I’m not sure which came first. Was my interest in American History the reason for falling in love with the Little House books, or did the Little House books drive my need to learn more about American History? At any rate, my fascination with American History led me to have a profound respect and admiration for the Native American people.
Over the last few years, I have read more and more about how the Little House books should be banned or censored because of their depiction of Native American people. I cannot speak from the perspective of a Native American, but as someone who has read each of Laura’s stories so many times for so many years, I have a different opinion.
I honestly feel that my respect for Native Americans has come from their portrayal in the Little House books. I can see where the negative feelings come from, but in me, Laura spurred a desire to learn more. As a matter of fact, this is also the reason I chose to own and show Appaloosa Horses, a breed that was developed in America by the Nez Perce Indians.
I have always felt that Pa and Laura genuinely respected the Native Americans. I never once considered them “savages.” The feelings of Ma and some of the others really came about as a result of events that had occurred in their past. I remember feeling great sympathy for the Native Americans because I knew that they were fighting a losing battle for their land. Laura is simply writing from her own point of view as a person who experienced it in the way that she did. You are reading her feelings.
There are many tragic events that have shaped our history. We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it. Banning one, or all, of the Little House books because they told the story of one family’s experiences also will not change history. It would, however, close a door that was opened for me many years ago.
Laura, this point is so simple but so well taken. As an adult I have been taken off-guard by the claim of racism in the Little House books. The Little House books shaped my view of Native Americans from an early age, and that view has always been positive. Through her words, sometimes nuanced and subtle, sometimes direct, Laura provides everything I need to arrive at that conclusion, and I fully believe that was her intention.
Yes, I’ve always had the same feeling that Pa and Laura had respect for the various Native Americans that appeared in the books, but I’ve always thought that Ma “despising Indians” was more a reaction of fear and ignorance than simple bigotry.
And the books wouldn’t be genuine if they were “cleaned up” to be politically correct to 21st century sensibilities. The books as written give us an accurate portrayal of how people people felt and acted in the late 19th century.
If they’re going to ban the LIW books, they’d better take Mark Twain’s books and many others along with them, which, of course, would be entirely unacceptable.
I am surprised at Ma’s total dislike for Indians. Her father was close to the Indians when he was alive and they brought the family meat during the winter after he passed away. I always wondered if it was creative license that Ma hated the Indians and Pa and Laura respected them.
I always thought that the experience in Kansas of the Indians wearing invading their home when Pa was away affected Ma’s opinions of them.
I think it’s better that we read the two attitudes that honest and learn from them. It actually has become a pet peeve of mine to read a story and find out that it takes place in 1830 Mississippi and our rich protagonist is anti-slavery, etc. Odds are that’s not how it would have happened and things were a lot more complicated than the PC people would have us believe. Not that hatred is right, but that attitudes, experiences, conclusions, were so different and complicated and we need to understand them to move forward.
I’ll step off my soapbox now.
I see both sides, actually. I too grew up reading Little House, and having an interest in Native Americans as a result, an interest that quickly became pride upon discovering my Shawnee ancestry (if only it had been Osage!
) )
However, while I have staunchly defended Laura’s portrayal of Native Americans for years based on my own experiences, a recent reread of Little House on the Prairie to my niece has kind of made me flinch a little here and there… somehow it’s different reading something for yourself than it is reading it to a child.
Overall, I still have the same opinion — I do think Laura’s comments were reflective of the time period, and this modern day notion of making everything politically correct just cannot and should not apply when one is looking at historical context. But some of her descriptions are a little “harsher” than I’d recalled — for example, “She knew they were wild men with red skins… Pa knew all about wild animals, so he must know about wild men too.”
