. Available at:

https://www.levandehistoria.se/fakta-fordjupning/olika-former-av-intolerans/rasis

m-mot-av-samer/kolonisation [Accessed 2020-12-30]

Hartlep, N. D. (2009). Critical Race Theory An Examination of its Past, Present,

and Future Implications. Online Submission.

Hidalgo Tenorio, E. (2011). Critical discourse analysis, an overview. Nordic

journal of English studies, 10(1), 183-210.

Hildingson, K., & Hildingson, L. (2013). SOL 4000 Levande historia (stadiebok

7–9). Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.

Hübinette, T., & Lundström, C. (2011). Sweden after the recent election: the

double-binding power of Swedish whiteness through the mourning of the loss of

“old Sweden” and the passing of “good Sweden”. NORA—Nordic Journal of

Feminist and Gender Research, 19(01), 42-52.

Ivansson, E., Sandberg, R., & Tordai, M. (2019). SO-serien Historia Ämnesbok

(7–9). Solna: Liber.

31

Johnsson Harrie, A. (2016). En granskning av läroböcker i samhällskunskap och

historia för åk 7-9 med fokus på rasism, främlingsfientlighet och intolerans.

Forum för levande historia.

King, L., Davis, C., & Brown, A. (2012). African American history, race, and

textbooks: An examination of the works of Harold O. Rugg and Carter G.

Woodson. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36(4), 359-386.

King, L. J., & Simmons, C. (2018). Narratives of Black history in textbooks:

Canada and the United States. The Wiley international handbook of history

teaching and learning, 93-116.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not!. In Handbook of

critical race theory in education (pp. 54-67). Routledge.

Lindholm, J. (2016). Historia 7–9. Falköping: Capensis.

Lundberg, M. (2011). Tidigkolonial mission i Peru. Historisk Tidskrift, 131(3),

2-8.

Marmer, E., Marmer, D., Hitomi, L., & Sow, P. (2010). Racism and the image of

Africa in German schools and textbooks. International Journal of Diversity in

Organisations, Communities and Nations, 10(5), 1-12.

Molin, J. 2012. Svenskarnas falska självbild. [Göteborgs-Posten]. 26 December.

Available at:

https://www.gp.se/debatt/svenskarnas-falska-sj%C3%A4lvbild-1.681365

[Accessed 2020-12-30]

Molund, M. (2013). Historia åk 7–9 A. Limhamn: Interskol.

Molund, M. (2011). Historia åk 7–9 B. Limhamn: Interskol.

32

Nayak, A. (2007). Critical whiteness studies. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 737-755.

Nilsson, E., Olofsson, H., & Uppström, R. (2013). Utkik 7–9 Historia Grundbok.

Lund: Gleerups.

Nudelman, F. (2015). John Brown's Body: Slavery, Violence, and the Culture of

War. UNC Press Books.

Pallas, H. 2019. Sverige - den eviga oskuldens land. [Göteborgs-Posten]. 14

January. Available at:

https://www.gp.se/kultur/kultur/sverige-den-eviga-oskuldens-land-1.12270068

[Accessed 2020-12-30]

Posel, D. (2001). What's in a name? Racial categorisations under apartheid and

their afterlife. TRANSFORMATION-DURBAN-, 50-74.

Rahman, J. (2012). The N word: Its history and use in the African American

community. Journal of English Linguistics, 40(2), 137-171.

Razack, N., & Jeffery, D. (2002). Critical race discourse and tenets for social

work. Canadian Social Work Review/Revue canadienne de service social,

257-271.

Rogers, R., & Mosley, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second-grade classroom:

Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy research. Reading Research

Quarterly, 41(4), 462-495.

Svärd, M, & Bargwall, H. 2020. Tyvärr svenskar, även här flödar rasismen. 8

June. Available at:

https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/XgKqQo/tyvarr-svenskar-aven-har-flodar-rasi

smen [Accessed 2020-12-30]

33

TRT World. 2019. Overwhelming majority of terror victims are muslims. 22

November. Available at:

https://www.trtworld.com/mea/overwhelming-majority-of-terror-victims-are-musl

ims-31586 [Accessed 2020-12-30]

Woolford, A., & Wolejszo, S. (2006). Collecting on moral debts: Reparations for

the Holocaust and Pořajmos. Law & Society Review, 40(4), 871-902.

34