What was Charles Ingalls' Deal

[SharonM]

shiftless is a good word

 

I feel like he would fall for a pyramid scheme if he were alive today.

 

"Oh that land is still legally the Indians' and there has been violence? But rando person swears the gov is going to drive them out [sounds safe!] any day now? Well shoot! sign me up to take all these litle girls out there! What could go wrong?"

 

I don't like the word shiftless, since every time they moved, Pa was always the one building the new house, or working in the new area at whatever he could to earn the money they needed.

And Pa was not in anyway lazy or indolent or lacking ambition, He just wanted peace and quiet. He didn't like hearing the neighbors ax sounds in the forest.

I don't think that it's fair to judge someone from another time by our standards. Even today there are people in this country that would totally believe that things your believe are wrong.

Nobody on this board walked in this mans shoes or lived the life of his wife.

Things that we see now as completely immoral (slavery or taking of native American lands) were commonly accepted. They didn't stay that way because there were those who believed differently and worked tirelessly to make the change. But I bet you big money that no one on this board feels so badly about taking the lands of the native American that they would offer their land or house as recompense.

I think that Pa was a modern day guy who would yearn for the wide open space of Alaska or Montana somewhere where he could spread out and not feel hemmed in. Definitely not a suburban guy.

Not a weirdo.

 

I have not read the other replies, and I have no intention to inflame anyone. But we don't know him.

 

 

edited for typos... Sat. morning is hard.

Edited March 12, 2016 by SharonM

[Tsuga]

I agree that "shiftless" is just not the right word. It implies a lack of motivation, not a lack of direction or perhaps poorly defined or overzealous ambition.

 

Re: second point: I am not ready to debate that... I agree that nobody would be willing to give it up as there are many excellent scholarship services and NGOs that would use a donation like that for housing (Habitat for Humanity, among them, with a great reputation) and I don't see people rushing over.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Tsuga

[Tsuga]

There's of bit of hypocrisy going on with it.

 

A bit!

 

The frontier was won by the United States Army and lost by various tribes. It was funded by US taxpayers. There's just no way around that. No individual ever colonized a continent.

 

That said, for the exact same reasons individuals have a different level of moral culpability than their leaders at the time and I agree with those who say we cannot apply present-day morality on the whole to the individuals in that situation.

[LucyStoner]

I'm reading more as I have time. I do agree that Rose was a hypocrite and I'm really not crazy about her as a person. She lacked the character of her family. I still believe some people despise the idea of the independent pioneer spirit that those books encourage. I see too much of an undercurrent, politically, to believe otherwise.

A romanticized ideal of the individual pioneer spirit is part of our nation's very psyche. That sense of rugged independence is woven in to the fabric of our culture and the legacy of that can be seen in many ways in all sorts of people. I don't know that a solid case can be made for the claim that many people "despise" that individualism. I think most claim it in one way or the other.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I never saw the books or the tv series as Ingall's family history.  I saw it as a vehicle to show how things were back then.  So more of a conglomerate of experiences that could happen to all sorts of settlers.  So it didn't bother me that the series didn't follow the books.  And later, as I learned some more of their true family history it didn't bother me that the details in the stories weren't exact.  I wouldn't expect a series for children to focus on the role of the government in their lives either so leaving those details out doesn't bother me and doesn't make me think "propaganda". 

[gardenmom5]

In addition, hoarding as a response to starving is almost an unconscious or irresistible impulse. 

 

My grandmother was a young mother during the depression.  and the cholera epidemic among the hogs.  it had as much influence on her as having grown up on a farm.

[LucyStoner]

I never saw the books or the tv series as Ingall's family history.  I saw it as a vehicle to show how things were back then.  So more of a conglomerate of experiences that could happen to all sorts of settlers.  So it didn't bother me that the series didn't follow the books.  And later, as I learned some more of their true family history it didn't bother me that the details in the stories weren't exact.  I wouldn't expect a series for children to focus on the role of the government in their lives either so leaving those details out doesn't bother me and doesn't make me think "propaganda". 

 

The fact that it is a children's series is what makes the political stuff stick out so prominently.  Some conservative scholars have written reams of papers advancing the idea that Laura wrote the books 3 and up with an eye towards critiquing the New Deal.  Regardless of if everyone sees the political comments or not, they are very much there. Propaganda can come in a lot of forms, novels and children's books included.  Propaganda is not inherently a bad thing.  Her books, her ideas to put out there.  

 

I don't mind that the books vary from their lives.  It's a fictionalized account and I get that.  Also, no one is a fully reliable narrator of what their own life was like as a very young child.  

 

I don't think the TV show really showed "what things were like back then".  At all.  Michael Landon's Pa Ingalls comes off as a moral crusader straight out of the 1970s spoiling for a moralistic activist speech.  I'm pretty sure they had every "very special episode" one could think of and few were true to the 19th century.  Unless only looking at bits of the costuming, it's not really a historical show.  It was a distinctly modern show set in the late 19th century.  

[ktgrok]

 

I don't think the TV show really showed "what things were like back then".  At all.  Michael Landon's Pa Ingalls comes off as a moral crusader straight out of the 1970s spoiling for a moralistic activist speech.  I'm pretty sure they had every "very special episode" one could think of and few were true to the 19th century.  Unless only looking at bits of the costuming, it's not really a historical show.  It was a distinctly modern show set in the late 19th century.  

 

It actually reminds me of Star Trek in that respect. 

[Deee]

you haven't done much farming in primitive conditions have you.

ok - so they give people their seed wheat to eat.  come spring - what do they plant?  come fall - what do they harvest?  come next winter - what do they EAT? 

 

this is the reality in some parts of the world today - eat the seed and starve next year, or starve this year, maybe survive, and hopefully have a better crop next year.  in those times, seed was a big deal - you couldn't just go buy it.  you'd have to hope your local grange/store was able to get some in -and that you had enough money to buy some.  sometimes that local grange was a good 20 - 30 MILES and you'd need to take a pack animal - which may have starved to death too - to haul it back.

