Little House in the Wrong Thread

[Soloist]

Well, there is that whole episode from the page I linked to above where Pa did blackface and put on a "hilarious" minstrel show making fun of the "darkies"

You should probably re-read them rather than relying on your distant memories from childhood. They are short, won't take long. There is also a whole anti-government theme where Pa is furious that the government was unfairly making them move because they built their squatter homestead illegally 3 miles across the line in Indian territory and for once the Federal government was actually enforcing an Indian treaty.

Yes obviously we could go through and dredge out more examples of unwise things I’d rather not have taught to my children. I don’t care to reread them as I did a few years back when my wife and I first discussed it.

[Neto]

It is amazing how easily offended modern man is. Basically, no book is appropriate for children except some modern book like “Heather Has Two Mommies”.

My only point was that if you are GOING to object to the Little House books then object to the actual questionable content that is in them, not because she left out unsavory details about her father in a series of children's fiction books intended for a 2nd-4th grade audience.

I read the Little House books as a kid and so did my girls. I think my mother gave them a boxed set for Christmas at one point.

But we also talked about them and read some of them together. I didn't just dump a box of books in their room and leave them to their own devices. We talked about some of her problematic opinions and called them out. Same as we would do with say Huckleberry Finn, which has a lot of material that needs to be placed in context. It's not just the dead Indians in the books. There is also racism. I mean, what's with this?

Any author who wants to realistically and accurately depict life in any era "needs" to include the unsavory facts of that time. Same thing if a Christian author wants to accurately portray an unbelieving character in their story, and then show the change that Christ brought to their life. Not every unbeliever cusses up a blue streak every time they speak, but some do, and to have a real to life character, some of that has to be included in the book. Some writers will show the first letter of the word, then the correct number of dashes or some other symbol for the particular word they, as the author, have in their mind. Maybe a good argument could be made for saying that this alone shows the lack of wisdom and propriety in writing this sort of stories. (I recall that as a college - actually Bible institute - Freshman we had an English assignment to write an essay in answer to this question - Should a Christian author include swear words in a novel they are writing? I came out strictly against it, but now I think that it depends on who the intended audience is, but more importantly the question above: Should they be writing this sort of story.) One particular story in Martyr's Mirror comes to mind, one that was not included in the first edition. It gives the word for word account of the interrogator's questions and comments, along with the answers given by the anabaptist man who was on trial. This interrogation record was transcribed as it unfolded, by order of the court, and it apparently included all of the words the priest had used. The Martyr's Mirror account, however, put dashes in place of the swear words. That's all fine and good, but having heard a fair bit of swearing in places where I've worked, my mind supplied the missing words as I read the account. Maybe not the exact words, and perhaps sometimes words that were "less offensive" than the actual original recorded text, and maybe sometimes worse. So just putting in the blanks is rather ineffective.

But as to the 'black-face' situation, I suspect that this was done by many people who really had no idea how offensive it was to negroes. That doesn't excuse it, and yes, it was probably 'racist' in some sense, but the person who did it may not have been a "racist". Is it racist if a child dresses up as an Indian? What if they do it because they admire many things about Indian culture? How much "white blood" does a person who is a registered member of an American Indian tribe need to have before their dressing up in traditional tribal dress and doing a cultural dance routine must mean that they can be accused of racism, or of cultural appropriation? One of my HS classmates was 1/8 Cherokee, and so according to state law in Oklahoma, could attend state college tuition free. I probably looked more Indian than she did. At least I have dark hair, no freckles, and somewhat darker skin tone. She, on the other hand, had blondish-read hair, freckles, and was very light skinned - like she would get a sun burn after a very short time of exposure in the Oklahoma sun. I almost never got sun-burned. But then, looking back into my remote ancestral past, I very likely have either some African blood, or Sephardi Jewish blood, which amounts to more or less the same thing - African descent in the very remote past. So those 5 years that I wore an afro, was that racism and/or cultural appropriation, or was I entitled to do that? (I could also ask what it is if a Plain Mennonite chorus sings Negro Spirituals in their presentations..... But I guess I won't bring that up here.)

[Ken]

But as to the 'black-face' situation, I suspect that this was done by many people who really had no idea how offensive it was to negroes. That doesn't excuse it, and yes, it was probably 'racist' in some sense, but the person who did it may not have been a "racist". Is it racist if a child dresses up as an Indian? What if they do it because they admire many things about Indian culture? How much "white blood" does a person who is a registered member of an American Indian tribe need to have before their dressing up in traditional tribal dress and doing a cultural dance routine must mean that they can be accused of racism, or of cultural appropriation? One of my HS classmates was 1/8 Cherokee, and so according to state law in Oklahoma, could attend state college tuition free. I probably looked more Indian than she did. At least I have dark hair, no freckles, and somewhat darker skin tone. She, on the other hand, had blondish-read hair, freckles, and was very light skinned - like she would get a sun burn after a very short time of exposure in the Oklahoma sun. I almost never got sun-burned. But then, looking back into my remote ancestral past, I very likely have either some African blood, or Sephardi Jewish blood, which amounts to more or less the same thing - African descent in the very remote past. So those 5 years that I wore an afro, was that racism and/or cultural appropriation, or was I entitled to do that? (I could also ask what it is if a Plain Mennonite chorus sings Negro Spirituals in their presentations..... But I guess I won't bring that up here.)

