I have an MA in children's literature, and wrote a scholarly paper on Laura Ingalls Wilder. I have read the entire "Little House" series at least 50 times.

These wonderful books do need good forewards, and meaningful conversations and contextual discussions with young readers. But they are historically relevant, beautifully written, and important stories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

Nonsense. The American Library Association is never going to advocate for banning books, or removing them from libraries, or discouraging people from reading them. That would be totally contrary to their basic identity. You can recognize that a book is meaningful to many people, and has positive qualities and a place on the shelf, and also not want to use the author's name on a major award because some aspects of her work are not consistent with your values and mission.

This. You can think a book is a good read while also thinking it's full of racism. This article talks about a little Native American girl who came home crying after reading "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" in her third grade class.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/6/26/17502346/laura-ingalls-wilder-award-little-house-books-racism

The books have racism in them but the main character isn't racist. It was a time of racism. If the books were not full of racism, then they'd be full of lies. Would that be more sensible?

'

Except that the racism is only going from one direction--from white people to dark skinned people. There are other alternatives to learn about that period of history. Children’s librarians have suggested offering Little House fans the Birchbark series, by American Indian author Louise Erdrich. Birchbark takes place in about the same time period as Little House, but its characters are Ojibwe. That way I can have my kids learn about that time period without having them feel that they are "less than" for being dark skinned.

So you do not want your kids to learn about any side of history but your own? And you do not want them to see how some people justified what happened to the native people, or that other like Laura and Pa questioned and disagreed with the common sentiments of the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

Nonsense. The American Library Association is never going to advocate for banning books, or removing them from libraries, or discouraging people from reading them. That would be totally contrary to their basic identity. You can recognize that a book is meaningful to many people, and has positive qualities and a place on the shelf, and also not want to use the author's name on a major award because some aspects of her work are not consistent with your values and mission.

This. You can think a book is a good read while also thinking it's full of racism. This article talks about a little Native American girl who came home crying after reading "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" in her third grade class.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/6/26/17502346/laura-ingalls-wilder-award-little-house-books-racism

The books have racism in them but the main character isn't racist. It was a time of racism. If the books were not full of racism, then they'd be full of lies. Would that be more sensible?

'

Except that the racism is only going from one direction--from white people to dark skinned people. There are other alternatives to learn about that period of history. Children’s librarians have suggested offering Little House fans the Birchbark series, by American Indian author Louise Erdrich. Birchbark takes place in about the same time period as Little House, but its characters are Ojibwe. That way I can have my kids learn about that time period without having them feel that they are "less than" for being dark skinned.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

Nonsense. The American Library Association is never going to advocate for banning books, or removing them from libraries, or discouraging people from reading them. That would be totally contrary to their basic identity. You can recognize that a book is meaningful to many people, and has positive qualities and a place on the shelf, and also not want to use the author's name on a major award because some aspects of her work are not consistent with your values and mission.

This. You can think a book is a good read while also thinking it's full of racism. This article talks about a little Native American girl who came home crying after reading "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" in her third grade class.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/6/26/17502346/laura-ingalls-wilder-award-little-house-books-racism

The books have racism in them but the main character isn't racist. It was a time of racism. If the books were not full of racism, then they'd be full of lies. Would that be more sensible?

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.

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.

I teach history. When I discuss slavery and other horrific issues, I teach them from the perspective of the people who experienced it, not from a white gaze on “the other”. Would you teach the American Revolution only using a novel with a wealthy British child as the protagonist?

I would be interested if that child lived in America during the time of the Revolution, sure. He/she could explain how they felt and it would be cool to see the other side!

I think that you need to hear from the white person who had slaves as well as the slaves themselves! We ask how could they do this and if we read what they wrote than we know how they justified it..( and some had to do a lot of explaining to have it make logical sense) When we do this than we can expose them for their hypocrisy and avoid the mistakes that they made.

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.