 

Thanks Kirsten, for being so rude and patronising!  I was really enjoying this thread, but truly thanks for killing it off for me.  No I am not a farmer, but I do live on the driest inhabited continent on the planet.  I get that 20-30 miles is a long way so you don't have to shout it at me (we have big distances in Australia, too, but we were a bit light on pack animals - we used convicts, a few of which I have descended from). I teach people how to grow food so I do understand how seeds work, and I understand a little bit about sharing resources to ensure survival.  

D

[FarmingMomma]

I haven't read the Pioneer Girl biography yet, and it's been awhile since I've read any of the Little House books, but I'll throw in my opinion as someone who IS a farmer on the prairie.  I don't think Charles Ingalls was a bad guy, and I'm sure he loved his family very much and tried his best to provide for them...he just wasn't a good farmer, he wasn't someone who was going to make a good living in agriculture.  He seemed to have done well at hunting and trapping when they lived in the woods of Wisconsin, but farming in forest soil is a crapshoot, which is probably one of the reasons they left Wisconsin.  With his hunting and trapping skills and his penchant for wanderlust, he'd have probably made a pretty good mountain man.  Some people though, try as they may, are just no good at farming, no matter how hard they work at it.  There are still plenty of people that way today.  They make bad decisions, agriculturally and financially.  They can never seem to get ahead, and things just never really pan out for them.  As for "The Long Winter," you don't eat your breeding stock or the next years' seed if you can at all help it, otherwise you're just setting yourself up for more failure and misery.  Really the worst fault I can think of in Charles Ingalls is selling the dog.  What kind of man sells the guard dog when you live on the prairie with your little children and rattlesnakes, coyotes, badgers, potentially hostile Indians, and occasional wolves and mountain lions?  A good guard dog to watch over your kids was, and still is, priceless.  

[gardenmom5]

Thanks Kirsten, for being so rude and patronising!  I was really enjoying this thread, but truly thanks for killing it off for me.  No I am not a farmer, but I do live on the driest inhabited continent on the planet.  I get that 20-30 miles is a long way so you don't have to shout it at me (we have big distances in Australia, too, but we were a bit light on pack animals - we used convicts, a few of which I have descended from). I teach people how to grow food so I do understand how seeds work, and I understand a little bit about sharing resources to ensure survival.  

D

 

here you say you understand about having seed - yet your abject condemnation of the wilder's for not using their seed to feed people indicates otherwise. 

as another poster commented - because of how heavy the snows were - people weren't getting out and generally didn't know how their neighbors were doing.

did you see the picture that was posted, that was taken during that winter?  people didn't just "go out" and travel. the supply trains weren't getting through.

30 miles on a pack animal to obtain seed is a conservative estimate.

dry and arid are very different climates from cold, windy, and snowy blizzards - which is what they had.     what's required to be able to travel - even for short distances - is very different.  in a blizzard - people could get lost just going from their house to their own barn.

[gardenmom5]

 t I'll throw in my opinion as someone who IS a farmer on the prairie.  I don't think Charles Ingalls was a bad guy, and I'm sure he loved his family very much and tried his best to provide for them...he just wasn't a good farmer, he wasn't someone who was going to make a good living in agriculture.     Some people though, try as they may, are just no good at farming, no matter how hard they work at it.  There are still plenty of people that way today.  

 

this.

 

My grandfather wasn't a farmer  - despite growing up on a farm in a family where even his own great-grandparents grew up on a farm. but he liked working with motors, and did move to the city when he figured out farming wasn't for him.  he still went to his brother's every year for the harvest.  great excuses to drive tractors . . . . (and would bring home a real ham from a family hog. .) - incidently - that farm land is still in extended family hands and has been for 140 years.

 

my sil's ex grew up on a farm, had a good education and career - and chucked it all to farm.  he had an inadequate head for farming, and if she hadn't stepped in, they would have had an even higher mortality rate among their livestock.  he developed health problems and in the end - they lost it all. 

 

you know - it's not just farming.  mil's brother wanted a white collar 'executive' office job.  he was a gifted mechanic and could have had a comfortable living - but he wanted a white collar job.

[BlsdMama]

I get it....  I think it's just a call to be adventurous, go somewhere new.  We spent four years in CA when DH was in the military, loved it, and then came back to the Midwest.  Then we decided we still had time for a little adventure and he was able to transfer with his job, so we went to Oregon for almost four years.  We've been back in the Midwest for two and we have to essentially stay rooted now - kiddos in high school and college, but we'd love to move again for a couple years.  We know the time is coming, as our parents age, that we will have to be here for them, but for right now, we'd love another adventure.  His company has other locations and we would love to spend a couple years on the East coast exploring everything out there.  

 

In our scenario I think our kids benefited - their world was bigger than just their little town.  So much of a situation depends on perspective.  I'm not sure the Ingalls kids really did suffer because of his choices.  I haven't read the books in a few years but it seemed as though they liked adventures too.  The one exception being indian territory, I'm not sure that was the ideal family adventure.

[Deee]

here you say you understand about having seed - yet your abject condemnation of the wilder's for not using their seed to feed people indicates otherwise.

as another poster commented - because of how heavy the snows were - people weren't getting out and generally didn't know how their neighbors were doing.

did you see the picture that was posted, that was taken during that winter? people didn't just "go out" and travel. the supply trains weren't getting through.

30 miles on a pack animal to obtain seed is a conservative estimate.

dry and arid are very different climates from cold, windy, and snowy blizzards - which is what they had. what's required to be able to travel - even for short distances - is very different. in a blizzard - people could get lost just going from their house to their own barn.

