Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=i_love_autumn;52300628]Neither I nor my children ever read them, and now, Moderator cut: no political rants on the book forum, please I would not recommend them! We don't need more children growing up this IGNORANT!
Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name stripped from children’s book award over ‘Little House’ depictions of Native Americans
Seems to me that what's ignorant is taking a stand against something of which one has only hearsay for knowledge.
Neither I nor my children ever read them, and now, Moderator cut: no political rants on the book forum, please I would not recommend them! We don't need more children growing up this IGNORANT!
Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name stripped from children’s book award over ‘Little House’ depictions of Native Americans
That's too bad, because the books espouse the values of hard work, humility, perseverance, thoughtfulness, charity, selflessness, and family love. The books also bring to life a unique time in our country's history. You and your children would have been enriched for reading the "Little House" books.
People who read books....any books, even if you disagree with them politically....are the opposite of ignorant.
The "value" a classic has is usually multi-faceted. It withstands time because of it. A book/movie/play/musical composition/art piece earns respect because it was well crafted, expressed something original, or was thought-provoking. Great. It can stand as an example of what NOT to think just as well as it can stand as an example of what TO think. I don't happen to like Van Gogh. Few people during his lifetime did either. Lucky any of it survived. The societal wheel turned. You were generally considered a cretin if you didn't see the genius in his work. I still don't like it. Is it my right to start a campaign to destroy it because I don't see that genius 128 years later?
From what I dimly remember about the books, prejudice wasn't the take home. I suppose someone feels vindicated somewhere. Man, there are so many more important actions you could take. But then these tend to be the knottier ones...a lot harder than removing recognition from the vintage work of a long dead writer. Smacks of retaliation and most of us know how much better off society is because of that.
Like I said before its more about the group that originally named the award after the author deciding that its time to change the name of the award from the said author's.
Their group, their award, their choice.
I have not heard anything about them making any bans, censors or revisions to any of Wilder's work; if that happens to be the case then feel free to enlighten the rest of the thread on it.
From what I read, Wilder herself seemed to came to reconsider some of her words & perspectives.
And again I've never read the books but from what I remember, the tv series didn't get much controversial press.
Like I said before its more about the group that originally named the award after the author deciding that its time to change the name of the award from the said author's.
Their group, their award, their choice.
I have not heard anything about them making any bans, censors or revisions to any of Wilder's work; if that happens to be the case then feel free to enlighten the rest of the thread on it.
From what I read, Wilder herself seemed to came to reconsider some of her words & perspectives.
And again I've never read the books but from what I remember, the tv series didn't get much controversial press.
The TV series didn't get much controversial press because as another poster stated, the TV series did not adhere to the stories in the books. Also, at the time the TV series was made, attitudes back then would be considered unenlightened and backwards by today's standards. If you examine other television shows of that era, you will find many stereotypes that would never be deemed acceptable in today's culture.
By removing Wilder's name from the award, a statement is being made to discourage people from reading the books. Has there been any response from the Ingalls family?
The TV series didn't get much controversial press because as another poster stated, the TV series did not adhere to the stories in the books. Also, at the time the TV series was made, attitudes back then would be considered unenlightened and backwards by today's standards. If you examine other television shows of that era, you will find many stereotypes that would never be deemed acceptable in today's culture.
By removing Wilder's name from the award, a statement is being made to discourage people from reading the books. Has there been any response from the Ingalls family?
There is no family left. Laura was the only member of her family to have children, and her only grandchild died in infancy. Rose Wilder Lane left the book rights to her family attorney.
Also, at the time the TV series was made, attitudes back then would be considered unenlightened and backwards by today's standards. If you examine other television shows of that era, you will find many stereotypes that would never be deemed acceptable in today's culture.
I wouldn't necessarily put today's media on a pedestal either.
Though, I do understand that they're plenty of up & coming artists & I definitely like checking out new works.
As a retired librarian, what's distressing about the renaming of the award to me is that it was done by the Association for Library Service to Children, which is a division of the American Library Association. About ALSC | Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) The ALA has long fought the banning of books. Changing the name of the Laura Ingalls Wilder award specifically due to the content of Wilder's books, while not actively banning the books, is teetering on the edge of book banning. Taking this action is completely contrary to the values of the ALA and the profession of librarianship.
Here is the content of the e-mail I just sent to the ALSC: "Your actions in re-naming the Laura Ingalls Wilder award have dishonored the profession of librarianship. The public has perceived your actions as BOOK BANNING. You have made the ALSC and the ALA a laughingstock. I'm sure that you have staff and board members who will loudly argue that you haven't banned Wilder's books. However, the simple reality is that in removing her name from the award you are discouraging people from reading her books. That is, de facto, BANNING WILDER'S BOOKS. Just a shocking piece of stupidity on the part of board members and staff of the ALSC."
So true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
