|
She couldn't change what her parents said or did. Remember, it was the 1870's when this was happening, political correctness was unheard of.
How many of us could survive out on the prairie, no Internet, no electric, no phone, no hardware stores, etc.If you hate this book and want to bash it, please remember the context this book was written in and what things were like back then, where this happened, and the mindsets of many frontier folk. Even when this book was written, decades after the events within this book, there still was no PC-ness.The parts about making things was fun to read, since it gives us a valuable insight in how different life was back then (though some people might consider that kind of stuff boring).
This book is a classic of American literature, BUT to appreciate it as so, one needs to understand the historical context this book was written in. It's a better book for those who have a clearer understand of its context and aren't going to be offended.
Such books like this give us a valuable understanding of what happened back then, so this book needs to be approached with an open mind. Yes, the comments in there about Native Americans are horrible and racist when you look at them in today's context, but Laura was just a innocent little girl who was warned against the big, bad Indians by her parents.
I definitely would NOT recommend reading this book to little ones.
I have also edited (ok censored) some of the negative comments about Native Americans. I am currently reading this book to my 4 1/2 year old, since we recently drove out to Colorado and have been able to compare some of what we saw to the descriptions of the landscape in the book. I have been skipping at least some portions of chapters such as the one on building a door. I loved this series of books as a child and read them countless times. Its hard not to convey some of the negativity though, so I'll be looking for a book or 2 to show us a different perspective. This particular book was one of my least favorite since it is a bit slow. I am amazed at how many things I still remember from them, particularly the portions describing how things were done or made. In addition, I was uncomfortable with the depiction of Native Americans even as a child.
He points out that they could be expected to be angry, having been evicted from their ancestral lands to the east. A good novel can overcome the problematic position of its characters, but this work does not. The Whites long for the Indians to "disappear" or go further West. This book is a fascinating historical document, in part because it helped to reinforce the mythologies at the core of White supremacy. But most American Whites can't stand hearing this sort of thing, and have no problem with the myth of peaceful Whites and bad Indians on the Western frontier.
He is unapologetic about the colonization of Indian land, and the associated genocide, but he does reinforce a more humane view of the savages. No one in the novel kills an Indian. He sees "good Indians" mixed in with the bad and tries to make nice with the Other. and Mrs.
(3) Whole chapters limp by with scarcely an event. In this novel the Indians are dark, violent, mysterious, and unknowable: they are literally "savages." Pa helps to soften some of the racism. The novel offers only nice White folks making an earnest living. Whites, who destroyed the ecosystems that sustained Indian life, then say the Indians aren't making use of the land. Let's be honest: the history of White settlement in America is, among other things, a history of heinous crime.
I tried to gently help my six-year old daughter through this moral terrain, but she identified with the White settlers' point of view: the Indians were scary and the Whites weren't stealing. who was watching her. Whites, who stole Indian lands, describe Indians as trespassing and menacing. Of course, the novel tells nothing of the violence that delivered the lands to Whites and kept it in their possession. etc).
The wrongs of colonization were particularly acute on the frontier. Instead it mostly repeats the racist perspective of White settlers, who feel frightened and endangered by the people who live in the land already. A few: (1) Baby Carrie goes missing from the story for chapters on end (where was she. And yet they are, in effect, good Germans during the Nazi era: their wholesome business is entwined with the ruination and murder of Indians. They are utterly blameless, since no big picture is given. wasn't she crying.
Actually, that's true to life, but not it does not make good novel reading--particularly in a children's tale, and particularly when (4) there is zero character development. That's fine if you're interested in historical carpentry, but it seriously drags down the pace of the novel. But it has no business being read to or read by children, unless one wants to perpetuate its lies.
(2) It can take Wilder pages and pages to describe something as inane as building a door. In short, the characters epitomize the great White inversion of history: Whites--the ones who killed a million Indians--describe Indians as posing the threat. On a far more basic note, then, there are some major flaws in the writing.
Scott. Relatedly, the novel's Whites say that their "productive" use of the land entitles them to take it. Ma and Pa are contrasted with the more genocide-minded Mr.
Better: Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren, and Anne of Green Gables by L. Encounters with Indians are inevitable due to the location of their chosen plot. 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. M. The problem is, in Little House on the Prairie, pretty much everyone except for Mr.
Laura Ingalls Wilder's writing style is on the simple side, perfect for younger readers. 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. The tale is of an arduous, adventurous journey and an exciting but simple life on the plains. All they do is roam around over it like wild animals."'"She did not know why the government made treaties with Indians. Can I never teach you to keep your sunbonnets on."'Chapter 11".she saw two naked, wild men coming." "Their eyes were black and still and glittering, like snake's eyes." ".she smelled a horribly bad smell and she looked up at the Indians." "We don't want to wake up some night with a band of the screeching dev-"Chapter 17`"Land knows, they'd never do anything with this country themselves. I just wish it had gone down differently. Even as an adult, I don't mind it. For some inexplicable reason, I never read this series when I was young, in spite of watching the series regularly.
Similar (though probably better for boys): Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder. These samples illustrate my primary criticism with the book - that it is racist against Native Americans: Chapter 10`"Dear me, Laura, must you yell like an Indian. Encounters with future friends (fellow settlers) and foe (wild animals, Indians) are the primary highlights in the mostly happy lives of the Ingalls family members, most of which are spent obtaining the basic necessities (gathering, preparing and eating food, constructing a home and filling it with necessities). The only good Indian was a dead Indian." Chapter 22"Mr. He figured that Indians would be as peaceable as anybody else if they were let alone," disliked or downright despised the Indians.
Scott said.'Chapter 23".at night they heard the savage voices shouting." Although a great story about one family's experiences traveling to and growing up on the prairie, portions of the book are racist. Montgomery. Scott said he didn't know why so many of those savages were coming together, if they didn't mean devilment." `"The only good Indian is a dead Indian, " Mr. Now I wish that I had. I declare," Ma said, "if you girls aren't getting to look like Indians.
The story is this (straight from the first page of the book), ".there were too many people in the Big Woods." so ".Pa and Ma and Mary and Laura and Baby Carrie [and their dog Jack] left their little house in the Big Woods of Wisconsin." The family went "across Minnesota and Iowa and Missouri" in a horse-drawn wagon filled with all of their belongings except "the beds and tables and chairs" because "Pa could make always make new ones" and began their new life on an empty plot of Kansan land. I'm glad that settlers homesteaded the land (all but one of my great-grandparents were homesteaders in McIntosh County, ND). Ingalls, as this example from Chapter 22 illustrates, "Pa said he didn't know about that.
Thanks, great book. This was a great book and we as a family enjoyed reading it together before bed time.
|