NP First of all, when she wrote the book she had no idea how popular they would become so she only planned to write one book! That is why she changed some facts to make it an easier read. Also, I remember she didn't want to make the readers sad ( so she left out the death of her brother) or confused ( she had a cousin named Laura Ingells too I believe)

Also, I think it would be worse if she didn't write about what was actually being thought and said by her parents even if they were racist. By not writing it down it will erase it from history and in essence deny what we really did to native Americans. Here we have evidence and can talk about it. I think people would complain if she wrote something that was not true.

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

Nonsense. The American Library Association is never going to advocate for banning books, or removing them from libraries, or discouraging people from reading them. That would be totally contrary to their basic identity. You can recognize that a book is meaningful to many people, and has positive qualities and a place on the shelf, and also not want to use the author's name on a major award because some aspects of her work are not consistent with your values and mission.

This. You can think a book is a good read while also thinking it's full of racism. This article talks about a little Native American girl who came home crying after reading "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" in her third grade class.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/6/26/17502346/laura-ingalls-wilder-award-little-house-books-racism

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

Nonsense. The American Library Association is never going to advocate for banning books, or removing them from libraries, or discouraging people from reading them. That would be totally contrary to their basic identity. You can recognize that a book is meaningful to many people, and has positive qualities and a place on the shelf, and also not want to use the author's name on a major award because some aspects of her work are not consistent with your values and mission.

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

That was a cop out by ALA.

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.

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.

It's not shocking, but it's worth remembering that these books are not pure non-fiction. A lot of the defense of them is that they are just reporting what actually happened to her, but that's not quite true.

I don't see removing her name from the award as that big of a deal. The ALA isn't going to advocate for banning any books, FFS. They specifically stated that they hope people keep reading her books, and discussing them, and thinking about them critically. They just don't want her name on the award anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Required reading? You had to read these books in school?

This thread has wandered far afield.

It hasn’t wandered far afield just because people are expressing perspectives you disagree with. Yes, in some schools, Laura Ingalls Wilder was required reading as part of history lessons, less so now, obviously because people are more congnizant of the racist parts of the book.

No, OP here.

It is wandering so far afield because someone must have reported the original thread and asked Jeff to move it to entertainment.

I originally posted in Elementary Education, just so we could discuss this broader issue and how it relates to our kids.

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.

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.

I teach history. When I discuss slavery and other horrific issues, I teach them from the perspective of the people who experienced it, not from a white gaze on “the other”. Would you teach the American Revolution only using a novel with a wealthy British child as the protagonist?

No one here or anywhere has said that Laura's books are the only perspective.

Her books present a variety of perspectives that are accurate for the times and is a valuable historical teaching tool for children.

Her Little House on the Prairie book has everything from Mr. Scott who says "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" and Mrs. Scott who is terrified throughout the book that the settlers will be massacred just like in Minnesota, to Ma who is afraid of and does not like Indians, but won't talk about it and keeps changing the subject.

On the other side is Pa who respects the Indians greatly and argues their side throughout the book, telling Mr. Scott, Ma and Laura that the Indians are right to be angry at the whites for taking their lands, and if the white people would only treat the Indians fairly the Indians would be just as peaceful as everyone else.

And then there is Laura who questions all of them throughout the book, with her constant "Why" and repeatedly saying, including to Ma "If you dislike Indians so much why did you move to Indian Country?"

Little House on the Prairie is an incredibly nuanced and well written book that does an exceptional job capturing the time and showing the whys of history.

History has many sides.

If you as a history teacher feel that it is morally superior to teach only one side, be it that of only the conqueror or only the conquered, then you are doing a huge disservice to your students and society, and you are completely, 100%, failing your students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Required reading? You had to read these books in school?

This thread has wandered far afield.

It hasn’t wandered far afield just because people are expressing perspectives you disagree with. Yes, in some schools, Laura Ingalls Wilder was required reading as part of history lessons, less so now, obviously because people are more congnizant of the racist parts of the book.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Required reading? You had to read these books in school?

This thread has wandered far afield.

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.

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.

I teach history. When I discuss slavery and other horrific issues, I teach them from the perspective of the people who experienced it, not from a white gaze on “the other”. Would you teach the American Revolution only using a novel with a wealthy British child as the protagonist?