Nowhere do I argue for censoring Laura Ingalls Wilder. Like Huckleberry Finn it is full of problematic material and themes that should be discussed and put into context if your kids are going to read it. Have a discussion with them. Our national past is not pretty. Kids should know about the good, bad, and ugly. This is the exact opposite of the current conservative rush to do things like ban AP African American History or any portrayal of racism like DeSantis just did.

And yes, minstrel shows were overtly racist. People knew that even back then. Not because it was offensive to Blacks (which it was). But because it was White people characterizing an entire race as shiftless, lazy, unintelligent, immoral, etc. as part of the larger effort to segregate and expunge Black people from public life. In Oregon, Blacks were prohibited from entering and living in the state during the time of Little House and prohibitions on Blacks owning property weren't repealed until 1957. White minstrel shows were part of the cultural propaganda that justified such laws.

There is plenty of it on YouTube. It is instructive to watch how White musicians portrayed Blacks in minstrel shows and compare that to actual Black artists performing real music from the same exact time period.

So yes, read Little House with your kids, or discuss it with them and ask them "what do you think is going on here and why do you think people thought that way". Just like you would with Huckleberry Finn or Diary of Anne Frank or any other book that touches on difficult themes.

Don't just assume it is some idyllic portrayal of our agrarian past

[Neto]

But as to the 'black-face' situation, I suspect that this was done by many people who really had no idea how offensive it was to negroes. That doesn't excuse it, and yes, it was probably 'racist' in some sense, but the person who did it may not have been a "racist". Is it racist if a child dresses up as an Indian? What if they do it because they admire many things about Indian culture? How much "white blood" does a person who is a registered member of an American Indian tribe need to have before their dressing up in traditional tribal dress and doing a cultural dance routine must mean that they can be accused of racism, or of cultural appropriation? One of my HS classmates was 1/8 Cherokee, and so according to state law in Oklahoma, could attend state college tuition free. I probably looked more Indian than she did. At least I have dark hair, no freckles, and somewhat darker skin tone. She, on the other hand, had blondish-read hair, freckles, and was very light skinned - like she would get a sun burn after a very short time of exposure in the Oklahoma sun. I almost never got sun-burned. But then, looking back into my remote ancestral past, I very likely have either some African blood, or Sephardi Jewish blood, which amounts to more or less the same thing - African descent in the very remote past. So those 5 years that I wore an afro, was that racism and/or cultural appropriation, or was I entitled to do that? (I could also ask what it is if a Plain Mennonite chorus sings Negro Spirituals in their presentations..... But I guess I won't bring that up here.)

Nowhere do I argue for censoring Laura Ingalls Wilder. Like Huckleberry Finn it is full of problematic material and themes that should be discussed and put into context if your kids are going to read it. Have a discussion with them. Our national past is not pretty. Kids should know about the good, bad, and ugly. This is the exact opposite of the current conservative rush to do things like ban AP African American History or any portrayal of racism like DeSantis just did.

And yes, minstrel shows were overtly racist. People knew that even back then. Not because it was offensive to Blacks (which it was). But because it was White people characterizing an entire race as shiftless, lazy, unintelligent, immoral, etc. as part of the larger effort to segregate and expunge Black people from public life. In Oregon, Blacks were prohibited from entering and living in the state during the time of Little House and prohibitions on Blacks owning property weren't repealed until 1957. White minstrel shows were part of the cultural propaganda that justified such laws.

There is plenty of it on YouTube. It is instructive to watch how White musicians portrayed Blacks in minstrel shows and compare that to actual Black artists performing real music from the same exact time period.

So yes, read Little House with your kids, or discuss it with them and ask them "what do you think is going on here and why do you think people thought that way". Just like you would with Huckleberry Finn or Diary of Anne Frank or any other book that touches on difficult themes.

Don't just assume it is some idyllic portrayal of our agrarian past

I must not have communicated well, because I never thought that you were censoring Laura Ingals Wilder's books. I do think it would be helpful for someone to write a carefully worded forward to any reprint of any books which portray the rotten side of American history, or any country's history. But I would make a distinction between story books where the aim of the author is to depict realistic characters for the era in which the story is set, and history books or courses which only depict one side of an issue that played out in the past.

[Ken]

I must not have communicated well, because I never thought that you were censoring Laura Ingals Wilder's books. I do think it would be helpful for someone to write a carefully worded forward to any reprint of any books which portray the rotten side of American history, or any country's history. But I would make a distinction between story books where the aim of the author is to depict realistic characters for the era in which the story is set, and history books or courses which only depict one side of an issue that played out in the past.

