Rethinking the legacy of Laura Ingalls Wilder
June 26, 2018 11:59 AM Subscribe
A branch of the ALA has removed Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from an award for children's literature. Laura Ingalls Wilder was (and is) beloved for her landmark Little House on the Prairie series, but her books have rightfully been decried for their racism against Native Americans, among other things. The ALA has reassured their constituency that this is not intended as censorship or meant to suppress discussion of these works. Conservatives are, predictably, outraged.
The questionable politics and racism of the Little House books have been noted previously. Christine Woodside goes into further detail in this Politico article from 2016.
The questionable politics and racism of the Little House books have been noted previously. Christine Woodside goes into further detail in this Politico article from 2016.
From the NPR article:
posted by Fizz at 12:10 PM on June 26, 2018 [61 favorites]
However, some Wilder scholars say the author's work shouldn't be downplayed. Instead, they say, it should be scrutinized — and taken as an opportunity to inform children of the context surrounding it.This is something I'm very much about. Confront it head on and use it as a teachable moment.
posted by Fizz at 12:10 PM on June 26, 2018 [61 favorites]
My mom (an ardent Trumpist) was posting about this yesterday.) Somehow I ended up engaging people on her FB about it. Kill me now.
I’m actually kind of hesitant about the whole thing? I mean, yes, I know the problems. But I also feel a little strange about it. But it’s not my decision and it doesn’t really make a difference. Go read “Prairie Fires,” it’s great.
posted by PussKillian at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
I’m actually kind of hesitant about the whole thing? I mean, yes, I know the problems. But I also feel a little strange about it. But it’s not my decision and it doesn’t really make a difference. Go read “Prairie Fires,” it’s great.
posted by PussKillian at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
How many of the complaining conservatives have actually read any of Wilder's books in the last twenty years?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
Laura's racism is bad enough, but add to that the abhorrent politics of her daughter Rose Wilder-Lane who was instrumental in the production of the book series and I'm left thinking it would be fine if the entire thing disappeared from American culture. Much of the "Sweat of his brow" libertarian thinking comes from idealized depictions of American settlers in books like the Little House series, as if those homesteads came from nowhere and the Federal Government wasn't continually propping up western settlers during crop failures and natural disasters.
To be fair, at the time there were plenty of politicians speaking out against those welfare programs just as conservatives do today, and their rhetoric filled as many bellies then as it does now.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:18 PM on June 26, 2018 [39 favorites]
To be fair, at the time there were plenty of politicians speaking out against those welfare programs just as conservatives do today, and their rhetoric filled as many bellies then as it does now.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:18 PM on June 26, 2018 [39 favorites]
Yep - Lane, in her own blinkered and privileged way, tried to be an anti-racist, but ended up decrying left anti-racist action as, effectively, a series of Communist plots. She's very likely the real villain here, although Wilder herself was also on the record as being a virulent hater of the New Deal and progressive government in general.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Seconding the rec for Prairie Fires. Relevant to issues today, with people hating the government while being completely dependent on it, in some cases because of their own bad choices (Pa), and letting racism dictate policy as well.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:34 PM on June 26, 2018 [19 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 12:34 PM on June 26, 2018 [19 favorites]
Books like that are almost a fetish for a certain crowd of conservative Christian women who like to imagine themselves with their bonnets and calico dresses and haven't spent much time thinking what kind of idiotic irresponsible behavior Pa was dragging his family through, and lots of people like the anti-government "independent" spirit of them. And for those people, I mean, I don't exactly think they're convinced the racism is reason enough to stop treating the books like American Classics. I don't even think they're convinced that the racist bits are racist, because there's a pretty good chance that the only history lessons they ever got about Native Americans were just as racist as those books if not more so and they are not precisely motivated to learn more on the subject.
posted by Sequence at 12:46 PM on June 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 12:46 PM on June 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
Not just conservatives are outraged. This has been blowing up my FB feed lately with decidedly non-conservative friends losing their minds over the books at this "step too far!" regarding the sullying of their beloved childhood book and the inevitable slippery slope. Sigh.
posted by desuetude at 12:47 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by desuetude at 12:47 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Laura Ingalls Wilder's racism is our racism as well.
posted by JamesBay at 12:48 PM on June 26, 2018 [23 favorites]
posted by JamesBay at 12:48 PM on June 26, 2018 [23 favorites]
I deeply love Laura Ingalls Wilder's books. This coexists at the same time as I can't imagine being an author of color who receives an award named for someone who wrote "There were no people on the land, only Indians," and has Pa participate in a minstrel show dressed up as a "darky." Our faves are problematic; we don't have to continue to glorify the wounds they have caused.
That said, I'd love to see this sort of reconsideration of authors who aren't beloved women writing books beloved by girls, as well.
posted by ChuraChura at 12:52 PM on June 26, 2018 [100 favorites]
That said, I'd love to see this sort of reconsideration of authors who aren't beloved women writing books beloved by girls, as well.
posted by ChuraChura at 12:52 PM on June 26, 2018 [100 favorites]
These books had a huge influence on my childhood. I read them repeatedly, and my mom and I used to turn out all the lights and play "prairie nights" and pretend that we were living in the olden days without electricity. I'm a huge history nerd even today, and the genesis of that was in these books. Still, the points made above stand. No childhood books should ever be held more precious than the lives and voices of our brothers and sisters of other races, religions, skin colors, etc. There shouldn't be any hesitation here, I feel.
posted by backwards compatible at 1:00 PM on June 26, 2018 [36 favorites]
posted by backwards compatible at 1:00 PM on June 26, 2018 [36 favorites]
I loved the Laura Ingalls Wilder books as a kid, and I recently bought the first couple to read to my daughter... and even in Little House in the Big Woods I had to skip some lines, or break into "That's what a lot of people thought in the olden days, but now we know they were wrong." I'd already decided that I couldn't deal with discussing Little House on the Prairie with a 4 year old, but I may still want to read it with her when she's 7 or 8. We'll see.
I will have to check out Prairie Fires for myself.
posted by Kriesa at 1:22 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I will have to check out Prairie Fires for myself.
posted by Kriesa at 1:22 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Laura refused to say obey when she married Almanzo.
The black Dr. Tann treated the family when they had malaria in Little House on the Prairie.
Peter Bagge's graphic novel about Rose Wilder Lane will be published next year.
posted by brujita at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
The black Dr. Tann treated the family when they had malaria in Little House on the Prairie.
Peter Bagge's graphic novel about Rose Wilder Lane will be published next year.
posted by brujita at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
The AICL blog's post is worth reading and has some further links.
