I was *really bored* yesterday, so I decided to just go ahead

[conuly]

and look up Amazon reviews for the Little House books!

Specifically, commentary to negative reviews. No, I'm not sure why I do this to myself either.

Now, typically when mocking Amazon reviews I add my own snarky commentary, but I'm not sure I'll bother this time. Many of these comments, I'm afraid, just kinda speak for themselves.

(Still not sure what I'm going to do with my boxed set of the LH books. Reading them to the nieces is out. Giving the books to them to read sans adult input is definitely out. And I'm not tossing them either. They were a special Christmas present. So... yeah, I don't know.)

So, on to the... uh, the fun!

For some inexplicable reason, I never read this series when I was young, in spite of watching the series regularly. Now I wish that I had. As a child I think it'd be a bit easier to be oblivious to the obvious racism against "Indians" that detracts from an otherwise excellent book. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that settlers homesteaded the land (all but one of my great-grandparents were homesteaders in McIntosh County, ND). And although I'm saddened about the mistreatment of Indians at the hands of the American government, I'm glad that things have turned out as they have for descendants of those who came after the Native Americans. I just wish it had gone down differently.

She then goes on to quote some of the troubling text from Little House on the Prairie, but you know, she'd rather have read the book as a kid when she wouldn't've known better. Because there's nothing better to do to a kid than to give them a book with racist subtext (and text-text) they're going to accept because they don't know enough to notice it. *headdesk*

Also, you know, there's the bolded text right there. That's my emphasis.

I recommend this book only to kids under the age of eight and kids who have not read the Harry Potter or Artemis Fowl series. For lovers of fantasy, mystery, magic or science-fiction, you must turn elsewhere for a good read.

Yes, this is a kid's review. For the love of God I wish Amazon would stop allowing those. "If you like books totally different from this book, you might not like this book!" Well, no duh. Moving along now.

This next one is in comment to a review saying "Look, this book? It's racist!" Do me a favor, go upvote that review. I suspect it's getting low votes because it dared to take on the popular classic. And that's not fair.

Wow ... I'm amazed and almost disgusted at the agenda based review from 'quickhappy' ... the reviewer must be the kind of person that simply cannot live in a colorblind world and has to view every action, every word written or said, every motive, in form of race or color. I almost feel sympathy for the child spoken of in the review as they seem to be growing up in one of those ideological 'cages' much like the religious crazies! Good heavens, enjoy the books and life without creating racism out of things it's not. Only serves to let the remaining racist elements slide through.

There's really nothing to say to this. NOTHING.

Another comment to that review:

You may dislike Mrs. Wilder's writing if you like. She's not everyone's cup of tea. But actually saying that this book shouldn't be read to or by children? How are children ever going to learn history unless they read of episodes that are uncomfortable? Should we deny them access to "Huckleberry Finn" or "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman," because they present a less than flattering view of race relations?

1. I've never read Huck Finn, nor heard of the other one at all. I think I'm a pretty well-rounded individual despite that.

2. How are children going to learn history? Well, maybe by being taught history instead of being given books with a lot of racism at a young age (third grade reading level!) and encourage to read them alone with limited adult input and little to no encouragement to read critically. I mean, I don't know, is this a difficult concept?

From the other books we have the comments here, which I'm not even going to bother quoting. They range from "Well, if you'd been scalped (?) you wouldn't complain about a little racism!" to "You should read every single book with your child so as to make good out of bad" to "Well, I kinda think I'm 1/16 real Native American, and I think you're being silly, so there!" (Well, that last is unfair. I'm not qualified to judge this person's statement that she's "proud of her Native American and Pilgrim heritage" because she's "extensively studied her genealogy", I guess.)

And that is pretty much it for "replies to negative comments". There's a handful of them for all nine or so books. (And you may not realize it, but these books have already been slightly edited.)

Well, that's depressing. Really, it is.

On that note, we're halfway through The Penderwicks. Maybe we'll do Owlboy next.

Comments

[dragonwolf]

Huck Finn (as well as Tom Sawyer) has been banned in places because of a) its racist characters and b) its language. I can't speak for the Little House books, but in the case of Huck Finn, et al, Twain was specifically going for realism (to the point that the whole writing style of the books are in a 19th century country vernacular). In the time the books take place, blatant racism, slavery, and whatnot were real things going on. To not have those themes in such a book would seriously detract from the story, because they were part of who the characters were and the world they lived in.

[karalianne.livejournal.com]

Hm.

