The Matchlock Gun

Rating:
Summary: Bang bang, shoot shoot
Review: Award winning children's books from the past are tricky beasts. Sometimes they're fabulous (like "Thimble Summer" or "Caddie Woodlawn"), sometimes they're brilliant (like "Holes" or "The Westing Game") and sometimes they're so offensive they make your skin crawl. Now, I'm going to admit right here and now that I'm a little torn on "The Matchlock Gun". On the one hand, it's chock full of stereotypes and awful messages. The book describes Native Americans harshly and treats slave ownership as commonplace and not much in the way of a social problem. So there's that. On the other hand, this book really does make an effort to show a historical event in a fascinating and well written way. The prose is lively, the characters interesting, and the action fast-paced and gripping.

In this tale (based, we are told, on a true story) a Dutch/Palatine family is bidding goodbye to their father. As a member of the local militia Captain Teunis Van Alstyne is off to protect his home, land, and family from the French and the Indians. His son, Edward, is proud to see his father go, but he's disappointed that the man isn't taking the ancient Spanish matchlock gun that rests on the mantelpiece. His father assures him that the gun is too heavy and bulky and after kissing his wife goodbye he takes off. This leaves ten year old Edward with his mother and six year old sister. As news comes that the Indians might be near after all, Edward's mom Gertrude decides that the time has come to prepare for her family's safety. She puts Edward in charge of manning the matchlock gun by the window. If Gertrude sees any Indians she will yell her son's name and he will light the gun for shooting. Though she worries that her fears may be unfounded, it turns out that Gertrude was right to prepare her family from a vicious attack. In the end, Edward becomes a hero.

So here's where the debate comes in: Do we dislike this book because it has a negative attitude towards Native Americans? You could make the argument, I suppose, that the author of this 1942 Newbery Award winner couldn't have predicted the shifting attitudes towards Indian attacks in the future. Perhaps you could rely on the belief that nobody was treating Native Americans very well in children's books from this time period. You could say that. Then you could notice that the 1936 Newbery Award winner was none other than "Caddie Woodlawn". A balanced intelligent alternative view of Native Americans and their interactions with white settlers. So no, ladies and gentlemen, the opinions of such authors as Walter D. Edmonds were not, in fact, the only ones available when it was published. Quite frankly, they were just as offensive then as they are today and they should receive no excuses.

Additionally, there's the whole slavery problem. No condemnation of slavery is mentioned in the book. On the one hand, this is incredibly historically correct. No one living in this area at this time would have understood much about slaves' rights. On the other hand, the book was written in 1941. So do we hate the book because it's historically accurate or could the author have found a way to present slavery without appearing to approve of it? I think so, but it's up to the readers to decide for themselves.

In the end, the writing is fabulous, no question. Had this book been about anything OTHER than Indians and the passing "Negro" comment I think it might've won my heart and mind with relative ease. As it is, this book is less offensive than (oh say) James Daugherty's ludicrously racist 1941 Newbery winner, "Daniel Boone" and more offensive than the aforementioned "Caddie Woodlawn". It's a ripping good yarn, but that can only carry the tale so far. In the end, you must decide for yourself whether or not this book is appropriate for the kiddies today. If paired with explanations of the historical events surrounding this tale (as well as adding some of your own careful discussions regarding Native Americans and their treatment by the Europeans) this could well be a useful text even today. Just make certain you know what you're getting into before you stuff it into the hand of the nearest nine year old. It's a good tale marred by its times.

Rating:
Summary: Bang bang, shoot shoot
Review: Award winning children's books from the past are tricky beasts. Sometimes they're fabulous (like "Thimble Summer" or "Caddie Woodlawn"), sometimes they're brilliant (like "Holes" or "The Westing Game") and sometimes they're so offensive they make your skin crawl. Now, I'm going to admit right here and now that I'm a little torn on "The Matchlock Gun". On the one hand, it's chock full of stereotypes and awful messages. The book describes Native Americans harshly and treats slave ownership as commonplace and not much in the way of a social problem. So there's that. On the other hand, this book really does make an effort to show a historical event in a fascinating and well written way. The prose is lively, the characters interesting, and the action fast-paced and gripping.