But Charles did visit the Wilder boys. And they invited him to come back often. They made no move to give Charles that wheat - he took it. It wasn't just enough seed to survive on the next year, it was seed to generate a fat profit. And it wasn't just wheat - they had ham, coffee, sugar, maple syrup and firewood. Meanwhile, in the house next door, two adults and four children lived on a starvation diet of wheat ground in a coffee grinder and twisted hay till their hands bled so thay could stay warm. Yes, the Wilder boys set themselves up better than Charles Ingalls. Does that make ignoring the plight of the people next door OK? In my country, we have names for people who ignore their neighbours in times of need while living well themselves.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Deee

[Haiku]

Using the Little House books to illustrate an independent, we-don't-need-government perspective is a little contradictory, given how much the government's actions influenced and shaped the lives of the pioneers.

[Carrie12345]

Such a great thread!

 

I was obsessed with the LH books as a kid.  It wasn't an accident; guess where I got my name.  And, while my 1978 copies still sit on my shelf, I haven't really encouraged my kids to read them.  I lost the magic when I learned more.  Now I enjoy coming across more dirt, lol.

[gardenmom5]

I remember when the series premiered.  the younger girl across the street was enthralled and very excited.  .. we initially watched it, but I just never really got into it much.  by the last few seasons I stopped watching completely.

 

I now know alot more about living on the frontier in that time period than I knew then. and I smh at the very romanticized portrayal. but that's pretty typical for most of what comes out of hollywood.  they dont' make it to be realistic - they make it to generate ratings and $$$. 

 

same with the books - a fictionalized account is more likely to attract readers than real - especially in a generation when there were people living whose own grandparents/parents had lived on the frontier/prairie/rural farm. they knew what frontier living was all about.

 

dh and I once were discussing why the academy award winner in 1946 wasn't it's a wonderful life - which is very popular today.  it was a movie that had nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with the depression - and was all about just living a happy life.  after years of depression/hardship and war, that's what people wanted to hear.

Edited March 13, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Valley Girl]

It actually reminds me of Star Trek in that respect. 

 

Or, I daresay, most other TV shows for that matter. I'm having a hard time thinking of any set in a different time period that didn't moralize based on modern ideas to some degree or other.

[OhanaBee]

Or, I daresay, most other TV shows for that matter. I'm having a hard time thinking of any set in a different time period that didn't moralize based on modern ideas to some degree or other.

 

"Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", anyone??

 

Loved that show, too......and I loved trying to figure out what the moral lesson of the week was going to be.  ;)

 

[gardenmom5]

I had a thought - that charles ingells may or may not fit into. . . 

 

some people have such a deep seated sense of 'this won't work' (even some extremely hard working people), or success/prosperity isn't to be their lot in life - so they can subconsciously end up undermining their own efforts.

 

Just a thought that came to me and I thought I'd throw it out there.  no idea if it fits him or not.  but it does fit some people.

 

 

 

 

[Pen]

I think the sort of farming they were trying to do, in the places they were trying to do it, would have been very hard. And it often takes a long time to get to know a place and how land and weather is there. It may though have been a mistake not to press on for Oregon. I am in Oregon now and suspect that they may have had an easier time of it here than where they were. Though then, Laura may not have married Almanzo and the books may not have come into being and this whole discussion may not have had anything to be based on. Or maybe they would have all died on the way. It is impossible to know all that, just as it is impossible to know what might have happened had they stayed in Wisconsin.

 

I am more confused as to why Almanzo's family left a place where they seemed to be doing well.

 

And I am glad that as a child when I read LH Jack had not been sold. As a dog lover I would have likely given it up at that point, or it would have changed it for me from a story about a girl and her (albeit fictional) life, to a story more like Lassie or Lad type books, with the dog and the dog's problems feeling central. Since the story was not supposed to be mainly about the dog, and was sweetened for younger kids, I think leaving that out and fictionalizing the dog as being with them on the journey was probably a good choice. I haven't read much of the "true story" of their lives, and am still rather sad even now to learn that Jack was sold.

[gardenmom5]

But Charles did visit the Wilder boys. And they invited him to come back often. They made no move to give Charles that wheat - he took it. It wasn't just enough seed to survive on the next year, it was seed to generate a fat profit. And it wasn't just wheat - they had ham, coffee, sugar, maple syrup and firewood. Meanwhile, in the house next door, two adults and four children lived on a starvation diet of wheat ground in a coffee grinder and twisted hay till their hands bled so thay could stay warm. Yes, the Wilder boys set themselves up better than Charles Ingalls. Does that make ignoring the plight of the people next door OK? In my country, we have names for people who ignore their neighbours in times of need while living well themselves.

 

this is the last time I'm responding to you about his.  they still had to have seed for spring planting.  You have repeatedly said you understand the concept - and you have repeatedly made comments that indicate you don't.

 

eta: auto correct is not your friend.

Edited March 14, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Sherry in OH]

But Charles did visit the Wilder boys. And they invited him to come back often. They made no move to give Charles that wheat - he took it. It wasn't just enough seed to survive on the next year, it was seed to generate a fat profit. And it wasn't just wheat - they had ham, coffee, sugar, maple syrup and firewood. Meanwhile, in the house next door, two adults and four children lived on a starvation diet of wheat ground in a coffee grinder and twisted hay till their hands bled so thay could stay warm. Yes, the Wilder boys set themselves up better than Charles Ingalls. Does that make ignoring the plight of the people next door OK? In my country, we have names for people who ignore their neighbours in times of need while living well themselves.

 

Actually Almanzo did offer to let him have the wheat for free.  Charles insisted on paying for it.  They also invited him to share their meal.

 

Few people offer to help others to the extent that they jeopardize their own future.  Giving away their own provisions when they did not know how long the winter would last would have been doing just that.  Royal and Almanzo had stocked enough provisions to feed themselves. They did not bring in enough to feed the town, or even one neighboring family.  On the frontier, a settler's first priority had to be his own family's welfare.   