It's been a while since I read the books. What stands out most in my mind is the stuff about the black face - the show that Pa and someone else put on. I found that disturbing when I was a child.

I think that probably the primary value of the books (as with any older books that are racist or ableist or whatever) would be as a window into the lives of the pioneers, with a side helping of opportunities to discuss things like racism and where there are signs of it and how it is wrong and so on. I do also think that it's important to remember that the author is recounting events of her childhood, and so some things may not be accurate, while others may simply be seen through that lens (i.e., children take on the attitudes of their parents, they don't always fully understand the events going on around them).

I'll have to re-read them (I own the entire series) with an eye to that and be sure to take careful notes so that I can use the books to teach my own kids about such things.

Oh, wait, I do remember feeling rather indignant on behalf of the natives at on point, because I knew that any attacks they were making were a response to having their land taken over by the settlers. But I wasn't old enough yet to have learned that a lot of the information put forth by the pioneers about the character of the tribes they were dealing with was deliberately incorrect, describing them as savages and whatnot. I knew they weren't savages, but I didn't know that their culture had been so badly misrepresented.

So yes, I think they could be a useful teaching tool about things like racism and culture-clash, but I don't think I will be giving them to my children to read for fun until after we've had those discussions and had a look at the history of the period, the oppression of the First Nations peoples, and what's different now. (Sadly, nowhere near enough.)

[atdelphi.livejournal.com]

So yes, I think they could be a useful teaching tool about things like racism and culture-clash

What troubles me (and I'm not criticizing your opinion that the books could be useful, but rather the opinion amongst many librarians and teachers that they unquestionably are the most useful source) is that the mainstream cultural go-to for these lessons are books by white people featuring white protagonists who were written as being in the right.

I strongly suspect that if most of the people recommending these books for children wanted to do more than revel in their own nostalgia, give lip-service to anti-racism, or simply reach for the 'easy option,' they would be finding one of the many well-written books about colonization that isn't written uncritically from the perspective of the colonizers.

[karalianne.livejournal.com]

*nodnod*

I agree. The Little House books are entertaining and an easy read for the age group they're aimed at, but they aren't objective, and I think it's definitely important to recognize author bias as well as reader bias whenever we pick up a book. (In my opinion, this includes fantasy and science fiction, not just historical fiction.)

Of course, the other problem for me with the Little House books is that they're about pioneers in the US, not in Canada. I'm sure there are a number of similarities, but I expect there are many differences, as well.

What I should do (will add this to my list) is see if I can find an array of fiction and non-fiction about the settlement of both Canada and the US, written by both settlers and First Nations peoples. That would allow for compare and contrast, and give more opportunity for discussion - how do the different people describe the same events, why do they describe them that way, what are the authors' biases, etc.

The same applies to most events in history. Wars, the building of the railroad, Confederation, etc.

There are some things that are facts, which we can simply take as such - dates, places, events, reported reasons for events (i.e., the official party line) - but it is important to look at the effects of these events and some of the ways they impacted certain people/types of people. Reading the account of a priest who was in charge of one of the residential schools here in Canada will give us one point of view; reading the account of an aboriginal student of said school will give us another. The general truth is probably somewhere in between, but the thoughts, opinions, and personal experiences of those directly involved are incredibly important. I bring up the residential schools because I am aware of the cultural suppression that they were a part of, and I recently learned that the last one was only closed in the 1980's. They are an appalling part of Canada's history, and I think most Canadians - the non-native ones - are as unaware as I was of how recently they were in use. Most people I talked to about it when restitution was being decided by the courts seemed to think that the schools were all something that happened 50 years ago or more, and that's simply not true. (Actually, the lack of education we receive about our own country's history is astounding. I think we end up knowing more about general world history and specific US history than we do about our own freaking country.)

[conuly]

According to Wikipedia, compulsory enrollment in the schools ended in 1948, and many of them were closed in the 1960s in a big push. So it makes sense that people think "oh, fifty years ago!" although of course there were a few open much (much) later.

Of course, if anybody has a better source than Wikipedia, I'm thrilled and want it.

[karalianne.livejournal.com]

http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/indian_act.htm (lots of animated GIFS and poor web design but tons of information)

http://www.wampumchronicles.com/ (better design; I haven't been through this one in full just yet)

[conuly]

Thankies, I'll look at it later :)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

If you want some more details on those books, read this. (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050316084702/http://www.oyate.org/books-to-avoid/littlehouse.html)

And in general, this. (http://oyate.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=108)

I never could get into those books and I never knew what the big attraction was.