I'm not sure that renaming an award is a blanket statement that the books are not worth reading, just that honoring them in such a way ignores and minimizes hurtful content.
posted by vunder at 1:31 PM on June 26, 2018 [21 favorites]
I'm not sure that renaming an award is a blanket statement that the books are not worth reading, just that honoring them in such a way ignores and minimizes hurtful content.
posted by vunder at 1:31 PM on June 26, 2018 [21 favorites]
The director the new Mr Rogers documentary related in an interview that Rogers used to edit past shows to better fit with the times:
The ALSC hasn't voided the award given to Wilder. Surely they still believe she "made, over a period of years, a substantial and lasting contribution to literature for children." But the depersonalized award name may better convey that such a contribution takes different forms as the world changes.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2018 [33 favorites]
There’s one detail that I really liked that’s not in the film, which is he felt like the shows should be evergreen. As he often said, the outside world of the child changes, but the inside of the child never changes. So he thought his shows should play the same to two-year-olds now or 20 years ago. But as the years would go on, he would find things that had happened in old episodes that didn’t feel current, where maybe he used a pronoun “he” instead of “they” — or he met a woman and presumed that she was a housewife. So he would put on the same clothes and go back and shoot inserts and fix old episodes so that they felt as current as possible, so that he could stand by them 100 percent. I’ve never heard of that happening — it’s kind of amazing.My mind isn't made up in any coherent way about how we should honor individuals of the past, "problematic" as we all are to lesser and greater degrees. In general, I seek out the gist of the individual, their fundamental ethos. But that essential nature isn't something we all agree on.
The ALSC hasn't voided the award given to Wilder. Surely they still believe she "made, over a period of years, a substantial and lasting contribution to literature for children." But the depersonalized award name may better convey that such a contribution takes different forms as the world changes.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2018 [33 favorites]
Came here hoping to commiserate with "argh, PC-ness gone overboard!!", was disappointed. For God's sake, the award was specifically created for her since the Newbery Medal was focused on books for younger readers. Don't take that away from her.
Should we change the Mark Twain prize too, since he uses the n word?
posted by Melismata at 1:50 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Should we change the Mark Twain prize too, since he uses the n word?
posted by Melismata at 1:50 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Laura refused to say obey when she married Almanzo.
But hastens to assure him that she’s not for women’s lib and doesn’t want to vote.
posted by the_blizz at 1:52 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
But hastens to assure him that she’s not for women’s lib and doesn’t want to vote.
posted by the_blizz at 1:52 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Should we change the Mark Twain prize too, since he uses the n word?
Twain using the n-word in a landmark anti-racist novel is way different than Ingalls Wilder.
If you support the removal of confederate statues and not this, you're being hypocritical.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 1:55 PM on June 26, 2018 [31 favorites]
Twain using the n-word in a landmark anti-racist novel is way different than Ingalls Wilder.
If you support the removal of confederate statues and not this, you're being hypocritical.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 1:55 PM on June 26, 2018 [31 favorites]
Every statement about this I've seen takes specific pains to reaffirm the value of reading Wilder's widely beloved work, whatever its problems may be.
From what I've gathered, all past recipients of the award are able to choose whether they would like to be referred to as Wilder award winners or Children's Literature Legacy Award winners.
The award itself isn't Wilder's to give, it was formerly named in recognition of the value of her contributions, it isn't going to be named that way going forward because those who award it choose to do so. Past referral is now a matter of choice.
Nothing's being taken away from anyone.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:58 PM on June 26, 2018 [35 favorites]
From what I've gathered, all past recipients of the award are able to choose whether they would like to be referred to as Wilder award winners or Children's Literature Legacy Award winners.
The award itself isn't Wilder's to give, it was formerly named in recognition of the value of her contributions, it isn't going to be named that way going forward because those who award it choose to do so. Past referral is now a matter of choice.
Nothing's being taken away from anyone.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:58 PM on June 26, 2018 [35 favorites]
On the Rose Wilder Lane aspect - there's significant evidence now that Rose actually did most of the writing. The book Libertarians on the Prairie is another one that is well worth a read. The author, who is herself a libertarian, cites a bunch of the history that Rose and Laura fudged to make the story support libertarianism when real-life events really didn't.
posted by rednikki at 2:20 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by rednikki at 2:20 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
If you support the removal of confederate statues and not this, you're being hypocritical.
So Laura Ingalls Wilder is a literal traitor who took up arms against America and fought in a rebellion? You can totally think this is overreach and be against confederate war monuments, and conflating the issue is just unhelpful political gate-keeping.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [21 favorites]
So Laura Ingalls Wilder is a literal traitor who took up arms against America and fought in a rebellion? You can totally think this is overreach and be against confederate war monuments, and conflating the issue is just unhelpful political gate-keeping.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [21 favorites]
The dignity of these people completely belied all the racist crap Ma had been spewing about them.
The little white girl having sympathy for the noble savages who don't actually get any kind of real characterization is still a problem, and that's her at her best, which is not all the time.
Laura was less racist than her mother. She was still racist. If you don't come away from Little House on the Prairie with the impression that there was something deeply disgusting going on with the goals and actions of the white people, then the book is not accurately conveying what was going on. Just because the main character is a child doesn't change that Wilder's books still validate a lot of her parents' actions even while they condemn a few things they say.
posted by Sequence at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [14 favorites]
The little white girl having sympathy for the noble savages who don't actually get any kind of real characterization is still a problem, and that's her at her best, which is not all the time.
What they perceive is sad, even tragic, but it is not culpable. It is not "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing." It evokes the same spirit of melancholy evoked by Shelley's Ozymandias and the whole romantic tradition, but it does not evoke either in Laura or in Wilder's readers any sense that, as receivers of stolen property, the story entails for them a sense of responsibility.-- Frances W. Kaye
Laura was less racist than her mother. She was still racist. If you don't come away from Little House on the Prairie with the impression that there was something deeply disgusting going on with the goals and actions of the white people, then the book is not accurately conveying what was going on. Just because the main character is a child doesn't change that Wilder's books still validate a lot of her parents' actions even while they condemn a few things they say.
posted by Sequence at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [14 favorites]
> Nothing's being taken away from anyone.
Having an award named after you is a high honor. This is taking that honor away from Wilder. (Nb: I'm not implying that honor should always be given once given, merely that there is something real being taken away here).
> Every statement about this I've seen takes specific pains to reaffirm the value of reading Wilder's widely beloved work, whatever its problems may be.
If we can trust readers to separate the good from the bad in Wilder's work, why can't we trust "people who hear about the award" to?
posted by ReadEvalPost at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Having an award named after you is a high honor. This is taking that honor away from Wilder. (Nb: I'm not implying that honor should always be given once given, merely that there is something real being taken away here).
> Every statement about this I've seen takes specific pains to reaffirm the value of reading Wilder's widely beloved work, whatever its problems may be.
If we can trust readers to separate the good from the bad in Wilder's work, why can't we trust "people who hear about the award" to?
posted by ReadEvalPost at 2:23 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
On the Rose Wilder Lane aspect - there's significant evidence now that Rose actually did most of the writing.
Newer scholarship, addressed in "Prairie Fires" and other works, says that she did some of the writing, and most of the editing, but not most of the writing.
posted by Melismata at 2:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
Newer scholarship, addressed in "Prairie Fires" and other works, says that she did some of the writing, and most of the editing, but not most of the writing.
posted by Melismata at 2:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
That said, I'd love to see this sort of reconsideration of authors who aren't beloved women writing books beloved by girls, as well.
