Reading this in your forties while you're also reading Lies My Teacher Told Me is very different from reading it when you're ten years old. Although even then, I remember cringing a bit.Because on the one hand, Caddie Woodlawn is all kinds of awesome. She's a redhead roaming wild in the woods of western Wisconsin, and you won't catch her sewing a seam or polishing the furniture when she could be climbing a tree or plowing a field.On the other hand, this is Wisconsin in 1864. "Pioneer days," as the book calls them. And that's some problematic territory.Eleven-year-old Caddie and her brothers start off their adventures crossing a river, though they haven't a boat and can't swim. They're just that unstoppable.But here's their idea of idle conversation:"Do you think the Indians around here would ever get mad and massacre folks like they did up north?" wondered Warren.Warren is quickly reassured by his brother:"No, sir," said Tom, "not these Indians!""Not Indian John, anyhow," said Caddie.Later on in the book, the white people in this little Wisconsin town freak out because they think the Indians are going to rise up and murder the whites in the night. Because that's what Indians do.Only two years before, the Indians of Minnesota had killed a thousand white people, burning their houses and destroying their crops. The town of New Ulm had been almost entirely destroyed. Other smaller uprisings throughout the Northwest flared up from time to time, and only a breath of rumor was needed to throw the settlers of Wisconsin into a panic of apprehension.Caddie's father says it's all nonsense and tavern rumors. "I am willing to stake my farm, and a good deal that I hold dear besides, on the honor and friendliness of the Indians hereabouts."So as a child, I absorbed the following lessons:1. Indians randomly committed massacres against white "settlers."2. There were individual exceptions, so Indians like Caddie's friend "Indian John" were okay.3. But in general, there was no telling what kind of violence might occur and when the Indians might decide to engage in an "uprising."Now, I was cognizant enough to cringe later in the book when Caddie kindly buys some presents for three little boys whose mother is a kindly Indian and whose father is a lazy white jerk. Some of the presents are red handkerchiefs:The little Hankinsons were speechless with delight. The red was like music to their half-savage eyes.That's enough to make even a dumb suburban white kid flinch. But the rest of it? This was a novel, true, but it was based on the author's own family's experiences, just as Laura Ingalls Wilder's books are fiction based on fact. So the conclusion I drew was that, yes, Indians had been really scary and it wasn't much of a wonder that the whites hadn't gotten along with them. Even the nice ones, like Indian John and the Hankinson kids' mother, just couldn't assimilate quickly enough to the new dominant culture, or be nice enough to convince the whites they meant no harm; so in spite of plenty of good intentions on both sides, they faded away and disappeared.I never learned much history in school; but in general, I thought I knew what I hadn't learned. That is, I didn't know much about, say, American government, or the War of 1812; but I knew they were there.I didn't know anything at all about the Indian wars, and I didn't know there was anything to know about them because they weren't even introduced as a concept. Wars were something white people fought against other white people – the Americans against the British, the British against the French, the Germans against pretty much everybody else.Indians and white people clashed, sure. And the whites were pretty rude to just come on over to the Americas like there wasn't even anybody already living here. (My teachers did get that much right, though they were pretty soft on the details.)But wars?So when I read that bit about the massacre in Minnesota in Caddie Woodlawn, I took it at its word. And to be fair, the book is not all about those awesome whites and the bad Indians they're up against. Whites are often viciously violent themselves:Sometimes, leaving the women and children at home, the men went out to attack the Indians, preferring to strike first rather than be scalped in their beds later. The fear spread like a disease, nourished on rumors and race hatred. For many years now the whites had lived at peace with the Indians of western Wisconsin, but so great was this disease of fear that even a tavern rumor could spread it like an epidemic throughout the country.Okay. But the "massacre" of New Ulm wasn't a random spate of violence. It was, as I only learned when I reread Caddie and did some Googling, part of what is variously known as the Dakota War of 1862 and the Sioux Uprising. It was triggered by – what a surprise – treaty violations on the part of the U.S. government, and corruption in the Bureau of Indian affairs. I'm way oversimplifying, but after months of attempted negotiations on the part of the Dakota led to nothing better than broken promises and famine, war erupted. Not random massacres because that's just what those Indians do: war. In the last half of 1862, the U.S. government was fighting not one war, but two.Nobody taught me that. Caddie Woodlawn is a beautifully written book, but like Gone With The Wind, it perpetuates some deeply harmful myths.By all means, read this book. It's important and, when it's not talking about Indians, often hilariously funny and deeply touching.But please also read the chapter "Red Eyes" in James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, so you can get the whole story. Read about what's wrong with the author of Caddie Woodlawn describing Wisconsin as a "wilderness" and the white settlers as "pioneers," and why it didn't matter how good "good Indians" like Indian John were.I'll end with this paragraph from that book:The overall story line most American history textbooks tell about American Indians is this: We tried to Europeanize them; they wouldn't or couldn't do it; so we dispossessed them. While more sympathetic than the account in earlier textbooks, this account falls into the trap of repeating as history the propaganda used by policy makers in the nineteenth century as a rationale for removal – that Native Americans stood in the way of progress. The only real difference is the tone. Back when white Americans were doing the dispossessing, justifications were shrill. They denounced Native cultures as primitive, savage, and nomadic. Often writers invoked the hand or blessings of God, said to favor those who "did more" with the land. Now that the dispossessing is done, our histories since 1980 can see more virtue in the conquered cultures. But they still pictured American Indians as tragically different, unable or unwilling to acculturate. The trouble is, it wasn't like that.