 

The same goes for giving away or selling the seed wheat.  Without the seed, Almanzo would not have been able to sow a spring crop.  No crop, no income the next year and no money for food and other necessities.  Almanzo was the son of a successful farmer.  He knew he needed good seed for a good crop.  By that time, he also knew that the trains wouldn't arrive at the end of winter.  It would be well into spring before the tracks were cleared.  He had to plant during the proper seasonal window.  He could not take the chance the trains would bring seed in time.  Not if he wanted to survive.

 

Almanzo's going after the wheat that saved the town showed that he did care about his neighbors.  He did not have to go.  He and Royal would have been okay.  Going was actually foolhardy.  They didn't even know for sure that the wheat was there.  It was a rumor that turned out to be true.  Almanzo and Cap were increadibly lucky.  First, they found the homesteader with the wheat.  Second, he agreed to sell it.  Third, they made it back to town through a blizzard.  They came very close to being lost on the prairie.  

[Sherry in OH]

I had a thought - that charles ingells may or may not fit into. . . 

 

some people have such a deep seated sense of 'this won't work' (even some extremely hard working people), or success/prosperity isn't to be their lot in life - so they can subconsciously end up undermining their own efforts.

 

Just a thought that came to me and I thought I'd throw it out there.  no idea if it fits him or not.  but it does fit some people.

First, you need to define 'success.'   

 

Charles Ingalls' obitutary states, "... As a citizen he was held in high esteem, being honest and upright in his dealings and associations with his fellows. As a friend and neighbor he was always kind and courteous and as a husband and father he was faithful and loving.  And what better can be said of any man? ..."

 http://beyondlittlehouse.com/2011/06/09/anniversary-of-the-death-of-charles-pa-ingalls-june-8/

 

Charles Ingalls was an ordinary man. He lived an ordinary life for his time and location.  He never acquired great wealth.  He doesnt' appear to have aspired to do so.  His direct lineage ended with Rose Wilder Lane.  Yet, thanks to series a children's books, his name is known throughout the world.    

[ErinE]

First, you need to define 'success.'

 

Charles Ingalls' obitutary states, "... As a citizen he was held in high esteem, being honest and upright in his dealings and associations with his fellows. As a friend and neighbor he was always kind and courteous and as a husband and father he was faithful and loving. And what better can be said of any man? ..."

http://beyondlittlehouse.com/2011/06/09/anniversary-of-the-death-of-charles-pa-ingalls-june-8/

 

Charles Ingalls was an ordinary man. He lived an ordinary life for his time and location. He never acquired great wealth. He doesnt' appear to have aspired to do so. His direct lineage ended with Rose Wilder Lane. Yet, thanks to series a children's books, his name is known throughout the world.

His wife loved him. His daughters loved him. His neighbors seemed to love him. I think there is no better measure of a man. Edited March 14, 2016 by ErinE

[Seasider]

In addition, hoarding as a response to starving is almost an unconscious or irresistible impulse.

As demonstrated by my father and other relatives who grew up in the depression era (yes, I am that old, and he was 42 when I was born). Not necessarily hoarding like those featured on the TV show, but reluctant to part with something that may eventually prove useful and carefully scraping every molecule of food off a wrapper or out of a can.

 

This thread is fascinating.

[ktgrok]

As demonstrated by my father and other relatives who grew up in the depression era (yes, I am that old, and he was 42 when I was born). Not necessarily hoarding like those featured on the TV show, but reluctant to part with something that may eventually prove useful and carefully scraping every molecule of food off a wrapper or out of a can.

 

This thread is fascinating.

 

Yes, we once discovered hundreds of sticks of margarine being hoarded by my ex husband's grandmother. 

[MotherGoose]

Actually Almanzo did offer to let him have the wheat for free. Charles insisted on paying for it. They also invited him to share their meal.

 

Few people offer to help others to the extent that they jeopardize their own future. Giving away their own provisions when they did not know how long the winter would last would have been doing just that. Royal and Almanzo had stocked enough provisions to feed themselves. They did not bring in enough to feed the town, or even one neighboring family. On the frontier, a settler's first priority had to be his own family's welfare.

 

 

 

The same goes for giving away or selling the seed wheat. Without the seed, Almanzo would not have been able to sow a spring crop. No crop, no income the next year and no money for food and other necessities. Almanzo was the son of a successful farmer. He knew he needed good seed for a good crop. By that time, he also knew that the trains wouldn't arrive at the end of winter. It would be well into spring before the tracks were cleared. He had to plant during the proper seasonal window. He could not take the chance the trains would bring seed in time. Not if he wanted to survive.

 

Almanzo's going after the wheat that saved the town showed that he did care about his neighbors. He did not have to go. He and Royal would have been okay. Going was actually foolhardy. They didn't even know for sure that the wheat was there. It was a rumor that turned out to be true. Almanzo and Cap were increadibly lucky. First, they found the homesteader with the wheat. Second, he agreed to sell it. Third, they made it back to town through a blizzard. They came very close to being lost on the prairie.

I have never thought the Wilders were selfish, either. They didn't have enough food to feed the entire town. They had no responsibility to feed the entire town, either. By risking their lives, Almanzo and Cap saved the town. Most of us, I imagine, have never gone hungry. We cannot truly imagine what these folks went through, and it's unfair to view their decisions through our pampered lens.

[gardenmom5]

First, you need to define 'success.'   

 

Charles Ingalls' obitutary states, "... As a citizen he was held in high esteem, being honest and upright in his dealings and associations with his fellows. As a friend and neighbor he was always kind and courteous and as a husband and father he was faithful and loving.  And what better can be said of any man? ..."

 http://beyondlittlehouse.com/2011/06/09/anniversary-of-the-death-of-charles-pa-ingalls-june-8/

 

Charles Ingalls was an ordinary man. He lived an ordinary life for his time and location.  He never acquired great wealth.  He doesnt' appear to have aspired to do so.  His direct lineage ended with Rose Wilder Lane.  Yet, thanks to series a children's books, his name is known throughout the world.    