Yeah, this. Like: I would defy anyone to read a single issue edited by Hugo Gernsback, whom the Hugo is named after, that didn’t contain what we would now think of as horrific sexism. Is that being renamed? No. Just the award named after a woman, when we already have too few of them.
posted by corb at 2:30 PM on June 26, 2018 [33 favorites]
Yeah, this. Like: I would defy anyone to read a single issue edited by Hugo Gernsback, whom the Hugo is named after, that didn’t contain what we would now think of as horrific sexism. Is that being renamed? No. Just the award named after a woman, when we already have too few of them.
posted by corb at 2:30 PM on June 26, 2018 [33 favorites]
On the Rose Wilder Lane aspect - there's significant evidence now that Rose actually did most of the writing.
I think it's more like the two of them worked on the books together, with LIW doing most of the writing and Lane editing and doing some steering of the narrative and probably writing some bits of it. However, LIW was an experienced writer and depended on Lane's help but didn't let her carry off the whole project . I don't believe it's now thought that the books are more hers than LIW's.
(Sorry, Melismata, you beat me to it!)
I still feel a little sad about the renaming, because it does feel like something is being taken away. I know I'm not supposed to, and I know it's not going to haunt me or anything, but that's how I feel at the moment.
posted by PussKillian at 2:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think it's more like the two of them worked on the books together, with LIW doing most of the writing and Lane editing and doing some steering of the narrative and probably writing some bits of it. However, LIW was an experienced writer and depended on Lane's help but didn't let her carry off the whole project . I don't believe it's now thought that the books are more hers than LIW's.
(Sorry, Melismata, you beat me to it!)
I still feel a little sad about the renaming, because it does feel like something is being taken away. I know I'm not supposed to, and I know it's not going to haunt me or anything, but that's how I feel at the moment.
posted by PussKillian at 2:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
It should also be mentioned that the Board of the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library Association (ALA) commissioned a task force, the task force wrote a report and the Board voted unanimously in favor of changing the name of the award going forward. Isn't this the role and function of a board?
posted by vunder at 2:33 PM on June 26, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by vunder at 2:33 PM on June 26, 2018 [7 favorites]
I haven't ever read the books, and while I was aware of the TV series I doubt I ever saw an episode. But when I heard the award was being named because a series of books written in the early 20th century reflected a racist view of native Americans, I wasn't surprised.
Reading the explanation given in the linked NPR piece, I was surprised: In 1935's Little House on the Prairie, for example, Wilder described one setting as a place where "there were no people. Only Indians lived there." That description was changed in later editions of the book. And multiple characters in the Little House series intone that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
I actually expected something more virulent. Can those more familiar with the book say if, rather than examples of racism viciously expressed, it's rather that the books fairly accurately reflect the genuine feelings of most white settlers towards indigenous people, which would necessarily be offensive?
I'm not asking this to excuse Wilder or quarrel with the decision to rename the award. I'm just wondering whether the NPR's examples are poorly selected or whether the decision reflects a judgement on the underlying ideology of the books rather than specific language or scenes.
posted by layceepee at 2:43 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Reading the explanation given in the linked NPR piece, I was surprised: In 1935's Little House on the Prairie, for example, Wilder described one setting as a place where "there were no people. Only Indians lived there." That description was changed in later editions of the book. And multiple characters in the Little House series intone that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
I actually expected something more virulent. Can those more familiar with the book say if, rather than examples of racism viciously expressed, it's rather that the books fairly accurately reflect the genuine feelings of most white settlers towards indigenous people, which would necessarily be offensive?
I'm not asking this to excuse Wilder or quarrel with the decision to rename the award. I'm just wondering whether the NPR's examples are poorly selected or whether the decision reflects a judgement on the underlying ideology of the books rather than specific language or scenes.
posted by layceepee at 2:43 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Roger Lea MacBride inherited Rose's estate and published a series of kids books about her about 25 years ago. In them Eliza Jane is written positively about being a Eugene Debs supporter and Rose thwarts her condescending principal at graduation by speaking in Latin( which iirc he didn't understand) about women's rights.
posted by brujita at 3:32 PM on June 26, 2018
posted by brujita at 3:32 PM on June 26, 2018
Having an award named after you is a high honor. This is taking that honor away from Wilder.
We could ask her whether she feels less honored, but she’s been dead for sixty years, so I suspect she won’t mind.
posted by Etrigan at 3:35 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
We could ask her whether she feels less honored, but she’s been dead for sixty years, so I suspect she won’t mind.
posted by Etrigan at 3:35 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
I think the judgment reflects the underlying ideology of the books,. The books, as much as I love them, are basically a story of manifest destiny and settler colonialism. The community around Children's Lit has been discussing representation, diversity, white supremacy, and so on pretty extensively for the past couple of years, and I think it's reasonable for the ALA to consider whether the award they are giving for children's literature represents what the community wants it to represent, and decide that maybe the author of a book that makes manifest destiny and settler colonialism beloved and heartwarming family stories does not do that.
posted by ChuraChura at 3:48 PM on June 26, 2018 [43 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 3:48 PM on June 26, 2018 [43 favorites]
layceepee: From this piece (I don't really know what pictorial.jezebel is?)
"a piece at the Washington Post on the change provides some examples:
The book includes multiple statements from characters saying, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” In 1998, an 8-year-old girl on the Upper Sioux Reservation was so disturbed after hearing her teacher read the statement aloud in class that she went home crying, leading her mother to unsuccessfully petition the school district to ban the book from its curriculum.
Elsewhere in the book, Osage tribe members are sometimes depicted as animalistic, notes the critic Philip Heldrich: In one scene, Wilder describes them as wearing a “leather thong” with “the furry skin of a small animal” hanging down in front, making “harsh sounds” and having “bold and fierce” faces with “black eyes.” Although Laura’s father espouses a more tolerant view of Native Americans, his description of a “good Indian” is one who is “no common trash.”"
posted by vunder at 3:51 PM on June 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
"a piece at the Washington Post on the change provides some examples:
The book includes multiple statements from characters saying, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” In 1998, an 8-year-old girl on the Upper Sioux Reservation was so disturbed after hearing her teacher read the statement aloud in class that she went home crying, leading her mother to unsuccessfully petition the school district to ban the book from its curriculum.
Elsewhere in the book, Osage tribe members are sometimes depicted as animalistic, notes the critic Philip Heldrich: In one scene, Wilder describes them as wearing a “leather thong” with “the furry skin of a small animal” hanging down in front, making “harsh sounds” and having “bold and fierce” faces with “black eyes.” Although Laura’s father espouses a more tolerant view of Native Americans, his description of a “good Indian” is one who is “no common trash.”"
posted by vunder at 3:51 PM on June 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
Can those more familiar with the book say if, rather than examples of racism viciously expressed, it's rather that the books fairly accurately reflect the genuine feelings of most white settlers towards indigenous people, which would necessarily be offensive?
Mmmm, both I'd say. There's a lot that feels woven into the story, but there's also holy shit Ma is so racist. She is the racist Ayn Rand of the prairies. (Also, she's a drip, but her racism is, uh, actually kind of shocking to read.)
Funnily enough, I"m re-reading the books right now, after finishing The Wilder Life. And...I love them. I was absolutely devoted to them as a child, and I still love them. But they are deeply problematic in a lot of ways -- see above in re: Ma, and the infamous scene feat. Pa in blackface. There's also really, really uncomfortable Manifest Destiny and the Nobility of The Farmer and a heavy serving of 'don't ever rely on anyone ever ever society is not a thing' libertarianism. (This is suspiciously quiet when Almanzo and Cap risk their lives to buy grain for the town in the The Long Winter, thus saving everyone from starvation and refusing payment for it.)
