Should 'old' literature be removed from the canon?
I saw a news article on BBC news, which is this link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44604844
and I felt as though, as an ex-English literature student, I should talk about this and the whole concept of removing literature due to it's content, regardless of the context and the author.
In the article, Laura Ingalls Wilder's name has been removed from the awards system used by The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC). The book series in question, 'Little House', holds racist sentiments against black and Native American individuals. The 9 books, published between 1932-1971, and based on Wilder's childhood in the south of America during the 1870-1894 time period.
She was to receive the Children's Literature Award, but has been removed and awarded a new award as Children's Literature Legacy Award. I do understand this cause for removal, as her book has got very offensive statements within, which are not appropriate to today's society. The article states:
"Notably, one of the opening chapters of the Little House books described a land with "no people. Only Indians lived there". and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," one character says. At other points in the series, African-American characters are called "darkies"."
It is obviously unacceptable to use this kind of language and to have these beliefs in modern society, as we have progressed and the majority of people see everyone as equal, regardless of race, origin, gender, sexuality etc. Wilder lived in a time of deep racism and harsh rejection of anyone non-white. On Wikipedia an interesting explanation for the changing the award exists:
"An important moment concerning Wilder's depiction of Native Americans occurred in 1998, when an eight year old girl read Little House on the Prairie in her elementary school class. The novel contains the line, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"; and this caused the girl great distress. Her mother, Waziyatawin Angela Cavender Wilson, a member of the Wahpetunwan Dakota nation, challenged the school on its use of the book in the classroom.This prompted the American Library Association to investigate and ultimately change the name of the Wilder Award, an award named after Laura Ingalls Wilder, to the Children's Literature Legacy Award.This award is given to books that have made a large impact on children's literature in America."
Honestly, I am in agreement with removing these books from young children's literature, purely because of the influence the books would have on many kids, making them think this old fashioned attitude is acceptable now. However, it is not fair to make Wilder look like a racist, even though she would be in today's terms. She was not a racist at the time, just a normal white person, unfortunately. Like in Oscar Wilde's only novel, 'The picture of Dorian Gray', the audience of the time felt the book was a negative and abhorrent piece of work that held anti-Christian beliefs. Clearly in today's world, we can see this is not true. As you can see, society and its views do make or break the book world.
So it begs the question, should we remove old fashioned literature from the literary canon or should it be kept, despite many of the authors having racist, homophobic or inaccurate views?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44604844
and I felt as though, as an ex-English literature student, I should talk about this and the whole concept of removing literature due to it's content, regardless of the context and the author.
In the article, Laura Ingalls Wilder's name has been removed from the awards system used by The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC). The book series in question, 'Little House', holds racist sentiments against black and Native American individuals. The 9 books, published between 1932-1971, and based on Wilder's childhood in the south of America during the 1870-1894 time period.
She was to receive the Children's Literature Award, but has been removed and awarded a new award as Children's Literature Legacy Award. I do understand this cause for removal, as her book has got very offensive statements within, which are not appropriate to today's society. The article states:
"Notably, one of the opening chapters of the Little House books described a land with "no people. Only Indians lived there". and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," one character says. At other points in the series, African-American characters are called "darkies"."
It is obviously unacceptable to use this kind of language and to have these beliefs in modern society, as we have progressed and the majority of people see everyone as equal, regardless of race, origin, gender, sexuality etc. Wilder lived in a time of deep racism and harsh rejection of anyone non-white. On Wikipedia an interesting explanation for the changing the award exists:
"An important moment concerning Wilder's depiction of Native Americans occurred in 1998, when an eight year old girl read Little House on the Prairie in her elementary school class. The novel contains the line, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"; and this caused the girl great distress. Her mother, Waziyatawin Angela Cavender Wilson, a member of the Wahpetunwan Dakota nation, challenged the school on its use of the book in the classroom.This prompted the American Library Association to investigate and ultimately change the name of the Wilder Award, an award named after Laura Ingalls Wilder, to the Children's Literature Legacy Award.This award is given to books that have made a large impact on children's literature in America."
Honestly, I am in agreement with removing these books from young children's literature, purely because of the influence the books would have on many kids, making them think this old fashioned attitude is acceptable now. However, it is not fair to make Wilder look like a racist, even though she would be in today's terms. She was not a racist at the time, just a normal white person, unfortunately. Like in Oscar Wilde's only novel, 'The picture of Dorian Gray', the audience of the time felt the book was a negative and abhorrent piece of work that held anti-Christian beliefs. Clearly in today's world, we can see this is not true. As you can see, society and its views do make or break the book world.
So it begs the question, should we remove old fashioned literature from the literary canon or should it be kept, despite many of the authors having racist, homophobic or inaccurate views?
Comments
Post a Comment