the ringing of an ax which was not Pa's
At the beginning of Little House on the Prairie, Laura Ingalls Wilder writes that one of the reasons they are heading to the Indian Territory is that now, quite often in the Big Woods of Wisconsin, they hear "the ringing of an ax which was not Pa's ax." (Chapter 1) In Little House in the Big Woods, living where "as far as a man could go to the north in a day, or a week, or a whole month.... there were no people" (Chapter 1), the only "neighbors" mentioned in the entire book are the Huleatts and the Petersons. Uncle Henry's family, although actually living on land adjoining the Ingallses' own, do not seem close: Uncle Henry always arrives by "riding out of the woods."

Why, then, are the Ingallses so excited to find that they have neighbors in Indian Territory? It's grand to have Mr. Edwards help with the cabin building; it's such a help to have Mr. Scott help dig the well. Settlers are moving in all up and down both sides of the creek, including two bachelors (Sam Turner and Bill Jones in one of the manuscripts, and there's also a Mr. Thompson mentioned). Already you have as many households as mentioned in the Big Woods. The family of five? Surely they must be settling close by as well. Isn't this what the Ingallses came to Indian Territory to get away from?

The Ingallses come to get away from too many people, yet people start showing up. All those deer and antelope and elk Pa is thrilled to discover? Of course they'll be gone soon, and surely he knows that. And it's always about now when reading Little House on the Prairie that I start to feel a little uncomfortable. They have come to Indian Territory - no two ways about is - as squatters.

Then there are the Indians. Sure, Laura admires them and Pa wants to live in peace with them, and of course you can make a case that the family admires and respects the Indians, but surely he believes, as Mrs. Scott does, that "Treaties or no treaties, the land belongs to folks that'll farm it. That's only common sense and justice."

In Chapter 18, Pa even tells Laura - who even at her young age clearly sees something wrong with the logic and tried to question him about it - that "when white settlers come into a country, the Indians have to move on... We get the best land because we get here first and take our pick."

And, as shown in Waziyatawin Angela Cavender Wilson's "Burning Down the House: Laura Ingalls Wilder and American Colonialism" (Chapter 3 of Unlearning the Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America, edited by Donald Trent Jacobs (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006), while the Ingallses feel justified in taking Osage land, they don't like it one bit when two Indians come into their cabin and made signs for Ma to feed them. (Chapter 11)

Take a minute and visit amazon.com and read the chapter about LHOP in Jacobs' book (currently available as part of the preview). Although it would have been nice if Wilson had studied the actual history of the Ingalls family instead of relying on what's written in Little House on the Prairie (she cites the "there were no settlers" passage; does she realize that Wilder actually wrote that "there were no people"?), it's always good to hear the other side of the story.

Is Little House on the Prairie racist? Of course it is. But for some strange reason, we try to make it okay that Wilder dehumanizes Indians because we love her so much. And the book can't be banned, because how else could we also point out that Wilder can't be racist because, look, there's a black doctor?
- posted by pioneergirl at 11:30 PM