So, yeah. I'm not upset about this. The books are gorgeous, and they make me want to finally travel to South Dakota and see the prairie for myself, but if you asked me would I read them to a child? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. It depends on the child, and how good they are with discussions about what the books have terribly wrong.
posted by kalimac at 4:01 PM on June 26, 2018 [16 favorites]
Mmmm, both I'd say. There's a lot that feels woven into the story, but there's also holy shit Ma is so racist. She is the racist Ayn Rand of the prairies. (Also, she's a drip, but her racism is, uh, actually kind of shocking to read.)
Funnily enough, I"m re-reading the books right now, after finishing The Wilder Life. And...I love them. I was absolutely devoted to them as a child, and I still love them. But they are deeply problematic in a lot of ways -- see above in re: Ma, and the infamous scene feat. Pa in blackface. There's also really, really uncomfortable Manifest Destiny and the Nobility of The Farmer and a heavy serving of 'don't ever rely on anyone ever ever society is not a thing' libertarianism. (This is suspiciously quiet when Almanzo and Cap risk their lives to buy grain for the town in the The Long Winter, thus saving everyone from starvation and refusing payment for it.)
So, yeah. I'm not upset about this. The books are gorgeous, and they make me want to finally travel to South Dakota and see the prairie for myself, but if you asked me would I read them to a child? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. It depends on the child, and how good they are with discussions about what the books have terribly wrong.
posted by kalimac at 4:01 PM on June 26, 2018 [16 favorites]
I loved those books as a child, still do. But they are quite problematic. I read little house to my kids, and was shocked at how much censoring I had to do. I actually did an ask metafilter about this topic: the good people recommended we read the birchbark house by Louise Ehrdrich as a first-nations point of view sequel.
Honestly though, growing up in Ontario in the 80s and reading these books was not great for learning about First Nations people as more than just stereotypes.
posted by Valancy Rachel at 4:10 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Honestly though, growing up in Ontario in the 80s and reading these books was not great for learning about First Nations people as more than just stereotypes.
posted by Valancy Rachel at 4:10 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Peter Bagge's graphic novel about Rose Wilder Lane will be published next year.
Who's next, Ayn Rand? You can do quite a bit better for feminist role models than Rose Lane.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:14 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Who's next, Ayn Rand? You can do quite a bit better for feminist role models than Rose Lane.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:14 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
> We could ask her whether she feels less honored, but she’s been dead for sixty years, so I suspect she won’t mind.
Well yeah, honoring the dead isn't for the benefit of the dead. It's for our benefit to pass on things we believe are meaningful and to inspire ourselves to create similar legacies. If you believe that Wilder shouldn't be read at all, I completely understand wanting her name off the award. If you believe Wilder should be read but in the proper context (the position of the ALA and ALSC), I'm befuddled as to why it's important to remove a part of her legacy.
posted by ReadEvalPost at 4:27 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, honoring the dead isn't for the benefit of the dead. It's for our benefit to pass on things we believe are meaningful and to inspire ourselves to create similar legacies. If you believe that Wilder shouldn't be read at all, I completely understand wanting her name off the award. If you believe Wilder should be read but in the proper context (the position of the ALA and ALSC), I'm befuddled as to why it's important to remove a part of her legacy.
posted by ReadEvalPost at 4:27 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
How is removing Wilder's name from an award preventing her from being read?
posted by TwoStride at 4:28 PM on June 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 4:28 PM on June 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
I have a friend who is currently reading the books to her son and had to pause and censor frequently for the (as described by earlier comments and the ALA board), inappropriate depictions of indigenous people.
An award for kids should have a problematic author's name removed.
posted by biggreenplant at 4:40 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
An award for kids should have a problematic author's name removed.
posted by biggreenplant at 4:40 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
If you believe Wilder should be read but in the proper context (the position of the ALA and ALSC), I'm befuddled as to why it's important to remove a part of her legacy.
Are you actually befuddled? For that matter, are you an expert in children's literature who understands the impact that content might make on children, particularly but not exclusively non-white children? Did you read a report painstakingly crafted by advocates and experts in children's literature? Have you asked or listened to the opinions of the people who feel hurt by that content? I don't really understand why you wouldn't trust that board of children's literature experts and librarians to make a decision like that in good faith.
posted by vunder at 4:47 PM on June 26, 2018 [24 favorites]
Are you actually befuddled? For that matter, are you an expert in children's literature who understands the impact that content might make on children, particularly but not exclusively non-white children? Did you read a report painstakingly crafted by advocates and experts in children's literature? Have you asked or listened to the opinions of the people who feel hurt by that content? I don't really understand why you wouldn't trust that board of children's literature experts and librarians to make a decision like that in good faith.
posted by vunder at 4:47 PM on June 26, 2018 [24 favorites]
I loved Kipling, too, as a kid. Still colonial literature. Likewise, I loved colonialist movies (like Man Who Would Be King, Zulu, etc.) Doesn’t mean I need to sugarcoat the wider context now that I understand it.
posted by mondo dentro at 5:04 PM on June 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 5:04 PM on June 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
I haven't read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books since I was a kid, but aren't they "just" genre fiction? That is, the books are not particularly historically accurate, nor are they particularly biographical.
Unlike, say, Mark Twain's books, the Wilder books were intended to be a product, and are calibrated to address common stereotypes and a particular point of view of "settling the frontier." The books contain little to no self-awareness nor introspection about this point of view.
Can't quite understand why it would such a loss to "rethink the legacy of Laura Ingalls Wilder" and her daughter and collaborator (co-author) Rose Lane.
posted by JamesBay at 5:27 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Unlike, say, Mark Twain's books, the Wilder books were intended to be a product, and are calibrated to address common stereotypes and a particular point of view of "settling the frontier." The books contain little to no self-awareness nor introspection about this point of view.
Can't quite understand why it would such a loss to "rethink the legacy of Laura Ingalls Wilder" and her daughter and collaborator (co-author) Rose Lane.
posted by JamesBay at 5:27 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I loved the books as a kid, but even wee little Joe in far-off Australia felt that the descriptions of Native Americans and Pa's musical minstrel performance were a bit weird. I bought them for my kids but I'm uneasy about it. It's not just the overt racism, it's the colonialism that is absolutely intrinsic to the narrative: a lot of the story involves the family taking advantage of ethnic cleansing and eagerly anticipating the profits that will come from the round of genocide and dispersion.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
There's a lot that feels woven into the story, but there's also holy shit Ma is so racist.
I feel like - the answer is that Ma and Pa espouse normative attitudes for the times - Ma being the anti-Native and Pa being the pro-Native - but that the times have shifted enough that Ma’s position is no longer within the Overton window. (See: “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”
But also I think it’s more that the colonialism is baked in. You can’t read Little House on the Prairie without rooting for the Ingalls family, and the Ingalls family is only profiting because of Indian removal, and even if there are a few moments that make you feel a tiny bit sad for them being gone, the broader narrative is “yay free land, now we are settling the plains.”
