Laura Ingalls Wilder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Probably most immigrants in the 1800s and early 1900s never again saw their parents and the families they left behind. It is hard to comprehend that an adult today does not understand how expensive and difficult travel and even written communication was at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Probably most immigrants in the 1800s and early 1900s never again saw their parents and the families they left behind. It is hard to comprehend that an adult today does not understand how expensive and difficult travel and even written communication was at that time.

As I read this thread and posts like this one (her relationship with her parents must have sucked since she didn't talk or visit them regularly, etc) and the person who proclaims "someone in the 1930s should have known better than to be stereotypical or racist" (um...hello??) I am starting to understand why so many think purging history is a good idea.

They have no knowledge or understanding of even basic history and an inability to think critically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Probably most immigrants in the 1800s and early 1900s never again saw their parents and the families they left behind. It is hard to comprehend that an adult today does not understand how expensive and difficult travel and even written communication was at that time.

The new biography, Prairie Fires, makes it seem like she had steady (if infrequent) written communication until her father died in 1902. Then more sporadic before her mother’s death in 1924.

[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.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a HUGE stretch to claim that renaming this award is the same as "purging" her name and "erasing her as an author". The association that grants the award was very clear that they still encourage reading and discussing Wilder's books. Nobody is burning them behind the library.

Ok, so then why change it?

[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.

This.

Laura never advocated harm to anyone.

[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.

This.

Laura never advocated harm to anyone.

She wrote the statement "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" multiple times in her books. If she felt differently, she could have expressed young Laura's discomfort with those words in her writing. She was a senior citizen by the time she wrote them, that's enough time to develop character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Laura never advocated harm to anyone.

She wrote the statement "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" multiple times in her books. If she felt differently, she could have expressed young Laura's discomfort with those words in her writing. She was a senior citizen by the time she wrote them, that's enough time to develop character.

Your view of writing is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Laura never advocated harm to anyone.

She wrote the statement "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" multiple times in her books. If she felt differently, she could have expressed young Laura's discomfort with those words in her writing. She was a senior citizen by the time she wrote them, that's enough time to develop character.

She did.

[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.

This.

+1
Laura Ingalls didn't even see Native Americans as people. That's not something we should be celebrating in the name of children's literature.

[Anonymous]

I’m Native American and I forgive her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m Native American and I forgive her.

But do you give a rat's ass about the name of some book award?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Laura never advocated harm to anyone.

She wrote the statement "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" multiple times in her books. If she felt differently, she could have expressed young Laura's discomfort with those words in her writing. She was a senior citizen by the time she wrote them, that's enough time to develop character.

She did.

It was clear in that book that young Laura did not agree and thought the Indians should stay.

Also, Pa believes that the Indians have rights because they were their first. A direct quote by Pq from that book when Ma was complaining about too many Indians coming by was "Well, it's his path. An Indian trail long before we came."

Pa also said several times in that book some version of "(The Indians) are peaceable enough. If we treat them well and watch Jack, we won't have any trouble."

Pa stands up for the Indians against his neighbors several times in the book. When Mr. Scott says "The only good indian is a dead Indian" Pa puts him in his place with reason, telling Mr. Scott they "would be as peaceful as anyone else if they were just left alone," but they "were moved west so many times that naturally they hated white folks."

Finally, at the end of the chapter about the war council, Pa again compliments the Osage, and Laura Ingalls writes "No matter what Mr. Scott says, Pa did not believe that the only good Indian was a dead Indian." And when the Osage ride off, Pa salutes them in respect.

Laura spends several pages questioning her parents about Indians, asking over and over "Why" do they have to go west? "Why" is the government making them move? And stating "I thought this was Indian Territory. Won't it make the Indians mad to have to (leave)?"

Laura also talks about how sad, quiet and lonely she was watching the Osage leave the prairie, how she wanted to go with them, and how it made her and Pa feel like not eating.

Laura and Pa are the hero and heroine of this series. Laura Ingalls Wilder very clearly, through those two characters, makes a statement about how she feels about the way the tribes were treated.

[Anonymous]

I really don’t understand what some people want. WHY should she not include what the people around her said & thought at the time? She never comes close to “advocating for harm” to Indians. And sure, the Indians were collecting rent— but the Ingalls family did not know that, they did not know the Indians’ language or intentions, and they were understandably afraid. Similarly, some of the characters express hatred for Indians because of the Minnesota Massacre. Of course Native Americans were more wronged against as a whole, but history is complicated, people are complicated, and people tend to focus on their own experiences. This doesn’t make the author a racist for recounting these events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand what some people want. WHY should she not include what the people around her said & thought at the time? She never comes close to “advocating for harm” to Indians. And sure, the Indians were collecting rent— but the Ingalls family did not know that, they did not know the Indians’ language or intentions, and they were understandably afraid. Similarly, some of the characters express hatred for Indians because of the Minnesota Massacre. Of course Native Americans were more wronged against as a whole, but history is complicated, people are complicated, and people tend to focus on their own experiences. This doesn’t make the author a racist for recounting these events.

She said “there were no people-only Indians.” That shows a lack of humanity.