The Emerson quote is now going on my laptop as I try to make a writing deadline. When I was writing my dissertation, I had the following post notes on my then clunky desktop computer: 1. One word at a time. 2. Keep your hands poised over the keyboard. 3. It doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to be done.

This really resonates with me right now. As I enter my 25th and final year of homeschooling my children, I find myself making goals and plans and then…resisting. I know what I want, and yes, it’s big.

Emerson quote is going in my keeping book. Thank you

Thank you.

Love the Emerson quote!

We're reading through the series right now with my 5yo and I am editing on the fly a lot. I envision reading it through again when she's probably 8 or 9 with less editing and more discussion. In addition to the settlers views on Native Americans and the racism, there's also very young marriages (our chapter tonight had Lena and Laura discussing how they wouldnt want to get married at 13 because then they couldn't play). I feel like these books should be read several times in a child's life and the difficult topics addressed in an age appropriate way each time. Then a child can also reflect on their own personal understanding of the subjects and how it has changed with time. A lot of classic children's books have really problematic language and themes and I just don't see the benefit pretending it doesnt exist.

Julie Bogart teaches to always help children to ask “whose story isn’t being told here or whose voice is missing?” That helped us in these books and like others we followed them with books by Native American authors.

We used them as a read-aloud in our family so that we could discuss the events, attitudes, voices, and life lessons. We also followed them with “The Birchbark” series by Louise Erdrich, which is a similar style of writing but captures the Native American story. The story follows Omakayas, a young Ojibwe girl, and her family as they cycle through life’s seasons and then are forced to move west. So—it captures the passing of a time period much as Little House does, but from a different point of view. It’s a good way to allow young children to think through stories of different experiences, different voices…and to begin to learn the art of comparison/contrast.

I’m reading this series to my 8-year-old son. He loves the adventure. But with all “banned” books. We take a pause and discuss the behavior and or word choices of the people in the story. We have a frank conversation about history and how humans are still growing, we are finding more ways to do right and show kindness to those around us.

As a mixed Native American family, We have enjoyed this series. My husband is full blood Native and his tribe was pushed off Coastal Salishan lands when the Canadian-US border was drawn. A large portion of His family still resides on Tribal lands in Canada as a result. Some of my ancestors were on the Trail of Tears, and my kids are more than 60% Native blood. I think the books give a good perspective on life back then and the fears and misunderstandings and cultural differences that existed. I was able to talk with both of my kids, who wear their Native heritage proudly, about these parts of history while reading these books. We also read Indian in the Cupboard and Sign of the Beaver, along with other books giving perspective. Perspective is so important and I believe very much lacking in today's education (and in society at large).

I am reminded how essential it is that we, as parents and educators, are equipped with a depth of understanding & knowledge, so that we can navigate essential conversations that come up in the reading of books like these. We can't teach what we don't know. 💚

I read the series as a kid and I have reread the series aloud to one child and I’m planning to do so again with my second when he is ready. It was very enlightening to read as an adult and there were LOTS of discussions throughout the series about antiquated attitudes and social prejudices. Later in the series, Pa blacks his face and beard for a Minstrel show in the town to portray (insert racial slur for black people) and we had MANY conversations about vocabulary and the ways that people will put down other groups ostensibly “for fun”- but for vicious reasons. It’s a honest commentary from its time and there are really admirable qualities to learn from- and there are charming stories- and there are also deep historical lessons to ponder. For all those reasons, I would argue that it should keep being read.

Thank you for this post.

Truly love the series. I felt like the bias was addressed in the book. We also don’t want to whitewash the reality of life during that time with its own very real dilemmas.

The attached article is behind the Washington Post paywall for me, so I can't read it, but I have read all that you wrote above, and several years ago I read Caroline Fraser's book entitled "Prairie Fires" about Laura's life. I would recommend that book to anyone who is interested in learning more about Laura as well as learning about that period of our country's history. I have read all of Laura's books as well including her final one entitled "The First Four Years." My belief is that Laura actually does an excellent job of portraying the uncomfortable and difficult truths that she lived and she witnessed. Negative attitudes and negative stereotypes against the Native Americans by white settlers at that time were indeed historical fact. To me, the very fact that those negative portrayals about Native Americans were widespread at that time is exactly why we need to know that they existed. Our great country (yes, I believe it is truly great) has always had shameful incidents and beliefs in past generations, and no doubt various other kinds of shameful/hateful beliefs will continue. We are, after all, fallen humans. But both Laura and Pa did indeed push back against some of these hateful beliefs, and we need to see and know that as well. I'm not for pretending that America's past was some perfect sort of thing. It wasn't, and learning these complexities is both necessary and important not only for young readers but for adult readers as well. My hat is off to Laura Ingalls Wilder for all she has done to spread not only the love of learning and love of reading, but the difficulties of many beliefs held by our forebears.