In this tale (based, we are told, on a true story) a Dutch/Palatine family is bidding goodbye to their father. As a member of the local militia Captain Teunis Van Alstyne is off to protect his home, land, and family from the French and the Indians. His son, Edward, is proud to see his father go, but he's disappointed that the man isn't taking the ancient Spanish matchlock gun that rests on the mantelpiece. His father assures him that the gun is too heavy and bulky and after kissing his wife goodbye he takes off. This leaves ten year old Edward with his mother and six year old sister. As news comes that the Indians might be near after all, Edward's mom Gertrude decides that the time has come to prepare for her family's safety. She puts Edward in charge of manning the matchlock gun by the window. If Gertrude sees any Indians she will yell her son's name and he will light the gun for shooting. Though she worries that her fears may be unfounded, it turns out that Gertrude was right to prepare her family from a vicious attack. In the end, Edward becomes a hero.

So here's where the debate comes in: Do we dislike this book because it has a negative attitude towards Native Americans? You could make the argument, I suppose, that the author of this 1942 Newbery Award winner couldn't have predicted the shifting attitudes towards Indian attacks in the future. Perhaps you could rely on the belief that nobody was treating Native Americans very well in children's books from this time period. You could say that. Then you could notice that the 1936 Newbery Award winner was none other than "Caddie Woodlawn". A balanced intelligent alternative view of Native Americans and their interactions with white settlers. So no, ladies and gentlemen, the opinions of such authors as Walter D. Edmonds were not, in fact, the only ones available when it was published. Quite frankly, they were just as offensive then as they are today and they should receive no excuses.

Additionally, there's the whole slavery problem. No condemnation of slavery is mentioned in the book. On the one hand, this is incredibly historically correct. No one living in this area at this time would have understood much about slaves' rights. On the other hand, the book was written in 1941. So do we hate the book because it's historically accurate or could the author have found a way to present slavery without appearing to approve of it? I think so, but it's up to the readers to decide for themselves.

In the end, the writing is fabulous, no question. Had this book been about anything OTHER than Indians and the passing slave comment I think it might've won my heart and mind with relative ease. As it is, this book is less offensive than (oh say) James Daugherty's ludicrously racist 1941 Newbery winner, "Daniel Boone" and more offensive than the aforementioned "Caddie Woodlawn". It's a ripping good yarn, but that can only carry the tale so far. In the end, you must decide for yourself whether or not this book is appropriate for the kiddies today. If paired with explanations of the historical events surrounding this tale (as well as adding some of your own careful discussions regarding Native Americans and their treatment by the Europeans) this could well be a useful text even today. Just make certain you know what you're getting into before you stuff it into the hand of the nearest nine year old. It's a good tale marred by its times.

Rating:
Summary: Coming of Age in Colonial NY
Review: Edmonds' 1941 Newbery book offers authentic details of life in Dutch New York state--served up in a pleasant format. Children
quickly outgrew the age of innocence on the frontier, when survival for English and Dutch colonists was difficult because of hostile Frenchmen and desperate Indians. Young readers will enjoy the family dynamics in this tale of personal courage and maternal resourcefulness, which is enhanced by the black/and white (and some color) illustrations of Paul Lantz. Readers of all ages will marvel at the determination of a ten-year-old boy.

When Father Teunis must depart with the local militia, to quell an uprising near Albany, Mother Gertrude forms a bold plan to save her young family in case Indians attack. Defenseless without the head of the household? Not at all--thanks to grandfather's old Spanish muzzle-loader over the mantle. Based
on historical fact and family oral tradition, this tale will delight children of all ages. Those were the days when men were Men--and sometimes young boys had to be, too! This story, in its large, softback edition, remains as fresh as when it was originally penned. Americans can appreciate their tradition of proud, immigrant pluck. Edward's family was here to stay!