At the same time, though, I pick up on some subtleties Laura included that I missed as a child, and those are excellent opportunities for discussion. Take for example the chapter, “Indians in the House.” The chapter is thrilling to a young child, because of the buildup of Laura’s and Mary’s fear — but look at comments such as their “ribs made little ridges up their bare sides” and regarding Ma’s cornbread, “They ate every morsel of it, and even picked up the crumbs from the hearth.” That provides the perfect opening to a discussion of why the Indians did what they did — they were hungry! Which in turn leads to a discussion on just WHY the Indians were so hungry, and then children can be engaged in conversation about what happened and why it was wrong. We learn from our mistakes, and studying history and the mistakes of the past is the best way to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
Banning Little House is not the answer for those who have concerns about the way Laura handles her experience with the Native Americans — keeping children ignorant of what happened and of prejudices and other such wrongs committed in the past just opens the door for such a situation to happen again. The books are an excellent way to introduce children in a method they can both understand and take interest in, to the travesty that occurred in this country and what types of attitudes and misunderstandings led to its occurrence.
My two cents.
I am not as eloquent as many of you but I’ll attempt to express my opinion clearly. When we look at LHOTP with 21st century eyes that have been trained to discern culturally destructive language and stereotypes we perceive racism. However, we have to look at the opinions expressed with 19th and 20th century eyes. Ma grew up in Michigan and Wisconsin. Not too far away from her there was an “Indian Massacre” that killed many white settlers. I am sure as a little girl Ma heard the stories and was terrified. As a woman alone in Indian Territory, knowing she was the invader, a visit from the Osage neighbors must have been unsettling. I think Laura was speaking from her mother’s perspective as well as her own. Was it culturally proficient or politically correct? Not in our times but how about in the 1930.s when it was written or during the 1860′s when it took place?
When I give my talks I use these incidents as a spring board to talk about the genre of historical fiction and looking at things from the author’s perspective.
Should the books be banned? Only if you want to set precedent to ban many other fine works of literature.
But, what do I know. My favorite picture book as a child was Little Black Sambo and my last black kitty was named Little Black Sambo.
Dr Laura
I too have struggled with this issue about Little House on the Prairie. However, I have to agree with Tracy. I think a lot of the negative feelings are about ignorance and a lot of hearsay. It could even have been a bit of mass hysteria about the indians being out to “get” the settlers.
There were some cruel indians, just as there were cruel whites. Personally, I feel there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides in regards to the difficulty between indian and whites. I don’t think any one side can be totally blamed.
I think Ma may have just been afraid of indians after hearing the propoganda.
To ban Little House because of this is bad! It is just a part of our history. You cannot just ignore something or ban it and have it go away. Why do we need to protect current generations from this? Me, I would be more worried about protecting current generations from the tv, music, and video games which are a lot more racist than Little House on the Prarie could ever be.
this is a late comment – I came here by way of a Google search on racism in the Little House books. I grew up on these books, but just re-read them in preparation for giving the books to my niece for her 7th birthday. (Her mom is my step-sister and has never read the books.) I was convinced I was going to give them to her, but now I’m not so sure.
My issues are not as deeply with the portrayal of Native Americans, because Pa in particular always provides a thoughtful, reasoned response to Ma’s dislike. They concern me, but my larger issue is with the songs about “darkies”, or those sung in an obviously parody of Southern black language and the minstrel show later in the series. There is no balancing argument as there is about Native Americans. If if were my own child, I’d use it as a learning opportunity, but giving it to someone else’s child, even my sister’s child, makes me pause to consider.
I suspect that I will send two birthday gifts – the first book separately with a note for her mom to read it herself and decide if she wants her daughter to read the rest of the series.
My father and mother bought the Little House books for me starting on my seventh birthday. For five years in our travels from California to Maryland to Oregon, my father read the entire series out loud each winter evening as I sat beside him. Those memories are among the most precious of my childhood.
My mother and father were from Texas and I spent my teenage years in the Dallas area where there were separate schools for black students. And I was in white classrooms where music from the South was included in those songs we sang. The word ‘darky” was certainly in those songs in a white classroom in Texas.
I had to fight my way through the racial prejudice of a Texas education system and the separate water fountains in the 1950′s and working for an aunt in a candy store in AZ in the early 1960′s who would only serve blacks if they did not sit down at the lunch counter and would take the food out.
