Group pulls Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from book award, citing racial stereotypes

https://www.nola.com/national_politics/2018/06/librarians_laura_ingalls_award.html

Laura Ingalls Wilder's name removed from book award over racism concerns

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/24/laura-ingalls-wilders-name-removed-from-book-award-over-racial-concerns

Laura Ingalls Wilder's name pulled from library award over 'stereotypical attitudes' in her popular books

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/24/association-removes-laura-ingalls-wilders-name-from-award.html

So does this mean no more "Little House on the Prairie" reruns on TV!??

Conan the librarian. Who’s next on the chopping block?

Didn't Wilder just have a new biography published recently? People are attacking everything these days. Nothing is safe. :(

Yes, it is called 'Prairie Fire' and it does cover the Indian thing as well as how much of her writing is history and how much is fiction. It also discusses her relation with her daughter and what role she played in the books.

Joseph Smith's name has been pulled from being a prophet over racial concerns in the Book of Mormon.

Plus she groped "metoo"!!!!!

One group targeted no less than Mark Twain for Huckleberry Finn's use of the n-word...

When I was completing my teaching certificate, a professor in an Educational Psychology class warned us about this sort of garbage...

And for that matter, no more reading ‘Othello’ because one of the characters in the play implies Othello is capable of witchcraft.

I guess people are incapable of examining the context of written works when they are laying down their judgments about things like stereotypes and racism. I mean come on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 11:22AM by midwestanon.

Let’s strip every award, recommendation, or commendation for all literature not meeting contemporary “this is the way it ought to be” standards. That the American Library Association is a part of this shit is inexcusable. ALA, your committee is subtlety suggesting censorship—you know—because you’re the ones supposedly fighting intolerance toward the printed word.

Too bad Ms. Wilder didn’t include masturbation, bad language, and teen sex scenes in her novels, then they’d be labeled as progressive. And while we at it, Little Wommin needs a refresh. And for fuck’s sake, let’s get rid of Jane Austen’s gender stereotyping.

I think I’ll go read a banned book while enjoying a beer—I can piss off both censors and the Utah legislature simultaneously. George Orwell’s Brave New Boner.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 11:48AM by BYU Boner.

This just in: The Book of Mormon has been banned for racism!

Have fun reading this banned book, Boner!

The Boner likes the multiplicity of alluring women that populate the Book of Mormon.

Sarai, Isabel the Harlot, but ... Sam’s wife is the real deal! Too bad she didn’t get any golden engravings for her apostasy to the Lamanites.

Um...the group didn't ban any books, suggest banning any books, remove any books from any libraries, or suggest doing so.

They had an award named after a person. They decided to remove her name from the award.

That's all.

I agree that doing so was...over-reactionary. And more than a bit silly.
But there was no book banning or censorship involved.

Now perhaps somebody can explain to me why "Slippery Slope" is a "Logical Phallacy." (oops!)

The implication that step a implies conclusion z is fallacious.

Sure, and many times you'll get it right. But the fallacy lies in setting up a strawman. For example...

People who are mass murders are always addicted to pornography. So everyone who is addicted to pornography is on the slippery slope to becoming a mass murderer.

It is true that the "slippery slope" argument can be overused, and that it lends itself to reductio ad absurdum. But at least one person, quoted in an NPR story, has already telegraphed that there are more steps to be taken down the slope. How many steps will be taken before they say they've gone far enough?

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623184440/little-house-on-the-controversy-laura-ingalls-wilders-name-removed-from-book-awa

"Debbie Reese, a scholar and the founder of American Indians In Children's Literature, tweeted that the vote to change the award's name was a 'significant and historic moment' but still only a step. 'There are many more, ahead of us. The backlash to the change is already evident.'"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 08:42AM by GregS.

Seems there is a line of thinking that all we have to do is do away with monuments, statutes to abolish anything that is historical to this country.

Slavery, the confederacy, literature that is centuries old is all part of our history.

Tearing it down, throwing it away won't change it. Looks like we're trying to rewrite history to our way of thinking and make it look like none of the bad stuff ever happened.

Unbelievable.

Or perhaps the opposite is happening. We no longer consider those who waged war on the United States in order to preserve slavery as heros. Perhaps we're considering our racist past to be something we shouldn't admire.

Bingo :)

Orwell would be proud.

Yes, the man who wrote Burmese Days as an assault on colonialism and who fought against Franco would approve of the dismantling of the monuments of racial oppression.

Orwell wrote against the falsification of language in Animal Farm and 1984. But he fought (literally) oppressive social institutions (Homage to Catalonia, Down and Out in London and Paris), which is why he so objected to Stalinism and the tendency of Western countries likewise to abuse language.

Orwell was a lot more complex than many people realize. He began his career as a dedicated communist and then moved right, but he never reached the center. Human freedom mattered to him: freedom from totalitarianism of the right as well as the left.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 05:25PM by Lot's Wife.

Jefferson, Jackson, McKinley fought for the Confederacy?

That's rather selective. There are 12 confederate monuments to every single union monument.

