I wonder what words we are using today that history will deem offensive..and thus us offensive too.

*are racist

Laura’s books are mostly non-fiction— accounting events as she experienced & remembered them (with some changes to things like the timeline, I realize). So should she have lied or omitted the parts about some townspeople hating “Indians” and her mother fearing them? Would it be better to leave out the part with everyone in blackface & pretend it never happened? These were HER experiences. It would truly be whitewashing history for her to have left out the ugly parts & prevailing white attitudes & actions of the time.
I read all these books to my kids & explained the historical context, that some things are complicated, and that some behavior in the book is of course very wrong.

I realize people aren’t trying to ban the book, but the award renaming implies Wilder & her books are are, which is what I’m addressing here.

My memory is that the really racist stuff is mostly said by her mother. Reading the books, it's pretty clear that Laura is not really on the same page as her mother on most things, and that her mother is definitely the conservative element in the family. Her views are probably indicative of the views of most white pioneers at the time and I think it would be white-washing to omit that racist attitude from any book about the time period.

The father has a different attitude about Native populations -- he generally admires their skills set and fortitude and thinks they've been ill-treated by the white man. The narrator (Laura) tends to be much more admiring of her father, so I read the books as implicitly accept this view.
That said, even the father is accepting of the dominant white view of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century -- that one could only really "own" land if you made use of it in an economic sense. There's a line where the father says something like that its okay for the white man to take the Indians' land because they will farm it, and the Indians were wasting good fertile farming land. That was definitely the predominant attitude that justified taking land from Native populations across the Americas (and, I'd guess, was probably also in play in parts of Europe in earlier centuries). It's not how we currently think of land and the rights of individuals or communities, but it's an incredibly important part of the pioneer experience.

I know this is adult analysis of the books, but looking back, I'm pretty sure that as a child, I read the mother as being, at a minimum, kind of a PITA and thought her views on Indians (as well as her views on how girls "should" behave) were dumb. The TV show was different than the books in how the mom was depicted, definitely.

I'm not sure how I feel about renaming the award itself. I guess I feel like naming things after people is inherently problematic because people are so flawed, and because social norms change so much from century to century that what was acceptable in one generation (like JFK's philandering and likely sexual harassment of women that worked with him) is really distasteful in another.

Anonymous wrote:You LIW fans are like a cult. The books are fun but yes, and they have racist parts that are HIGHLY offensive to POC. You aren't affected by it because you are white. Is that really too hard for you to fathom?

You obviously did not read well.

Are you white? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ALA implies that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a racist and removes her name from an award created for her, but the Geisel Award to Dr. Seuss is untouched.

I am sure Dr. Seuss is next on the chopping block.

No--there is nothing racist about Dr. Seuss, but your faux outrage is offensive.

Dr. Seuss was a man of his time and that means he was racist against Asians. He drew cartoons that depicted Japanese in very racist and stereotypical ways.

I love Dr. Seuss books but really, using the ALA standard, his works are more controversial and racist than Wilder's.

(I don't think either award should be changed, btw)

You LIW fans are like a cult. The books are fun but yes, and they have racist parts that are HIGHLY offensive to POC. You aren't affected by it because you are white. Is that really too hard for you to fathom?

Anonymous wrote:So ALA implies that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a racist and removes her name from an award created for her, but the Geisel Award to Dr. Seuss is untouched.

I am sure Dr. Seuss is next on the chopping block.

No--there is nothing racist about Dr. Seuss, but your faux outrage is offensive.

That song about "darkies" in the book was highly offensive, but I'll allow it.

They didn't revoke her receipt of said award though did they? And who are they?

The version of the site that I see has a full section on the Wilder Medal. The only section where the name has changed is the main page for the award. There is also full information on the change that says that past recipients have the option of using the new name, but barring that request, "past winners
would be acknowledged as having received the award under the Laura Ingalls Wilder name."

There is also an explanation of why they did not sunset the award entirely and start a new one in 2019.

So ALA implies that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a racist and removes her name from an award created for her, but the Geisel Award to Dr. Seuss is untouched.

I am sure Dr. Seuss is next on the chopping block.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is what they decided to do. There was a final 2017 recipient of the Wilder medal, and first 2018 recipient of the Children's Literature Legacy Award. It's no longer a medal, no longer named for Wilder, and it has different criteria than the old award.

No, that is not what they did.

Go to the ALA website.

All of the names have been changed starting with the first one awarded to Laura Ingalls Wilder through the 2018 winner.

There is an attachment pdf, for now, that has the list under Wilder Award but the official website has changed the name.

Their side links have not yet been changed, but ai am sure they will be in a day or two.

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.

This is what they decided to do. There was a final 2017 recipient of the Wilder medal, and first 2018 recipient of the Children's Literature Legacy Award. It's no longer a medal, no longer named for Wilder, and it has different criteria than the old award.

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.

That's a lot of words to put on an award. Wouldn't it just be better to change the name of the award? Oh, wait...