I think that’s why the Little House series are best as read-alouds, so that you can discuss these issues with your children as they pop up in the books.

I have zero issue with historical fiction that portrays people, their actions, words, and mindsets accurately. We read and discuss. Not one child that I know has come away agreeing with wrong mindsets, no matter how fascinated they were by Laura. I am personally convinced that cancel culture/book banning is vastly more problematic. History is loaded with bad things that people did, fully convinced they were in the right. There's no time period or context where this wasn't true, and it almost certainly still is. Contextually and factually accurate historical fiction humanizes history and people, both of which are almost universally messy! It brings facts and names to life. We have so much to gain for the challenge of needing to squirm, cringe, and then discuss what's wrong.

One interesting experience I had was when I looked up “Youth’s Companion” a magazine that was referenced in the book the Long Hard Winter. Laura and Mary wanted to read the latest edition but Ma made them wait because reading the magazine was considered pleasure and leisure and had to wait for the weekend. Anyway, the internet had editions back into the 1800’s of this periodical. It gave a very interesting perspective of what kinds of things young people were interested in and able to read about during this time. I was particularly struck by the fascination with people of other cultures, and respect with which they were discussed. This agrees with the general tenor of attitudes I have encountered in my research into American Christian missions in Japan at the opening of the country by Matthew Perry. Sometimes shockingly arrogant attitudes were expressed, but often there was a genuine love and interest in people of different backgrounds. It seems relevant to the discussion as well…

I used books like this as a springboard for discussion about how people are complicated, that they are products of a particular culture at a particular time in history, and that surely ordinary people of our own time will be judged just as harshly in the centuries to come about things that we currently think are perfectly acceptable.

I remember asking a similar question on the old TWTM forum while reading the first Little House book with my oldest. I added my own commentary while reading it aloud, not only regarding the way they talked about Native Americans but telling Laura it was “shameful to cry” after she thought her dog had died. I still enjoy the books, which were favorites when I was a kid. Learning more about Rose Wilder Lane and how much influence she had on revising and restructuring her mother’s writing changed my views somewhat about the books’ historical accuracy.

Lots of books have problematic aspects to them, and parents need to decide whether they want to engage in discussing the problem stuff, and if they don’t, they should pick a different book. But some books do specific harm to specific children and if my child was Native American I would not be reading these books to them, and I would be upset if they were assigned in public school as there are other books which don’t cause such harm. That being said, I intend to share the Little House series with my kid, supplemented by others like Birchbark, and also put the writing into the proper context. But I worry that many people read the Little House books to their children precisely because they serve to reinforce certain fictions about our country.

I loved these books as a child and just read them to my own children. I loved reading them again. I was expecting to find lots of problematic content, but honestly I didn't think it was bad. The "dead Indian" quote was written as an example of what some people thought, but Pa didn't like it. I did skip over much of the minstrel show, especially the dialogue. As always I tried to tell my children that the perspective of the book is just one perspective on a moment of time.

I am so glad this point is being made in a mainstream paper. It's important. As I think Hill herself observed elsewhere, Wilder excels at the storytelling skill of showing, not telling. This is largely to blame for what gets her in trouble today. She often (though not always) tells you what happens or what is felt at that time and leaves it at that without offering a moral interpretation. Readers must pay attention, therefore, not only to what is said but what is shown. Yes, Ma has some harsh feelings about "Indians." That was a true sentiment of the times. But the narrative shows us native Americans who should alter Ma's opinion. We see one with both wisdom and compassion who warns townspeople of a hard winter. We read about another who helpfully signs to Pa that he had killed a lurking panther. Pa himself defends them to Ma as other commenters note. Yes, Pa calls Big Jerry a half-breed. That's a term that was used then. But then the story shows us that Jerry is strong, helpful, and compassionate. Yes, some settlers believe they deserve the land more than the natives do. That was a true sentiment of the times. But Wilder shows us that both settler and native are trying to live their lives--and forces larger than they push them around. In Little House on the Prairie, Laura’s family watches a train of native Americans emigrate west. But then news from the government forces the Ingallses to move away, too. Wilder describes a moment during the emigration when she locks eyes with a baby. Readers should see their situations are not entirely different. They're both children being carried away in search of a new home. A major function of fiction is to expand our experience through imagination. That, in turn, expands our understanding. If we're unwilling to get into the heads of a major people group who shaped our country (white settlers), we're limiting our understanding of people in general, not to mention our own history.

