Skip to main content

Liberals & Laura Ingalls Wilder

Here we are again.  It's 2018 and another American Institution is under fire.  This time it's Laura Ingalls Wilder and her beloved Little House on the Prairie.  For me personally LHotP invokes memories of my childhood as the TV show was one of my mom's favorites (Michael Landon will always be one of my favorite Western heroes, both from this and especially Bonanza).  How could the liberals go after such a valued tradition?  You might as well burn the flag!

Well, okay, let's be honest...there are some dicey things in the books/show.  Even modern conservatives would probably grimace at some of the viewpoints that pervade the series.  The treatment of American Indians/Indigenous Peoples/African Americans is, of course, the biggest issue.  It is, to put it simply, not well-balanced.  White people are good; red people--bad, right?  Black people?  I guess they're simple and helpful.  That's about as complex as it gets.  It is, in fact, rare to find to find an American Western tale that offers anything more than a one-dimensional portrayal of the American Indians (Cooper's Last of the Mohicans is, I believe, an exception, though not quite a Western), but that's pretty much how Western tales handle all groups of people--stereotypically.  There's always your stalwart hero, your damsel in distress, your town drunk, your town...um...how should I put this one...lady of the night, your out-of-town bad guy (with his posse, of course), your town...well, you get the point.  That is the basic make-up of every single on of the 10,000 episodes of Bonanza and Gunsmoke, and they were drawing from a long history of stereotypical literature.  The quaint idealism underlying it is part of what makes it so appealing.

Let's not make excuses though.  There are definitely racial attitudes in this sort of classic literature that I would rather my children not emulate.  That being said, does this mean that we should pull the books off library shelves and pull Wilder's name off of awards?  I don't think so.  Here are three reasons why not:
   
1) We don't have to shield our children from everything uncomfortable.  First of all, we can't shield our children from everything uncomfortable, so trying will be futile anyway.  Nevertheless, I don't think that we ought to try.  There are things we shouldn't allow our children to see/read, to be sure, but historical literature that reminds us of our racist past is not one of them.  Sheltering your children is the easy way out.  Any parent can forbid his/her children to read a book.  Proactive parents, however, see things like this as an opportunity to engage their children in discussions about important topics.  Stories that deal with death, pain, heartbreak, sin, etc. are all opportunities to reinforce the worldview with which you are raising your children, even when the author's perspective may not be your own.  This, of course, takes discernment (maybe your eight-year-old doesn't watch Saving Private Ryan...maybe) and effort.

2) Every culture has skeletons in the closet.  Too many times when people complain about stereotypes, they're really trying to replace them with their own.  In place of LHotP they prefer Pocahontas.  If anyone knows stereotypes, it's Disney!  The truth of the matter is that many of the Indigenous Peoples were warlike and committed brutal acts against their enemies--indigenous and European.  Not all of the Indians were peace-loving folks who wanted to be one with nature and eat corn.  The same is true of those who came from Africa and Europe.  If we're going to critique stereotypes, let's make sure that we don't replace them with our own fantasies.  Let's also remember that racism is one of the world's great universals.  White folks aren't the only ones who have written stereotypical and demeaning literature about people of different colors/ethnicities/nationalities.

3) Whitewashing history doesn't change it.  History is just that...history.  It's past.  It's gone.  We have the ability to look back upon it and judge it critically, and that is what we should do.  Ignoring history can be lethal, so, instead, we should look back as a society and seek to avoid the mistakes and sins of our forefathers.  This is the attitude we should take when reading classic literature, as well.  Ignoring history doesn't make it go away.  Wiping from the history books the memory of Jefferson and Washington and Columbus and Ingalls Wilder won't change the fact that they were formative in the America in which we live.  If we would better ourselves, we must know ourselves.  If we would know ourselves, we must study history honestly and critically.  I want my children to know about the Hitlers and the Stalins just as much as I want them to know about the Churchills and the Trumans (that's a conversation for another day).

History isn't simple, and neither is parenting.  We should always be discerning when we allow our children to read or watch anything, whether it be for academic or entertainment purposes.  This doesn't mean we have to shelter our children from the world, but it does mean we have to be involved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Forgive Them"

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Forgiveness is hard.  Forgiveness is really, really hard. It’s difficult to forgive others who have genuinely harmed or offended us.   It’s easy to say , “I forgive you,” but it’s extremely difficult to feel it–to make peace in our hearts with the injustices that others have perpetrated against us. It just doesn’t feel right.  Sin should be punished!  Wrongs should be righted!  Right?! It’s difficult to forgive others when they ask for it.  It’s even more difficult to forgive them when they haven’t asked for it–when they don’t even recognize what they’ve done to hurt us. As our Savior hung upon His Cross, He asked the Father to forgive those nearby–those who were unwittingly contributing to the greatest injustice in the history of the world. These thieves, soldiers, and standers-by had no idea what was happening.  They had no idea that the jealousy of the Jews had placed Christ on that Cross...

5 Reasons I Want my Wife to Start Wearing a Head Covering during Corporate Worship

    Of late, the issue of head coverings has come up in my circle.  Okay...my cousin and I have been discussing it, but the point is, the issue has been bouncing around my head for the past few days.  It is a topic that I have avoided for some time.  Every time I read through 1 Corinthians, I would tell myself, "We'll get around to that."  The reality is that I didn't want to be "that guy"...that guy who people view as a chauvinistic jerk who wants to make sure everyone--especially his wife--remembers that he's the head of his home.  I think I'm beginning to respect "that guy"--those men who have cared enough to stand for what they believe.     Let me be clear that I am referring to head coverings for women (those old enough to leave them on...)  DURING CORPORATE WORSHIP.  I am not advocating head coverings at all times.  Though I see nothing necessarily wrong that practice, I don't see any command for it either.   ...

Paedocommunion: Consistent Covenantalism or Anti-Confessionalism?

    Being raised as a paedocommunionist (that means our kids get to eat Jesus, too), I have always been amazed by how passionately credocommunionists (that means their kids don't get to eat Jesus until they articulate a "credible" profession of faith) dislike the practice.  I would think that they could look at paedocommunion and at least respect it as an attempt to live out Covenant Theology in a consistent way.  Instead, paedocommunionists have been widely viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe (yes, that far) of Reformed Theology.  I like to think that I have been able to agree-to-disagree in an amicable way with my credocommunionist friends.  However, I will admit that being discounted as "unconfessional" (trust me, I've been called worse) has made many paedocommunionists (you'd have to ask my friends whether or not that applies to me) act in a manner that lacks Christian grace.     So, the question remains, is paedocommunion a view hel...