 

for starters - having enough food to eat during the winter so they weren't hungry (and didn't have to wax creative).  having enough fuel during the winter they weren't cold - or having to bundle up while inside.

 

he kept pressing forward and starting over in multiple places when his children were young.. . the question has been asked: why?

 

[Daria]

Actually Almanzo did offer to let him have the wheat for free.  Charles insisted on paying for it.  They also invited him to share their meal.

 

Few people offer to help others to the extent that they jeopardize their own future.  Giving away their own provisions when they did not know how long the winter would last would have been doing just that.  Royal and Almanzo had stocked enough provisions to feed themselves. They did not bring in enough to feed the town, or even one neighboring family.  On the frontier, a settler's first priority had to be his own family's welfare.   

 

The same goes for giving away or selling the seed wheat.  Without the seed, Almanzo would not have been able to sow a spring crop.  No crop, no income the next year and no money for food and other necessities.  Almanzo was the son of a successful farmer.  He knew he needed good seed for a good crop.  By that time, he also knew that the trains wouldn't arrive at the end of winter.  It would be well into spring before the tracks were cleared.  He had to plant during the proper seasonal window.  He could not take the chance the trains would bring seed in time.  Not if he wanted to survive.

 

Almanzo's going after the wheat that saved the town showed that he did care about his neighbors.  He did not have to go.  He and Royal would have been okay.  Going was actually foolhardy.  They didn't even know for sure that the wheat was there.  It was a rumor that turned out to be true.  Almanzo and Cap were increadibly lucky.  First, they found the homesteader with the wheat.  Second, he agreed to sell it.  Third, they made it back to town through a blizzard.  They came very close to being lost on the prairie.  

 

I agree with your overall point, but I'm confused by the bolded.

 

The tracks were covered by snow, the same snow that was covering the fields.  It wasn't like they plowed extra snow onto the tracks (like in a city where the sidewalks have snow added to them).  So, presumably if there's still too much snow on the tracks to plow, there would still be too much snow on the field to plant.  Or am I missing something?

 

[gardenmom5]

As demonstrated by my father and other relatives who grew up in the depression era (yes, I am that old, and he was 42 when I was born). Not necessarily hoarding like those featured on the TV show, but reluctant to part with something that may eventually prove useful and carefully scraping every molecule of food off a wrapper or out of a can.

 

This thread is fascinating.

 

My mother was born during the depression - and she was still in her 20's when I was born.  even on a farm - things were hard.  there was also a cholera epidemic that did a number on their hogs.  my grandfather ended up working as a mechanic in a bigger town.

 

my grandmother was always very frugal, always canned, always had a small garden (she had little space) - she saved almost everything.  I cleaned out cupboards and other storage when we moved her from her house to an assisted living facility. lots of stuff she'd held onto for years that she never used. 

 

some of that 'hoarding instinct' was passed on to me.  at one point I asked myself 'why'?  and tossed a bunch of stuff. 

 

eta: there's a frugal attitude couplet that may have come from the 30's. (might have been earlier.)

 

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.

Edited March 14, 2016 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

I agree with your overall point, but I'm confused by the bolded.

 

The tracks were covered by snow, the same snow that was covering the fields.  It wasn't like they plowed extra snow onto the tracks (like in a city where the sidewalks have snow added to them).  So, presumably if there's still too much snow on the tracks to plow, there would still be too much snow on the field to plant.  Or am I missing something?

 

 

there's a turnaround on getting to and from where the seed was.

 

the melt would be as soon as they could plant yes - but they had to have the seed as soon as the melt happened so they could get their crop in.  they couldn't wait for the trains to come. (and trains still has mt. passes that might have still been blocked even when the lower elevation fields are clear.)

 

their crops had to be in early enough to be ready for harvest before the fall snows started.

 

[Annie G]

My mother was born during the depression - and she was still in her 20's when I was born.  even on a farm - things were hard.  there was also a cholera epidemic that did a number on their hogs.  my grandfather ended up working as a mechanic in a bigger town.

 

my grandmother was always very frugal, always canned, always had a small garden (she had little space) - she saved almost everything.  I cleaned out cupboards and other storage when we moved her from her house to an assisted living facility. lots of stuff she'd held onto for years that she never used. 

 

some of that 'hoarding instinct' was passed on to me.  at one point I asked myself 'why'?  and tossed a bunch of stuff. 

 

eta: there's a frugal attitude couplet that may have come from the 30's. (might have been earlier.)

 

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.

 

My mom also was a Depression era baby and her dad was a tailor, so his income was not as stable as someone like my other grandfather, who worked as a bookkeeper at the lumberyard. As a result, my mom always equated a full fridge/cabinet with security. She bought too many groceries all the time.  

It was tough because she never wanted to waste anything, so she did feed us stuff that should have been tossed.  But yeah, food hoarding was just her way of feeling secure. She used to ALWAYS recite the Use it up phrase you mentioned above!

[Melissa in Australia]

My mother was born during the depression - and she was still in her 20's when I was born.  even on a farm - things were hard.  there was also a cholera epidemic that did a number on their hogs.  my grandfather ended up working as a mechanic in a bigger town.

 

my grandmother was always very frugal, always canned, always had a small garden (she had little space) - she saved almost everything.  I cleaned out cupboards and other storage when we moved her from her house to an assisted living facility. lots of stuff she'd held onto for years that she never used. 

 

some of that 'hoarding instinct' was passed on to me.  at one point I asked myself 'why'?  and tossed a bunch of stuff. 

 

eta: there's a frugal attitude couplet that may have come from the 30's. (might have been earlier.)

 

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.

