Katrina Trinko Opinion columnist Once upon a time, we were able to realize that honors didn’t equal an endorsement of every single part of a person’s life. Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of the beloved “Little House on the Prairie” books, is the latest American icon to fall under the tomahawk — if that’s a term Wilder’s critics will still permit me to use. Wilder’s sin? “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 (Association for Library Service to Children’s) values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness,” wrote the organization about its decision to rename the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. In a February post about potentially renaming the award, the organization was less oblique, writing about “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments in her work.” Yes, there are sentiments in the Wilder books that are concerning. Laura’s adored father wears blackface, and a couple, the Scotts, in “Little House on the Prairie” seems to hate Native Americans, with the husband saying at one point, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Although now altered, a sentence, also in “Little House on the Prairie,” read for years, “… there were no people. Only Indians lived there.” But delve into the books themselves and there’s nuance. Wilder writes, after the “dead Indian” quote, that “Pa said he didn’t know about that. He figured that Indians would be as peaceable as anybody else if they were left alone.” Wilder also attributes the lives of herself, her sisters, and her parents being saved by the intervention of an African-American doctor: “Then the doctor came. And he was the black man. Laura had never seen a black man before and she could not take her eyes off Dr. Tan. He was so very black. She would have been afraid of him if she had not liked him so much. He smiled at her with all his white teeth. He talked with Pa and Ma, and laughed a rolling, jolly laugh. They all wanted him to stay longer, but he had to hurry away.” More:Arthur Miller failed a profound moral test. What should we now think of his plays? Let's bury the word 'diversity' and listen to communities of color before a crisis hits Good riddance to the Miss America swimsuit contest, but did we have to lose fitness, too? And that sentence that implied Native Americans weren’t people? Well, in 1952, when an editor passed on to Wilder herself a reader’s concern about it, Wilder responded greenlighting changing the sentence, which became “… there were no settlers.” She wrote to the editor, “It was a stupid blunder of mine. Of course Indians are people and I did not intend to imply they were not." So while Wilder doesn’t always seem sensitive to the pain caused by racism in the United States, neither is she some racist caricature. And there’s much to admire in the “Little House” books. As a girl, I read and re-read the books. I marveled that Laura thought an orange was an amazing Christmas gift. I wondered at how her family lived in a home dug into a dirt hill. I couldn’t believe the amount of work she and her family had to daily do just to keep up a meager existence as a farmer’s family with clean clothes and food on the table. Growing up in a suburban neighborhood, I tried to imagine the vast loneliness of the prairie. But there were also deeper lessons. The “Little House” books, the first volumes published in the 1930s amid the depression but also amid technological advances, preserve an American culture that seemed to be slipping away, that of the hard-working pioneer family. And like any good writer, Wilder allowed there to be ambiguity. Throughout the series, there is tension between Laura’s parents — her dad, Charles, who always wants to go to the next frontier, and her mother, Caroline, who wants to live with other families and be part of a larger community. There’s also the poignant tragedy of Laura’s sister, Mary, losing her sight — a tragedy that foisted additional responsibility on Laura and seemed to belie a perfect happily ever after for the Ingalls family. And don’t think that Laura Ingalls Wilder will be the last writer to be hunted down in the ongoing cultural purge. If we’re learning anything in our “woke” times, it’s that nothing is sacred. Even shows like “Friends” and “Sex and the City” — liberal, progressive shows that challenged cultural norms, arguably successfully — are now, two decades from their beginnings, being described as problematic. Today, Wilder is only being denied an award named after her, but tomorrow, she may well be seen as unfit to read. Wilder — an amazing writer who poignantly and vividly depicted a crucial part of American history — deserves to remain honored as an icon of American children’s literature. By all means, let’s pair reading her with conversations about America’s past and what was right and what was not and what remains debated. But let’s encourage critical thinking, not purging. Katrina Trinko, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is managing editor for The Daily Signal. Her views do not necessarily represent The Heritage Foundation, her employer. Follow her on Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko<doc-sep>A division of the American Library Association has voted to remove the name of the Little House on the Prairie’s author from an award because of the way she referred to Native Americans and black people. Laura Ingalls Wilder, who lived from 1867 to 1957, was the first recipient of the award which bore her name, in 1954. The award was designed by the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) to celebrate books in the US which have had a significant impact on childrens’ literature. But on Saturday the ALSC voted unanimously at their gathering in New Orleans to rename the prize. It will now be known as the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. The ALSC had been considering whether it should strip Wilder's name from the award since February and announced at the time that the author's legacy "may no longer be consistent with the intention of the award named for her." "The 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 ALSC said in a brief statement following the vote.