Laura Ingalls Wilder name taken from book award over Native Americans depictions - Sensationalist Headlines

Come back to this discussion when you're prepared to actually discuss historical theory and frames of reference.

Oh wow, the horror /s

and like for fucks sake, this was seen as bad even back when the books were written. From the article in the op Laura Ingalls Wilder was on the brink of having an award named in her honor, from the Association for Library Service to Children, when in 1952 a reader complained to the publisher of “Little House on the Prairie” about what the reader found to be a deeply offensive statement about Native Americans. The reader pointed specifically to the book’s opening chapter, “Going West.” The 1935 tale of a pioneering family seeking unvarnished, unoccupied land opens with a character named Pa, modeled after Wilder’s own father, who tells of his desire to go “where the wild animals lived without being afraid.” Where “the land was level, and there were no trees.” And where “there were no people. Only Indians lived there.” The editor at Harper’s who received the reader’s complaint wrote back saying it was “unbelievable” to her that not a single person at Harper’s ever noticed, for nearly 20 years, that the sentence appeared to imply that Native Americans were not people, according to a 2007 biography of Wilder by Pamela Smith Hill.

Sure we can judge. But what value does that have in the context of those times? Of course I judge the actions of people in history against the values of today quite harshly. But then I also try and look at it in the context of the times for the sake of the parable, or story, or writing. Why would you not do that? Is there a value to devaluing the mindset that was existent at the time?

how is going "you know what her works don't represent what our organization strives to be so we're going to rename the award" devaule the mindset of the time?

None of that means anything to do with the context. This is not a history book, it's changing a name.

You're right

what value does writing history at all have in the context of the past? History isn't simply a series of facts, it is a constructed set of narratives that are rooted in the present and will in some way reflect the background and points of reference for the historian. History is all about the interpretation.

this is appreciated, glad to see that it is possible to make headway in a discussion sometimes. sorry if i came off as a bit brash at times.

It's all so tiring.

Or we could keep both. We stand on the shoulders of giants. To pretend otherwise is honestly disrespectful as hell to those that did great things for us. The least we can do is continue to respect them. Not that this strictly applies to the article, but the general concept of heroes. The idea of dumping all the old heroes is pretty disheartening, we need to remember the good and the bad of what they did. History repeats itself, and all that.

And where “there were no people. Only Indians lived there.” lol i can't think of a single time period or context where referring to Native Americans as non-people would actually be like, not a shitty thing? you must got your drawers on backwards if you think that shit's fine just because racism was prevalent at the time.

Just changing a name

He was refering to the larger scope of your statement than just this one specific instance, and even went to some length to specify that Please read what people say to you Sirius.

In the historical mindset, this was quite common. After all, they weren't "people" to the settlers. They were "savages", and many of them viewed them as essentially animals due to their ways with nature.

I did, and I get it. But people use big pictures to obscure small ones. This thing that happened right here is fine, even good. That's as far as this needs to go

I get what you're saying. But you use small pictures to make huge statements, and incorrect ones at that. This particular case isn't the most terrible. But to say that we should just replace heros for not matching with our current morals is kind of silly.

No, it does not. There's a quote that's often attributed to Mark Twain (but no evidence that he said) that sums it up well: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme". Yes there are some similarities between different events throughout history - but it doesn't repeat itself. The later events lack the same context as the prior ones. They happen in different ways and occur due to different factors and are influenced in different manners as well. In the 1930s to 1940s? attitudes towards native americans had been changing at a rapid pace, and not to mention that in the early 50s her publisher even said "shit how did we not catch this before?", perhaps maybe this isn't a good excuse? Why and how is it kind of silly? We don't glorify the same people that those in the past did. What exactly is silly about a culture changing? because what this comes down to is cultural change. the values and morals have shifted, there is no obligation to "worship" the heroes of the past.

I don't think it's important to worship them. I think it's important to recognize they stood out in their own time, and were a factor of change In the case of this particular story, I don't think this applies really.