Scan barcode
A review by arguhlincozzi
Bound for Oregon by Jean Van Leeuwen
3.0
Phew. So. When I was probably in the third grade, I think I received my copy of this book. Without a doubt, I devoured it, cover to cover, and then proceeded to reread this book regularly throughout my childhood. I was a big fan of the idea of going West, striking out and, yes, "settling" the land, back when it was "empty." I loved playing the Oregon Trail on my computer, and reading other books set in this time period. If it weren't for the fact that my parents were also avid readers and fairly comfortable reading books well beyond my age group, books like this one might have been my only understanding of Manifest Destiny (prior to approaching it in history class, of course).
However, I'm a geographer, anti-racist, and I believe the United States is established on stolen land from indigenous people. I say all of this, because this book was once a beloved tale for me, and now, it represents something far darker. I decided to give this a reread because scenes from the book kept popping up in my mind and I wondered how I would view it through the lens I have now. My review follows.
First, it must be said, that Van Leeuwen retold this true tale of Mary Ellen Todd's trek across the country to Oregon with detail and care, and fluid writing. The scenes I recall stick so well in my head because the voice of Mary Ellen Todd is strong, with her personal concerns for leaving her family and everything she knows, her frustrations of losing her biological mother and adjusting to her THIRD (gosh being a woman in this time!) mother, all coming through with clear voice.
However, the depictions of Native American and enslaved people is something to be disputed. Without a doubt, young adult and children's fiction have at least improved since the 90s in the diversity of options available that tell the actual stories of Native Americans and Black people in these times. So, from that perspective, this book is outdated, and potentially even unsuitable for kids, given the language used (the N-word). Native Americans are depicted from both a neutral and fear-inducing standpoint. They can't speak English, they make attempts to raid the wagons Mary Ellen and her family are in several times, and in several encounters Mary Ellen has with them, they are distinctively described in negative ways as they are attempting to kidnap her.
Were these likely her actual experiences? Sure. We know that kidnappings happened, we know that this area was in violent flux because of the disputes between Native American tribes, the U.S. Army antagonizing and harming Native Americans as well. Each of these negative descriptions and experiences is lightly countered by Mary Ellen's beloved father reminding her that the "Whites" have stolen the land from Native Americans, and they have a right to be upset. But, yet, Mary Ellen's father is still making this trip, still going to "settle" the same land that has been stolen. He may have understanding for the fury of Native Americans, but not enough to do much about it. Mary Ellen feels sympathy and empathy as well throughout the book for Native Americans - she's struck with a wish to be able to speak the same language as Native Americans so she can know what they think and feel. She sees a large number of dead Native Americans from smallpox and is horrified (of course) by the dead bodies (though I don't consider this description kindly myself). So there are attempts, from a white settler perspective, to stoke understanding in the reader for Native Americans, but it remains from a white settler perspective, not meant to really challenge the current times and structure of the United States.
Slavery is similarly treated, though with clearer opinions of which perspective has the higher moral ground. It turns out (I forget this every time) that Mary Ellen's aunt (Mary Todd Lincoln, hello!) married Abraham Lincoln, who at the time in this book, is still a lawyer stirring up interest in a campaign, and calling for freeing enslaved people. This argument is brought into the microcosm of Mary Ellen's life as she listens to her father and one companion (anti-slavery) argue against two other companions (pro-slavery, one being a former slave owner) about slavery. The N-word is used here. Mary Ellen hears the word and notes that her father would never allow her and her sisters to speak this way. Later, Mary Ellen and the daughter of the former slave owner argue about who is right. Mary Ellen argues that her father reads the Bible and knows that he's right - slaves should be freed. Her friend argues that her father has owned slaves and knows what he's talking about and they should "never" be freed. They don't speak for a day. But the argument dissipates, as it lacks little relevance to life on the trail, and eventually, the group separates along these lines (but for unrelated reasons) and Mary Ellen contemplates how she'll miss her friend.
Do I expect a 9 year old to never speak to someone again in times of slavery for enslaving people for their own economic gain and at the complete determination to not only keep people against their wills, but sell their family members and friends and harm them if it suits their interests? Well, it would be nice, but Mary Ellen also isn't from a slave-owning family. Her father discusses these issues only when they are brought up, so I suspect she doesn't fully understand the harm induced by slavery. But she is anti-slavery in that she believes they deserve their freedom, and that's a start.
I can see why this book would have been widely accepted and brought into schools and homes, especially by those who agreed with its messages - no doubt, it probably helped some students at least start on a track I don't disagree with. I can't say to what level it influenced my understanding of Native Americans, slavery, and other issues of settlement and racial tensions. Not only was I reading this book, I was reading the very adult [b:Independence!|616590|Independence! (Wagons West, #1)|Dana Fuller Ross|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1176354272l/616590._SY75_.jpg|603023] Wagon's West! series, the book [b:Forty Acres and Maybe a Mule|839698|Forty Acres and Maybe a Mule|Harriette Gillem Robinet|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1349081653l/839698._SX50_.jpg|825251], [b:Indian Captive: The Story of Mary Jemison|42466|Indian Captive The Story of Mary Jemison|Lois Lenski|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388337198l/42466._SX50_.jpg|1560636], and many, many, many more books about the Civil War and westward expansion time periods. I was a big historical fiction fan. So, certainly, I had a lot of perspectives offered to me, problematic as they may be, to help push me in the direction I am now.
