Thursday, July 03, 2008

Selective Omissions, or, What Laura Ingalls Wilder left out of LITTLE HOUSE

In 2001, I began some in-depth research on Laura Ingalls Wilder and Little House on the Prairie. I came across an article about a speech she gave on October 16, 1937, at a book fair in a Detroit department store. Her speech was published forty years later (September, 1978) in the Saturday Evening Post. I read the speech and was astonished at what she said. Moreover, I was astonished that none of the material I'd read to that point (and since) has commented on that speech... She said:

Every story in this novel, all the circumstances, each incident are true. All I have told is true, but it is not the whole truth. There were some stories I wanted to tell but would not be responsible for putting in a book for children, even though I knew them as a child.

And here is an extended excerpt. I'm adding bold text to set off the portions of the speech I want you to pay particular attention to:
There was the story of the Bender family that belonged in the third volume, Little House on the Prairie. The Benders lived halfway between it and Independence, Kansas. We stopped there, on our way in to the Little House, while Pa watered the horses and brought us all a drink from the well near the door of the house. I saw Kate Bender standing in the doorway. We did not go in because we could not afford to stop at a tavern.

On his trip to Independence to sell his furs, Pa stopped again for water, but did not go in for the same reason as before.

There were Kate Bender and two men, her brothers, in the family and their tavern was the only place for travelers to stop on the road south from Independence. People disappeared on that road. Leaving Independence and going south they were never heard of again. It was thought they were killed by Indians but no bodies were ever found.

Then it was noticed that the Benders’ garden was always freshly plowed but never planted. People wondered. And then a man came from the east looking for his brother, who was missing.

He made up a party in Independence and they followed the road south, but when they came to the Bender place there was no one there. There were signs of hurried departure and they searched the place.

The front room was divided by a calico curtain against which the dining table stood. On the curtain back of the table were stains about as high as the head of a man when seated. Behind the curtain was a trap door in the floor and beside it lay a heavy hammer.

In the cellar underneath was the body of a man whose head had been crushed by the hammer. It appeared that he had been seated at the table back to the curtain and had been struck from behind it. A grave was partly dug in the garden with a shovel close by. The posse searched the garden and dug up human bones and bodies. One body was that of a little girl who had been buried alive with her murdered parents. The garden was truly a grave-yard kept plowed so it would show no signs. The night of the day the bodies were found a neighbor rode up to our house and talked earnestly with Pa. Pa took his rifle down from its place over the door and said to Ma, “The vigilantes are called out.” Then he saddled a horse and rode away with the neighbor. It was late the next day when he came back and he never told us where he had been. For several years there was more or less a hunt for the Benders and reports that they had been seen here or there. At such times Pa always said in a strange tone of finality, “They will never be found.” They were never found and later I formed my own conclusions why.

You will agree it is not a fit story for a children’s book. But it shows there were other dangers on the frontier besides wild Indians.

Some context for why that speech is--to me--astonishing. In Little House on the Prairie, Wilder presents Indians as frightening and menacing. Through Mrs. Scott, she tells us about an Indian massacre. Three times, Wilder's characters say "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." And what about the terrifying tone at the end of Little House on the Prairie, when Pa stays up all night and the entire family listens to Indians "howling" for several nights in a row?

According to Wilder, it is "fit" for children to read about "wild Indians" but it is not "fit" for them to read about serial killers who are white, nor is it "fit" for children to read that Pa killed someone in order to protect his family from harm.

Wilder's speech was reprinted in 1988 in A Little House Sampler, edited by William T. Anderson. A Little House Sampler is cited in eleven other books (according to Amazon), and yet, nobody commented on the Bender's, or Wilder's decision not to include that story.

Think about that omission and what it means. I invite your comments, and please take a minute to read about racism in the Little House books (links below).

Update, July 5, 2008

A librarian in Kansas wrote to point me to info on the Benders, who are quite well known as serial killers. She writes:
The Bloody Benders, as they were called, represent one of Kansas' most enduring mysteries. They appeared to be a family of well-organized killers who robbed and killed unsuspecting travelers who ventured into their home/inn for a meal and whose bodies dropped through a trap door in the floor under the chair in which they were seated. Here is further information from our state historical society: Bender Knife.