But also, and here’s where I feel conflicted- that was absolutely the way people felt and thought, and even if it’s not historically accurate, it’s really accurate in terms of how people felt and thought and presented that period of history while there were carriers of oral history about it, and it’s still super valuable reading, and Laura Ingalls Wilder still wrote a thing which is an amazing piece of Americana that takes you right into the feelings of a little girl who was a part of that history. And it feels really weird to take away an award that was given for taking people into those feelings just because we don’t want people to empathize with that anymore, at the same time as we are still having awards named after Bram Stoker and Edgar Allan Poe and Hemingway and all sorts of people who have shitty sexism baked into their writing.
posted by corb at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2018 [22 favorites]
I feel like - the answer is that Ma and Pa espouse normative attitudes for the times - Ma being the anti-Native and Pa being the pro-Native - but that the times have shifted enough that Ma’s position is no longer within the Overton window. (See: “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”
But also I think it’s more that the colonialism is baked in. You can’t read Little House on the Prairie without rooting for the Ingalls family, and the Ingalls family is only profiting because of Indian removal, and even if there are a few moments that make you feel a tiny bit sad for them being gone, the broader narrative is “yay free land, now we are settling the plains.”
But also, and here’s where I feel conflicted- that was absolutely the way people felt and thought, and even if it’s not historically accurate, it’s really accurate in terms of how people felt and thought and presented that period of history while there were carriers of oral history about it, and it’s still super valuable reading, and Laura Ingalls Wilder still wrote a thing which is an amazing piece of Americana that takes you right into the feelings of a little girl who was a part of that history. And it feels really weird to take away an award that was given for taking people into those feelings just because we don’t want people to empathize with that anymore, at the same time as we are still having awards named after Bram Stoker and Edgar Allan Poe and Hemingway and all sorts of people who have shitty sexism baked into their writing.
posted by corb at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2018 [22 favorites]
Twain using the n-word in a landmark anti-racist novel is way different than Ingalls Wilder.
If you support the removal of confederate statues and not this, you're being hypocritical.
Different kinds of honors, different transgressions on the part of the person honored - I don't find either of these analogies especially illuminating. I never read the Wilder books so I can't express an informed opinion about this decision but I think it's going to have to be considered in its own right.
posted by atoxyl at 5:47 PM on June 26, 2018
If you support the removal of confederate statues and not this, you're being hypocritical.
Different kinds of honors, different transgressions on the part of the person honored - I don't find either of these analogies especially illuminating. I never read the Wilder books so I can't express an informed opinion about this decision but I think it's going to have to be considered in its own right.
posted by atoxyl at 5:47 PM on June 26, 2018
> How is removing Wilder's name from an award preventing her from being read?
It does not.
> This is an argument for changing the name of the award.
If Wilder's works have ceased to have meaning in the face of cultural change, yes, absolutely. There's an argument to be made that this is the case (and some posters have), and I respect that as a reason to change the award's name. The ALSC does not make this particular case.
> Are you actually befuddled?
Yes. Are you accusing me of bad faith right off the bat for a reason?
> For that matter, are you an expert in children's literature who understands the impact that content might make on children, particularly but not exclusively non-white children? Did you read a report painstakingly crafted by advocates and experts in children's literature? Have you asked or listened to the opinions of the people who feel hurt by that content? I don't really understand why you wouldn't trust that board of children's literature experts and librarians to make a decision like that in good faith.
I think the report of good faith but am having difficulty accepting their argument. There is no question in my mind that the depiction of non-white people in her works hurt people, and that these depictions need to be properly contextualized when reading the book to children. What I do not agree with is the ALSC's conclusion that naming an award after LIW represents endorsement of these depictions. ("Yet perceptions matter, along with the very real pain associated with her works for some, and year after year ALSC gives the impression of upholding Wilder’s works through an award that bears her name.")
posted by ReadEvalPost at 5:51 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
It does not.
> This is an argument for changing the name of the award.
If Wilder's works have ceased to have meaning in the face of cultural change, yes, absolutely. There's an argument to be made that this is the case (and some posters have), and I respect that as a reason to change the award's name. The ALSC does not make this particular case.
> Are you actually befuddled?
Yes. Are you accusing me of bad faith right off the bat for a reason?
> For that matter, are you an expert in children's literature who understands the impact that content might make on children, particularly but not exclusively non-white children? Did you read a report painstakingly crafted by advocates and experts in children's literature? Have you asked or listened to the opinions of the people who feel hurt by that content? I don't really understand why you wouldn't trust that board of children's literature experts and librarians to make a decision like that in good faith.
I think the report of good faith but am having difficulty accepting their argument. There is no question in my mind that the depiction of non-white people in her works hurt people, and that these depictions need to be properly contextualized when reading the book to children. What I do not agree with is the ALSC's conclusion that naming an award after LIW represents endorsement of these depictions. ("Yet perceptions matter, along with the very real pain associated with her works for some, and year after year ALSC gives the impression of upholding Wilder’s works through an award that bears her name.")
posted by ReadEvalPost at 5:51 PM on June 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
But also, and here’s where I feel conflicted- that was absolutely the way people felt and thought, and even if it’s not historically accurate, it’s really accurate in terms of how people felt and thought
I tend to agree with your comment but would say that it's just how some people ("white people") felt and thought, and what we need to be reading to our kids is the perspectives of non-white people.
It's never crossed my mind to read these books to my kids (I grew up on the Michael Landon series and the books), since they are so flawed.
posted by JamesBay at 6:08 PM on June 26, 2018 [7 favorites]
I tend to agree with your comment but would say that it's just how some people ("white people") felt and thought, and what we need to be reading to our kids is the perspectives of non-white people.
It's never crossed my mind to read these books to my kids (I grew up on the Michael Landon series and the books), since they are so flawed.
posted by JamesBay at 6:08 PM on June 26, 2018 [7 favorites]
Enough with the faux nostalgia about the past this was depicting (many, many decades after actually experienced).
Little Libertarians on the Prairie:
While the “Little House” books emphasized self-reliance, at least two instances of government assistance that benefited the Ingalls family were downplayed. In addition to receiving their land in the Dakota Territory through the Homestead Act, it was the Dakota Territory that paid for the tuition of Mary Ingalls at the Iowa School for the Blind for seven years. “It’s an inconvenient fact,” Woodside says. “Rose suppressed that detail.”
...
After inheriting the royalty rights to the “Little House” series after Wilder’s death in 1957, Lane donated money to the Freedom School in Colorado, a free-market academy that taught libertarian theory. When she died suddenly in 1968, future “Little House” royalties were bequeathed to her sole heir and “political disciple,” lawyer Roger Lea MacBride. In addition to becoming the first person to cast an electoral vote for a Libertarian Party ticket in 1972, MacBride was the Libertarian Party candidate for president four years later.
Also, according to a FB post Melissa Gilbert seems to be in favor of changing the name, so if it's good enough for Half Pint it should be good enough for everyone else.
posted by TwoStride at 6:17 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Little Libertarians on the Prairie:
While the “Little House” books emphasized self-reliance, at least two instances of government assistance that benefited the Ingalls family were downplayed. In addition to receiving their land in the Dakota Territory through the Homestead Act, it was the Dakota Territory that paid for the tuition of Mary Ingalls at the Iowa School for the Blind for seven years. “It’s an inconvenient fact,” Woodside says. “Rose suppressed that detail.”
