Laura Ingalls Wilder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She apologized for that and corrected it in her book.

[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.

That statement was said by Mr. Scott and in reference to Mr. Scott, and both times his statement was shown as being wrong, the first time by Pa standing up to Mr. Scott directly and arguing the Indians' side and the second time with Laura thinking/stating that no matter what Mr. Scott said, Pa would never agree with that statement.

She presented it as a viewpoint of Mr. Scott (portrayed as kind of impulsive and a bit stupid when he appears in the book) and each time she says that opinion is wrong.

How is that encouraging racism?

[Anonymous]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

Where, and when does anyone in Little House refer to people of color as "wild animals"?

Have you read the books?

The only actual black person in the entire series is Dr. Tan who saves their lives and the lives of all settlers. He is spoken of very favorably, including Laura saying how much she liked him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

I am not white and I am not offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

Where, and when does anyone in Little House refer to people of color as "wild animals"?

Have you read the books?

The only actual black person in the entire series is Dr. Tan who saves their lives and the lives of all settlers. He is spoken of very favorably, including Laura saying how much she liked him.

Why don’t you try reading the NYTimes article in the post you’re responding to which references the “wild animals” passage. After all, this thread is about reading. Anyway, the passage is from Little House in the big Woods which you would know if you had read the book carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

NP. So ... where and how do kids learn about origins of racial tensions and how they've evolved? How are white kids supposed to understand why a POC might not trust them? How do children of color learn why white people don't always recognize racism? It isn't just a numbers issue. Each group can learn from other groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

Where, and when does anyone in Little House refer to people of color as "wild animals"?

Have you read the books?

The only actual black person in the entire series is Dr. Tan who saves their lives and the lives of all settlers. He is spoken of very favorably, including Laura saying how much she liked him.

Why don’t you try reading the NYTimes article in the post you’re responding to which references the “wild animals” passage. After all, this thread is about reading. Anyway, the passage is from Little House in the big Woods which you would know if you had read the book carefully.

Little House in the Big Woods does not talk about Indians. I do not think they are even mentioned in the first book, although I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

Where, and when does anyone in Little House refer to people of color as "wild animals"?

Have you read the books?

The only actual black person in the entire series is Dr. Tan who saves their lives and the lives of all settlers. He is spoken of very favorably, including Laura saying how much she liked him.

Why don’t you try reading the NYTimes article in the post you’re responding to which references the “wild animals” passage. After all, this thread is about reading. Anyway, the passage is from Little House in the big Woods which you would know if you had read the book carefully.

You should read the books yourself in their entirety, instead of taking someone else's word from some NYT article.

[Anonymous]

Start with Little House in the Big Woods through the Happy Golden Years, then follow up with some of the modern biographies like Prairie Fires.

Look at each book in its entirety from your own lens, instead of taking the opinions on small excerpts taken out of context as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/books/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award.amp.html

Despite their popularity, Ms. Wilder’s books contain jarringly prejudicial portrayals of Native Americans and African Americans.

In the 1935 book “Little House on the Prairie,” for example, multiple characters espoused versions of the view that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” In one scene, a character describes Native Americans as “wild animals” undeserving of the land they lived on.

“Little Town on the Prairie,” published in 1941, included a description of a minstrel show with “five black-faced men in raggedy-taggedy uniforms” alongside a jolting illustration of the scene.

“There’s this subtle but very clear fear generated throughout the books,” said Debbie Reese, a scholar whose writing and research focus on portrayals of American Indians in children’s literature.

Dr. Reese, who belongs to the Nambe Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, said that the books could be used to educate high school or college students, but were inappropriate for young children.

“People are trying to use them and say, ‘Well, we can explain them,’ and I say: ‘O.K., you’re trying to explain racism to white people. Good for those white kids,’” she said. “But what about the Native and the black kids in the classroom who have to bear with the moment when they’re being denigrated for the benefit of the white kids?”

It is important for even children to understand this stuff, the history of it, the why and how we are where we are today and where we have come from.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and way smarter than the person you quoted could even imagine.

My child of color doesn’t need to hear people of color referred to as “wild animals” so a white kid can have a Teachable Moment. There are other books that depict pioneer life without offending everyone who is non-white.

By this logic, children shouldn’t be taught about slavery, Jim Crow, or any other times in history when groups were treated badly.
Better not read about red heads being executed as witches, or books by black authors that (understandably) portray white people poorly & unworhy of trust.

[Anonymous]

The minstrel show scene has ruined ELA class for enough AA and biracial ES kids.
Her book has been used to bully Native American children.
There are other books about prairie and settler life without racism to justify removing the book from required reading.