Anonymous wrote:I haven’t been following. Is Caddie Woodlawn next? What about Tom Sawyer? All of these books have unfavorable portrayal of Indians/Native Americans. They are products of their time—they still have literary merit. It’s time to teach context.

That was actually exactly the point that the ALA made--that kids should be reading these books critically, with guidance. They didn't call to ban the books or even edit those portions; they simply opted to no longer name their own award after Wilder out of concerns that the books did not necessarily reflect their current bar for what they are looking for in children's literature. That's certainly their prerogative, and pretty far from erasing her as an author.

I haven't yet re-read the Little House books with my own kids yet, though they were among my favorites as a child. However, I will say that I was appalled by a recent Roald Dahl book that I read aloud to my kids (Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator) that I had also loved as a kid. Reading it critically as an adult, it was horribly racist. We didn't stop reading it, but we did stop to talk about it. Everything has a context, and it's important to frame literature as a product of its time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't believe that renaming the award is part of a slippery slope. Other companies have handled similar situations without editing the work.

This is the disclaimer that Warner Bros puts before old Tom and Jerry cartoons. Seems like it would work in a lot of instances:

“Tom & Jerry” shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While not representing the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.

OP here, I would have been fine with something like this and keeping the name the same.

Or stopping the award, leaving those past awards with her name and beginning a new award with the new name, starting with the 2018 winner.

Good Lord, woman! You are really hung up on the name of this award. You might care more than pretty much everyone else in the country.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't believe that renaming the award is part of a slippery slope. Other companies have handled similar situations without editing the work.

This is the disclaimer that Warner Bros puts before old Tom and Jerry cartoons. Seems like it would work in a lot of instances:

“Tom & Jerry” shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While not representing the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.

OP here, I would have been fine with something like this and keeping the name the same.

Or stopping the award, leaving those past awards with her name and beginning a new award with the new name, starting with the 2018 winner.

I really don't believe that renaming the award is part of a slippery slope. Other companies have handled similar situations without editing the work.

This is the disclaimer that Warner Bros puts before old Tom and Jerry cartoons. Seems like it would work in a lot of instances:

“Tom & Jerry” shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While not representing the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.

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.

Personally, I think it's important to let children know that these books contain racist and offensive stereotypes so they understand the historical context of the books. Some children already understand, and some do not. The name of the award is pretty irrelevant to the children who read the books.

I grew wanting to BE Laura Ingalls Wilder

I will forever love her books and encourage my kids to read them

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.

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.

+1 It's shameful to read what's being said about her.

What shameful things are said about Laura Ingalls Wilder? Please provide quotes and sources.

+These also need to be quotes from true literary analysts, not random internet commenters at the bottom of an article.

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.

+1 It's shameful to read what's being said about her.

What shameful things are said about Laura Ingalls Wilder? Please provide quotes and sources.

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.

+1 It's shameful to read what's being said about her.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This is the first step.

They have sullied her name as something to be ashamed of, hidden away. They have implied that she is a racist, including retroactively removing he name from all the Wilder Awards already given including the first award that was given to Laura Ingalls Wilder

This is clearly a purging of history.

Oh please! Let me know when the portions of the books in the library have been redacted with black Sharpie. What do you care about some literary award that you have never heard of before today?

It's because of the attempts of the press to "scandalize" the situation, thereby slandering the name Laura Ingalls Wilder

I think her name has been dragged down many times over the decades, not only because of the racist language (which was not inappropriate at the time), but because she was notably inaccurate in some of her stories and had clearly changed many facts and events. The books are good historical reading, but they aren't the best books ever written. Who cares about the name of the award? The award still exists, and so do the books. Nothing is purged or whitewashed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not agree with the white washing of history. We need to learn from our past to do better in the future. And I think the citations of her work used to make this change were absurd.

OP here.

One of their arguments (the main one) used to justify the removal of Laura's name from the award was that having her name on it was too exclusive towards minority children. As a former child of minority, government discriminated heritage, I find this argument absurd and insulting.

Laura's depiction of history did not hurt me or make me less than. Her name did not make me feel not included. Her depiction of history made me stronger, more inquisitive, more interested in our past and more enlightened to where we failed and how far we came in just a short period of time, not only the time frame of the books but since the books were written.

As a parent I just cannot wrap my head around how little regard the ALA has for the intelligence, kindness, resilience and discernment of our kids, especially our minority kids.

This just further demonstrates how ridiculous we have become with being politically correct. Now we’ll be removing names of all individuals from awards and institutions? All those John F Kennedy schools need to start coming up with new names.