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

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...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...