Yeah, this whole thing got started because of criticism of Laura Ingalls Wilder because she didn't disclose how abusive her father was in a series of children's fiction intended for 8 year olds. Which I thought was a misguided criticism. If you want to criticize the book, criticize what is in it, not what was left out.

That said, one should always be a critical consumer of literature and one does need to pick and choose. I would most certainly distinguish between:

1. Historical novels that depict a past reality and language (Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Little Women, The Jungle Book, Little House, etc.)

2. Modern books that contain a specific ideological slant intended to deceive or propagandize or whitewash the past. Both from a right wing or left wing perspective.

I'm not in favor of censoring anything really. But I am in favor of being selective. One only has so much time so don't waste it with garbage. So in a school context, for example. I'm not concerned about what is in school libraries or public libraries and think professional librarians should be free to do their job to curate a diverse and expansive collection that will engage kids not bore them. That is their job and what they are hired to do. The bigger and more diverse the library collection the better. In terms of selectivity, I am more interested in what teachers and curriculum decides to include/exclude in English classes from K through 12 because that is a zero-sum game. For example, last year my daughter's 10th grade lit teacher had them reading some obscure Ayn Rand stuff (the novel Anthem) that honestly was overly pedantic and frankly not very good. I didn't object to her reading it, but I had to wonder what better works got left off the syllabus in order to spend a week or two on that. Honestly I think a lot of teachers just keep recycling the same old classics because it is easy and one can quickly google up a bazillion worksheets and questions and find a bazillion powerpoints and lessons on sites like teachers-pay-teachers for books like Pride and Prejudice or The Great Gatsby. And "modern" lit seems to be frozen in time with what was current when 50-something teachers were young and in school (Lord of the Flies, The Catcher in the Rye, etc.) and virtually nothing that was published since they became teachers themselves. Textbooks that are literature compilations are just as bad and dated because new editions mostly just recycle the previous edition with maybe a new cover and some new pictures.

[Soloist]

I’ve had misgivings over that book series. The over glamorization. the improper conduct, the lies by the author… it is doesn’t seem to be the best book for children. That being said, I definitely would be in the minority among the CMs.

Yeah, this whole thing got started because of criticism of Laura Ingalls Wilder because she didn't disclose how abusive her father was in a series of children's fiction intended for 8 year olds. Which I thought was a misguided criticism. If you want to criticize the book, criticize what is in it, not what was left out.

People really have an issue with selective reading. The following response questioned my statement of lies which was in regard to the left out and flat out lies about her father along with other aspects. The lies was one small part of my criticism of the book. My wife commented as well addressing some of the other critiques of the book series, but you picked out one aspect and decided that was my entire objection to the book series.
If you’re going to criticize me, at least criticize what I said rather than what you assume.

[Ken]

I’ve had misgivings over that book series. The over glamorization. the improper conduct, the lies by the author… it is doesn’t seem to be the best book for children. That being said, I definitely would be in the minority among the CMs.

Yeah, this whole thing got started because of criticism of Laura Ingalls Wilder because she didn't disclose how abusive her father was in a series of children's fiction intended for 8 year olds. Which I thought was a misguided criticism. If you want to criticize the book, criticize what is in it, not what was left out.

People really have an issue with selective reading. The following response questioned my statement of lies which was in regard to the left out and flat out lies about her father along with other aspects. The lies was one small part of my criticism of the book. My wife commented as well addressing some of the other critiques of the book series, but you picked out one aspect and decided that was my entire objection to the book series.
If you’re going to criticize me, at least criticize what I said rather than what you assume.

I think I probably jumped in responding to Josh’s response to you or something three posts away from what you actually wrote. Anyway I apologize for mischaracterizing your post.

[Soloist]

I think I probably jumped in responding to Josh’s response to you or something three posts away from what you actually wrote. Anyway I apologize for mischaracterizing your post.

I appreciate your apology. For the most part I think you and I agree more so on some dating aspects then I would with Josh

[Ken]

I think I probably jumped in responding to Josh’s response to you or something three posts away from what you actually wrote. Anyway I apologize for mischaracterizing your post.

I appreciate your apology. For the most part I think you and I agree more so on some dating aspects then I would with Josh

In my experience, raising teen girls sobers you on the notion that they are ready to get married at age 18!

Speaking of marriage, and looping this back to the subject of the thread. If I recall, there was one minor character in Little House who got married at age 13.

[Grace]

The dancing "darkies" in the twenty-first chapter of "Little Town on the Prairie", wasn't the only time black people were referenced in the series.

In the second book, "Little House on the Prairie" Chapter 15, under "Fever N' Ague" the Ingalls family became very sick from malaria, (although they didn't know what it was at the time). The doctor that treated them was a Dr. Tan, who was a black man who treated the Indians. In the book it says that Laura never saw a black man in her life and would have been afraid of him if she wouldn't have liked him so much. Even though his skin color was mentioned in the book, he was cast in a positive light, with a rolling, jolly laugh.