...
After inheriting the royalty rights to the “Little House” series after Wilder’s death in 1957, Lane donated money to the Freedom School in Colorado, a free-market academy that taught libertarian theory. When she died suddenly in 1968, future “Little House” royalties were bequeathed to her sole heir and “political disciple,” lawyer Roger Lea MacBride. In addition to becoming the first person to cast an electoral vote for a Libertarian Party ticket in 1972, MacBride was the Libertarian Party candidate for president four years later.
Also, according to a FB post Melissa Gilbert seems to be in favor of changing the name, so if it's good enough for Half Pint it should be good enough for everyone else.
posted by TwoStride at 6:17 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Adding another recommendation for Prairie Fire. After reading that book and finding out how much Rose's abhorrent political beliefs not only seeped into but helped shape the Little House series, that alone is enough for me to agree with changing the award's name.
posted by blue shadows at 6:28 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 6:28 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
I've linked to this before, but my first exposure to Prairie Fires was from this great tweet thread by Ana Mardoll, sort of a live-blogging of her reactions to the first few chapters.
Hint: She is not a fan of Charles or Rose.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Hint: She is not a fan of Charles or Rose.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
History has vindicated my position as a hater of Little House on the Prarie. Take that GW!
posted by some loser at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by some loser at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think it's reasonable for the ALA to consider whether the award they are giving for children's literature represents what the community wants it to represent
ChuraChura, your comment was handy, so I'll riff off it though in the main I agree with you. But. There are a metric shit-ton of children's lit awards from ALA and this was far from the most interesting or important one*. There are even other awards named for women. The Newbery and Caldecott are important but so are the Coretta Scott King Awards and the Pura Belpré Awards and the Margaret Edwards Awards. That's three women in 6 awards. We won't miss this one!
*The order of importance I've heard from children's librarians goes something like Newbery and Caldecott and the awards that celebrate diversity (CSK, Pura Belpré, American Indian Youth, Stonewall, etc.) and then everything else.
If you are looking for interesting literature to read to a child, I highly recommend the Database of Award-winning Children's Literature. It's an old-school interface but the information is solid, and if you want to present a child with diverse viewpoints this is one handy way to find books.
Also, those of us in the profession drop the 'the' in front of ALA and ALSC (and ACRL and PLA and everyone else) so it's quite odd to see it written any other way.
posted by librarylis at 7:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
ChuraChura, your comment was handy, so I'll riff off it though in the main I agree with you. But. There are a metric shit-ton of children's lit awards from ALA and this was far from the most interesting or important one*. There are even other awards named for women. The Newbery and Caldecott are important but so are the Coretta Scott King Awards and the Pura Belpré Awards and the Margaret Edwards Awards. That's three women in 6 awards. We won't miss this one!
*The order of importance I've heard from children's librarians goes something like Newbery and Caldecott and the awards that celebrate diversity (CSK, Pura Belpré, American Indian Youth, Stonewall, etc.) and then everything else.
If you are looking for interesting literature to read to a child, I highly recommend the Database of Award-winning Children's Literature. It's an old-school interface but the information is solid, and if you want to present a child with diverse viewpoints this is one handy way to find books.
Also, those of us in the profession drop the 'the' in front of ALA and ALSC (and ACRL and PLA and everyone else) so it's quite odd to see it written any other way.
posted by librarylis at 7:32 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I was obsessed, absolutely positively obsessed with LIW and Little House. Read and re-read the books, watched the TV show religiously. In college I even dragged a friend to go with me from St. Louis down to Mansfield to see her house museum. Even as a kid, I had a vague sense that the treatment of Native Americans and the railing against the government was weird, though I certainly didn’t have the insight or vocabulary to really understand why.
Having read, as an adult, most of the biographies of LIW, including the extremely excellent Prairie Fires, I can better understand the intended and unintended messages of her body of work. And frankly, those intentions are not ok any more. Rose (who was really pretty awful) urged her mother to tell her stories in part as propaganda. Rose felt the youth of the day (1930s) had gone soft and needed to learn that self-reliance that she felt her mother’s story demonstrated (notwithstanding all the times the family needed help from others.)
I loved these books with all my heart and they will always be an important part of my childhood and I am 100% in favor of saying that that LIW’s work and her legacy no longer reflect the values that we should encourage and reward in children’s literature.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 7:41 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Having read, as an adult, most of the biographies of LIW, including the extremely excellent Prairie Fires, I can better understand the intended and unintended messages of her body of work. And frankly, those intentions are not ok any more. Rose (who was really pretty awful) urged her mother to tell her stories in part as propaganda. Rose felt the youth of the day (1930s) had gone soft and needed to learn that self-reliance that she felt her mother’s story demonstrated (notwithstanding all the times the family needed help from others.)
I loved these books with all my heart and they will always be an important part of my childhood and I am 100% in favor of saying that that LIW’s work and her legacy no longer reflect the values that we should encourage and reward in children’s literature.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 7:41 PM on June 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Oh dang, I'm halfway through that tweet thread and I already know Prairie Fires is going on my reading list.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is how Mary's blindness is treated. It's...not awful? I mean, she's definitely the Suffering Angel trope, but she was a gigantic purer-than-thou drip before she lost her sight, so it kind of is in-character for her. But beyond that, she's still a reasonably full member of the household, doing chores and studying with Laura's help, and not particularly held apart from the rest of the family, or treated as though she can't do anything. She twists hay into sticks and grinds wheat alongside everyone else. (I kind of wonder if she even becomes the most educated member of the family, since my understanding is that the College for the Blind had a pretty decent educational program, in addition to manual skills training.) Anyway -- I don't want to distract from the racism and colonialism of the book, or the amazing discussion here, but I'm honestly curious if anything has been written about ableism in the LH series, and how Mary fits in with the Angelic Suffering Heroines of other early 20thC children't lit.
posted by kalimac at 7:42 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is how Mary's blindness is treated. It's...not awful? I mean, she's definitely the Suffering Angel trope, but she was a gigantic purer-than-thou drip before she lost her sight, so it kind of is in-character for her. But beyond that, she's still a reasonably full member of the household, doing chores and studying with Laura's help, and not particularly held apart from the rest of the family, or treated as though she can't do anything. She twists hay into sticks and grinds wheat alongside everyone else. (I kind of wonder if she even becomes the most educated member of the family, since my understanding is that the College for the Blind had a pretty decent educational program, in addition to manual skills training.) Anyway -- I don't want to distract from the racism and colonialism of the book, or the amazing discussion here, but I'm honestly curious if anything has been written about ableism in the LH series, and how Mary fits in with the Angelic Suffering Heroines of other early 20thC children't lit.
posted by kalimac at 7:42 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
it should be scrutinized — and taken as an opportunity to inform children of the context surrounding it.
It's almost impossible to explain "problematic content" to children. Whatever they're exposed to becomes "normal" in their minds; it's why representation matters so much. And whether or not the overtly racist content could be explained, and shown to be bad, children will still pick up on the major themes: this is a story about White People Being Awesome.
