Over on Condensery, blogger Kate Slater posted an essay about Laurie Halse Anderson's Chains. Slater started by noting "hurtful or reductive representations" of American Indians in Caddie Woodlawn, and then she moves on to talk about Chains. She says Anderson engages with marginalization, oppression, and violence in a rich (not reductive) way, and Slater notes some anachronisms in the book that she found jarring.
Anderson replied, asking Slater about the anachronisms, because, she said "If I made any mistakes, I would like to correct them."
That sentence leaped out at me! How many other authors are willing to say that?!
Slater replied to Anderson, and Anderson responded again. It is a terrific thread. Click on over to read "Rememory and Laurie Halse Anderson's Chains". That sort of engagement is what I wish I could have with authors who, in some way, include American Indians in their books for children and young adults. Course, it isn't possible with those who are no longer living (such as Wilder or Brink) but what about Rinaldi?
________________
Further reading, see:
Reflections on CADDIE WOODLAWN: Teaching about Stereotypes using Literature
Illustrations of the "scalp belt" in CADDIE WOODLAWN
The "scalp belt" in CADDIE WOODLAWN
6 comments:
(Note to Kate: I tried to comment at your site but don't see what I submitted. Not sure if its moderated, or, if its other tech issues with the platform.)
Thanks for posting the link to Kate's site; the conversation there is really interesting!
That sentence leaped out at me! How many other authors are willing to say that?!
Plenty. Including none other than Laura Ingalls Wilder.
According to Dear Genius: The Letters of Ursula Nordstrom, HarperCollins received a letter in 1952 pointing out a disturbing phrase in Little House on the Prairie's description of Indian Territory: "...there were no people. Only Indians lived there."
Mrs. Wilder's response when her editor brought the matter to her attention?
"You are perfectly right about the fault in Little House on the Prairie and have my permission to make the correction you suggest. It was a stupid blunder of mine. Of course Indians are people and I did not intend to imply they were not."
For the ninth printing, the phrase was changed to "there were no settlers."
I can't help but wonder what other affronts to the Osage might have been eradicated had Mrs. Wilder been made aware of her offenses?
Even in light of this incident I'm not about to argue that Laura Ingalls Wilder wasn't racist -- she was. However, I do take offense at the insinuation that authors as a group are unwilling to own up to their mistakes.
Anonymous,
I wrote about Wilder's edits on November 1, 2009 in "Edit(s) to 1935 edition of LHOP" located here:
http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2009/11/edits-to-1935-edition-of-little-house.html
You (anonymous) said "I can't help but wonder what other affronts to the Osage might have been eradicated had Mrs. Wilder been made aware of her offenses?"
You assume that the person who wrote that letter to Wilder in 1952 only pointed out one error. I wrote to Harper to ask for the entire letter but they're not able to share it. I think the letter-writer may have pointed out other mistakes. Even so, if Wilder understood the concern, then she surely knew there were similar problems throughout the book. But she and her editors chose to pretend they weren't there? Or that it was only necessary to change the one (assuming the letter-writer only wrote about that one passage) problematic sentence in the entire series?
You (anonymous) also said "However, I do take offense at the insinuation that authors as a group are unwilling to own up to their mistakes."
I'm guessing you are a writer yourself. I know of a handful of writers who spoke publicly about errors. My experience has been that most are NOT willing to either make changes or publicly admit them. My context is books about American Indians, or with some reference to American Indians. I'd love to see your examples of authors who made the changes I'm looking for... Can you provide some?
Within that context, I'm afraid I can't provide examples; I'm just beginning my study of Native images in children's lit.
Maybe the reluctance you've encountered to making changes to Native portrayals is in part due to the scope of the errors? It's not uncommon to make a correction or two for a reprint, but now that I think about it, something like Indian in the Cupboard or Sign of the Beaver would have to be revised extensively. One would hope that the more grievous and pervasive the error, the more willing an author/publisher would be to rectify it. But due to the work and expense involved, probably the exact opposite is true. *sigh*
...if Wilder understood the concern, then she surely knew there were similar problems throughout the book.
Somehow, I doubt it. I don't think we can assume Wilder acquired any more knowledge of or sensitivity toward Native culture in the intervening years. She'd seen the Osage with her own eyes, and heard her parents' first-hand stories of encounters with them. In the absence of another direct challenge, how would a white woman of that era come to realize the Ingalls' collective experience of the Osage was skewed by the racism embedded in her own culture?
On a related note, have you read Who Really Saved Laura Ingalls: Soldat du Chene or a soldat du chien? The premise is interesting, but I still sensed an air of ethnocentricity in the language Vavra used to advance her argument.
Anderson seems quite open minded and mature to acknowledge what someone else sees as a mistake. We need more people like Anderson as authors in the world.
Post a Comment