My FIL was born in the depression in Germany- a country that had it way worse than most during the depression. He saw with his own eyes many people starve to death.

 He has a camphor chest in his basement with enough rolled oats to last a year ( not joking at all). He also has small valuable items that could be used for bartering for food hidden in different locations in his house.

[Deee]

I'm the child of a depression-era father (Dad was born in 1920, me in 1969). Dad always bought food in bulk, something I do as well. I definitely associate a full pantry, full water tanks and decent wood pile with security. I've tried going without it but it makes me too uncomfortable. I live in a flood prone area. I have a minimum of two weeks non-perishable food, fresh water, gas for cooking, and matches and candles on hand (two weeks is the likely amount of time we'd have to go without power, which means sewer and water as well). In reality, with the garden, we could live for a couple of months if it rained a few times. The food would be boring, but we'd be well fed. Its not hoarding if you might need it, right?

 

My step-father grew up on the Gilbert Islands. The supply ship came every 6 months. His toilet paper hoarding is legendary.

[gardenmom5]

I'm the child of a depression-era father (Dad was born in 1920, me in 1969). Dad always bought food in bulk, something I do as well. I definitely associate a full pantry, full water tanks and decent wood pile with security. I've tried going without it but it makes me too uncomfortable. I live in a flood prone area. I have a minimum of two weeks non-perishable food, fresh water, gas for cooking, and matches and candles on hand (two weeks is the likely amount of time we'd have to go without power, which means sewer and water as well). In reality, with the garden, we could live for a couple of months if it rained a few times. The food would be boring, but we'd be well fed. Its not hoarding if you might need it, right?

 

My step-father grew up on the Gilbert Islands. The supply ship came every 6 months. His toilet paper hoarding is legendary.

 

it's not hoarding if it's a rational need for which you're preparing.   dh's grandparents - who were done having kids in the depression - were hoarders (of the trails through the stuff kind) - they felt they might "need" it.  if they could find it . . . .

 

most people who've lived through such deprivation develop a desire to "be prepared" for something which logically probably won't actually happen.  that doesn't make them irrational.

[greenbeanmama]

I'm the child of a depression-era father (Dad was born in 1920, me in 1969). Dad always bought food in bulk, something I do as well. I definitely associate a full pantry, full water tanks and decent wood pile with security. I've tried going without it but it makes me too uncomfortable. I live in a flood prone area. I have a minimum of two weeks non-perishable food, fresh water, gas for cooking, and matches and candles on hand (two weeks is the likely amount of time we'd have to go without power, which means sewer and water as well). In reality, with the garden, we could live for a couple of months if it rained a few times. The food would be boring, but we'd be well fed. Its not hoarding if you might need it, right?

 

My step-father grew up on the Gilbert Islands. The supply ship came every 6 months. His toilet paper hoarding is legendary.

I grew up in a family where enough money was made, but my father spent what he wanted and left the rest for bills. He was also unemployed several times (through no fault of his own). We had some very lean times. We sometimes had baking powder biscuits for several nights in a row, as there was nothing else to eat. In sixth grade, I traded my recess for volunteering in the lunch room - payment was a free school lunch each day. By age sixteen (with my father out of the picture), I was working 30 hours a week and buying a significant portion of the groceries, as well as clothes/shoes/school supplies for myself and younger siblings.

 

Nowadays, I keep a VERY well stocked pantry and freezer. We could go two or three months with only needing to buy fresh produce and dairy (though I do have frozen fruits, veggies, cheese, butter, and milk). Food is not wasted (I'm careful to FIFO), and I plan large trips to Costco every 6-8 weeks. Several years ago, my husband's company was looking at layoffs and branch closures. It was quite reassuring to know that we could at least eat if he lost his job. We don't have much in savings, but with my method, once the back-up supply is gradually built up, it doesn't cost any more than regular grocery shopping. I definitely do get a sense of security from a well-stocked pantry!

 

ETA: toilet paper! Yes! I have a six-month supply - not sure why I feel the need for that, though my kids laugh about our "Leaning Tower of TP".

Edited March 14, 2016 by greenbeanmama

[ktgrok]

I think having enough to survive a possible issue is one thing. Having a 2 year supply of margarine that expires in less than that time is another, lol.

[shawthorne44]

someone upthread posted a link to frontier house.  three families - five months (spring to fall) and one thing they have to do is put aside enough provisions/wood to survive the winter.  they were judged by experts.  only one of the families had (barely) enough wood.  the others ddn't have remotely enough.  it's really easy to underestimate - especailly for those new to frontier living (even then , you had city dwellers who moved to the frontier and it was a new experience.)

 

I, too, had really enjoyed that show.  The producers fell flat in a couple of places, like not allowing hunting.  I can understand not actual hunting, it was PBS.   But they should have allowed some simulation for the family to get some meat.   I think the families could have traded more.   For example, the family with the kids and the animals could have traded some child labor for daily bread from the Irish woman who was the baking Queen.   

 

The thing about those shows I like best is what people freak out about.   Like in this one, it was "We ran out of sugar!"   and "See, my stomach is hollow.  There is something wrong with me."   On the Victorian one, it was the shampoo and the corsets.   

 

Did they stop making those, or I have missed some?  

[gardenmom5]

I, too, had really enjoyed that show.  The producers fell flat in a couple of places, like not allowing hunting.  I can understand not actual hunting, it was PBS.   But they should have allowed some simulation for the family to get some meat.   I think the families could have traded more.   For example, the family with the kids and the animals could have traded some child labor for daily bread from the Irish woman who was the baking Queen.   

 

The thing about those shows I like best is what people freak out about.   Like in this one, it was "We ran out of sugar!"   and "See, my stomach is hollow.  There is something wrong with me."   On the Victorian one, it was the shampoo and the corsets.   

 

Did they stop making those, or I have missed some?  

 

definitely would have been more realistic.

