What do you think?
Rate this book
Dear America
My Heart is on the Ground: the Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, Carlisle Indian School, Pennsylvania, 1880
Beginning in broken English, Nannie tells of her incredibly difficult first year at the school, including entries detailing her previous life as her ability to communicate in English grows. From December, 1879, to October, 1880, readers follow a remarkably resilient girl, uprooted from her home and culture, trying to find a place for herself in a rapidly changing world. Loyal, caring, and creative, she is able to see a spirit helper in a kitchen mouse and willing to defy regulations in mourning the death of her dearest friend. Rinaldi depicts widely divergent cultures with clarity and compassion. Captain Pratt, founder of a school that forcibly strips children of their native culture, also provides vocational training and field trips, and responds to his students as true individuals. The body of the text is followed by an epilogue telling of Nannie's later life, an extensive historical note, and black-and-white photos. The period, the setting, and Nannie herself all come to life. An excellent addition to a popular series.
144 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1999
49 people are currently reading
2750 people want to read
About the author
Ann Rinaldi
69 books986 followersAnn Rinaldi (b. August 27, 1934, in New York City) is a young adult fiction author. She is best known for her historical fiction, including In My Father's House, The Last Silk Dress, An Acquaintance with Darkness, A Break with Charity, and Hang a Thousand Trees with Ribbons. She has written a total of forty novels, eight of which were listed as notable by the ALA. In 2000, Wolf by the Ears was listed as one the best novels of the preceding twenty-five years, and later of the last one hundred years. She is the most prolific writer for the Great Episode series, a series of historical fiction novels set during the American Colonial era. She also writes for the Dear America series.
Rinaldi currently lives in Somerville, New Jersey, with her husband, Ron, whom she married in 1960. Her career, prior to being an author, was a newspaper columnist. She continued the column, called The Trentonian, through much of her writing career. Her first published novel, Term Paper, was written in 1979. Prior to this, she wrote four unpublished books, which she has called "terrible." She became a grandmother in 1991.
Rinaldi says she got her love of history from her eldest son, who brought her to reenactments. She says that she writes young adult books "because I like to write them."
Rinaldi currently lives in Somerville, New Jersey, with her husband, Ron, whom she married in 1960. Her career, prior to being an author, was a newspaper columnist. She continued the column, called The Trentonian, through much of her writing career. Her first published novel, Term Paper, was written in 1979. Prior to this, she wrote four unpublished books, which she has called "terrible." She became a grandmother in 1991.
Rinaldi says she got her love of history from her eldest son, who brought her to reenactments. She says that she writes young adult books "because I like to write them."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews
December 2, 2025
So honestly, the more I do think about My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, the more I wish that on Goodreads, we actually had the opportunity to rate books with less than one star. For yes, I really am most uncomfortably and painfully flabbergasted that in My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl author Ann Rinaldi has obviously used as characters in her text (in her first person narrator Nannie Little Rose's fictional diary) the actual names of Native American children who had in fact and in reality perished whilst attending the Carlise Indian School (and with the names in fact simply and callously being taken by Rinaldi from these unfortunate students’ very headstones) and that yes indeed, Ann Rinaldi has therefore and obviously decided there is somehow nothing even remotely wrong or potentially problematic regarding making free and easy use of the names of in historic reality dead Native American Carlise Indian School students as fictional and living characters in My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl.
And knowing this rather chilling factoid, and then also reading in the author's note for My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl Rinaldi rather verbosely and vigorously defending herself, well, and in my humble opinion, Ann Rinaldi having the names of deceased Carlise Indian School students appear in her text, in My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, this is at best totally and strangely tone deaf and at worst something so incredibly bigoted and viciously thoughtless that it really does defy description (since that many Native American and Native Canadian students often did end up dying at Carlise and at other so-called residential schools is not only a historic tragedy of epic proportions, but is now also considered by most of us who are in any manner reasonable as a most terrible and to be unilaterally condemned example of deliberate cultural genocide).