There is a museum in Cherryvale, KS, which has items from the Bender home and a wreath of human hair from their victims, as well as a roadside marker near Labette, KS: The Bloody Benders.

And, another person has written, pointing me to a graphic novel called A Treasury of Victorian Murder: The Saga of the Bloody Benders.

For further reading:
Posts about racism in Little House on the Prairie series


Traci said...

I am a Chickasaw scholar who teaches American Indian Studies at Arizona State University.

I read these books as a child and have read this post with great interest! Your critique and reframing of the stories is most exciting!

Keep it up; I will continue to read with interest!

Prairie Rose said...

I have been much more puzzled myself as to why Laura included this story in her Book Fair speech at all than to why she would have left it out of her books.

Laura referred to Little House on the Prairie before she had written it as her "Indian story" -- it would have been a little difficult to leave the Indians out of the Indian story... Also, the "Little House" books are historical fiction based on the experiences of one little girl's growing up years. I personally feel like Laura is a lot "fairer" to the Indians in her books than many people in recent years have given her credit for. I am of Shawnee descent and proud of my Indian heritage and have devoted much study into the lives of my ancestors; and yet I read Little House on the Prairie and have no issues at all with this story... she's simply relating what her own experience was. There were in that time period Indians who were kind and gentle and fair, and Indians who did terrible things to white people, just as there were in that time period white people who were kind and gentle and fair, and white people who did terrible things to Indians. I just don't think we can pretend the bad things never happened or slant history by banning or criticizing books that tell the truth from one individual's experience. Other individuals would have had different experiences; some wrote about it, some didn't. But enough on that --

The Bender story? It doesn't even fit historically into the time period the Ingalls family was there. I don't think Laura remembered this at all. But why does she say that she does? That is what I've often wondered about. I personally think that Rose and/or Laura uncovered the Bender story in their research for Little House on the Prairie and as neither seemed particularly aware of the historical details (Laura apparently even thought they had lived in Oklahoma rather than Kansas, as she and Rose went looking there for the location once), I think they didn't realize that the Bender story took place after the Ingalls had long since left Indian Territory.

The Ingalls family left Kansas in September 1870, right after the birth of Carrie. It wasn't until Feb 1873 that the first victims of the Bender family disappeared, and it was spring 1873 when the Benders themselves came under suspicion and disappeared. There is no possible way Pa could have been involved in this. There were articles in the New York Times throughout the decades as various people were caught and thought to be Benders, and finally a dying man confessed he'd been part of a vigilance committee that had killed them. I think somewhere along the way, Laura or Rose read these stories and thought they took place during the Ingalls' stay in the area.

But why Laura would act as if she remembered this all happening when it simply couldn't have has always puzzled me. And why tell such a gruesome story in a speech that surely must have included children as its attendees? I have no idea what she was thinking to have done this.

I think nobody has commented on this story in published works because nobody quite knows what to make of the whole thing. :) But plenty of people have wandered onto Laura discussion groups and asked and the discussions have been held many times. The LIW world hasn't been strangely silent on this piece of information; you've just apparently never stumbled upon the internet LIW community. :)

equa yona(Big Bear) said...

Prairie Rose,Thanks for the additional info and for the generous perspective on LIW. I suspect she is a product of her era and was probaly told that if she wandered off the "wild indians" would get her, or some such. Truth is, white folks out west were very afraid of Indians in those days and I would be surprised if her writing didn't reflect that. It seems to me that white folks are STILL awfully afraid of Indians if you look at the police response to the protest near Marty, SD; over 40 cars carrying state police, two cops per car, plus sherriff and local cops. For a peaceful protest! Makes Laura seem pretty mild by comparison.

Anonymous said...