It is only white people who get to be awesome in this story; other people are allowed to help them or hinder them, but the story is about white people, Christian people, (straight, of course; cis, if course) rural-survivalist people only, and they are relentlessly shown to be living Proper Lives, with less-than-subtle implications that anyone whose lifestyle would infringe on the Ingalls' freedom, is doing things wrong.
"Share the stories with children and explain the problems" is about as useful as "only allow ironic racism." Understanding problems in a story takes experience with a whole lot of stories; it can't be done by people still learning how stories work.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [20 favorites]
It's almost impossible to explain "problematic content" to children. Whatever they're exposed to becomes "normal" in their minds; it's why representation matters so much. And whether or not the overtly racist content could be explained, and shown to be bad, children will still pick up on the major themes: this is a story about White People Being Awesome.
It is only white people who get to be awesome in this story; other people are allowed to help them or hinder them, but the story is about white people, Christian people, (straight, of course; cis, if course) rural-survivalist people only, and they are relentlessly shown to be living Proper Lives, with less-than-subtle implications that anyone whose lifestyle would infringe on the Ingalls' freedom, is doing things wrong.
"Share the stories with children and explain the problems" is about as useful as "only allow ironic racism." Understanding problems in a story takes experience with a whole lot of stories; it can't be done by people still learning how stories work.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [20 favorites]
Bagge has previously released graphic novels about Zora Neale Hurston and Margaret Sanger.
posted by brujita at 8:30 PM on June 26, 2018
posted by brujita at 8:30 PM on June 26, 2018
It's for our benefit to pass on things we believe are meaningful and to inspire ourselves to create similar legacies
Going to be a bit difficult to create a similar legacy, since nearly all the Indian lands have already been stolen.
Maybe folks who want to follow in the Ingalls' footsteps could try Canada? Surely the benighted inhabitants of, say, Vancouver aren't using their land properly and would be happy to give it up to some enterprising Libertarians.
posted by happyroach at 9:13 PM on June 26, 2018
Going to be a bit difficult to create a similar legacy, since nearly all the Indian lands have already been stolen.
Maybe folks who want to follow in the Ingalls' footsteps could try Canada? Surely the benighted inhabitants of, say, Vancouver aren't using their land properly and would be happy to give it up to some enterprising Libertarians.
posted by happyroach at 9:13 PM on June 26, 2018
What I do not agree with is the ALSC's conclusion that naming an award after LIW represents endorsement of these depictions.
Having an important award named after you is a high honor, not some kind of historical accident. Every time it is used, it is a deliberate choice to continue that honor. I loved those books as a kid, but much of their content is shameful, not honorable.
Imagine giving a Native American author an award named after someone who had several of her characters say, uncriticized, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
posted by praemunire at 9:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Having an important award named after you is a high honor, not some kind of historical accident. Every time it is used, it is a deliberate choice to continue that honor. I loved those books as a kid, but much of their content is shameful, not honorable.
Imagine giving a Native American author an award named after someone who had several of her characters say, uncriticized, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
posted by praemunire at 9:25 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Imagine giving a Native American author an award named after someone who had several of her characters say, uncriticized, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Yes - any nostalgic ambivalence I felt about the change was very much erased when I realized that Jacqueline Woodson was the first recipient of the newly-renamed ALSC Legacy Award - a queer person of color who's done so much good writing on race and on all different kinds of black families. To my knowledge she hasn't commented publicly on the name change, but the idea of her getting the Laura Ingalls Wilder award seemed a little bit wrong in the same way that it seemed wrong for Nisi Shawl or N.K. Jemisin to be up for a World Fantasy Award that took the form (until recently) of a bust of H.P. Lovecraft.
posted by Jeanne at 10:07 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Yes - any nostalgic ambivalence I felt about the change was very much erased when I realized that Jacqueline Woodson was the first recipient of the newly-renamed ALSC Legacy Award - a queer person of color who's done so much good writing on race and on all different kinds of black families. To my knowledge she hasn't commented publicly on the name change, but the idea of her getting the Laura Ingalls Wilder award seemed a little bit wrong in the same way that it seemed wrong for Nisi Shawl or N.K. Jemisin to be up for a World Fantasy Award that took the form (until recently) of a bust of H.P. Lovecraft.
posted by Jeanne at 10:07 PM on June 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
kalimac: I am writing a similar paper! I will report back when I am done.
So, yeah, the community has been discussing this forever and taking her name off the award is a great call. I took a really interesting class during undergrad from a professor who turned me onto children's lit as a professional field, which presented the Ingalls books in the context of literature by/for/about Native girls and Native girlhood, Native history of the time, basically talking back to everything in them. As mentioned above that is not possible for children who don't understand "let's take a thing and explain the context", but for students in their 20's who read the books as kids, and want to interrogate them because they'd be on every syllabus about Classic Books For Girls with all the racism, ableism, and colonialism inherent in those books regardless...that's one way to teach them without glorifying their content at all. Is that the best way, or is the best way just not to touch it?
I don't have good answers for that. But I agree with the comment as well about interrogating the Boys Own stalwarts the same way, and I'm excited for the future when we get new Beloved Classics and can somehow, maybe, push back at the hurtful and inescapable shadow of these older ones.
posted by colorblock sock at 10:35 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
So, yeah, the community has been discussing this forever and taking her name off the award is a great call. I took a really interesting class during undergrad from a professor who turned me onto children's lit as a professional field, which presented the Ingalls books in the context of literature by/for/about Native girls and Native girlhood, Native history of the time, basically talking back to everything in them. As mentioned above that is not possible for children who don't understand "let's take a thing and explain the context", but for students in their 20's who read the books as kids, and want to interrogate them because they'd be on every syllabus about Classic Books For Girls with all the racism, ableism, and colonialism inherent in those books regardless...that's one way to teach them without glorifying their content at all. Is that the best way, or is the best way just not to touch it?
I don't have good answers for that. But I agree with the comment as well about interrogating the Boys Own stalwarts the same way, and I'm excited for the future when we get new Beloved Classics and can somehow, maybe, push back at the hurtful and inescapable shadow of these older ones.
posted by colorblock sock at 10:35 PM on June 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I would defy anyone to read a single issue edited by Hugo Gernsback, whom the Hugo is named after, that didn’t contain what we would now think of as horrific sexism. Is that being renamed? No.
It bloody should be, and it is an indication of the problems that the SF community (and that awards body) have that it hasn't. "They're being awful, so we should be awful too" won't help anyone.
posted by Dysk at 3:04 AM on June 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
It bloody should be, and it is an indication of the problems that the SF community (and that awards body) have that it hasn't. "They're being awful, so we should be awful too" won't help anyone.
posted by Dysk at 3:04 AM on June 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
I've linked to this before, but my first exposure to Prairie Fires was from this great tweet thread by Ana Mardoll, sort of a live-blogging of her reactions to the first few chapters.
Hint: She is not a fan of Charles or Rose.
She went through the whole thing on Twitter and collected the reactions on her website. And there are a lot of people she isn't fans of, becoming even less of a fan of Rose as things go on.
posted by Francis at 7:21 AM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
Hint: She is not a fan of Charles or Rose.