So, is this book problematic? Yes. I don't think I agree with the use of the N-word, even if it's for "historical accuracy of the discussion," a decision made by a white author writing a book from the perspective of an - albeit, young - early white settler. However, if read along with a child, or a class, in conversation with other books from other, more nuanced and complex perspectives, this would be an interesting book for setting up the clear white settler perspective, and then leading into discussion. Which, I think was Van Leeuwen's hope all along.
However, I'm a geographer, anti-racist, and I believe the United States is established on stolen land from indigenous people. I say all of this, because this book was once a beloved tale for me, and now, it represents something far darker. I decided to give this a reread because scenes from the book kept popping up in my mind and I wondered how I would view it through the lens I have now. My review follows.
First, it must be said, that Van Leeuwen retold this true tale of Mary Ellen Todd's trek across the country to Oregon with detail and care, and fluid writing. The scenes I recall stick so well in my head because the voice of Mary Ellen Todd is strong, with her personal concerns for leaving her family and everything she knows, her frustrations of losing her biological mother and adjusting to her THIRD (gosh being a woman in this time!) mother, all coming through with clear voice.
However, the depictions of Native American and enslaved people is something to be disputed. Without a doubt, young adult and children's fiction have at least improved since the 90s in the diversity of options available that tell the actual stories of Native Americans and Black people in these times. So, from that perspective, this book is outdated, and potentially even unsuitable for kids, given the language used (the N-word). Native Americans are depicted from both a neutral and fear-inducing standpoint. They can't speak English, they make attempts to raid the wagons Mary Ellen and her family are in several times, and in several encounters Mary Ellen has with them, they are distinctively described in negative ways as they are attempting to kidnap her.
Were these likely her actual experiences? Sure. We know that kidnappings happened, we know that this area was in violent flux because of the disputes between Native American tribes, the U.S. Army antagonizing and harming Native Americans as well. Each of these negative descriptions and experiences is lightly countered by Mary Ellen's beloved father reminding her that the "Whites" have stolen the land from Native Americans, and they have a right to be upset. But, yet, Mary Ellen's father is still making this trip, still going to "settle" the same land that has been stolen. He may have understanding for the fury of Native Americans, but not enough to do much about it. Mary Ellen feels sympathy and empathy as well throughout the book for Native Americans - she's struck with a wish to be able to speak the same language as Native Americans so she can know what they think and feel. She sees a large number of dead Native Americans from smallpox and is horrified (of course) by the dead bodies (though I don't consider this description kindly myself). So there are attempts, from a white settler perspective, to stoke understanding in the reader for Native Americans, but it remains from a white settler perspective, not meant to really challenge the current times and structure of the United States.
Slavery is similarly treated, though with clearer opinions of which perspective has the higher moral ground. It turns out (I forget this every time) that Mary Ellen's aunt (Mary Todd Lincoln, hello!) married Abraham Lincoln, who at the time in this book, is still a lawyer stirring up interest in a campaign, and calling for freeing enslaved people. This argument is brought into the microcosm of Mary Ellen's life as she listens to her father and one companion (anti-slavery) argue against two other companions (pro-slavery, one being a former slave owner) about slavery. The N-word is used here. Mary Ellen hears the word and notes that her father would never allow her and her sisters to speak this way. Later, Mary Ellen and the daughter of the former slave owner argue about who is right. Mary Ellen argues that her father reads the Bible and knows that he's right - slaves should be freed. Her friend argues that her father has owned slaves and knows what he's talking about and they should "never" be freed. They don't speak for a day. But the argument dissipates, as it lacks little relevance to life on the trail, and eventually, the group separates along these lines (but for unrelated reasons) and Mary Ellen contemplates how she'll miss her friend.
Do I expect a 9 year old to never speak to someone again in times of slavery for enslaving people for their own economic gain and at the complete determination to not only keep people against their wills, but sell their family members and friends and harm them if it suits their interests? Well, it would be nice, but Mary Ellen also isn't from a slave-owning family. Her father discusses these issues only when they are brought up, so I suspect she doesn't fully understand the harm induced by slavery. But she is anti-slavery in that she believes they deserve their freedom, and that's a start.
I can see why this book would have been widely accepted and brought into schools and homes, especially by those who agreed with its messages - no doubt, it probably helped some students at least start on a track I don't disagree with. I can't say to what level it influenced my understanding of Native Americans, slavery, and other issues of settlement and racial tensions. Not only was I reading this book, I was reading the very adult [b:Independence!|616590|Independence! (Wagons West, #1)|Dana Fuller Ross|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1176354272l/616590._SY75_.jpg|603023] Wagon's West! series, the book [b:Forty Acres and Maybe a Mule|839698|Forty Acres and Maybe a Mule|Harriette Gillem Robinet|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1349081653l/839698._SX50_.jpg|825251], [b:Indian Captive: The Story of Mary Jemison|42466|Indian Captive The Story of Mary Jemison|Lois Lenski|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388337198l/42466._SX50_.jpg|1560636], and many, many, many more books about the Civil War and westward expansion time periods. I was a big historical fiction fan. So, certainly, I had a lot of perspectives offered to me, problematic as they may be, to help push me in the direction I am now.
So, is this book problematic? Yes. I don't think I agree with the use of the N-word, even if it's for "historical accuracy of the discussion," a decision made by a white author writing a book from the perspective of an - albeit, young - early white settler. However, if read along with a child, or a class, in conversation with other books from other, more nuanced and complex perspectives, this would be an interesting book for setting up the clear white settler perspective, and then leading into discussion. Which, I think was Van Leeuwen's hope all along.