Those were far more potent experiences than seeing the word “darky” in books that I loved for the love and support of the family for each other, for their perseverance in the face of challenge and the simple, fundamental actions of neighbor helping neighbor. Our children need far more of this influence than the hysterical — yes, hysterical response of those who would sanitize American history.
I read to our son from the time he was six months old sitting in his bath seat in the bathtub. I read from “Silver Pennies” and other classics from my childhood because I felt that the simple act of reading to him from a very early time would imprint the sound and rhythm of language — and I guess it has. He is one of the most literate and widely read individuals of my acquaintance.
The Little House books (saved from my own set which were illustrated by Helen Sewell and inscribed on the flyleaves as a gift from my parents) were among those that I read to him when he was about five. I read “Wind in the Willows” and other classics as well. The summer before Michael entered first grade I found him curled up in a chair on the deck of our summer cabin reading “Farmer Boy” and chuckling to himself. This was before reading classes in the first grade. I figured he had to be able to read and to understand the text in order to recognize the nuances of humor.
I think we completely underrate our children and their perceptions of the world around them if we think that they will contract the virus of racial prejudice from books that accurately portray the thought and actions of Americans at the time. Current prejudices that they experience in the current media. The simple truths of books like the Little House books are a potent antidote to much of the ugliness, prejudice and vice that we see around us.
One more personal vignette. in 1976 — the Bicentennial year — when our son was seven — my husband, son Michael and I made a trip from Arizona, up the east coast — across to New York, then Wisconsin, through Minnesota and to South Dakota visiting Little House sites as we traveled. What a wonderful experience that was!
Don’t take this heritage away from children. Teach them, don’t deprive them. And as a retired school librarian — when did we resume the banning of books in this country?
I heard on Jeopardy the other day that “Little House” was a banned book. What?!?! I read the whole series 3 or 4 times as a child. I didn’t remember anything that would have been offensive. Now, I guess I understand a little bit. But, I agree with everyone (here) that it is part of history and you can’t change it, you can only learn from it. Every child should read these books, it would be a shame if they were banned.
I’m just finishing up a read-aloud of _The Long Winter_ to my elementary school boys at bedtime, and personally, I think Native Americans ought to be proud of how L. I. Wilder represents them in this particular book. The Native American character that speaks in this book seems to be the only person with sense when he comes to town to kindly tell the “white men” that they are about to have a very difficult winter that will last 7 months. Sure, it’s made mention of Ma’s reaction to the Native Americans, but Pa’s own respectful regards of the Native American wise man balances it. The Native American didn’t do anything violent in this volume. . . he was actually doing them a kindness. If Ma’s reaction was so offensive, then perhaps we all shouldn’t have an opinion or reaction to anybody because we’d all be in a state of constant offense. (You can’t control people’s opinions.)
I’m not sure why we should shut up what SOME people really felt towards Native Americans at that time. It is all a part of history, and to pretend that “all was well” in our relationships on both sides would be FOOLISH. Our children need to know, and we needn’t hide from history. Why do we turn these things into a form of ridiculous shame for descendants of either side, when instead we ought to choose to say, “Let’s read this, let’s discuss it, and let’s talk about it from as many perspectives as possible. Let’s see how we can learn to get along and respect one another. Let’s choose the right thing.”
Face it, white settlers were many times afraid of the Native American violence towards them. And rightfully so. Have you ever read about some of their methods? Pretty brutal stuff. If we are going to say, “We shouldn’t talk about how whites were afraid of Native Americans,” well then, we might as well say, “We can’t talk about how the white European settlers came in and treated Native Americans badly.”