My experience is more light hearted. I watched almost all the early shows of Little House as a kid and thoroughly enjoyed them; although now almost every episode makes me cry and the later years were just de press ing. Oddly enough, I am the strange homeschool mother of 6 that NEVER enjoyed the read alouds bc I always thought them dry as dirt. 🫣 However, after 20+ years of homeschooling I finally broke down and read the Long Winter to my 10& 12 year old this past winter and wow did it ever make me thankful for food and give me an amazing appreciation for what the settlers went through. I would defn recommend it as one of the read alouds that doesn’t need much commentary or context and is a wise choice in the middle of winter months as a homeschooler. 📚

I LOVED these books and read them over and over as a kid. I read Prairie Fires a few years ago and I haven’t been able to look at them the same. My feelings are complicated now.

I appreciate this post and knowing about Pamela Smith Hill's book. I was an avid Little House fan as a child (and in the last few years have been able to visit many of her homes!), but as an adult see the things that need to be discussed with my own boys as we read. They will often catch things on their own and call them out (not just in Little House). I am re-educating myself as a 2nd generation homeschooler as we strive to learn history from many viewpoints and honor the experiences and voices of those who have been marginalized and mistreated throughout our history. The suggestion of Birchbark House is an excellent one (we read it last year).

I can’t read the article as it is behind a paywall. I am currently reading Pamela Smith’s book and I think it is excellent. It is a thorough examination of the books and the ideas behind the books and characters. I love the Little House series and always will. And I read Caroline also which was a fascinating look at Ma as she might have been as a real person from an adult point of view.

I first read the books in early elementary school, with my mother and on my own, and recently re-read them to my slightly older boys. What mainly struck me the second time around was how all their moves, which had seemed like some sort of grim necessity, are actually just a whim, a fancy, a lark. And for the whims of people like Pa a nation like the Osage, who actually do know how to live on that land, is uprooted? The cruelty and the waste are inescapable. Not to mention the unnecessary hardship his family suffers. Ma’s desire for her daughters to grow up in a town with other people, to go to school, which may have seemed like a lack of a spirit of adventure when I was little, if I thought about it at all, seems totally reasonable now that I’m a mother. On the other hand, she’s unimaginative, and it’s clearly Pa’s charm, his vision, his night-time fiddle-playing, his jokes, and his sympathy for the defeated Osage that the books endorse. The implicit ambivalence about Ma and Pa and their contradictory hopes and fears is one of the central themes of the series. I can’t say the books did much to shape my views of Native Americans—those just weren’t the parts I remembered from my first reading, but it’s pretty clear that all the characters who express prejudice against Native Americans are the less sympathetic ones, and her prejudice is Ma’s biggest flaw and an aspect of her lack of imagination.

I have a colleague who directs Ph.D. students in US History, mostly in the 1865-1930d range. His "summer reading list" for incoming graduate students is... the King James Bible and all the Little House books. He says the cadence, rhythms, allusions, etc. etc. of the former and the general mindset, preoccupations, prejudices, etc. of the latter are the most evocative window into what made Americans tick in the 50 or 60 years or so following the Civil War.

I agree that problematic or not, it was true to the past and should be examined. We can’t pretend people didn’t do or believe things like that (some still do, even!). Otherwise, it looks like the “bad” guys of the past weren’t really all that bad and people start idolizing them. I’m Jewish and I’ve seen people advocate for “nicer” retellings of the Holocaust and the perpetrators. We really need to stop sanitizing the past-don’t glorify it but don’t fail to tell it how it was so we can learn from the past.