I found a bunch on amazon.  for purchase . . . . . :toetap05:  (I'll check my library.  I"m not willing to fork out $20 per.  or youtube.)

 

one thing I found interesting on the fall-out - both married couples - divorced.  the couple who married on the show - have three kids and are happy.  (when she was talking about her dream of being married in a white dress, and she was sad becasue for her sunday best - the clotheir gave her a burgundy suit. and then the box from her fiance came and it was an 1800's style white wedding dress and veil - she was crying - I thought *he* is a keeper!  after all - that wedding wasn't a reenactment - it really *was* their wedding.)

 

on the manor house (on either netflix or amazon streaming), the first scullery maid was crying about the amount of work she was expected to do. :blink:   how *dare* the chef ask her to MOP the kitchen floor? :eek:  and wash pots!   "I"m not spoiled" . . . :huh:  :nopity:

she works part time - her mother supports her, does her wash, etc. so she could go spend her entire paycheck on partying.  she quit after TWO days.

 

edwardian farm might be an interesting next venture.

Edited March 14, 2016 by gardenmom5

[FaithManor]

I do agree that the perspective of parents and settlers in that time was rather foreign to us. But I do think it is at least fair to call pa a bit selfish and definitely short-sighted if not reckless.

 

1. His family had faced hunger before. He knew what it looked like. Whether or not he loved his family, as the male head of household in that time and culture, he had a responsibility to do everything within his power to prevent that from happening again.

 

2. In the face of literal starvation, and with a pregnant woman in the house whose fetus' life rested very much on her not starving, he had the option of butchering the calf or the cow. It was freezing solid outside, so cold there was no chance for a thaw until spring, so the meat would not have spoiled, and little rations plus bone broth which I am sure the settlers knew how to make as it was a standard food item for nursing sick people back to health in that day, would have gone a long way to keeping them going. In order that he not miss out on expanding his herd the next year, he opted to hope he could get seed wheat from the Wilder's, and then had everyone continue living on a ration of two pieces of dry toast per day after the potatoes had given out.

 

3. He told Laura he believed the Native Americans, that there would be this bizarre hard weather with lots of storms. He wasn't a stupid guy. He knew that if snowed in, trains would be delayed, and potentially for long periods while they shoveled out. He knew he was dependent on coal. He knew he was dependent on the grocery store. Though it was an option to head back to Iowa and get a job, he didn't go because he didn't want to give up the claim.  He was willing to risk his family's neck for free land. He went to the store to stock up and didn't like the prices so bought nothing, all the while everyone at home bemoaning the spending of Mary's "fancy clothes and travel money" in order to prepare for the winter. :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

4. He knew before he moved them to town that they didn't have enough store for winter. Laura knew it. Ma knew it. Laura mentioned in her books trying to act like it was a good harvest but in reality knowing it wasn't...trying to be cheerful for Carrie and Grace. Did he go to town and buy supplies? No.he.did.not. Mary's fancy money after all.

 

And this on the heels of failure, after failure, after failure that had left his family in dire straits time after time.

 

In that day and age, not only would it have been considered highly inappropriate to fail to wax poetic about father/husband at the time of death, one simply put up with whatever folly the man perpetrated as long as it wasn't a felony. He may have been esteemed for his moral courage, which he seemed to have a lot of, and his leadership skills which lead to being considered a great citizen of the town becoming the magistrate and sheriff, etc. but that doesn't mean that he was a good father or husband, it just means they adhered to the accepted cultural biases towards men.  And as my grandmother put it, "In my time, a man could be a real scoundrel but as long as he was a hard worker, when he died you'd think St. Francis of Assisi had ascended!"  ( :D Grandma had some great sayings.)

 

 

[gardenmom5]

I've been trying to avoid this thread until we finish the Little House Books and have our own opinion. But of course this was in my Twitter feed. It seems I can't escape.

http://lithub.com/tracey-chevalier-past-president-of-the-laura-ingalls-wilder-club/

 

I found this tidbit fascinating.  she's throwing her two -cents into the "what makes charles tick" conversation.

 

Now I read that portrait and thought, “Here is the long-suffering spouse of someone with bipolar disorder.†For that is what also emerged from the reread. Charles Ingalls is moody and erratic, displaying the classic highs and lows, the shouts of joy and anger of the manic-depressive.

 

Laura returned for her father’s death, but after that she didn’t see Ma or Mary for the rest of their lives—another 20 years!

 

here's almonzo's death certificate . . . (I do a lot of missouri genealogy.)  http://www.sos.mo.gov/images/archives/deathcerts/1949/1949_00040045.PDF

 

and laura's http://www.sos.mo.gov/images/archives/deathcerts/1957/1957_00011919.PDF

 

DC can be very interesting - well, if you're doing genealogy. . . .

[Pen]

definitely would have been more realistic.

I found a bunch on amazon.  for purchase . . . . . :toetap05:  (I'll check my library.  I"m not willing to fork out $20 per.  or youtube.)

 

one thing I found interesting on the fall-out - both married couples - divorced.  the couple who married on the show - have three kids and are happy.  (when she was talking about her dream of being married in a white dress, and she was sad becasue for her sunday best - the clotheir gave her a burgundy suit. and then the box from her fiance came and it was an 1800's style white wedding dress and veil - she was crying - I thought *he* is a keeper!  after all - that wedding wasn't a reenactment - it really *was* their wedding.)

 

on the manor house (on either netflix or amazon streaming), the first scullery maid was crying about the amount of work she was expected to do. :blink:   how *dare* the chef ask her to MOP the kitchen floor? :eek:  and wash pots!   "I"m not spoiled" . . . :huh:  :nopity:

she works part time - her mother supports her, does her wash, etc. so she could go spend her entire paycheck on partying.  she quit after TWO days.

 

edwardian farm might be an interesting next venture.

 

 

I think I am totally lost!  To what does all this refer?