The only racial references that might offend were quotes from Laura's mother who was afraid of some of the local Indians who came into their home and took items when Ma was home alone with her small children.

I didn't read it as a reason to ban her writing, but children might need to discuss this and come to terms with it if they're in a classroom setting.

I.e. introduce people to other thoughts, beliefs, geography, cultures, etc. so we can assess the good and the bad. But no, we can't risk our precious little snowflakes with things that are difficult, painful, tragic, wrong, or otherwise unpleasant.

While we're at it, let's make sure that every part of every playground is wrapped in four-inch soft foam, so nobody can possibly get hurt.

Children need more exposure to various ideas not less.

The primary goal of education, child care, and parenting should not be to protect children from varying ideas and points of view. Kids don't always have to be comfortable and cushioned from every little controversy.

One more time:
This group didn't suggest banning her books, removing her books from libraries, not letting kids read her books, not discussing her books, or anything of the sort.

They removed her name from an award they give.
Nothing else.

The hostility against Western Civilization is not always smashing and toppling statues or outright censorship. It also includes widespread erosion of more gradual degrees, such as removing writings from the canon of literary greats. We start with removing her name from an award, which gets attention. Then she's dropped from a recommended reading list, then an approved reading list. Later, her books are not shelved in public school libraries, then the public library.

Slippery slope? Shakespeare's* portrait was removed from the English department at U.Penn, and replaced with radical poet Audre Lorde. At Yale, radicals are "decolonizing" the English Department's core curriculum of dead male white writers. And millions know nothing about Alexander Hamilton except through rap lyrics.

Of course, "slippery slope" is a logical phallacy. Nothing to worry about folks.

*Of course, there's no proof that Shakespeare actually lived, or if he did, that he actually wrote the plays attributed to him. Somebody's bones in a crypt doesn't prove anything. :)

My views on discouraging the reading of certain types of literature are probably quite close to yours, Caffiend. But I do think you overstate some of your positions.

First, the canard that Shakespeare did not exist or that he did not write the works attributed to him has been researched comprehensively and almost completely discredited. Serious people who once held that view do not any more. That's the thing about research and analysis: more often than not it falsifies false hypotheses.

Second, what Yale did was to create a little more flexibility in its English department such that it is now POSSIBLE for a student to graduate without having read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Instead of three mandatory courses, there are now four courses of which three must be taken.

That's a reasonable change. I regret that some students will choose not to read Shakespeare, but that will probably be a very small group. Even the radical snowflakes running Yale understand that while respecting individual needs, the great literature is indispensable.

Theirs is a very marginal form of "decolonization."

Locally, the parents boycotted having Huck Finn in the school library after it was removed from a local librarians' awards list.

I know they didnt ban her books or advocate doing so, but to make an issue of racism when the only offensive things in the books are Ma being afraid of Indians who came into her home uninvited when Pa wasnt there and Pa disagreeing with someone who said that the only good Indians were dead Indians. This is.worth taking her name off an award? I dont think so.

Those aren't the only "offensive" things.

Pretty much. I have read the books dozens of times starting in 1st grade. There may be a couple of other things that I have forgotten but the books are not primarily about Indians and Laura and her family reflected the views of the time.They were products of those times like everyone and we cant whitewash history. I am all for teachers discussing problematic passages, but to me this is an over reaction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 01:48AM by bona dea.

She was one of the most beloved writers of fiction depicting characters of the 19th century. Was she really promoting racism in her writings? Wasn't it more a reflection of her era if she was? Not that I'm condoning that. But why deprive her of her place in literature because she wasn't politically correct in conformance with 21st century values?

She can't rewrite her masterpieces if she tried.

While Uncle Tom's Cabin is credited for inciting the masses to rise up and start the Civil War. Where do you begin censoring writers and their achievements? By virtue of where they stand in history?

Instead of rewriting history and rearranging its accolades, why not preserve history as it is? Aren't we better judges of human nature and character than this?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 01:33PM by Amyjo.

I fail to see how many ex-mormons calling for Brigham Young's name to be removed from BYU because of his racism (and other nasty things), and this, are any different.

Those who advocate removing BY from U don't want to remove him from history -- they want more people to know the nasty things he did. It's the BY advocates (the church, for example), who cover up the history. Not the people calling for his racism to be fully known and understood.

This is no different. Nobody's asking her books to be censored, or for her not to be talked about. In fact, the removal of her name from an award spurs MORE discussion about the woman herself, her writing, and her biases -- not less. Like BY, those calling for not having awards named after her want MORE discussion of what she actually wrote and actually was, including the context of her time, not less.

Part of the dumbing down of America is knee-jerk censorship. I recall my father banning certain TV programs (and this was in the seventies when TV was already heavily censored).

The sociologist, Paul Fussell, once wrote that the dumbing down of America might be traced to the time when a huckster named Joseph Smith convinced a group of hicks to start a new religion.

I think we're moving closer to the idea that all humans have the same worth. That "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" language can be hurtful when read aloud in a classroom that happens to include Native Americans. But no one is suggesting these things should not be available (censorship) or that these notions weren't widely believed at the time and should be seen as something we're moving away from. I think this is progress rather than dumbing down. The books still have a lot of value for children.

