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

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...