Different Era, Different Politics

Written in Uncategorized
10 Comments - Leave a comment!

By Melissa Luttmann

I recently came across a post on a message board in which a mother expressed reluctance to allow her daughter to read either Little House on the Prairie or Caddie Woodlawn. The reason? She was concerned about the manner in which both novels portray Native Americans.

Having read both books several times, I will acknowledge that they contain some elements that people today would likely consider old-fashioned and racist. At the same time, though, these classic novels are functions of the time period in which they’re set (the mid 19th century) and, to a lesser extent, the time at which they were written (the 1930’s). That’s not to say that the ideas in them are correct, so to speak. But I do think it’s important to recognize that our beliefs and values today are not necessarily the same as they were in the past, and historical novels can help kids go a long way in realizing that.

Of course it’s true that, when kids read books that contain viewpoints so drastically different from those they’ve been raised with, they may be confused or have questions. That’s why, in an ideal situation, parents, librarians, or other trusted adults will always be around to help them work through their concerns. But even though our world is far from ideal, I don’t think that historical fiction writers should shy away from including historical viewpoints that aren’t politically correct today in their work. After all, if we do so, we’re giving kids a false representation of history. And as I think we’ve concluded multiple times here, that ultimately isn’t something we want to do.

What do you think about including views that would be considered incorrect today in historical fiction? If you’re a parent, do you have an opinion about your child reading such books?

Melissa Luttman is Associate Editor for Young Adult History/Historical Fiction at Wonders & Marvels.


Related Posts:

10 Comments - Leave a comment!
  • http://www.danahuff.net/ Dana Huff

    I think it’s important that young readers have an opportunity to view history through their reading. I have noticed some trends in historical fiction, particularly for young readers: spunky heroines who buck the prevailing notions of girls and women in their times and people from marginalized groups fighting against injustice far earlier than their historical counterparts did collectively as a movement. I really enjoyed Gone With the Wind when I read it in middle school. It’s a real moonlight and magnolias view of the South, and it is racist in its portrayal of African-Americans, but it’s got historical merit, too.

  • http://www.punctualityrules.com –Deb

    I’m not a mother, but I think it’s important to read history (even historical fiction) simply because people didn’t always think the way we think, live the way we live, or know what we know … and how else can people see how far we’ve come? Children or adults, it’s appalling how little some of them know about what used to be considered normal. I mean, I’m not an expert in history at all, but it fascinates me–and the things that fascinate the most are (1) how many things we have in common with decisions/acts/whatever, and (2) how different things are now. Those two things keep it endlessly interesting.

    I can see a mother choosing to censor a book for her child written about current times which portrays some politically-incorrect view without apology … but you can’t change the fact that there were certain viewpoints in the 19th century that were as widespread as they were wrong … and racism is right up there. I’d rather my kid learned about how white settlers hated and feared the Indians in the otherwise wholesome Little House books than to learn about it later in, say, a college history class with graphic articles about atrocities both sides did to the other. Though, I WOULD want them to hear the other side, too, AND I’d want to discuss with them how it’s wrong to judge people based solely on their race … but you can’t change historical fact.

  • http://thetruebookaddict.blogspot.com/ Michelle @ The True Book Addict

    I think it would be a shame to keep children from these wonderful classics. I know I thrived on the Little House books when I was a girl. Also, I think it’s important for children to learn how opinions and attitudes back then differed from the opinions of the present. How else can they see the progress we have made.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/jabrockmole/ Jessica B

    Historical fiction is more than just what people wore and ate. At least for me, it has to also be about what people thought. How people viewed others and why. Honestly, how can children understand how far we’ve come in civil rights, acceptance, etc. without understanding what those attitudes used to be? I’ve been reading through the Laura Ingalls Wilder books with my daughter and she did comment on the portrayal of Native Americans as being different to what she’d learned in school. It opened up a discussion as to viewpoints and why people viewed the world differently at different times.

  • Laura S.

    Funny, while you make this post, my daughter just made a long post entitled “On the banks of Plum Creek”. Where the Ingalls family lived and was the basis for much of the show. She took her daughters to various locations (some great stuff there, and photo ops) aged 7 and 5 to learn and experience some of what the books that she has read to them conveyed. There are 2 photos of plaques, one from 1872 and one from 1915 stating the rules for teachers. Totally unacceptable in this day and age. A woman teacher couldn’t even be seen in the company of a male. I’m with you. History is what it is, good and bad alike. Thought processes were different and for many reasons that no longer exist, making it unimaginable to us now. There are various nations that currently have different views and different ways of thinking than we do or that we might find appalling. As far as the Native Americans and the pioneers are concerned, a lot of ugliness happened and the final outcome is sad, but truth be told there were horrible atrocities committed on both sides.
    If you want to take a peek at my daughters posting about it (Pics of the Ingalls dugout home before having a cabin, et al.) you can view it here:
    http://kjelshusupdate.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-banks-of-plum-creek.html