This was my first time reading the novel as an adult and I loved it all the more for all the sense of fun and adventure I so enjoyed as a child, and found a deeper appreciation of so many more elements—such as Father and Mother’s relationship (I had tears in my eyes at the end of the chapter, Pigeons or Peacocks?) and Mr. Woodlawn’s wonderfully unorthodox parenting style with Caddie (and Mrs. Woodlawn’s trust in him in allowing this to happen), letting her “run wild with the boys” to regain her health (this reminded me of a bit of Uncle Alec’s treatment for Rose from Louisa May Alcott’s “Eight Cousins” books) and the respect that they show the children, especially with a life-changing decision that must be made toward the end of the book. I also had deeper insights into the settler/Native American relations reading the book from an adult standpoint, more on this later.What stands out to me most is the sense of joy and love and togetherness in the Woodlawn family. Also, Caddie’s beautifully multi-faceted nature, wild and brave and adventurous yet also kind and feeling and introspective. She is definitely a “kindred spirit”—if Anne Shirley was a pioneer girl, she might have been a lot like Caddie (maybe the red hair helped me shape this comparison, haha!) The Wisconsin frontier also shines memorably; amazing how a book written in 1935, about life in the 1860s, can bring the beauty and feeling of that long ago so vibrantly into our 21st century imaginations. It seems that comparisons between Caddie Woodlawn and “The Little House” series by Laura Ingalls Wilder are inevitable; a quote from Jim Trelease trumpets on the back cover of my book, “You take The Little House on the Prairie; I’ll take Caddie Woodlawn…” though I don’t really see why there must be a contest. Perhaps it’s because both books were written in the 1930s, about a spirited young girl growing up on the frontier—and Caddie and Laura were roughly contemporaries, though about a decade separates their childhoods and the Woodlawns lived a less isolated and more prosperous life. Personally, I love both books, because of the spunky-but-sensitive protagonists, the loving family life, the fascinating glimpse into the frontier lifestyle, and the timeless storytelling. I suppose the biggest difference is in how the books handle the Native American presence. For the Woodlawn family, Indian John is a friend, and his tribe a peaceful presence. Mr. Woodlawn gained their trust and friendship when he came to run the mill on their lands and Caddie has a special place in her heart for Indian John and his dog, and Indian John watches out for her. It is quite refreshing to see this relationship in a book of that period. In contrast, Native Americans are viewed as a distant “other” in Little House on the Prairie and, while Pa seems a bit more trusting, Ma is terrified of them. And yet, the Native Americans are still referred to as “redskins” a few times in Caddie Woodlawn, and there is a bit of a patronizing air at times. Both books are well worth reading and discussing. We see that, even though these people lived long ago, their feelings, their complexity, and their humanity, is not so different from ours. I am happy to live in a world where both Caddie Woodlawn and the Little House series can hold a cherished place on my bookshelf.
What do You think about Caddie Woodlawn (2006)?
Caddie Woodlawn is a story set in the 1860’s and is about a little girl, named Caddie, who is a tomboy. Caddie is very adventurous and is always with her brothers running wild, instead of in the home with the girls and her mother. Caddie, has also formed a bond with the neighboring Indians. She finds them intriguing and harmless. Caddie does not see color, but rather regular people when she looks at the Indians. Caddie is responsible for stopping a rampage between her family and others against the Indians. She fights to make sure that everyone knows that they mean no harm. Her example and her determination make this story a great read. Caddie is different than most girls during this time and she is very strong-willed, which makes her a great example for all girls. I think that Caddie Woodlawn is a good story for all young adolescents to read because it deals with differences in types of people and styles of living. Caddie is very relatable and makes great strides in promoting differences and acceptances. It is not every day that a young girl can stop a rampage between Indians and settlers.