Why is it that descendants of white European-Americans are fodder for dumping shame onto, BUT we can’t discuss anything that might shame someone of a different ethnic background in this country? The white European-American descendant is always to blame for ALL the bad in America and in the world today. THIS IS GROSS MISEDUCATION and IGNORANCE. Where we are now in this country is a result of decades of telling school children how horrible our Founding Fathers were, how Capitalism has ruined the world, how white people are responsible for enslavement (nevermind that African natives took part in enslaving/capturing/selling their own countrymen – did they ever tell you this part in school?), and generally laying guilt on the minds of young white American schoolchildren for ages to come. We have taught our children to hate some (“evil” white people) while claiming we are teaching them love all.
There is always more than one side to a story where human relationships are involved, and to try to suppress any side of history is not really doing anyone any favors. Laura Ingalls Wilder presents a perspective. I’d love to read my children any Native American perspectives (appropriate for their age and comparable to Wilder’s books) of the same time in history. That would be awesome.
If we’re going to protect our children’s minds and bodies from the real cultural dangers, well, let’s start with people like “Safe Schools” Czar Kevin Jennings and his ilk. Talk about preying on young people. . .
If Laura Ingalls Wilder is banned, so must Mark Twain…. Oh right, they’ve done that, too. We need to not only know WHAT has happened in our past, but also WHY. Understanding motivations and perception helps to truly understand our history and hopefully, by examining past preconceptions and prejudices, avoid making some of the same mistakes today… i.e. How some are painting everyone of Muslim faith today with the same brush appropriate for Osamz bin Ladden.
I agree with Tracy Smith about Ma’s reactions. Not only is she completely alone with only small children, and without Pa, when the Indians come into her house in Kansas, but she has no way to communicate with them. They make noises several times that Laura doesn’t understand. If the Indians speak any English, that is not clear to Ma who doesn’t know any words in their language. They are two men, wearing only skunk loincloths, and carrying a knife and a hatchet. How can Ma develop any kind of relationship with Indians without meeting Indian women or children? How can she not be uncomfortable and possibly terrified by their near-nakedness?
The most interesting part throughout the books is how Laura continues to feel respect for Indians despite all these obstacles to communication and reasons to fear them.
I’m also reading my daughter several books written in France in the 1950s, where the racism against both Algerians and gypsies is considered matter-of-fact. Also important questions to rethink with our children…
Laura Ingalls Wilder was merely telling people of her childhood experiences. She and her daughter both had a God given gift for putting their thoughts down on paper. Its been nearly 57 yrs since Ms Ingalls-Wilder has passed away. It been nearly 43 yrs since Rose Wilder-Lane passed. To this day people of all ages are still reading their books, enjoying them, and learning something of what it was like to live in pioneer times. So I would have to say leave them alone. Don’t ban them.
We cannot change what our ancestors did. But we must learn from it and treat everyone as equal in the present and future. We cannot learn if we deny how things really were.
I find it a bit of a stretch to impose 21st century culture onto the 19th century. Pioneer life was a tough life and very isolated. At the point when Laura shared her thought as a very young child comparing wild animals and “wild men,” she hadn’t even been to school or a city or even a town of size. She’d been to the Pepin store, met a few neighbors, but interacted primarily with her family. What pioneer children knew about their world came entirely from these limited experiences. Her references show her innocence more than anything.
In contrast we have compulsory education beginning at 5 for 13 years, TV, movies, telephones, and now the Internet. We also have constant interaction with the outside world, even in just going to the store for food. We are now a nation of over 330 million. Back then maybe the population was in the low millions, and they sure weren’t concentrated on the prairies. I agree with those who said that book banning sets a dangerous precedent. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” after all.
Finally, they have already published “cleaned up” versions of LHOTP. I found this out reading aloud to 4th grade students. Many read along with their own copy, so when I finished the chapter with the “Darky Song,” one of the students piped up, “You forgot the last page.” I looked at it, and said, “That’s right! I forgot that was in the one I read growing up.” So, we had exactly this discussion about how times have changed on how we view how people were treated in the past. Harper & Row has always kept the minstrel segment. I imagine the publisher feels that would be taking too much license with the original and perhaps hurt the continuity of that chapter.