She went through the whole thing on Twitter and collected the reactions on her website. And there are a lot of people she isn't fans of, becoming even less of a fan of Rose as things go on.
posted by Francis at 7:21 AM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
Oh man! A link I followed from that is really, really interesting: it talks about a theory that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s nostalgia was actually at least partially borne out of resentment for being deeply, deeply poor. (There’s also some great cites about the comparative poverty of the Ingalls family)
It's quite possible, therefore, that the nostalgic tone of the Little House books is motivated by anger: Laura's anger that her father's decisions kept her in a life of abject poverty and kept her from getting education for a better career, leading to further poverty; the anger of her daughter (who helped edit and possibly rewrite the books) that this had in turn led to her own childhood poverty and poor teeth; the realization by her daughter that if Laura had only been able to finish school and become a writer and journalist, like her younger sister and daughter, the family might not have been quite so poor* and much of her childhood pain could have been avoided.posted by corb at 7:59 AM on June 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
Also man oh man some of those deconstruction posts are amazing too.
Okay, I was too sleepy last night to explain why Mary's blindness was Charles' fault. Strap in. There's a bit in the books where Charles wants a watermelon. The watermelons are growing in this marshy area where mosquitoes live. People who go and get watermelons in that area get VERY VERY sick. So Caroline says "pls don't get watermelon". Charles is like "pfft, watermelon aren't dangerous!" and goes to get watermelon. He brings back mosquitoes and deathly illness.posted by corb at 8:03 AM on June 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
The illness never really leaves Mary and she loses her eyesight. Carrie (who was a fetus during all this) is born weak and frail and stays so for life. And, sure okay he didn't understand mosquitoes but he was capable of noticing patterns. Other people who went to harvest melons got sick. He just felt he was exempt.
I would defy anyone to read a single issue edited by Hugo Gernsback, whom the Hugo is named after, that didn’t contain what we would now think of as horrific sexism. Is that being renamed? No
You know what's worse? The Hugos weren't officially named that until 1992 (which was also the first year that four works by women were nominated for Best Novel).
posted by Etrigan at 8:19 AM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
You know what's worse? The Hugos weren't officially named that until 1992 (which was also the first year that four works by women were nominated for Best Novel).
posted by Etrigan at 8:19 AM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
A quick note on Christine Woodside. She was my classmate at Princeton High School, and remains a friend to this day. I pointed her to this thread, and she commented (and I share with her permission):
"One of the commenters at the end says I'm a libertarian. I'm not that; just a journalist registered as an unaffiliated voter."
I have to add, Chris is a meticulous researcher.
posted by crazyhorse at 8:40 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
"One of the commenters at the end says I'm a libertarian. I'm not that; just a journalist registered as an unaffiliated voter."
I have to add, Chris is a meticulous researcher.
posted by crazyhorse at 8:40 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Psst, Ana Mardoll's pronouns are xie/xer/xers/xerself.
posted by daisyk at 8:47 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by daisyk at 8:47 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
It is only white people who get to be awesome in this story
Dr. Tann was pretty awesome.
posted by jgirl at 9:00 AM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Not being born American, I was not exposed to those books as a child nor have a particular resonance with the history they depict; having lived in the USA for twenty years, of course they became part of the accumulation I've absorbed by osmosis. I hadn't, however, read them until a few months ago. So in case you wondered what they look like to a complete outsider:
1. Holy shit Ma is virulently racist.
2. Holy shit are both of the parents ever stupid about this "don't rely on anyone ever." (Someone upthread describes this as "society doesn't exist," which I think is a perfect description.)
3. Holy shit these aren't actually meant to be libertarian caricatures but actual attitudes that are lauded as presented.
4. Holy shit the cognitive dissonance that runs through it all, with The Long Winter maybe being the best example among those I've read. "We don't need the government! We don't need anyone! ...if the train doesn't come we'll starve. If the Wilders hadn't stored grain first and risked life and limb later we'd starve. ...never depend on anyone!"
And with that last, my very adult eyes kept reading between the lines an... uneasiness, a wariness, to the child character of Laura. There are glimmers of moments when she seems to know that her mother's spewed hatred is horrific and that they do rely on other people and even the community of Hardy Frontier Peoples they are building is a community; that no man is an island etc. But it just isn't part of her mental vocabulary, she just can't ever formulate the thought "this is wrong" about anything her parents say or do or think. So it never makes into the text.
Along with everything else, that dissonance and the wholesale acceptance of "children should be seen but not heard" school of child rearing that's all over as well... Yeah, I think there are far better options for naming a children's literature award after, in 2018.
posted by seyirci at 1:56 PM on June 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
1. Holy shit Ma is virulently racist.
2. Holy shit are both of the parents ever stupid about this "don't rely on anyone ever." (Someone upthread describes this as "society doesn't exist," which I think is a perfect description.)
3. Holy shit these aren't actually meant to be libertarian caricatures but actual attitudes that are lauded as presented.
4. Holy shit the cognitive dissonance that runs through it all, with The Long Winter maybe being the best example among those I've read. "We don't need the government! We don't need anyone! ...if the train doesn't come we'll starve. If the Wilders hadn't stored grain first and risked life and limb later we'd starve. ...never depend on anyone!"
And with that last, my very adult eyes kept reading between the lines an... uneasiness, a wariness, to the child character of Laura. There are glimmers of moments when she seems to know that her mother's spewed hatred is horrific and that they do rely on other people and even the community of Hardy Frontier Peoples they are building is a community; that no man is an island etc. But it just isn't part of her mental vocabulary, she just can't ever formulate the thought "this is wrong" about anything her parents say or do or think. So it never makes into the text.
Along with everything else, that dissonance and the wholesale acceptance of "children should be seen but not heard" school of child rearing that's all over as well... Yeah, I think there are far better options for naming a children's literature award after, in 2018.
posted by seyirci at 1:56 PM on June 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
And now rereading the latter part of the thread after I wrote that comment: corb, that childhood anger theory is ringing very true to me, and I feel like it may somehow be linked to the whole suppressed-dissonance thing I was talking about. More to think about.
posted by seyirci at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by seyirci at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
The disease the family got in Little House on the Prairie was probably malaria. There was malaria in the Plains at that time. Malaria isn’t spread by watermelons and isn’t transmitted directly between people. They got sick because they got bitten by mosquitoes that carried malaria. Pa’s watermelon had nothing to do with that. They may have thought it did, but his not getting the watermelon wouldn’t have kept them from getting malaria. Pa did screw upin other ways that affected the family, but that one wasn’t his fault.
posted by Anne Neville at 3:57 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Anne Neville at 3:57 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
the watermelon patch was full of mosquitoes and people who harvested melons from there were infected by the mosquitos
posted by (Over) Thinking at 6:41 PM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by (Over) Thinking at 6:41 PM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Mary's blindness was from a later illness, when they were living by Plum Creek. If I'm reading Ana's summary right, it sounds like Mary never truly recovered from malaria, and thus was more susceptible to later illness? (I think the latest theory was that it was some form of meningitis that I'm far too sleepy to remember now, and that her high fever may have lead to a stroke.) It's a shaky line from Pa's watermelon cravings to a much later illness, unless the malaria portrayed in Little House actually happened far later, when they were in MN?
posted by kalimac at 7:24 PM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by kalimac at 7:24 PM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older “Navarre’s own Ecce Homo.” | The unintended consequences of convenient smart... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:06 PM on June 26, 2018 [24 favorites]