To me, this is taking one piece of the books and not the entirety. Yes Ma was scared of the Indians and that permeated Little House on the Prarie, but Pa was not and even said that he thought Indians would be peaceable if they were left alone. The reality is that the settlers were taking over native lands and likely knew it. But that is part of the US history which was reflected in the books. Did these books really cause pain to readers of certain backgrounds?
I feel really mixed, as recognizing racial insensitivity is important, but so is looking at historical context. Although the counterpoint to that is that Laura only represents the viewpoint of white settlers, not of those that were pushed off their land. Laura’s perspective was not the only one there at the time.
I honestly don’t remember whether i noticed the racism when I first read these books as a young girl. But I did notice that some of the “enemies” in the Narnia books were dark and wore long robes (the Calormens").
This is not about statues or the civil war. A groundbreaking female autbir was honored to have a small award named fro her. To remove her name is to equate her with these other examples conflating the two a tactic to not focus the specific issue.
And not one person has yet to answer my question about Twain What about uncle tons Cabin. It is isolated outrage.
While Robert E. Lee did not technically own slaves at the Arlington house, he was executor of his father-in-law’s estate which did own slaves, and did not free them until five years later (the maximum amount of time specified in the will):
After Cardinal Fang’s post about Narnia, I thought, “darnit - have to re-read them before gifting to grandchildren,” and even went and looked for them, but quickly decided just to let their parents give them those books if they want to, and deal with Lewis as they think best. I loved those books and didn’t want to spoil my memories, and can certainly understand some of you might have similar feelings about the Wilder books.
When I taught the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (the most famous of the Narnia books discussed above) in fifth grade, we would hold a debate in response to a line by the hero Aslan that “battles are ugly when women fight in them.” I once had a Muslim student argue that women’s proper place was in the home. I had a female teacher in the school who was previously a soldier talk about her experience in the military. It was an awesome dialogue and exploration of an issue that presented itself through the book— and just one line at that!
Should I have not taught the book? Or said CS Lewis was a sexist not worthy of a literary honor?
P.S. In The LWW, Aslan is like Jesus and Edmund a sinner for whom Aslan dies, then comes back to life. I am an atheist, but had no trouble introducing the idea of religious allusion to my students and exploring the deliberate parallels in the book. Literature is literature, and you can teach it without agreeing with all of the author’s personal views or their characters’ view.
The racism was primarily voiced by Ma, and over the course of the book, balanced by Pa, who comes to a new understanding of the Native Americans. Laura is but a child in the book, but several times she challenges Ma. “Why don’t you like Indians, Ma?” and “This is Indian Country, isn’t it? What did we come to their country for, if you don’t like them?”
I read a very interesting article about the racist tones in Little House on the Prairie, which examines the attitudes expressed by the various characters in the novel (“Going to Indian Territory: Attitudes Towards Native Americans in Little House on the Prairie,” by Phillip Heldrich). According the author, it is Pa who in the end struggles most with the morality of their move and who makes the biggest transformation in terms of attitudes as well as action.
The more I reflect on these books, the less I believe that LIW is voicing her own racist attitudes. A young child in the novel, she clearly feels conflicted by her mother’s attitudes and over time grows to form her own opinions, in the process rejecting some of the values and attitudes to which she has been exposed.
Certainly lots of food for thought and good opportunities for discussion with children who read the books.
^Except that, if my near memorization of the books is not failing me, the next line after Pa’s saying they are taking more out of Indian territory is Ma’s question, “What?” and his answer, “The mule.” Maybe the reader is meant to take the first line metaphorically and the following lines as simple humor?
Pa is less overtly prejudiced than Ma, and more interested in interacting with and getting to know Indians, but he still thinks that Indians, like muskrats, have a more instinctive animal-like sense that a bad winter is coming than do white people. And it is he who dons blackface for a minstrel show. I think it is an oversimplification to say Pa is enlightened and Ma is not.
It is accurate to say that the book has a nuanced and interesting take on westward expansion, primarily from the white settlers’ perspective but not wholly lacking in awareness that there was a negative impact on the Native Americans and that the two groups each had valid competing interests.
^^^^^^Don’t recall using the words that Pa is “enlightened,” just that he re-examines some of his prior attitudes. He probably was far more enlightened than many men of his day, which we again must consider when examining his attitudes. Context is important, even if it doesn’t excuse all ills.
Heading down this path, pretty soon there will be nothing left to read, and no awards or buildings can be named after anyone anymore. People are a product of their times, and are mortal beings. Their writings reflect that. To object to Wilder seems irrational unless one also objects to Shakespeare, whose anti-Semitism and sexism are glaring in several plays. Avoiding great literature because it makes us uncomfortable in modern times will impoverish us all.