  • http://www.dmmcgowan.blogspot.com Dave McGowan

    How are today’s children/kids/people going to learn about the past without including the ideas? History texts won’t tell them. Most of those texts come from the writings (journals, diaries, etc) of the “winners” who didn’t even mention the “losers” and certainly not how they treated them. Besides, history text usually concentrate on “just the facts, ma-am.”
    Robert B. Parker wrote a novel about a man who became Jackie Robinson’s body guard when he first started playing in Montreal and then went back to the US. The story is a great way for today’s youth to find out what it was like for a black person in the early 50s and why we don’t want to go back there. It was a great read and I passed it on to my grandkids … I can not come up with the title right now.
    In “Partners” I touched on how whites treated the so called Blackfoot peoples and how members of that confederacy inter-acted with the Cree. Not acceptable today but that’s the way it was.
    In “Homesteader” I touched on several no-no subjects including firearms that were carried and used extensively in the development of Western Canada. I also mention the Homestead Act where anyone could file on a homestead in Canada but a woman alone would have an almost impossible time “proving up” on her claim and recieving a deed. That’s the way it was up until about 1950 but you won’t find that information in any government brochure. Not that Canada was worse than anywhere else in North America … it usually depended on the local land agent.
    Dave
    http://www.dmmcgowan.blogspot.com

  • http://historywithatwist.blogspot.com Vicky Alvear Shecter

    Excellent post, Melissa. I struggled with this issue too in writing a historical fiction novel. One writer I respect insisted that I was doing a disservice by not having my character fight against slavery in the ancient world, even though there’s not a chance in Hades she would have done so! There was just too much else going on in her life. Plus, the bitter truth is that very few ancients questioned slavery. To make my main character suddenly do so would have been to sacrifice her authenticity. So while I understand the desire to convey a more humanitarian view, it would have been fantasy–and not historical fiction–to have done so!

  • http://unabridged-expression.blogspot.com/ Audra

    I appreciate all the reasons why these classics should be read, unedited, and I definitely do not believe in banning books (I think the racism in Twain’s books are frequently cited as a reason to ban them)…however, I do think there needs to be some sensitivity to those readers — especially children/young adults — who are of the target group featured in those books. I can’t imagine how demoralizing it would be to continually read of one’s identity group in a negative light, even when warned that the attitudes are merely “historical”. As a young woman struggling with my sexual identity, it was a frequent slap in the face when I stumbled across a predatory lesbian in a book. For young people of color or those of Native American descent, being told that these books are perfectly appropriate reading because they ‘reflect the time they were written’ may not be enough to take away the sting.

  • http://historyweaver.wordpress.com Janet O

    History hurts, I like to say. When you write historical fiction, you have portray the thought processes and attitudes of the times. Innovation comes bucking the common wisdom — which lead to interesting fictional characters, but they’ll be pounded by the notions of the time.
    I’m reading a wonderful non-fiction book entitled THE GHOST MAP. It is about the 1854 cholera outbreak in London. Disease, they thought, came from miasma, bad air, dirty people. They didn’t understand or even know about bacteria in the water. Some “dirty” people didn’t get sick at all because their water source came from somewhere else. A few years earlier there were riots and censorship over a medical book that showed female anatomy. I love the Laura books. FARMER BOY is one of the best narratives of 19th century farm life. My own grandmother had a few things to say about Native people, but she was born in 1875 Kansas. Lived in Indian Territory. I have many friends from tribal communities in my area. Times change.

  • http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com Debbie Reese

    Hi all,

    I’m tribally enrolled at Nambe Pueblo in Northern New Mexico. A former schoolteacher, I am currently on the faculty in American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois.

    My area of research and writing is the ways that American Indians are portrayed in children’s literature. Note that I didn’t say “books about American Indians” or “books by American Indians”. I mean any books, no matter who writes them. If there’s any imagery in them that is meant to signify an American Indian or an someone’s idea of an Indian, then it falls within the scope of my study.

    Right in the center of my work is LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. I know its a classic, and I know people love it, but, it is one of the worst books that anyone can hand to a child.

    I want each of you who loves it to turn to the pages where Wilder wrote “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Now, read that passage aloud. Now, read it aloud, imagining yourself reading it to my daughter. Now imagine yourself telling her (as I assume you would), “That’s how people thought about you back then. We don’t think like that about you now.” Now reflect on that scenario and imagine how my daughter—-or any Native child—would feel… I hope you’re feeling a bit queasy. You should! You’ve just given an eight or nine year old (assuming you’re reading it to 2nd/3rd/4th grade class) a load of hurt and confusion. Now imagine that child taking a spelling test later in the day. Bad grade! Oh, she just didn’t study enough last night. But was that the case? Or was she trying to sort out what happened earlier that day when her teacher said “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”

    My point is that we adults can rationalize and justify and explain all we want to, but, we are in fact reading aloud some really nasty words.

    Now, let’s consider the “that’s what they thought back then” argument. WHO thought that? WHO is the THEY? It certainly wasn’t my ancestors, and I’d bet it wasn’t YOURS either. I don’t question that some people had those views, but I think we too handily, too conveniently, use that phrase. Certainly right now, present-day-United States, there’s some people who say dreadful things about “other”—-but not everyone says such things.

    I think LHOP should be taught, but not to young children. It belongs in a high school or college classroom where readers are more mature, more adept and experienced at handling the racism within its pages.

    It is also vitally important that we remember that during that time period, the Native peoples in that area had schools, towns, communities. They weren’t primitive nomads as Wilder’s book suggests.

    Note, too, that the “good Indian” is one who speaks French. And, why is he good? Because he told other Indians that he’d fight THEM if they attacked any settlers. He was a “friendly” rather than a “hostile” Indian. Friendly because he was going to fight other Indians who Wilder wants us to believe were a threat to the settlers.

    There’s so much wrong with the book…. This is just a little bit. There’s more. Much much more…