[erisiansaint]

I don't advise giving these books to children, based on some of the interesting things I've found out about them since I read them as a child. (Although, I do credit these books with starting some of my fascination with food.)

1) Pa? For as much as Laura idolized him, he was, in fact, a failure. As such, the family lived in some seriously crushing poverty, which is why Laura started working to help support the family at the tender age of thirteen.

2) Laura's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, helped write the books. And thus, there's a strong anti-government component in them. Every time Pa tries to take advantage of free land, they have to start over. (Rose hated FDR and the New Deal, and was, in fact, someone Ayn Rand used to ask for advice.)

3) It's sort of shocking to think that these books take place AFTER Little Women and during the same time period as Anne of Green Gables, given the difference in lifestyles.

I admit, I loved these books as a kid. Now I look back on the politics and racism and just blink a lot.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Which at least goes to show that even people who read these books as kids without adult input and guidance (?), and who liked them, don't automatically adopt the ideology of the books, right?
Not that I think everyone has to read those (or similar) books. I do think that kids are smarter than we may think, though, and don't necessarily believe everything just because it happens in a book. *headscratch*

[erisiansaint]

I certainly was smarter than that. So is my kid. I remember, at the time, thinking it was weird that there was only one actual black man in the books, but at least he was a doctor.

On the other hand, in spite of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her hatred of government assistance, (and that's fairly hypocritical, she took plenty of it when necessary,) I'm still a staunch liberal.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I don't think there were that many actual black people in the northern Midwest at that time. My parents grew up in Nebraska, and my mother said she never saw a black person till she was in college. She never saw any Indians there either; they'd all been driven out before the railroad was built.

In some areas there still aren't.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I never saw a black individual with my own two eyes (as opposed to on the television) until 1984 or so, when a black family moved to my town and their daughter started attending school.

(Editorial comment: Funny how some people call it "racist" not to talk about people of color when there aren't any around....)

The "blackface" episode in the Little House series just confused me, because I DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS. (There's a "teach history" moment for you: when I was ten, I was ignorant of what 'blackface minstrels' meant--in fact AND historically--and had to guess what the whole chapter was about.)

Re: In some areas there still aren't.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

There are hardly any black people where I live (western Washington State.) Lots of Native folk, and a fair number of Asians, but seldom a black face to be seen.

Oddly enough, the Mexicans are the ethnic group that seems to get dissed the most around here - odd, because there don't actually seem to be many Mexicans in the area; in over 20 years here, I've only met two. I have to wonder if the people making the ignorant remarks are transplanted Californians who don't comprehend that not all brown faces come from Mexico.

Re: In some areas there still aren't.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

That's where I am, but I think the Mexican presence is pretty localized--some towns have a Little Mexico section, some don't have much of a mexican population at all.

[conuly]

Well, yes. Despite what all our English teachers tried to tell us, books really won't change your life that dramatically.

I mean, I read The Girl Who Owned a City, which was apparently written to convert children to Ayn Rand's ideas, and I came away with the idea that the thing to do in an adult-killing disaster was to all pull together!

But that still doesn't mean I want to myself be promoting the ideas in these books.

[erisiansaint]

That's fair. I'm going to have a very difficult time even thinking of letting my kid read early Orson Scott Card books. (This is sad because OSC was someone who shaped my early thinking on secular humanism, but he's since reverted to hardcore Mormonism and now espouses principles that mean I won't even buy his books used.)

[leora.livejournal.com]

*sighs* I really loved Ender's Game. I stopped reading the Ender series a while ago, but it started doing some annoying things. The last book I read said something about life being meaningless if you don't have kids. Which I thought was interesting in that Ender never has children genetically, but also deeply offensive. I think what gives life meaning varies from person to person. We find and make meaning for ourselves. A lot of my friends are childfree and quite happy that way. I would not say that their lives are meaningless. Nor would I ever consider telling friends who have fertility issues that their lives are meaningless.

[conuly]

Not even used? I always think of used books from authors whose personal views I despise as being the best of both worlds - you get to read a book PLUS you get the vindictive pleasure of "stealing" a profit from them.

[conuly]

I wonder what Rose Wilder Lane thought about the fact that one reason the books are (still) so popular is because they're on state-sponsored book lists for state-funded public schools.

[erisiansaint]

That's afforded me a much-needed giggle, thank you.

[conuly]

No problem. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.