Recently I found myself stranded on the side of the road with a flat tire, so I started thinking about Little House. I had plenty of time because in the more than 45 minutes I was there, not one person stopped to help. And that’s why I started thinking about Little House, because I’m pretty sure that Pa or Almanzo would never have passed someone broken down on the road without at least stopping to see if they could offer assistance.
I understand it’s a different time now; the world can be a dangerous place. Even as I sat there slightly annoyed that no one was stopping, I acknowledged that it might not be safe for me if the wrong person stopped to “help.” And it’s not like I have a right to complain that no one helped me, I can’t think of a time when I’ve stopped to help a stranger on the road either.
Maybe that’s one of the problems, in Laura’s time people in communities were probably more familiar with each other and therefore felt more responsible for helping each other out. Laura once wrote, “Sweet are the uses of adversity when it shows us the kindness in our neighbors’ hearts.”
Some of the 50 cars that passed me by…yes, I counted…might have been my neighbors – I was less than 2 miles from home – but they didn’t know it so I didn’t get a chance to find out about the kindness that might have been in their hearts. I would never pass by someone I knew but it’s easy to speed on by a stranger and assume someone else will help them out.
I wonder if that’s one of the reasons so many of us are drawn to the Little House books and Laura’s Ruralist articles; the sense of community, people helping people. Yes, the theme of the LH books is self sufficiency but would they have really been able to be so “self sufficient” without the help of their neighbors and charity coming from friends? I know many people still experience this today; maybe I’m jaded because I’ve always lived in large metropolitan areas rather than small towns. I can’t help but feel, though, that things and people were different in Laura’s day.
Luckily, I have something Laura didn’t – AAA. I can pay for the type of help that used to be freely given and eventually the flat tire (and the flat spare) were changed and I was on my way once again. I can’t say that I’ll stop on a lonely stretch of road to help out a stranded stranger anytime soon but maybe it’s time to get to know some of my neighbors.
One of the things that always struck me about these books is the dichotomy between self-sufficiency and community. I think Laura represents both sides of this issue in an interesting way. Laura clearly believed in personal freedom and independence, and the only times that government intrudes on their lives (that she writes about, at least) in LHOTP shows how she abhors these restraints and restrictions on personal autonomy. Yet she also shows, especially once the family moves to DeSmet, the benefits of community and society. When I was growing up, I wanted to live in a community like she did, where people knew each other and helped each other. Yet, as I got older, I realized that these books don’t necessarly praise the virtues of community the way I thought they did. When things were particularly difficult (TLW), members of the community showed that they cared less about their neighbors than turning a profit. It was their own work and industry that allowed the Ingalls family in that story to survive. Throughout these books, the individual’s actions always trump the group, and I think shows where Rose eventually gets her fervent Libertarianism from! So maybe Laura wouldn’t have been surprised that no one stopped to help you, although I agree that Pa would have!