[Pen]

Another consideration on Pa Ingalls is that he himself moved with his parents as a boy and with even more siblings, I believe--don't know by what means, maybe it was not as hard a trip as the ones that Laura did, but I would think that moving with young children was not something that he would see as unusual. And if it was something that he liked he might even have seen it as something to do for his own family rather than to avoid for them. In fact it looks like big moves was the way his family did things?  England to America, New England to Canada, Canada to New York, New York to Illinois, Illinois to Wisconsin...

 

My understanding is that he was doing okay in Wisconsin, but not great. So his moving makes sense in a lot of ways.

 

 

I learned now that Almanzo's family moved due to crop failures. So now that makes more sense too. 

[Annie G]

I found this tidbit fascinating.  she's throwing her two -cents into the "what makes charles tick" conversation.

 

Now I read that portrait and thought, “Here is the long-suffering spouse of someone with bipolar disorder.†For that is what also emerged from the reread. Charles Ingalls is moody and erratic, displaying the classic highs and lows, the shouts of joy and anger of the manic-depressive.

 

Laura returned for her father’s death, but after that she didn’t see Ma or Mary for the rest of their lives—another 20 years!

 

here's almonzo's death certificate . . . (I do a lot of missouri genealogy.)  http://www.sos.mo.gov/images/archives/deathcerts/1949/1949_00040045.PDF

 

and laura's http://www.sos.mo.gov/images/archives/deathcerts/1957/1957_00011919.PDF

 

DC can be very interesting - well, if you're doing genealogy. . . .

Two questions about Almanzo's death certificate -

 

What does it say the primary cause was? I thought vascular insufficiency but maybe not. 

 

Does senility mean old age in this instance, or do they really mean he was senile? 

 

I also found it interesting that neither had a social security number.  Was that typical?

Edited March 14, 2016 by Annie G

[gardenmom5]

I think I am totally lost!  To what does all this refer?

 

someone upthread posted a link to "frontier house".  it was pertinent in that it was modern families living like an 1800's homestead pioneer would live. it was more eye opening about what 1800's life on the frontier was like than just reading about it.

there have been a number of series with a similar genre of taking a modern family - and having them live in the typical time period. 

 

"the manor house" was an edwardian manor - family and plethora of servants.

there are a number of other series in the same genre.  the first one being "the 1900 house".

Two questions about Almanzo's death certificate -

 

What does it say the primary cause was? I thought vascular insufficiency but maybe not. 

 

Does senility mean old age in this instance, or do they really mean he was senile? 

 

I also found it interesting that neither had a social security number.  Was that typical?

 

I usually have to search the medical term for what it means today.

 

as for SS - originally - the only people who had one were in very particular fields of employment. (housewives never had one.)  it only gradually expanded to today - where you have to have one.

it was still pretty rare up through the 60's depending upon employment status, employment field, and age at death.

[Chris in VA]

About the train and the snow--

 

IDK if it is just in the books or if it actually happened, but remember the story Pa told when he was explaining why the trains wouldn't be running? The "boss" at Tracy had rammed the steam engine into the mound of snow, melting it, and it refroze into an impassable blockage that would take weeks to chip out.

 

I can relate, in a small way--the melted mounds of snow from our blizzard that had piled up on the sidewalks took several weeks to melt enough to shovel out, even when the rest of the snow had disappeared from the grassy areas.

[MotherGoose]

I agree with your overall point, but I'm confused by the bolded.

 

The tracks were covered by snow, the same snow that was covering the fields. It wasn't like they plowed extra snow onto the tracks (like in a city where the sidewalks have snow added to them). So, presumably if there's still too much snow on the tracks to plow, there would still be too much snow on the field to plant. Or am I missing something?

 

And in the grades, which were basically deep ditches dug through the hills, twenty feet of snow might lie on top of tracks.

[MotherGoose]

Another consideration on Pa Ingalls is that he himself moved with his parents as a boy and with even more siblings, I believe--don't know by what means, maybe it was not as hard a trip as the ones that Laura did, but I would think that moving with young children was not something that he would see as unusual. And if it was something that he liked he might even have seen it as something to do for his own family rather than to avoid for them. In fact it looks like big moves was the way his family did things? England to America, New England to Canada, Canada to New York, New York to Illinois, Illinois to Wisconsin...

 

My understanding is that he was doing okay in Wisconsin, but not great. So his moving makes sense in a lot of ways.

 

 

I learned now that Almanzo's family moved due to crop failures. So now that makes more sense too.

I keep going back to us viewing their decisions through our pampered eyes. Most of us have never spent much time cold, truly hungry, or sincerely afraid for our safety. I know there are exceptions. Our grandparents did not , generally, come over to the us on a sailing ship, a voyage that was quite likely to kill Someone on the journey. A voyage in which we would live in absolute filth for weeks, and would emerge with much more than what we could carry to make a living. No we just gripe when our suitcase doesn't come out at baggage claim.

 

With a history like that in his family's memory, Charles's behaviors might not have seemed so strange. Certainly I'd rather head out with him to the wilderness than get onto a ship. And, although the Ingalls parents certainly loved their children, I don't think they made decisions by thinking about what as best for particular children--they did what was best for them all. Children were expected to work cheerfully at whatever they were assigned, and they were to be seen and not heard. Children and wives were seen as the husbands property.

[katilac]

 

dh and I once were discussing why the academy award winner in 1946 wasn't it's a wonderful life - which is very popular today.  it was a movie that had nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with the depression - and was all about just living a happy life.  after years of depression/hardship and war, that's what people wanted to hear.

 

It's a Wonderful Life wasn't even nominated, but the best picture wasn't a happy movie at all, it was The Lost Weekend, about a chronic alcoholic's four-day bender. 

 

I could start a whole new thread about how much I hate It's a Wonderful Life, but I guess I'll wait for the holiday season.