Article-10849411 image

Laura Ingalls Wilder Hits the PC Guillotine

3 ¼ min

Growing up, I never got into stories with knights and fair maidens. Walking around in princess dresses while imagining I was trapped in a castle by a vicious dragon? Not interested.

But give me a sunbonnet and braid my hair and I was lost in the world of Laura Ingalls. I still remember being in a titter of excitement at age four when my parents took me to the famous Little House on the Prairie pageant in Walnut Grove, Minnesota.

As I grew older, my conception of Laura grew a little less romanticized as I read her books and realized the amazing hardships she and her family went through. I certainly wouldn’t want to spend six months freezing and starving through a horrendous winter, nor do I relish the thought of huddling in a cabin for several days thinking I could be killed at any moment by my screaming, angry neighbors close to going on the warpath. The Ingalls family had a tough life, yet they weathered through the storms and gave America an inspiring story of strength and perseverance.

Unfortunately, good ol’ Laura is the latest victim of our PC culture. As the New York Daily News reports, Ingalls was the first recipient of an author award given by the Association for Library Service to Children. The award was then named in her honor.

After 60 years, however, the award is being renamed as “the Children’s Literature Legacy Award” because of the attitudes conveyed toward minorities in the Little House books:

“‘This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder’s legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness,’ the Association for Library Service to Children said in a statement after the unanimous vote.

The racial issues in her books have been debated long before February, when the ALSC announced it would be voting on whether to keep Wilder’s name on its award, calling her legacy ‘complex.’ At the forefront of the argument is her handling of black and Native American characters, both in namecalling and characterization.”

In the PC culture in which we live, I can see why Laura’s family story might be problematic. Because of bad experiences, the family – Ma especially – had some understandable fears of Indians, which naturally resulted in prejudices. And while these prejudices weren’t right, they were a fact of life which the pioneers had to wrestle with.

But the pioneers weren’t the only ones who have had to wrestle with prejudices against different people groups. The fact is, every generation in America has had to do the same. And the current generation is no different – except in the way we handle it.

Instead of wading through the ugliness and eventually letting it die in subsequent generations, we choose to erase any indication of a problem. It seems we would rather cover the ugly realities of our past than look them square in the face, admit the wrong, and keep it before us as a lesson to never go there again. This is what we’ve done with numerous monuments, and it’s what we’re now doing with a woman who is basically the mother of American children’s literature.

Is that really the kind of lesson we want to teach our children? To cover the problems of the past and anyone associated with them? To run away from something and leave good behind just because there is a small portion that makes us realize life isn’t as perfect as we want to believe?

If the PC craziness can topple Laura Ingalls Wilder, then it can topple just about anything. Do we really want to live in the bland society this attitude will eventually bring?

--

[Image Credit: Public Domain]

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout.

Add a Comment

 

Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!

or

dragonfly2wing
-
What has happened to the reputation of Laura Ingalls Wilder is the prelude to Socialism where there are NO "Exceptional people" but just a herd of clones who dutifully go to work, do their jobs like a robot, go home and do the same thing over and over again. America is not about "fitting in" but about our exceptionalism, being unique, willing to strive harder to make our World better for everyone, NOT just a select few. Having taught High School we had many discussions about Socialism and its pluses and minuses. Many of my Seniors were appalled when they learned that living in a Socialistic world meant you had absolutely NO freedom of choice. You were to be "unexceptional", never to try achieve more but do the norm each day. Your job is decided by the government, where you live and how much money you can make. There are NO raises because that would show favoritism and NO ONE IS BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. It is a world where truths aren't allowed and white lies abound. When that Socialism subject was over, we had more students thanking us for teaching them how WRONG Socialism is for any Country and how very glad the U.S. wouldn't ever adopt such a restrictive and controlled way of life. That was then, zoom forward and the youth of today have a very "warped" frame of mind in which no one can be better than anyone else and that these confused individuals think they can erase all the hurtful events that shaped our Country into what it is today by destroying, denying, and dehumanizing people, places and things. What these wild children do not realize is by removing those representations of our past, we tend to make those mistakes again and again and again! Best to keep ALL -- including Laura Ingalls Wilder stories, because they are authentic renditions of the life being led at that time. Changing titles, etc. will NOT ERASE what happened. To be a better Society, we need to learn from our past and if all the uncomfortable examples are gone, how can we do that?
 
 

or

X