This is all fascinating. I am a "lightweight" Little House researcher who is interested in the shady line between "reality", what Laura and/or Rose thought was reality, and what ended up in the books. The more you look at the historical details (aka, where the family was at a specific point in history), the more things don't quite fit. My recent interest has been the idea that the Ingalls were almost surely illegally squatting on Indian land (the Osage Diminished Reserve) during the period that would become the Little House on the Prairie. I wish I had more energy and more knowledge of Indian policy to make sense of all this!

Prairie Rose said...

Yes, the Ingalls family was definitely illegally squatting on the Osage Diminished Reserve -- Laura pretty much comes right out and says so in Little House on the Prairie. Pa says, "If some blasted politicians in Washington hadn’t sent out word it would be all right to settle here, I’d never have been three miles over the line into Indian Territory."

Charles Ingalls never filed on a homestead claim in Kansas because the land wasn't yet open to settlers; it was still Osage land. However, Charles and the other settlers mentioned in the book had heard that the land would soon be open, and they knew it would go fast. The best way to be sure of getting a good piece of land was to get there before it was open for settling, and that way as soon as it was available, they could file their claim -- first come, first served, so to speak.

However, it looked like things were going to take a different turn, and the Osage weren't going to be pushed into giving up their land. A meeting was scheduled to discuss what the final outcome would be in August 1870, but it was delayed so the Osage could go on their annual buffalo hunt.

Carrie was born August 3, and the Ingalls family left Indian Territory as soon as Ma could travel, probably late August or early September. However, another piece of information that helps us put together what really happened is that Pa also received word that the man he had sold his farm in Pepin to couldn't pay up.

It's not sure whether Pa truly believed the deal with the Osage had fallen through and he left solely because he thought he had to, or whether they were so worried and upset at the tensions with the Osage that when this information came through Ma thought it was providential and they'd best return, or whether they knew things with the Osage were going to be settled soon in the settlers' favor but with the buyer of the farm defaulting on his payments, they didn't have enough money to sustain living there and were therefore forced to return for financial reasons. Regardless of the reason, the Ingalls family packed up and headed back to their Pepin farm before the September meeting, where the Osage reluctantly signed a treaty forcing them to move to new land, purchased from the Cherokee, thus opening up their territory for settlement by the whites.

As for historical accuracy and what was published in the books, I think it's important to understand that Rose -- in her own works -- cared little for facts and wrote whatever she thought would make the best story. The Little House books aren't purely autobiographical and weren't meant to be -- but they are of course historical fiction, and I believe Laura provided the historical and Rose provided the fiction. :) In some cases, particularly in Little House on the Prairie because she was only 3 when the family left there, Laura didn't have all the facts. While she did do research to try to learn what she could, she was probably forced to do some guesswork when it came to dates and specific locations.

Debbie Reese said...

Note to prairie rose:

Please post links to the online community you reference (that has discussed the Benders). Thanks!

Debbie Reese said...

Responding to prairie rose's post:

Prairie Rose notes that the Ingalls had already left Kansas by the time the Bender's were exposed as killers, and she wonders why Laura Ingalls Wilder says Pa was in the posse.

Laura made it up.

As noted elsewhere on this blog, she was not the little girl she describes in LITTLE HOUSE.... at the time they were there, she was a toddler. The stories she tells are based on what? Mary's experiences?

I wonder... if this book were published today and these discrepancies were pointed out, might she suffer the sort of backlash Frey received?

Dana Stemig said...

I think it is important to remember two things about Laura Ingalls Wilder's writing of the Little House books. 1) The books are historical fiction. They were never intended to be taken as historical fact. That is why they are fiction and not nonfiction. 2) People often think that they remember things that are told to them often enough. As was pointed out, Laura was too young at the time of the first several books to have remembered many of things incidents. I believe that it is very likely that she wrote the books from her memories of the stories that were told to her.
I love the Little House books but I realize that, like all historical fiction, the facts are often changed to fit the story. That does not mean the stories are bad. As an elementary school teacher librarian, I teach my students the meaning of historical fiction as a genre and the difference between fiction and nonfiction.
I recently listened to an author tell about a book that he wrote that was a collection of short stories that had their beginning in actually incidents from his childhood. He changed the names and some of the incidents to fit the story he was creating. Some family members did not understand that the work was fiction and felt that he was telling lies about his own family. When individuals accuse Laura Ingalls Wilder of falsifying the stories she wrote, they are making the same mistake that his family made. Fiction is fiction and does not fall under the same expectations of accuracy as nonfiction.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know Mrs. Scott's given name?

