Little House on the Prairie (Little House, #3) Little House on the Prairie question

Laura Ingalls Wilder
Darla Darla Jun 26, 2018 10:29AM
Share your thoughts on the recent removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from a book award.

I think it is ridiculous. Laura obviously had to juggle the opinions of her parents and society when it came to minorities. There is an important conversation that Laura has with Pa that makes me think that Laura is innocent in this whole thing:
"Yes ... When white settlers come into a country, the Indians have to move on.
The government is going to move these
Indians farther west, any time now. That's
why we're here, Laura. White people are
going to settle all this country, and we get
the best land because we get here first and
take our pick. Now do you understand?"
"Yes, Pa," Laura said. "But, Pa, I thought
this was Indian Territory. Won't it make
the Indians mad to have to-"
"No more questions, Laura," Pa said
firmly. "Go to sleep."
I'd recommend reading this paper/journal that offers an interesting perspective:

I am sad about it. Laura Ingalls Wilder is a great American author. Her books give a valuable and exciting insight into the life of a pioneer child. Yes, there may be some sections that seem not PC by today's standards. However, even in Little House on the Prairie, she shows compassion and openness to their Native American neighbors. As with all literature, we must have an understanding of the time period in which it was written. It would be a shame to lose books like hers because we try to apply our modern language rules to her.

deleted member (last edited Jul 23, 2018 02:48PM ) Jul 22, 2018 07:57AM   0 votes
Firstly, I don't believe Charles, Laura's dad, was prejudiced to Native Americans. *A man trying to leave a crowding farming area to have more land to provide for his family and live in his beloved wilderness (The type that he lived in for a part of his childhood.) ? Yes. Prejudiced towards Native Americans ? No. Charles is one of the few adults around Laura who was adamant that the saying "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" and other wide spread beliefs about Native Americans were wrong.
There are multiple times when Laura's parents, or Charles and the neighbors, have civil disagreements over Native Americans because Charles views towards Native Americans weren't held by many people. He even stops his neighbors from attacking the Osage tribe.

Becuase the book feauters prejudices/racism of its time (I can't talk about the books' racism towards blacks because I don't remember any black characters. Can anyone remind me who the black characters were? ) I understand why they chose to remove it. I don't think they are trying to say her books aren't excellent literature, or gate ways to the past. Only that some aspects from the past don't reflect the majority of peoples' beliefs today.

I have loved this series since it was first read to me as a very small child, but that doesn't mean I always agreed with the characters' or author's beliefs. As a registered Native American, I was always upset with many of the characters views towards Native Americans. I also began to realize this was around the time my great-great grandparents and great-grandparents were starting to be forced onto our tribe's first reservation. When I voiced my anger and bewilderment over this to my mother she used it as a catalyst for me to do extensive research on the history and legacy of my ancestors. She also used it as a way to talk about modern forms of bad prejudices (BEFORE people get angry over this go look up the English definition of prejudice. I myself am prejudiced against Twilight since I never read the books or watched the movies but still say the story is terrible. Except for the soundtrack. The soundtrack is gorgeous.) and racism, and ones from the past that many people still haven't let go of.

I leave this comment with this question. How many present day childrens' books and shows do YOU think will be greatly condemned in the future due to having present day prejudices and racism?

*In the original post I said Charles was entitled. But after thinking about the English definition of entitled I decided he most certainly wasn't. Charles repeatedly talks about how you need to work for what you get/want, the men (Charles would sometimes use men/man to mean all people. An example would be when he talks to Laura about her job earnings.) who are proud of their job well done, and the wonderful feeling you get from getting the money that you worked hard for.

Here's what my local book reviewer thinks about that:

back to top