Furthermore, with the tragic and infuriating historical facts regarding the horrors which Native American and Canadian children often if not even usually were forced to endure at residential schools in mind (and that these institutions of “learning” were generally mandatory and in fact primarily meant to destroy that what was "Indian" in the attending students and by any means, often by verbal, physical and sometimes even sexual abuse, by having their own cultures systematically annihilated), when I was reading Nannie Little Rose's fictional diary and realising that first and foremost, Ann Rinaldi is obviously trying to make My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl sound like a rather standard boarding school tale and one that even is supposedly to be seen as something rather like a positive educational experience for the attending students, yes, I did end up getting so massively furious and angry with both Rinaldi as an author (and equally as a person) and with her printed words that I very quickly ended up stopping my perusal of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl with a massively raging one star ranking (and also with me not likely wanting to ever try any other historical fiction from Ann Rinaldi's pen, and especially so if she is featuring Native American characters and scenarios).
And finally, while Dear America completists might perhaps desire to read My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, I for one almost wish that I had never tried this whitewashing piece of historical fallacy (namely garbage) and am also totally glad that I was able to borrow My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl for free from Open Library, that I did not have to purchase a copy of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl (because to tell the truth, the concept of me buying a copy of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl and the author, and Ann Rinaldi then actually receiving royalties from my purchase really does rather make me physically cringe, as I truly do not want to financially support an author whose concept of what residential schools were like kind of reminds me of those morons who think that the Nazi Concentration Camps were supposedly for reeducation).
And knowing this rather chilling factoid, and then also reading in the author's note for My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl Rinaldi rather verbosely and vigorously defending herself, well, and in my humble opinion, Ann Rinaldi having the names of deceased Carlise Indian School students appear in her text, in My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, this is at best totally and strangely tone deaf and at worst something so incredibly bigoted and viciously thoughtless that it really does defy description (since that many Native American and Native Canadian students often did end up dying at Carlise and at other so-called residential schools is not only a historic tragedy of epic proportions, but is now also considered by most of us who are in any manner reasonable as a most terrible and to be unilaterally condemned example of deliberate cultural genocide).
Furthermore, with the tragic and infuriating historical facts regarding the horrors which Native American and Canadian children often if not even usually were forced to endure at residential schools in mind (and that these institutions of “learning” were generally mandatory and in fact primarily meant to destroy that what was "Indian" in the attending students and by any means, often by verbal, physical and sometimes even sexual abuse, by having their own cultures systematically annihilated), when I was reading Nannie Little Rose's fictional diary and realising that first and foremost, Ann Rinaldi is obviously trying to make My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl sound like a rather standard boarding school tale and one that even is supposedly to be seen as something rather like a positive educational experience for the attending students, yes, I did end up getting so massively furious and angry with both Rinaldi as an author (and equally as a person) and with her printed words that I very quickly ended up stopping my perusal of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl with a massively raging one star ranking (and also with me not likely wanting to ever try any other historical fiction from Ann Rinaldi's pen, and especially so if she is featuring Native American characters and scenarios).
And finally, while Dear America completists might perhaps desire to read My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl, I for one almost wish that I had never tried this whitewashing piece of historical fallacy (namely garbage) and am also totally glad that I was able to borrow My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl for free from Open Library, that I did not have to purchase a copy of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl (because to tell the truth, the concept of me buying a copy of My Heart is on the Ground: The Diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl and the author, and Ann Rinaldi then actually receiving royalties from my purchase really does rather make me physically cringe, as I truly do not want to financially support an author whose concept of what residential schools were like kind of reminds me of those morons who think that the Nazi Concentration Camps were supposedly for reeducation).
August 7, 2008
I reviewed this for work. This book has raised a lot of controversy over its presentation of some Native American history.
As I read My Heart Is on the Ground, I never felt like I was truly reading the thoughts of a real person, because the emotions and concerns of someone newly living in a different culture weren't presented in a believable way to me. It was all very subdued and safe. The darker, scarier feelings were made light of throughout the book. Because of the weak characterization, I didn't think this was a well-written book overall.
This is a work of historical fiction, and as such, it should be fairly accurate in the representation of the setting and the actual, historical personages used in the story. But Rinaldi, by making this a positive story, makes this more fiction than historical fiction. She has changed facts, such as chief names and tribes, and gotten details wrong, as the Oyate review states. What I am most troubled about is that she misrepresents the feelings of the Native American children toward Carlisle School, such as when Spotted Tail decides to take his children back home. In real life, they were happy to go home, but not in this book. The natives are presented as appreciating a chance to learn the new ways and attend the school, while in reality they were forced to do so against their will. Many such unpleasant details are glossed over to present the school is a positive light.