However, in the Little House books Pa made it clear that he didnt believe that the only good Indian was a dead Indian. Ma was scared of the Indians, but living alone with small children in Indian territory,I am not surprised. That is the way it was. Teachers can discuss the issue if they are using iit in class instead of banning it. Geesh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 01:31AM by bona dea.

The books have not been banned..Not Banned. The book award has been renamed. That's all.

There is nothing in any of the many books that suggests any such thing.

Only one or two of the books mention Indians and those references are slight and not in the least derogatory except to someone trying to take issue with Ingal's wording.

At least half of the books I used with children over my 30+ teaching career had a few controversial references or wordings. They presented good opportunities for discussion. No way should these books be left out of awards consideration or be banned from classrooms or libraries.

The "No good Indian" quote is not from Laura or her immediate family, but the common sentiment of the time. It is in her books.

And there's this:

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?

From the Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/little-house-prairie-was-built-native-american-land-180962020/

Nicely documented.

I loved the books but vaguely remembered some unsettling nuances. You've refreshed my memory.

That was the view of the time and exactly what happened. It needs to be discussed,not whitewashed,just as the racism in To Kill A Mockingbird needs to be discussed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 01:34AM by bona dea.

Pretending otherwise means lying to school children. I'm against that. They need to face such issues and openly discuss them.

The books are not banned. They have only renamed an award. In fact, they are discussing the view of the early settlers. That is what is happening.

I guess the Iliad and Odyssey are out because they have slavery,human sacrifice,brutal warfare and women dont have equal rights.

Again, the children's book award has been renamed. That's all that happened.

Got that, but still object.

That's like saying: "They only stole half the money from the bank, so why all the fuss?"

Nobody stole anything. That's absurd.

It is still a form of censorship although the books werent banned. We all get that

Question from the original post:

"
So does this mean no more "Little House on the Prairie" reruns on TV!??"

No.

To me, taking her name off of an award signals that librarians as a group feel that her work is at least somewhat less worthy of attention and veneration than it was in prior times. The article stated that her work was "not universally embraced" among librarians. I find this point of view rather sad. I loved her books as a child, and found them to be a rather fascinating window onto pioneer life. I learned a lot by reading them. I'm not sure that there is any viable replacement for them. And even as a child, I was well aware that views had changed. How could they not? So many decades have passed since the pioneer days.

As a teacher, I've seen which books are selected for instruction and which are discarded. The larger question is, how do we enculturate our children? How do we share our literary heritage with them while keeping things fresh? Agonizing choices are often made. And while I try my best to maintain a large and interesting classroom library, I've watched many kids struggle to embrace reading books with so many other distractions available.

The current Common Core curriculum puts a huge emphasis on nonfiction texts at the expense of fiction. In theory it's supposed to be 50/50, but in my experience its more like 75/25. While I understand the rationale, I fear that our literary heritage will continue to fall by the wayside. Much about the human condition can be learned by reading well-crafted fiction.

"Laura Ingalls Wilder was on the brink of having an award named in her honor, from the Association for Library Service to Children, when in 1952 a reader complained to the publisher of “Little House on the Prairie” about what the reader found to be a deeply offensive statement about Native Americans.

The reader pointed specifically to the book’s opening chapter, “Going West.” The 1935 tale of a pioneering family seeking unvarnished, unoccupied land opens with a character named Pa, modeled after Wilder’s own father, who tells of his desire to go “where the wild animals lived without being afraid.” Where “the land was level, and there were no trees.”

And where “there were no people. Only Indians lived there.”…

...Yet Harper’s decision in 1953 to change “people” to “settlers” in the offending sentence did little to quell the critics in later decades, who began describing Wilder’s depictions of Native Americans and some African Americans — and her story lines evoking white settlers’ Manifest Destiny beliefs — as racist.

Now, after years of complaints, the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association, says it voted Saturday to strip Wilder’s name from the award.

The decision makes Wilder the latest target of efforts to purge from the cultural landscape symbols that honor historical figures who owned slaves, espoused racist views or engaged in racist practices…

...“This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder’s legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness,” the association said in a statement on its website…

...The book includes multiple statements from characters saying, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”...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.”

Damn it, Dave and Devoted Exmo, would you stop hitting us with facts?

As "anybody" noted several months ago, we are in a post-reality world now, no longer bound by facts but freed to claim anything we want about anything we want. All opinions are equally valid. Our collective liberalization should be evident in the recent discussions of race, immigration, law and the constitution.

So lighten up, you damn pedants.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 02:33PM by Lot's Wife.

It used to be the conservative right who wanted to censor everything. Now it's the left. I feel like telling them all to go stick it.

I'm hearing jackboots and smelling the smoke of book burnings from both of them. It's a race to the bottom.

Nobody is advocating censorship. Nobody. Nobody is advocating burning books. Nobody. The people who give out the children's book award have the right to name their award anything they like.

Yes, they do and we get this but we are objecting to the reasons why they didnt name the book award after her.