—Robin Martin
I'm the same girl and yet not the same. I wonder if it's always like that? Folks keep growing from one person into another all their lives, and life is just a lot of everyday adventures. Well, whatever life is, I like it.Sweet, upbeat (yet sexist!) historical fiction about the irrepressible Caddie Woodlawn. Each chapter in the book chronicles an "everyday adventure," following Caddie through a year of her life. A common thread throughout the book is Caddie's struggle with the conflict between wanting to do "boy things," and the expectation that she'll turn into a "proper lady." Pioneers had very definite ideas about gender roles, and in the end, Caddie is resigned to the fact that she'll have to take up womanly characteristics and activities. I would have liked it better if she decided to be a tomboy for the rest of her life, but how much can you expect for a book published in 1935? Plus -- to my surprise -- the book is based on a real person. Caddie Woodlawn was the author's grandmother, and all of the stories are mostly true. So the author couldn't have really invented another reality for Caddie, since the story is loosely biographical.I know I read this book as a kid, but I remembered nothing about it except for one tiny part where Caddie is punished and sent to her room. She's upset, flushed with anger, and keeps tossing and turning on her bed. One of her parents finally comes to check on her, helps her straighten out the sheets on her bed, and calms her down. The part that I remembered most was that they straightened the rumpled sheets -- funny how such small details can stick with you. I was tickled to find that part in my recent re-reading:Mr. Woodlawn held her a long time, his rough beard pressed against her cheek. Then with his big hands, which were so delicate with clockwork, he helped her to undress and straighten the tumbled bed. Then he kissed her again and took his candle and went away. And now the room was cool and pleasant again, and even Caddie's tears were not unpleasant, but part of the cool relief she felt. In a few moments, she was fast asleep.Recommended for fans of Little House on the Prairie, but I'm not sure who else I would recommend it to. Parents who want blandly inoffensive read-alouds for young children? As a feminist and trans* rights supporter, I feel like the gender stereotypes would preclude me from recommending it regularly.
—Amy
I read this historical fiction classic aloud to my children. It takes place in 1864 during the pioneer days, and it won the 1936 Newbery Medal.Caddie is 11 years old, and she is a tomboy who feels more comfortable roughhousing with her brothers (Tom, age 13 and Warren, age 9) than cooking and sewing with her sisters. Interestingly, the adventurous children in the Woodlawn family were the red-headed ones, and the dark-haired ones were more proper. The family moved from Boston to Wisconsin, and both Caddie and her sister, Mary, were frail and weak. After little Mary died, Father begged Mother to let him try an experiment with Caddie because he was desperate not to lose another child. He wanted Caddie to be allowed to play in the sunshine because he believed it would restore her health. He didn't want her to be keep indoors being raised as a proper young lady. He was right. Caddie thrived, and she was the apple of her father's eye.Across the Menomonie River, there lived a local Native American tribe. Caddie struck up a friendship with the Chief, whom the kids called Indian John, and the natives were fascinated with the red-haired children. They did not mind when the kids crossed the river to come for a visit.A rumour runs rampant among the white settlers that the natives are planning a massacre, which was what happened two years before when the Minnesota Natives killed over one thousand white settlers. Because of this, most of the settlers are apprehensive about the natives. Father does not believe that the rumour is true because he trusts the honour of Indian John and his tribe. The settlers are afraid, and they band together so that they can be united in the event that a massacre does occur. Father assures his neighbours that there is nothing to fear, but he still invites them to stay at the Woodlawn farm. Caddie overhears some of the men discussing the situation, and they want to take the offensive position and attack the natives instead of waiting to see what will happen. She is horrified, and she feels she must go and warn Indian John before it is too late.Wow, what a fantastic story! Caddie is such an excellent role model for young girls. She is courageous, thoughtful, and fiercely loyal to those she loves. She refuses to be swayed by the opinions of others, and she is not afraid to be the one in the crowd who is different. She stands up for what she believes in, even when she is in the minority. She has more character than many adults.We loved this book, and I highly recommend it! We have already bought the companion story, Caddie Woodlawn's Family.
—Darlene
