I read all the books multiple times because I had the boxed set ( which disappeared when my parents moved). But they stuck with me. When I realized DS had picked up lice in kindergarten - along with half the class - the first thought in my mind was “Lazy Lousy Lizy Jane”. So I guess if anything I picked up an intolerance for lice.
@gudmom Agree, today everything comes with a lesson on understanding which means that one person’s understanding informs things rather than someone just reading and absorbing the point on their own. Few people read on a regular basis. I was also an early reader and may have read these books years before they were suitable. When I read them with my kids, they were also pretty young. We don’t discuss everything in detail as we read. The objective is for THEM to form their own opinions.
My kiddo was reading To Kill A Mockingbird, and had many questions and observations. What I did not do is try to push my narrative on their understanding. I answered the questions and spoke about my own views. Kids will find out about prejudice and hatred. They will learn about injustice. They will learn about compassion and courage and many other things. ( Some will even read LIW and learn these lessons) Me rewriting fiction to tell them the 21st Century version just ain’t gonna happen. Plus it doesn’t serve them well. History in a vacuum is just daily news. And we have enough of that, please and thank you!
I also find it interesting that some folks think changing the name isn’t censorship. But it is. Censoring is changing something to get one’s point (usually politically motivated) across. Is changing the name going to be able to change some bad things that happened long ago? Some think it will. They want to erase the past so they can rewrite things in the present tense. The rest of us are just fine with the story as it is.
Un-naming things is a type of shunning. It seems very tribal and primitive.
Censor: “to examine in order to suppress (see suppress 2) or delete anything considered objectionable.” The ALA has removed what they consider an objectionable name from the award. They have not suppressed the LIW books, removed them from libraries, or told people they cannot read them.
As for shunning, think about the #MeToo movement. Many celebrities have been shunned in the past year or so. I have mixed feelings about that, too.
There are two different questions. Imho.
-
Are the books are fit for children?
-
Should the award be re-named?
… -
The local community will decide whether the books should be taught in school. (I tend to side with Jonri on this) Regardless of that decision, the books are widely available and anyone can read them at home, or in many pubic spaces. And anyone else can criticize the books, for racism, bad writing, whatever. . As far as I can tell the only censorship possible here is of individual parents toward their own children.
-
I don’t have enough information to have an opinion, but certainly understood rosered’s analogy upthread. And am sympathetic to that POV.
I agree with @rosered55 . we can love LIW books, read them, give them to kids, make tv shows about them, all without naming an award after LIW. It’s their association’s award to give, they can change the name if they want. I do remember the part in the books about the Indians, it made me very fascinated with the Indians that we encountered near my childhood home (not in the midwest). Laura was puzzled by the situation in the story, as I remember it. That’s a good thing. But changing the name of an award doesn’t affect our experience of her writing at all. unless we let it.
BTW. I am a person that has read all the Newbery award books. It’s true, someone is going to die in most Newbery books. and it’s usually the mom!!! (spoiler alert). I have, however, never looked up any information about Newbery. I am guessing it was a guy, but I don’t even really know (or care). BTW, LIW was beaten out for the Newbery in 1940 by what I consider a horrible violent anti-Indian book called Daniel Boone. Read it and cringe. Anyway, it’s the stories that help us learn and remember history, not the names on the awards for the stories…that’s MHO anyway.
I’m sharing here a news story about the Memorial Union room name issue. My point with mentioning it upthread is that, as with the issue involving LIW and the award, opinions, feelings, and facts are in conflict or unclear.
@rosered55 Sorry Rosered but there is no correlation between someone who may/may not have a KKK connection and a well known American writer who wrote about an important period in our history, in first person voice and as a female. She’s important and he is NOT. Making comparisons like this demonstrates that connections which don’t exist confuse the issue and should make many upset ( as Nazi, KKK, other racist comments). Just because they changed the name at some obscure place for some obscure person doesn’t make a connection. People often due this so people who are not careful readers hold the idea that someone else by dubious connection has the same idea. I see this all the time on news stores. Get the facts, she is not related to the KKK, this guy or any of his messages so why are you bringing it up repeatedly?
Some people in Madison want this person’s name taken off the room. This person is very well known in Madison. The people who want the name taken off say the person was a racist because he belonged to a group. His daughter and other people say he was not a racist and he made significant contributions.
People want LIW’s name taken off an award. LIW is known to many middle-aged white women (not all Americans). The people want LIW’s name taken off the award because they believe she expressed racist views. You and many other posters say she was not a racist and she made significant contributions.
I am in no way suggesting that LIW had KKK connections. I do think this possibility has been raised in an attempt to shut me up and I will take the hint and stop posting on this topic.
Naming to begin with could be considered similarly tribal and primitive.
Some of the characters in her novels expressed racist views. Did LIW as a person ever express racist views? Was she a member of any racist groups?
I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples.
Frequently awards and buildings were named to honor individuals some of the most powerful community members deemed worth honoring. Then community standards changed. Now some in the community don’t want to honor those individuals any longer. Maybe many in the community never would have agreed, if consulted, because they never believed those individuals worthy of public celebration.