The Historical Note says that "over 4,000 Indian children went through Carlisle, but fewer than 600 were actual graduates." Rinaldi never explains why that was the case, just saying that the dropouts and runaways would feel stranded between cultures. I think the idea here was to present a positive story of the Carlisle School, through the story of a girl who could be a role model, an intelligent girl who learns to adapt, and goes on to live a productive life as an adult. But the only way to do that in this instance was to ignore or change reality. Perhaps this was too dark an episode in American history to present in a positive way.
Yes, the book has a Historical Note that says how dreadful these schools could be, and the story does state several times that treaties weren't honored by the white government.Yes, it informs readers in a gentle way about the difficulties native children went through at Carlisle School. But it needs to be clearer that Nannie Little Rose was not a real girl, and the story as presented here, is not actual fact.
I know that this is fiction. But it is not presented that way. Children reading this book might be easily confused into thinking Nannie Little Rose was a real person. The impression I got, even knowing the book was fictionalized, was that a real diary had been found and adapted into this book by Rinaldi. The epilogue especially strengthened this impression. The disclaimer that Nannie Little Rose was fictional, not a real person, is in very small print on the last page, with the publication information, where very few children are likely to find it.
I do not recommend this book.
As I read My Heart Is on the Ground, I never felt like I was truly reading the thoughts of a real person, because the emotions and concerns of someone newly living in a different culture weren't presented in a believable way to me. It was all very subdued and safe. The darker, scarier feelings were made light of throughout the book. Because of the weak characterization, I didn't think this was a well-written book overall.
This is a work of historical fiction, and as such, it should be fairly accurate in the representation of the setting and the actual, historical personages used in the story. But Rinaldi, by making this a positive story, makes this more fiction than historical fiction. She has changed facts, such as chief names and tribes, and gotten details wrong, as the Oyate review states. What I am most troubled about is that she misrepresents the feelings of the Native American children toward Carlisle School, such as when Spotted Tail decides to take his children back home. In real life, they were happy to go home, but not in this book. The natives are presented as appreciating a chance to learn the new ways and attend the school, while in reality they were forced to do so against their will. Many such unpleasant details are glossed over to present the school is a positive light.
The Historical Note says that "over 4,000 Indian children went through Carlisle, but fewer than 600 were actual graduates." Rinaldi never explains why that was the case, just saying that the dropouts and runaways would feel stranded between cultures. I think the idea here was to present a positive story of the Carlisle School, through the story of a girl who could be a role model, an intelligent girl who learns to adapt, and goes on to live a productive life as an adult. But the only way to do that in this instance was to ignore or change reality. Perhaps this was too dark an episode in American history to present in a positive way.
Yes, the book has a Historical Note that says how dreadful these schools could be, and the story does state several times that treaties weren't honored by the white government.Yes, it informs readers in a gentle way about the difficulties native children went through at Carlisle School. But it needs to be clearer that Nannie Little Rose was not a real girl, and the story as presented here, is not actual fact.
I know that this is fiction. But it is not presented that way. Children reading this book might be easily confused into thinking Nannie Little Rose was a real person. The impression I got, even knowing the book was fictionalized, was that a real diary had been found and adapted into this book by Rinaldi. The epilogue especially strengthened this impression. The disclaimer that Nannie Little Rose was fictional, not a real person, is in very small print on the last page, with the publication information, where very few children are likely to find it.
I do not recommend this book.
December 11, 2024
*** Warning: This review contains spoilers! ***
My husband picked this book up randomly from the library. My daughter and I read it separately, and then together decided to give it 4 or 5 stars. Then, I went online... Now, I can't in good conscious give this book more than 2 stars. I am giving it 2 stars, instead of just 1, only because I really did enjoy reading it, and I have to admit, I liked the story.
To summarize the plot: Nannie Little Rose is a 12-year-old Sioux girl who is sent to a boarding school for Native Americans in Pennsylvania. The entire book is presented as the text of her private diary. It's an interesting perspective that makes for compelling reading, especially for the young target audience of 9-to-12-year-olds. We follow Nannie Little Rose's journey as she grows from being a scared new student who longs for her Native American ways to an educated and contributing member of the school community who still holds her Native American ways dear. I especially liked one particular message comparing large acts of bravery that make people proud to small acts of kindness that make people beautiful (page 141 in my edition).
