|
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 This book is a fascinating historical document, in part because it helped to reinforce the mythologies at the core of White supremacy.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.
Jones puts so much into her delivery that Wilder's crisp imagery really helps you visualize that labor and love Pa and Ma Ingalls put into their survival. I highly recommend this recording for any fan, or new reader who wants to hear a warm-hearted, relaxing bedtime story. Hearing this work makes it somehow realer; you can't just pass over it the way you can in a book. Little House on the Prairie was my least favorite of the series, but listening to Jones breathed new life into this story for me.
Cherry Jones' reading of Little House on the Prairie is lively, spirited, clear and articulate all at the same time. Laura's spritely personality is also perfectly captured. It reminds me that Wilder grew up in a more oral tradition, and this recording proves how effective and how different orality is. The best is when she sings along to Woodiel's fiddle.
Even the long descriptions I used to find somewhat tedious, of how the house is built, well dug, etc., were suddenly fascinating. Highly recommend. I was initially worried that the songs would sound ridiculous, but I was pleasantly surprised by how natural Jones' singing was, and how smoothly the fiddle entered the narration. For example, I listen to audiobooks when I'm experiencing particularly bad insomnia, which is NOT to say the books bore me to sleep; instead, I'm soothed to sleep.
It's taken me a long time to finally read this book, I never read the series as a kid but I'm amazed at how good it is and plan to read other volumes in the series. I think it is because the author actually lived the life she wrote about and the book was written in 1935 when others had also lived a similar life on the plains. It's wonderful. This story shows a lot about the American Frontier and the settlers who moved out there. It is also not cloaked in American sentimentalism and is more realistic than most books are about frontier life.
|