Rating:
Summary: The Matchlock Gun
Review: I am a student of West Virginia State College, currently taking a class on Children's Literature. Mr. Samples (A Wonderful Teacher) has instructed us to review a Newbery winner and write our thoughts on it. I read this book with the thoughts that it would be a classic book for children but was amazed at the difficulty level in reading it. This is a book based on historical fiction, about a 18th century family living in a Dutch settlement here in colonial America. The difficulty came for the extensive use of Dutch words and places. There is no way that a child that is beginning to read, or one that has read for a short time, could read these words in this book. This book has a good story, a bit violent for today, but yet historically valuable. I would recommend this book as a book read by the parent (but read it first to figure out the words) to the child.

Rating:
Summary: The Matchlock Gun
Review: I first met this book in 1965 when it was used in the Cleveland Public Schools. We were uncomfortable about having our students identify only with the so-innocent mother and children as she was so brutally pursued by savage Indians illustrated in the most stereotypical manner complete with darkness, fire, and the white woman victim. (In addition we were supposed to identify with the mother and children when they pondered the fact that they were fortunate be able to say that the grandmother's slaves belonged also to them.)

This book won awards in 1941 when the nation was thoroughly racist. It is valuable as an example of the thinking at the time of the story and at the time of publishing. It should not be recommended to children outside of this historical context. We now have many books about courage that do not rely upon disrespect for the lives of others. We now can present the past through multiple lenses without the blatant racism that this very dated book engenders.

I hope you are able to understood my concern and see the value of the book as an example of past writing and past murder rather than of a present model for courage.

Why is this book being promoted now? How did this title get selected for all the bookmarks and posters that do not put the book into context? Someone needs to answer. I don't want unsuspecting parents and students thinking they are going to buy a book about courage and instead get a big, outdated, illustrated version of anti-Indian, pro-slavery melodrama.

I will only use this with my students as an example of the racism that must be intercepted and understood.

Rating:
Summary: Historically Correct and Politically Incorrect
Review: I had a difficult time locating this book, even though it is a Newberry Winner. Why? Because it depicts Indians in a historically correct manner. As exists in all cultures - even to this day, there are good and bad amongst us all. There are historically correct stories that depict Indians favorably, such as The Courage of Sarah Noble. Then, there is this story depicting the Indian raids that did occur during the time of the settlers. Let's hope that we are mature enough to face history - the way it is - not in the glossy versions that try to erase the variables in character that exist in every race.

Rating:
Summary: Do we want to perpetuate stereotypes and racism?
Review: If read without critical analysis of the historical context this book could lead to a euro-centric view of history that is inaccurate and perpetuates stereotypes and racism. Since it is aimed at Middle School age readers they could interpret "courage" as the extermination of an indigenous race by European colonizers.

I encourage teachers and parents to look closely at the historical fiction that their students and children are exposed to and be critical of the content. Books, such as this can be teaching tools, if used to expose stereotypes and racism.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Story!
Review: The Matchlock Gun by Walter D. Edmonds was a pretty decent book. It is a historical story of Dutch setters during the French and Indian War. In it, Edward's father leaves to fight with the militia. This leaves Edward, his mother, and his little sister at home alone. The mother suspects trouble, and she prepares the family to defend themselves. Eventually, Edward does have to fight to defend the family. I loved the prose style which the story was told in. It was spare and built the intensity. I also loved how the family relations were shown. The pictures really enhanced the story, too. My only problem with the story was that it did not make any statement on violence. In the story, a ten year boy has to fight to save his family. No bad effects or problems with the situation are shown. Also, there is rejoicing when some Indians are killed. I thought the story was very good, but the messages on violence might not be great for some children.