Blinkdawg said...

Four years late to the conversation here, but...

Regardless of the historical facts of the Benders event, it seems to me the critique "It is 'fit' for children to read about 'wild Indians' but not serial killers who are white" still stands. The question is not about what the writer experienced firsthand (or not) nor even her personal beliefs, but rather the systemic beliefs (of white culture) about what is appropriate to talk about and what is inappropriate. Such an omission admission definitely seems to reveal a racialization of violence. What would the reception have been if the Benders were portrayed as being Osage? Would the episode then have been fit to include? One (me) wonders if it wouldn't in fact garner the tacit approval of the dominant white discourse.

Additionally, "nor is it 'fit' for children to read that Pa killed someone in order to protect his family from harm" inquires into the imaging of the white frontiersman as a godlike being. To imply that the admission that such a nobly romanticized figure had at times to resort to homicide, whatever the justification, might tarnish that image and unsettle the readership provokes some perhaps discomfiting implications regarding what qualifies as acceptably white in portrayals of heroism.

Tonia said...

Let's remember these books were based on a time where most white people were afraid of Indians.

LWATCDR said...

I remember reading this book as a child of around 10 years old back in 1975. It is funny but I can still remember how I felt when the Ingalls had to leave their home. I felt bad for for both the Ingalls and the native americans. I remember feeling that that Pa seemed to have respect of the native americans, Ma had fear, and Laura want to play with the children.
At least that is how I remember it. Of course those are just old memories of what a child felt long ago.

Anonymous said...

This is an old post but I would like to point out a few things that I believe gives understanding as to why Laura related this story to her family. Charles and Mary Jane Longcor were neighbors of the Ingalls. Mary Jane died shortly after giving birth to their daughter, Mary Ann. Charles then decided to take the infant home to his parents and on the way became a victim of the Bloody Benders.

The Ingalls moved often and most likely would have stayed at an inn much like the Bender's in their travels. The news of the serial killers spread like wildfire. With Charles and Caroline knowing two of the victims they would have talked about it. It becomes understandable that this would have created a false memory in Laura. I believe she honestly thought her memory to be correct and it's easy to see how she would have. To a small child traveling around, staying at an inn and hearing stories about serial killing women, would have left quite an impression on a young mind.

People looked for the Bender's for decades. There were search parties and vigilante groups formed when possible Bender sighting occurred. If one of those sighting happened around the area the Ingalls live, Charles most likely would have joined the search. And personally knowing two of the victims would have incited more talk about the murders that the children would have heard. But I also believe Charles came to realize that the Bender's were not going to be caught, especially as the years went by. I feel it was probably the emotions of pain, anger and just shock of knowing the Longcor family was misunderstood by Laura as meaning her father helped "do away" with the Benders.

So, with all of that, I don't think she was borrowing other peoples stories and then relating them to being hers. We all have false memories from childhood, this was just simply one of hers.

Anonymous said...

How strange that LIW should tell this story. My family lived in that area in the 1870's, and we tell exactly the same story. The implication is always that my relative was on the posse chasing the Benders and that they were caught and killed by the posse. I don't think the Ingalls ever met up with the Benders; the timing is all wrong. Peace, Andrea

Anonymous said...