So, what's the controversy here? Basically,the way Native Americans feel about this book is the way I, as a Chinese-American, feel about Tikki Tikki Tembo.
Here is an article that clearly delineates the problems with this book:
Fiction Posing As Truth: A Critical Review of Ann Rinaldi's My Heart Is on the Ground: The diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl
And, for good measure, here is an article I wrote about the problems with Tikki Tikki Tembo:
Rethinking Tikki Tikki Tembo
In one respect, I am almost more forgiving of Tikki Tikki Tembo, which was published in 1968, before there was widespread appreciation of cultural diversity in the United States. (Still, I resent the way the book continues to be considered a "classic" and to be used as an example of Chinese culture.) My Heart is on the Ground, however, was published in 1999, well after the widely acclaimed book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee publicized the injustices and humiliations suffered by Native Americans. To publish such a whitewashed account of Native American history at this point in American history - and to do so with seemingly good intentions! - just goes to show how deeply ignorant and racist (even if unintentionally racist) people can be.
Of course, keeping in mind this book's target audience, I can understand toning down some of the information. For example, in describing these Native American boarding schools, perhaps it is age-appropriate to simply say that the United States government required Native American children to attend these schools, that many children did not want to go at all, and nor did their parents want them to go. Maybe third graders don't need to know that school officials, working for the federally funded boarding schools, actually kidnapped children to populate their schools. Maybe it's enough to tell them that students who clung to Native American ways, perhaps by speaking their native language, were "punished". Do they need to know that punishment consisted of severe beatings? Maybe it's understandable these types of details would be more appropriate in a young adult book or in middle or high school lessons on Native American history.
Still, there is no excuse for the factual errors listed in the above article. Nor should the history be so whitewashed that the reader leaves with the impression that Captain Pratt was a kind of father figure (his actual motto: "Kill the Indian, save the man.") or that the boarding school was wholly beneficial for all who attended.
To find out about the true impact and long-lasting damage done by these boarding schools, this article from The Seattle Times is as distressing as it is informative.
After doing my research, I had to have a small follow-up discussion with my daughter about how not everything in the book was accurate, and that even though it was a good story, it didn't really show the typical boarding school experience that actual Native Americans had.
One final thought. If you still plan on reading this book, or giving it to an elementary school-aged child to read, you should be aware that this book does include death, and in particular, one rather disturbing death in which a girl is possibly buried alive.
My husband picked this book up randomly from the library. My daughter and I read it separately, and then together decided to give it 4 or 5 stars. Then, I went online... Now, I can't in good conscious give this book more than 2 stars. I am giving it 2 stars, instead of just 1, only because I really did enjoy reading it, and I have to admit, I liked the story.
To summarize the plot: Nannie Little Rose is a 12-year-old Sioux girl who is sent to a boarding school for Native Americans in Pennsylvania. The entire book is presented as the text of her private diary. It's an interesting perspective that makes for compelling reading, especially for the young target audience of 9-to-12-year-olds. We follow Nannie Little Rose's journey as she grows from being a scared new student who longs for her Native American ways to an educated and contributing member of the school community who still holds her Native American ways dear. I especially liked one particular message comparing large acts of bravery that make people proud to small acts of kindness that make people beautiful (page 141 in my edition).
So, what's the controversy here? Basically,the way Native Americans feel about this book is the way I, as a Chinese-American, feel about Tikki Tikki Tembo.
Here is an article that clearly delineates the problems with this book:
Fiction Posing As Truth: A Critical Review of Ann Rinaldi's My Heart Is on the Ground: The diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl
And, for good measure, here is an article I wrote about the problems with Tikki Tikki Tembo:
Rethinking Tikki Tikki Tembo
In one respect, I am almost more forgiving of Tikki Tikki Tembo, which was published in 1968, before there was widespread appreciation of cultural diversity in the United States. (Still, I resent the way the book continues to be considered a "classic" and to be used as an example of Chinese culture.) My Heart is on the Ground, however, was published in 1999, well after the widely acclaimed book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee publicized the injustices and humiliations suffered by Native Americans. To publish such a whitewashed account of Native American history at this point in American history - and to do so with seemingly good intentions! - just goes to show how deeply ignorant and racist (even if unintentionally racist) people can be.