If I remember correctly, Laura didn’t almost drown. Her father pulled her under water to frighten her because she went into deeper water than he said she could. I think Laura’s questioning her mother at all about her views on the Indians is meant to show a challenge to her mother’s opinion. Children were seen and not heard.
I remember watching the Little House series when I was young. I tried reading the books, but couldn’t get through them. I thought the parents were portrayed as much nicer people in the TV series. I didn’t really care for the book versions.
@roycroft wholeheartedly agree. There will be nothing left.
Recently my oldest asked me to read Uncle Tom’s Cabin aloud as it was very difficult to slog through. So I reluctantly agreed. I was shocked by a number of things. That doesn’t mean it didn’t pique my interest in the themes. I have read many disturbing books and learned a lot.
I think the folks who want to edit, censor, rewrite or fill in the blank are people who want others to only do what agrees with them. They cannot stand for another to have a different opinion or they just to the moral high ground or their expertise (in a non related area) to pump up their weak arguments around the point at hand. Someone just censored LIW so they could feel better about the name of an award. And to those who don’t think that renaming something is a big deal, it’s a slippery slope. Ask anyone who has lived through the fall of a nation.
I might hate what someone has to say, but I will let them say it because I believe in free speech. This includes literature, art and culture. I’m happy to celebrate the 4th of July in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The Newbery Awards are named for a 19 century bookseller.
The Caldecotts are named for Randolph Caldecott who was a 19th century illustrator who did quite charming illustrations - I have a number of his books because my mother grew up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Caldecott
Well I spent way too much time today rereading Little House on the Prairie and you know, I think I am okay with them taking her name off the award. I think it’s pretty clear that LIW did not think all Native Americans were bad, but they definitely had both bad and okay experiences, but you could probably feel that the bad overwhelms the okay. I couldn’t find the part where Pa expresses more sympathy for the Native Americans. In that book at least, he seems to be saying “we got here first(!!!) so we get first dibs.” Pa is always less afraid and more sympathetic than Ma.
Caddie Woodlawn is a fine story, but it’s only one book - to me LIW is the whole series - the later books don’t deal with Native Americans at all. They are about starving through blizzards, having to work to help support your family, being a teacher when you are younger than your students (!) and any number of other things. It’s not a neat and tidy story at all.
This is fiction. These are made up characters. These are not personal beliefs. Shakespeare most likely did not think killing your father was a really good idea in real life but ok for macbeth. Jeez I hope Stephen king doesn’t have much of his characters personal traits in real life for that matter.
What the committee has done is not censorship. It is the withdrawal of approval or endorsement. Those are two different things.
All fiction and history is written from a particular point of view. If there is any lasting contribution to the study of humanities from postmodernism, it is the awareness that every account is inherently biased. The difficulty comes in determining whose biases deserve endorsement and whose don’t. Didactic children’s lit is generally pretty awful, no matter what the political slant. LIW’s works were based on her personal experience at least (and yes I’m aware of the debate over the extent to which her daughter Rose ghostwrote the books).
I was a member of ALA for many years, and changing the name of this award is painful, but not a bad decision or one lightly entered into. Reading a book to a child is a personal experience that raises questions and provokes thought; every book has context and meaning within that context.
However, awards are meant for honoring our best, giving us something to aspire to. These iconic books, this human author no longer fit the bill. It’s a name on an award, we’re not burning her in effigy. Part of acknowledging privelage is to see how idolizing someone might have been a mistake. Surely our sadness about this is not more important than a First Peoples child reading such unfair stereotypes?
So basically, values have changed. The positive messages of the books are overshadowed by the intolerable biases and prejudices of white frontier Americans in the 1870s.
Are people who are the descendants of white settlers obligated to reject their ancestors as morally flawed? Is respect for those ancestors “a mistake”? The toppling of cultural icons for certain segments of the population encourages ressentiment. If LIW is no longer “one of us” and no longer worthy of admiration, those who admire her are also no longer “one of us” by logical extension. It’s not as if she is Gunter Grass, who claimed one set of values but lived another.
Whitewashing history doesn’t help anyone, greenbutton. Wilder was a product of her time, and wasn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t very talented and dedicated at a time few women were authors, and yes, I think that is worthy of praise. I don’t doubt Shakespeare was in fact a misogynist and racist, but I can admire his unique talent. Wilder isn’t being honored for her humanitarianism, just her written work, which contributed to an understanding of pioneer life, warts and all.