Laura Ingalls Wilder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple recent and we'll publicized biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder depicting her as an awful person as well as a politically active racist, and showing that almost nothing in the Little House series was true. I suspect that had some influence on the decision, even if they aren't saying it. "Author depicts lived experience in a way we now dislike" is different from "Manipulative, racist crank wrote fiction that is racist." The current view is the latter.

Sorry, writing to correct myself because the two biographies blurred in my head. Laura Wilder's daughter, Rose, was the politically active one. She's believed (by many not all) to have ghostwritten the books for Laura.

I think if it were a true story written by Laura I might feel differently about the racism in it, but the fact it is a fabrication heavily influenced by Rose really affects the context. The series' vision of westward expansion is so popular (I loved it too) and colors how we think about personal independence and can-do spirit, and then you read the family were constantly running from creditors and stealing from native peoples... Ick.

It's funny, because I do think that was at least Rose's goal with the books, but I don't think the books really achieve that. (The TV show was much more successful in making it seem like they had this wonderful, self-made life.) When I read the books as a kid, I mostly focused on the fact that they got to run around a lot in the grass and milk cows, which seemed cool to a suburban kid--I don't think I took any great life lessons from it, other than that it would be cool to know how to build your own house and make your own dolls. But reading them as an adult, I'm really struck by how shitty it all was, and how it appears that her father had a terrible case of ADHD (or maybe bipolar?). The part where he's gone for months looking for work but doesn't send any money and no one knows where he is or if he'll come back? Or the part about where they borrow money to put glass windows into their house, and then the locusts eat all the crops so they lost the entire house to the bank and have to move again? Yikes, yikes, yikes.

When I read the online biographies on LIW , I was surprised that she had almost no contact with her parents in the later years of their lives. I think when they died, she had not seen them in many years, maybe decades. I know people were poor and travel was tough, but that still struck me -- this was a family with some issues. I mostly feel bad for her, and happy that there were at least some nice moments in her childhood that she could look back on and appreciate, despite all the horrible things. As I'm writing this, maybe that's sort of a life lesson.

OMG, like why didn't she just text her parents or uber there?!?

I keep reading your post and wonder how does one get through the education system and remain this ignorant about history, including hardships and communication from the past.

[Anonymous]

I highly recommend the book Prairie Fires for anyone who is interested in LIW. I thought the book dragged at the end, mostly because the parts about Rose as an adult were so terrible. The beginning chapters where the authors tells the story of the Ingalls and Wilder families in the context of Indian removal and the fights for Indian sovereignty, which was very interesting. As a historian reading the LIW books to my own kid, I do feel better able to discuss the books knowing that background history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think your explanation is a severe exaggeration. All they did was remove her name from the award as a result of some racist language that was consistent with the language of the era when the books were written (1930s), but inappropriate today, especially since the books are nonfiction. In no way has she been "purged as an author". The ALA has made it very clear that they still encourage people to read and discuss the books as an important part of American history.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/us/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award-trnd/index.html

+1

She's not being "purged." No one is calling for her books to be banned. They just took her name off of an award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple recent and we'll publicized biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder depicting her as an awful person as well as a politically active racist, and showing that almost nothing in the Little House series was true. I suspect that had some influence on the decision, even if they aren't saying it. "Author depicts lived experience in a way we now dislike" is different from "Manipulative, racist crank wrote fiction that is racist." The current view is the latter.

Yeah, the books are treated like nonfiction, but she *heavily* altered the facts, leaving out and changing things that didn't fit her idealized version of her family, especially her father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I highly recommend the book Prairie Fires for anyone who is interested in LIW. I thought the book dragged at the end, mostly because the parts about Rose as an adult were so terrible. The beginning chapters where the authors tells the story of the Ingalls and Wilder families in the context of Indian removal and the fights for Indian sovereignty, which was very interesting. As a historian reading the LIW books to my own kid, I do feel better able to discuss the books knowing that background history.

Did Rose become a lesbian after she divorced her husband?

Laura's books talk about Rose's friend who she always brought with her. I always wondered if that "companion" was just a way to delicately say lover based off the sensitivities of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple recent and we'll publicized biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder depicting her as an awful person as well as a politically active racist, and showing that almost nothing in the Little House series was true. I suspect that had some influence on the decision, even if they aren't saying it. "Author depicts lived experience in a way we now dislike" is different from "Manipulative, racist crank wrote fiction that is racist." The current view is the latter.

Yeah, the books are treated like nonfiction, but she *heavily* altered the facts, leaving out and changing things that didn't fit her idealized version of her family, especially her father.

Most people, unless they are very bitter and heavily damaged emotionally, tend to forget or soften negative feelings for loved ones and mostly only remember the good things.

That her portrayal of Pa was so warm an positive given the time she wrote her books (critical blaming of parents was not a thing until recently) and the age she was when she wrote the series (nearly a half century past her youth) is completely to be expected and should not be shocking to anyone, especially since this is a children's book series.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

But why should it be portrayed any differently than it was since it was written from the perspective of a 5 or 6 year old child?

