Apparently her name is being removed from an award by the American Library Association because of concerns about the characters’ attitudes toward Native Americans, etc.
I must admit that this takes me aback. I see it as a very unfortunate example of historical revisionism in American popular culture. I also think that the reasoning behind the name change is ungenerous and presentist. I have no problem with pointing out that attitudes toward “others” in the past were not enlightened or perhaps ignorant and prejudiced. However, as a teacher of literature, I have come to fear the tendency to purge curricula and recommendations of any reading material that does not absolutely conform to contemporary mores and pieties. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Since the books elicited such a response among CC readership, what do you think of this reevaluation of Ingalls Wilder?
I loved those books as a child. I read the entire series multiple times. I own the set, but could never get my daughter interested. I was more taken aback years ago when I read that her daughter wrote more of the stories than she did. Perhaps a new foreword in each book putting the text into context with the time of publication would be a smart move for the publisher?
I liked the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, and my daughters read them, and I’d be fine with any of my grandchildren reading them, but I don’t think an award needs to be continued to be named for her.
Our society has become better in some ways but in others it hasn’t.
So, do you think they should not be read by children?
They were central for me and many girls older and younger than me. They deal with issues of sibling rivalry, peer pressure, dealing with your family’s place in the economic hierarchy, loyalty and hard work during times of struggle, valuing yourself as a girl even if you are not conventionally pretty, etc.
Should all the positive aspects of these stories be thrown out because of some attitudes that have fallen out of favor since 1880? I don’t know.
I also think some of the criticisms lack context. For example, one of the most heroic characters in the series is an African-American doctor who saved the family from malaria when they were homesteading in Missouri. Also, Ma does hate and fear Indians (she lived on the frontier in the 1870s in MN and SD–New Ulm Massacre etc.–so her fears are perhaps not entirely irrational), but Laura also has a fascination with Indians and their perceived freedom (yes they are othered representationally, but it is more complex than “whites good, Indians bad.”).
I remember reading them as an older child well after the tv series had come and gone and was hurt and disheartened to read descriptions of native people. I am not Native American, but the description of “savages” (especially by Ma) was shocking and made me sad because I thought the Ingalls had been the good guys, yet they hated those who were different. Not saying others shouldn’t read these works, but I remember that feeling well, even today.
My DD saved only some of her young kid literature. She saved the original Box Car Children Book, Little Women, and the whole Little House on the Prairie series.
The award group can do whatever they choose to do…but really…Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote historic fiction of the period…that was based well in fact.
I read them with my kiddos. I can still remember reading about the time that wolves came near the house and there were no doors on the Ingalls cabin. I cannot remember anything racist about the books. However, I am of the opinion that something written more than 150 years ago cannot be judged on the basis of today. So I would have ignored something written about Native Americans. Rewriting history does no one a service. From what I remember, her family did some amazing things. Settling the frontier is not for the faint of heart. Her writings and her experiences are important to remember. For kids, her mark is the ability to frame how the family never gives up. They face challenges which are difficult every day and they remain. Like the TV series, the books reflect something important-grit. To me, she’s a great American. That doesn’t change with the name of an award. Millions have read her books and millions more have watched the series so her impact has been great.
Yes, Ma made disparaging comments about Native Americans. That kind of thing did happen. Pa treated the “Indians” respectfully, and Laura did not necessarily swallow her mother’s attitudes about them either.
These books are historical fiction and it would be silly to whitewash history or paint the family as perfect characters. Ma’s attitudes and comments are teaching opportunities for children when reading the books and discussing with parents and teachers.
Another theme that runs throughout all of the books is the beauty of nature. I loved Laura’s descriptions of the world around her.
Re the age range for the award: certainly when the books came out, they were intended for a sub-14 age group. Since average student reading ability has declined since then and we have seen the rise of compensatory “YA” lit, the analyzed difficulty reading level of the Little House books would place them at the YA level even though they weren’t originally.
“Changing the name of the award should not be viewed as an attempt to censor, limit, or deter access to Wilder’s books and materials, but rather as an effort to align the award’s title with ALSC’s core values. This change should not be viewed as a call for readers to change their personal relationship with or feelings about Wilder’s books. Updating the award’s name should not be construed as censorship, as we are not demanding that anyone stop reading Wilder’s books, talking about them, or making them available to children. We hope adults think critically about Wilder’s books and the discussions that can take place around them.”
I think the Little House books are wonderful children’s literature… among the best written, completely evocative of an time and place and with rich characters. I agree with the posters above who emphasized that books can be taught with a critical eye to the biases of characters and of authors. And yes, the books are a bit more nuanced than portrayed in the article, as evidenced in the difference between Ma and Pa’s views and other aspects of the way the conflict between settlers’ needs and the Native Americans’ needs are portrayed.
I think we can still celebrate the great things Jefferson did for our country, despite the fact that he was a slave owner, and acknowledge the irony of the tension between his words and actions.
And we can enjoy great literature, and great movies like Gone With the Wind, despite the fact that the attitudes of the characters (and maybe the authors) in that place and time are clearly racist or sexist or homophobic by today’s understandings.
Banning or blacklisting books sits poorly with me. Children are neither so stupid nor so fragile that they cannot handle the complexity of appreciating art while being able to criticize it at the same time.
It’s still a critique of Wilder and a judgment that she doesn’t reflect certain “values” the professional organization prioritizes. I find it an interesting chapter in the contemporary kulturkampf. They have withdrawn their cultural support, their unofficial imprimatur, from LIW. Since LIW has been such a central figure for so many girls (okay, maybe white American midwestern girls, I don’t know), it’s a signal of disapproval, no matter what they say.
I think it’s a difficult issue. It makes me think of the following: The names of a few individuals are being removed from rooms at the UW-Madison Memorial Union because those individuals were allegedly involved with KKK-related organizations in the 1920s and 1930s. One of my neighbors is the daughter of one of those men. She is very upset about the rooms’ name changes and what the changes and discussion imply about her father. I can see the validity of each sides’ arguments.
So I guess perhaps the greatest piece of 19th century American fiction In the form of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer are next. It’s period fiction. Alas.
I can understand perhaps not allowing a young child to read it without proper context. Or only above a certain age. I guess?
But they are removing the name of the award. That has nothing to do with the children reading the works. Lame excuse. The kids aren’t making the connection to the award winner and then back to the awards namesake and making a connection back to perceived injustice. Good lord, if they can do that they can handle the material in the correct historical context. And it is all about virtue signaling in my opinion. Lame.
Is Caroline Ingalls’ fear of the Sioux and what might happen to her and her family in MN/SD in the 1870s (Little Bighorn was in 1876) equivalent to someone belonging to the KKK in the 1920s?
The individual did not belong to the KKK. He belonged to a fraternity that might have had ties to the KKK. The daughter believes that her father’s activities were not out of line for the 1920s and 1930s and that his great contributions to the university are being inappropriately minimized by 21st century determinations.
I think that if Laura Ingalls Wilder were not someone we (yes, I include myself in the group) admired, we might have a different view (or no opinion) of the name change.
White Americans who grew up in the south probably have different views of decisions to take down Confederate general statues than do many other Americans.
To sum up: these are complicated times, and complicated issues, and while I’m certain about some things, there are many things I’m not certain about.