Showing posts with label Pub Year 1964. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pub Year 1964. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 02, 2020

Not Recommended: HARRIET THE SPY by Louise Fitzhugh


Harriet the Spy
Written by Louise Fitzhugh
First published by Harper and Row in 1964
Reviewed by Debbie Reese
Review Status: Not Recommended




A biography about Louise Fitzhugh is in the news. She is much-loved for Harriet the Spy. The biography description says that Harriet is "erratic, unsentimental, and endearing." But like many (most?) people,  Fitzhugh and her character have problematic views of Native people. The biography will likely prompt people to purchase Harriet the Spy again, and gift it to children. Should they do that? 

For those who did not read Harriet the Spy (first published in 1964), here is the description of the book:
Harriet M. Welsch is a spy. In her notebook, she writes down everything she knows about everyone, even her classmates and her best friends. Then Harriet loses track of her notebook, and it ends up in the wrong hands. Before she can stop them, her friends have read the always truthful, sometimes awful things she’s written about each of them. Will Harriet find a way to put her life and her friendships back together?

In chapter one, we meet Harriet and her friend, Sport. Harriet is drawing and writing in her notebook. Sport looks over her shoulder (location 67 in e-copy), watching her. She says:
"Now, as soon as you've got all the men's names down, and their wives' names and their children's names, then you figure out all their professions. You've got to have a doctor, a lawyer--"
"And an Indian chief," Sport interrupted. 

Harriet ignores Sport's suggestion, saying she needs someone who works in television. There is no further mention of Sport's comment. 

Some of you may know the rhyme that Sport was going with as "Tinker Tailor." It is a counting or jump rope rhyme for girls that is supposed to tell them about their future husband. It starts out with "Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, Indian chief." It juxtaposes "good" things, like being rich with being poor, or being a thief. Given that pattern, I think it is safe to say that it is preferable that a future husband be a doctor or a lawyer, but not an Indian chief. Near as I can tell, the rhyme with "Indian chief" in it is dated to the late 1800s in the US. I did a lot of jump rope rhymes when I was a kid but don't remember this one. Do you? Do you see kids saying it, today? If yes, where?

Not mentioned in the book description is Ole Golly, but she figures throughout the story. In the midst of Harriet and Sport's conversation in chapter one, we read "Harriet! Get up out of that mud!" from someone in the brownstone behind them. It is Ole Golly, her nurse. In chapter five, Harriet spies on Ole Golly when she goes out to be with her boyfriend, Mr. Waldenstein. She hears him tell Ole Golly that she is attractive, who is embarrassed by the compliment and changes the subject. She blushes. The text there is (location 1007):
The crimson zoomed up Ole Golly's face again, making her look exactly like a hawk-nosed Indian.
Big Chief Golly, Harriet thought, what is happening to you?
In the space of a few words, we see stereotypical depictions of Native people: the hawk nose, the red skin, and the use of "Big Chief" to describe someone with authority. 

When I call attention to this kind of content in popular or classic books, someone invariably replies that there's a lot in the book that is important, and that those things are more important than the problematic Native content. Those who say that are pretty much saying that the impact of this derogatory content on a Native reader doesn't count as much as the others who will, in some way, be affirmed by the rest of the story. But I hear that a lot. Over and over, Native kids are expected to push through that kind of content, for the sake of the other kids. 

That's deeply troubling! It is spoken as if there is only one book in the entire world that can do what Harriet the Spy does. And of course, that isn't true! You may have an attachment to it because it did something for you when you were a kid, but come on. You can let it go, right? 


 



Sunday, March 03, 2019

Not Recommended: IF YOU LIVED IN COLONIAL TIMES by Ann McGovern

Yesterday (March 2, 2019) I read a post at Social Justice Books about If You Lived in Colonial Times by Ann McGovern. Social Justice Books is a project at Teaching for Change that I am part of. Here's an except from their post, Whitewashed Colonial History Children's Book Still in Print.

On the last day of Black History Month, children at a predominantly African American elementary school in D.C. were each given a book to keep. 
The title given to the daughter of one of our Teaching for Change staff was If You Lived in Colonial Times (Scholastic, 1992). While this outrageous book all but erases African Americans and demonizes Native Americans, it ironically came along with an “I am Black History” bookmark.
Their review included the book cover. I shared their review on Twitter, but used my own image of the cover. For some books, I'll place a red X on the cover. It is eye-catching and communicates that the book has significant problems.



In their review, they shared some pages from the book. Here's the last page, about who wanted to live in New England. See the last paragraph?



I did a bit of research as I shared their review. They note it first came out in 1964. I found the cover of that first printing:

Image

From what I'm able to see online, the words in the 1964 edition (with pictures by Brinton Turkle) are the same as those found in the 1992 edition, when the illustrations were re-done by June Otani.

What, I wonder, was the conversation that took place in Scholastic offices, in 1990 or 1991 when they discussed updating the illustrations. Obviously they decided they needed to update those illustrations--but what about the words? Did they think those were ok?

Social Justice Books shared part of page 65, about mail delivery:
Sometimes the letter was never delivered. The man you hired might be killed by some Indians.
Regular mail service began in 1672, the text reads, when "post riders" were hired:
The post rider rode with the mail through forests, along narrow Indian trails, and across streams. He kept his gun loaded. There might be a hungry bear or wolf nearby. Or an unfriendly Indian.
In this moment in the US, with so many news stories of Native and People of Color being shot and killed, I find that passage chilling. And it is missing so much. Why, for example, might a Native person be "unfriendly"? Might it be because people had invaded his land and killed his family?

Why, Scholastic, do you keep this book in print?

Part of the work I do with Teaching for Change is its #StepUpScholastic campaign. Many of you reading this post have fond memories of your school days, when your teacher would hand out a flier of books you could get at a reduced rate. Studies have shown that, today, the selection of books offered is lacking in diversity. We created a webpage through which you can write to Scholastic to ask them to make the selections in the book fliers more diverse, but you can use it to write to Scholastic about any book that you see and have concerns about. If You Lived in Colonial Times is definitely one of those books that is generating concern.

Again: why, Scholastic, do you keep this book in print?

Your brand--your profile--is that your books are educational. With this book, you are not educating children. You are, in fact, hurting any child who reads this book.

Once I hit publish on this post, I'm going over to the Teaching for Change page to submit a comment. I hope you (teachers, parents, librarians) do so, too.