I guarantee that even if your modern child was put in that same situation, she would have similar memories, fear and shock as Laura did in the book and would not be thinking about rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

But why should it be portrayed any differently than it was since it was written from the perspective of a 5 or 6 year old child?

I guarantee that even if your modern child was put in that same situation, she would have similar memories, fear and shock as Laura did in the book and would not be thinking about rent.

No one said that Laura didn't have the right to write what she felt. But modern society doesn't need to honor her for her advocating harm to a specific population of humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

But why should it be portrayed any differently than it was since it was written from the perspective of a 5 or 6 year old child?

I guarantee that even if your modern child was put in that same situation, she would have similar memories, fear and shock as Laura did in the book and would not be thinking about rent.

No one said that Laura didn't have the right to write what she felt. But modern society doesn't need to honor her for her advocating harm to a specific population of humans.

+1 And she was an adult at the time these books were written. And they were written in the 1930s, that's old enough to have edited out her parent's racist tendencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

But why should it be portrayed any differently than it was since it was written from the perspective of a 5 or 6 year old child?

I guarantee that even if your modern child was put in that same situation, she would have similar memories, fear and shock as Laura did in the book and would not be thinking about rent.

No one said that Laura didn't have the right to write what she felt. But modern society doesn't need to honor her for her advocating harm to a specific population of humans.

+1 And she was an adult at the time these books were written. And they were written in the 1930s, that's old enough to have edited out her parent's racist tendencies.

How do you not know anything about the 1930s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People! All they did was change the name of the award. Nobody is banning the books. Yeesh!

No. They are disparaging her name and portraying anything affiliated with her as wrong. If this act was just meant to broaden the name there would be no commentary on her being racist or not being inclusive of minorities.

I’ve enjoyed the Little House Series but the way Laura protrays Indians (indigenous peoples) in her books is terrible and generally historically inaccurate. Multiple characters say “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I can see why they renamed the book award (which I had never heard of before this controversy.) I read the Little House series to my kids but make sure to point out the racist bits to them as unfortunate attitudes of time past.

That is not historically inaccurate.

Such things and worse were common sentiments of the time.

Saying the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" is the same as advocating ethnic cleansing. I don't know that it was common sentiment of that time, but it's certainly a vile point of view that Laura's family made. She also writes "there were no people there, only Indians" referring to the prairie. As a person of color, those statements make me nauseous. I'm sorry that you don't see that a child of color would feel similarly.

As for historically inaccurate, you need to read some reviews of the Little House series. What I was referring to was the portrayal of the Osage Indians in Little House on the Prairie. In the book, we see the Indians "stealing" from Ma and Pa and Pa being unfairly kicked off his land at the end of the book. But historians have noted that Pa had deliberately entered Indian Territory and was basically squatting on their land. Whether Laura knew it or not, historians have noted that the Indians were taking food and items as what they saw as "rent" from a squatter.

+1

But why should it be portrayed any differently than it was since it was written from the perspective of a 5 or 6 year old child?

I guarantee that even if your modern child was put in that same situation, she would have similar memories, fear and shock as Laura did in the book and would not be thinking about rent.

No one said that Laura didn't have the right to write what she felt. But modern society doesn't need to honor her for her advocating harm to a specific population of humans.

+1 And she was an adult at the time these books were written. And they were written in the 1930s, that's old enough to have edited out her parent's racist tendencies.

How do you not know anything about the 1930s?

That was my thought, too. Umm, the 1930s are old enough to have no racist tendencies? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your explanation is a severe exaggeration. All they did was remove her name from the award as a result of some racist language that was consistent with the language of the era when the books were written (1930s), but inappropriate today, especially since the books are nonfiction. In no way has she been "purged as an author". The ALA has made it very clear that they still encourage people to read and discuss the books as an important part of American history.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/us/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award-trnd/index.html

+1

She's not being "purged." No one is calling for her books to be banned. They just took her name off of an award.

Think about the importance of names on awards. It's not the same when one's name is removed. It's insulting and all the criticism is unwarranted, given the times in which she lived. She wrote about what she saw and knew.

[Anonymous]

I guess next is the Mark Twin Award for Humor? Just rename it as the Award for Humor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple recent and we'll publicized biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder depicting her as an awful person as well as a politically active racist, and showing that almost nothing in the Little House series was true. I suspect that had some influence on the decision, even if they aren't saying it. "Author depicts lived experience in a way we now dislike" is different from "Manipulative, racist crank wrote fiction that is racist." The current view is the latter.

Yeah, the books are treated like nonfiction, but she *heavily* altered the facts, leaving out and changing things that didn't fit her idealized version of her family, especially her father.

I've never known these books to be treated as non-fiction. In every library where I have seen them, they have always been shelved in the fiction category. These books were never meant to be a memoir or autobiography. They were stories for children, written from the point of view of a young girl as she grows up.