Here in the south a whole lot of renaming is going on. A huge question becomes whose voice counts. I have a very close friend whose family name has been removed from university buildings the last few years. She is 93 and supported he decision, not that she had any say over it.
One way to study history could be all the renaming of so many things and what it might mean. Of course, this renaming isn’t unique to our era. It has always happened. It is difficult for me to imagine it’s a practice that will ever end.
Was she a bad writer when they chose the name. Convenient now.
Eddie Murphy won the mark Twain humor award. Have you read Huck Finn.
This is a lame virtue signaling effort by the board. Poor approach to literature.
She was a women writer when women couldn’t vote. Give her some due and call nonsense when one sees it. At least we could have an honest dialogue.
Oh we didn’t burn them so we aren’t making a political statement
Come on folks. Let’s be honest with each. Other
. And if an Osage writer wins the award. What a platform to revisit history and use these books as context. Not to demonize her.
It isn’t fair. We could do this across the ages and miss the art in our effort to sanitize the past.
Gone with the Wind won a Pulitzer in the 1930s. Does that fact mean it’s a great book? Or does it just demonstrate what a great book looked like at that point in time to those in charge of giving out the award?
Both Mitchell and Wilder are lauded for feminist themes.
Writers go in and out of fashion. Numerous nineteenth century best sellers are out of print and almost no one remembers their titles or their authors. How does fairness have anything to do with the popularity of a book through time?
As an aside …I’m pretty sure I’ve read all of Twain, though some of it is rather fuzzy in my memory.
They didn’t change the name because it wasn’t good. They did it for racial insensitivity. No one has answered what about Twain. Shakespeare characters in the merchant of Venice could be called anti Semitic. What about the fratricidal nature if Macbeth. Birth of a nation. Uncle toms cabin.
Of course all have abhorrent language. But viewed in the prism of time and circumstance one can discern the difference.
What about women’s issues and celebrating her achievements in the face of patriarchal America. Does anyone doubt how hard it was to find a publisher or an audience for her at the time.
Loved the series, practically memorized the books, still own my cherished hardback set, nope, none of my girls were interested
It’s funny, I specifically recall Laura being fascinated by the Indian encounters, the baby with the sparkling eyes, the trading Indians as they rode away. I recall as a kid seeing it all through her eyes including the fears and attitudes of the parents. Don’t we all see our aging parents showing attitudes that are now not OK (and shouldn’t be) and don’t our kids catch us, now & again, behind the times. I don’t see it as traumatizing, how about the fairness to Native Americans in presentation if it were cleaned up. Don’t we need to know & understand how they were treated, how they were seen? I felt like Laura disapproved, gently, of Ma’s attitudes, I felt keenly her desire to connect with the native peoples she met. Isn’t that a good thing?
From the bottom of my heart, I hate these types of debates. I am a historian who studies the darkest parts of US history- most of which have been effectively erased from modern memory. My life’s work is dedicated to bringing dark parts of our history- genocide, eugenics, nazism, etc- into classrooms and everyday discussions.
Taking names off things is NOT censorship and it is not erasing history. The exact opposite in fact. We are acknowledging that we were wrong and taking steps to correct that by not honoring x, y, or z people.
I want everyone to know that the civil war was about slavery- not the BS about states’ rights and all that. Removing names and statues that honor people that were “bad” in history is not erasing them. It’s acknowledging that they have no place in public spaces of honor. And they don’t.
No one is changing the damn books. No one is saying not to read them. They’re just taking her name off an award. I repeat one more time: that is NOT censorship.
This is a good point. For me (and as I said I’m oblivious) book Laura did not disapprove of her mother’s racist attitudes. In the book, author LIW makes it clear what she disapproves of, what are considered wrong actions. For example, when book Laura disobeys her parents and almost drowns, author LIW makes it clear that book Laura was acting wrongly. Readers are supposed to realize that they should not disobey their parents’ safety instructions. I don’t see any such authorial disapproval for Ma’s racism.
So if I were handing the book to a grandniece, I’d point out that Ma has racial attitudes that we now disapprove.
It is an oversimplification to state that the civil war was only about slavery, certainly it was one component but was not the only one, and just because you don’t think the other factors are credible doesn’t mean that they weren’t indeed part of the decision. Furthermore, just because someone was associated with the confederacy does not make them “bad” as you put it. There were just as many racists on the other side of the war and many of our presidents(who have things named after them) supported slavery and even owned slaves. By all historical accounts that I have come across, Robert E. Lee not only did not own slaves nor support slavery but was a much better person than many others who are still honored simply because they were on the winning side.
The groundbreaking advances of female authors mentioned can still be respected, as they should be. I don’t think we’re trying to sanitize the past by removing statues or labels for awards – on the contrary, we’re judging the earlier worldviews, and we should. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with deciding that racism, misogyny, other flavors of prejudice and bigotry are deal-breakers for emulation or idolization. I believe it’s a moral imperative.
LOL @romanigypsyeyes said it better than I just did. Cross-posted, with kudos!