Hi all, I just checked my facts about the timelines of the Ingalls and the Benders. The disappearances on the road (murders) were happening from 1870 on, and the Ingalls were quite nearby, and on the move again in 1871. There weren't very many roads and the Benders positioned themselves so as to intercept travelers. The bodies at the Bender place were not discovered until 1873. It's not unlikely that they road past the Bender house. However Charles Ingalls wasn't called for the posse, as that didn't happen until after 1873. Apparently a LOT of families have the "I was on the posse and those Benders will never be found" story passed down, and no wonder. There are photos of the day the bodies were discovered and there is a huge crowd of men present. It's somewhat understandable that they might have written themselves into such a shocking event. -- Andrea Squires, Williamsburg, VA

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is racism in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, but I also definitely think her stories of "wild Indians" were more appropriate for children then stories of serial killers actually would have been. I have read the books approximately every year since age 7 (I'm now nearly 30) so I have some personal experience on how her stories were understood by a child. I agree with the previous person who stated that each characters' different views of Indians were clearly communicated by Laura. Yes, her mother was extremely prejudiced but it was clear that this was from fear and I never had trouble as a child understanding that this was a product of the times. It was also clear that Laura's father felt differently about the Indians and Laura herself was more curious than afraid. Yes, the family did have to be cautious of Indians, and they did have to give some of their supplies to them (and spend some fearful hours), but as the story made it clear that the Ingalls family shouldn't have been in Indian Territory in the first place and nothing truly terrible happened to them or to the Indians I feel that this was a fine story for children. While I quite enjoy Sweeney Todd I don't know that I would much appreciate my younger self reading about a family of murderers. Not that I think children should be protected from reality, in fact I think it is valuable for people to understand that bad things happen at a young age, but there is a difference between academically knowing this and experiencing it for yourself. When you tell a story you include details that make it more real for the reader. They follow you through the good and bad experiencing your thoughts and emotions. To tell a STORY of murder would bring it alive in a manner that just wouldn't fit into the spirit of the books, imo and would be possibly frightening in a harmful way to children. With the Indians there was merely the potential for violence that never materialized. To tell the story of the Benders, the violence would have been far to clear.

Anonymous said...

I am reading the book to my eight year old son - the same book I bought with my allowance when I was eight - and paused at the comments like "The only good indian is a dead indian." Growing up white in South Dakota, I am very sensitive to the low tech holocaust that the Ingalls were part of, even if their culture couldn't see it. Yet I read it. And I also noted that Pa (whom Laura clearly admired) was the one who didn't agree with those stereotypes, and defended the Indians. So my son and I had a conversation about that - why did some hate them, why was Pa different. He said its because the others were so afraid. Pa wasn't as afraid, and he could understand them. My eight year old son said that! Got us talking about fear and hate, fear of others who are different... So is it appropriate for a children's book? At least if an adult is there to ask and answer questions, it can be very positive. It also shows how the culture changes. The book is also positive in that the Ingalls for much of the series had very little material wealth, but yet family brought joy.

Anonymous said...

Stop whining about "racism."

At the time, Indians were a real threat, and a great number of white travellers and settlers were killed.

Anonymous said...

Completely agree!

Sesekinogea said...

Is this real? White people were the source of GENOCIDE to natives.

Even all the way up until the 1970's when hospitals would sterilize native women without consent or informing them. It. Is. Genocide.

It. Is. History. It's not pretend, step out of your privilege.

Unknown said...

I am a longtime fan of the Little House books. Without even knowing all that had gone on, I have always thought the portrayal of the Indians was mostly favourable. I understood it was their territory that the Ingalls and other white settlers were on, that there were Indians who didn't want to kill or make war on the white settlers despite the white people encroaching on their lands. Jerry, "the half-breed" is also spoken about as saving Pa from harm when he leads an angry mob of (white) men away from him.

There are racist/ignorant views relayed in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books - mostly from Ma or a white settler, but they were often countered with more enlightened views from Pa.

I disagree with some anonymous comments left, implying any negative portrayals or stereotypes of Native Indians in the Little House books were warranted. Sesekinogea is quite correct in calling what the white people did to the natives genocide. Through scorched earth policies, deliberate spread of disease, reneging on every single treaty ever made, kidnapping and abuse of their children, etc., the white man decimated the North American population by over a 100 million. A hundred million.

During the time the Ingalls were in Indian territory, the U.S. Government was trying to figure out a way out of honouring a treaty that they highly publicized when it was first made. The lands were to have been the Indians "forever," except Custer found gold in the Black Hills and the promises made to the Indians became inconvenient (again). The white man was breaking his promise, his own laws when he entered and set up on Indian territory. The U.S. army would often come upon any group of Native Indians and massacre them, even though they were not responsible for any harm that had occurred to the white man.
Would we not expect any other group of people to defend their property, their way of life, and their lives, if they were being threatened?