<doc-sep>'Little House on the Prairie' Author Laura Ingalls Wilder Name Removed From Literary Award Email Print Img No-img Menu Whatsapp Google Reddit Digg Stumbleupon Linkedin Comment Laura Ingalls Wilder's name is being removed from an American Library Association award due to how racial minorities, especially Native Americans, are portrayed in Little House on the Prairie. In a unanimous vote that occurred Saturday, the children's division of the ALA moved to rename what was once known as the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award. It will now be called the Children's Literature Legacy Award. "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. The books of Ingalls Wilder are considered by many people to be American classics and are extremely popular, yet the characters words and attitudes about Indians and blacks were deemed unacceptable by modern standards. The ALSC said earlier this year that it would be voting on whether to maintain Wilder's name on the award, and that her legacy was "complex." Wilder's handling of black and Native American characters, both how she referred to and characterized them in her works has been the main subject of contention. Critics see the move as a yet another example of political correctness and an irresponsible erasure of important works of historical literature. "Wilder's writing is now thought too dangerously inflammatory for modern children's sensibilities. We may be seeing stage one in the process of eliminating yet another children's classic, with the Little House on the Prairie books soon joining Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer and To Kill a Mocking Bird in the latest politically correct bonfire," theologian and American Thinker contributor Fay Voshell commented in an email to The Christian Post Monday. Liberty University English professor Karen Swallow Prior, likewise, mused satirically on Instagram: "In other news, the ALA is removing all books from library shelves that express bigotry, ignorance, out dated ideas, half truths, quarter truths, questionable opinions, leechings, or contain references to slavery, torture, imperialism, wooden teeth, or blood pudding." She explained that the authors society chooses to honor, whether by reading them or naming awards after them, hinge on the values that change with time. Melissa Gilbert, the actress who portrayed a young Laura Ingalls in the hit television series "Little House on the Prairie" linked to a blog post titled "Historical Perspective or Racism in Little House on the Prairie" from the official Little House on the Prairie website on her Twitter feed, which suggested that the popular literature be used to explain racial issues. "Reading Little House on the Prairie with children today requires explanation. I call them teachable moments. Before we begin to read the book in my classroom I take a few moments to talk about Wilder's real life and the historical accuracy of her books," Laura Mcelmore, a teacher and Ingalls Wilder fan from Kansas, explains in the blog. She noted that during that time the white settlers, like the Ingalls family, all regarded the Indian tribes on the prairie with fear, as Pa and Ma Ingalls did the Osage in the book. "How can we help children develop an understanding of the historical perspective in Little House on the Prairie? I suggest we talk about whether Ma's fears [of the Osage Indians] were justified. Ask if people have an unjustified fear of other races today. Does racism still exist and if so, is it found in every race?" she said. The first Little House on the Prairie book was published in 1932 and was followed by seven novels about pioneer life in the west. "Wilder was presented the first award in 1954, after which it was named for her and presented every five years between 1960 and 1980, every three years between 1980 and 2001, every two years between 2001 and 2015 and annually since then," the New York Daily News reported.<doc-sep>
The Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) voted to remove Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from a prominent children's literature award. Her crime? Racist stereotypes in her iconic children's book series Little House on the Prairie. The organization says the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award will now be called the Children's Literature Legacy Award. "Wilder's books are a product of her life experiences and perspective as a settler in America's 1800s. Her works reflect dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities," the ALSC said in a statement. "Changing the name of the award should not be viewed as an attempt to censor, limit, or deter access to Wilder's books and materials, but rather as an effort to align the award's title with ALSC's core values," it continued. The book series includes characters who expressed hatred towards Native Americans, like the Scott family. One of the Scotts says, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." After the "dead Indian" quote, Wilder writes, "Pa said he didn't know about that. He figured that Indians would be as peaceable as anybody else if they were left alone." Later the offensive quote was removed and replaced with "...there were no people. Only Indians lived there." Wilder also gives credit to an African-American doctor for saving her life. "Then the doctor came. And he was the black man. Laura had never seen a black man before and she could not take her eyes off Dr. Tan. He was so very black. She would have been afraid of him if she had not liked him so much. He smiled at her with all his white teeth. He talked with Pa and Ma, and laughed a rolling, jolly laugh. They all wanted him to stay longer, but he had to hurry away." Critics of the ALSC's decision believe racist attitudes of the past should not discredit an author's work. The Laura Ingalls Wilder Legacy and Research Association defended Wilder's work, and released a statement saying: "We believe it is not beneficial to the body of literature to sweep away her name as though the perspectives in her books never existed. Those perspectives are teaching moments to show generations to come how the past was and how we, as a society, must move forward with a more inclusive and diverse perspective."