Puncturevine said...

Interesting thread. If you haven't listened to it, check out This American Life's podcast "Little War on the Prairie" which explores the notion of history written by the winners, the sanitized version of the "Little House" setting.

I liked the post about using books as springboards to serious conversations with young folks about the racism, stereotypes, etc. of the past. I think this is a far better approach than simply hiding away these flawed texts. But you need a thoughtful, educated adult present for that kind of discussion too.

Several posts refer to "Holocaust" and "genocide," something not uncommon to hear in discussions of US policy towards Native people. I think that discussion is far more complicated than we give it credit for:

We don't have to call something (and of course that's a key problem...there wasn't just one 'thing' or event or policy with respect to Native people, but hundreds...both federal and state) a "Holocaust" to recognize how horrific and wrong it was.

Anonymous said...

Flawed? These are not flawed texts! What we now call racism was a valid fear of these people. They were strangers who spoke a differentlanguage and had vastly differentideas about personal property. With such huge cultural divides and the fact that many natives were upset over the loss of their land, there was a tremendousfriction and for a woman alone with her children miles from anyone it would have been terrifying to have strangers just walk right into your home and take your belongings having no idea if they meant you harm.
These texts are not flawed. They are realistic and historically accurate. They aren't ignorant views and those characters do not deserve to ensure shamed because they had valid fears.
It's easy to look back now and say "of course she was racist! How terrible!" But we can also say, "oh my gosh! Those men were robbing her! They were home invaders!"
This was a reality for pioneer women. There was a real and valid fear there and portrayal of a reality of the past does not make a text flawed, it makes it accurate.

Unknown said...

Excellent reply Sesekinogea

Unknown said...

It becomes racist when it only portrays one side view. They don't mention that the cause of indigenous people stealing is because they had suffered genocide. If they portray indigenous people as inherently scary with no particular reason or explanation, then it is racist as it favors one race's views

Anonymous said...

True, but you have to remember that this book was written from the point of view of a little girl - in real life, she was only 2-3 years old even if her age in the book was a few years older. Laura & Rose could not reasonably tell the other side, except to hint at it in Charles' respect for the Osage and his dissenting comments. The family may not have realized the overall meaning of what was going on, or that as a whole the United States and white settlers were in the wrong. They probably had enough to think and worry about just dealing with their everyday life and whatever gossip and facts they heard from other adults, plus whatever (slanted) news was in the newspapers of the time.

Also, please keep in mind the time in which Laura & Rose were writing this book. It was published in 1935. She did extensive research in which she engaged about the setting and context of this book (because her real-life self had been too young to remember it), but the primary sources at that time were books and newpapers written by white settlers. The other side had not been told and wasn't part of the general knowledge everyone had as it is today.

To me, it's like my late grandmother, who died at age 94 and never quite got over her minor racial prejudices. Yes, she was wrong, and yes, I tried many, many times to educate her and change her mind, but the furthest I got was getting her to stop using the "n word" and "colored." She was a rural farm girl born in 1919, and it just wasn't happening.

Anonymous said...

Also, I find it reasonable that the Ingalls family would be aware of the Benders and the mystery surrounding them. Just because the investigation and official suspicion was in a certain year doesn't mean local rumors and gossip didn't happen before that. There are two ways the Ingalls family could have been kept up to date on information surrounding the case -- newspaper articles with the area listed in it or letters/visits from people they had known there. How do we (or how did Laura) know every second of her parents' daily lives. Someone could have mailed a letter or visited and told them the gruesome story, maybe even someone like Mr. Edwards who could have possibly been in a posse like the one hinted at. He did turn up later, after all.

Maria said...

Well said! The Little House Books are based on a little girl's account and memory of a time long long ago doesn't exactly make her racist we must also take into account that she was a product of that era and time where unfortunately at times children lived what they saw and learned from their environment!