Of course, keeping in mind this book's target audience, I can understand toning down some of the information. For example, in describing these Native American boarding schools, perhaps it is age-appropriate to simply say that the United States government required Native American children to attend these schools, that many children did not want to go at all, and nor did their parents want them to go. Maybe third graders don't need to know that school officials, working for the federally funded boarding schools, actually kidnapped children to populate their schools. Maybe it's enough to tell them that students who clung to Native American ways, perhaps by speaking their native language, were "punished". Do they need to know that punishment consisted of severe beatings? Maybe it's understandable these types of details would be more appropriate in a young adult book or in middle or high school lessons on Native American history.
Still, there is no excuse for the factual errors listed in the above article. Nor should the history be so whitewashed that the reader leaves with the impression that Captain Pratt was a kind of father figure (his actual motto: "Kill the Indian, save the man.") or that the boarding school was wholly beneficial for all who attended.
To find out about the true impact and long-lasting damage done by these boarding schools, this article from The Seattle Times is as distressing as it is informative.
After doing my research, I had to have a small follow-up discussion with my daughter about how not everything in the book was accurate, and that even though it was a good story, it didn't really show the typical boarding school experience that actual Native Americans had.
One final thought. If you still plan on reading this book, or giving it to an elementary school-aged child to read, you should be aware that this book does include death, and in particular, one rather disturbing death in which a girl is possibly buried alive.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 29, 2010
This book is horrible. If I could take away stars or give it none, I would.
For a better account of residental or boardings schools try My Name is Seepeetza. It is historically accurate and does not offend.
Suggested readings for anyone interested in Native American literature, A Broken Flute by Seale. This guide will help with the evaluation of materials and their content. The essay on My Heart is on the Ground is fantastic.
For a better account of residental or boardings schools try My Name is Seepeetza. It is historically accurate and does not offend.
Suggested readings for anyone interested in Native American literature, A Broken Flute by Seale. This guide will help with the evaluation of materials and their content. The essay on My Heart is on the Ground is fantastic.
August 30, 2012
Read this first.
This book is so riddled with inaccuracies that I can't possibly recommend it. It does nothing but misinform the reader, and I can't even look at the front cover without wondering how this got published. If you can't properly represent the history of an entire people, don't write about it. If the content is too shocking for this age group, then write the story for an older audience instead of toning it down and changing details.
Dear America was a favorite series of mine growing up; with that being said, it's disappointing how this was written.
This book is so riddled with inaccuracies that I can't possibly recommend it. It does nothing but misinform the reader, and I can't even look at the front cover without wondering how this got published. If you can't properly represent the history of an entire people, don't write about it. If the content is too shocking for this age group, then write the story for an older audience instead of toning it down and changing details.
Dear America was a favorite series of mine growing up; with that being said, it's disappointing how this was written.
March 17, 2009
This is apparently fraught with historical inaccuracies, but for what I gained from it - an appreciation of the history of Indian schools, a sympathy for what the children went through, and a different look at history than what's normally taught in classrooms - I think it was worth it. The story was intense, particularly the part about her friend Lucy Pretty Eagle. Perhaps some people find the overall message ambivalent, but I, for one, saw this as a story about children stripped of their culture, which I think was the intent.
December 30, 2010
This book is aimed towards young adult readers, but is suitable for adult readers as well who are interested in Carlisle Indian School and Native American studies. This is a story about a young Sioux girl named Nannie Little Rose who describes her life at Carlisle Indian school in 1880 through a series of diary entries. Through her eyes we get a glimpse into what life was like for Indian children sent to Carlisle.
Unfortunately, though this book has some historical accuracies, it is NOT a true story. Nannie Little Rose did not write this diary, in fact, she never existed. The author, Ann Rinaldi, visited Carlisle and its graveyard and, fascinated by the names on the headstones, decided to write a story about Carlisle and its students using the names on the headstones to create the characters in a fictional account. She did do research and used events that occurred at Carlisle to weave her story, however the events did not take place in the time period covered in her book and any feelings or events specific to the characters are not real - just their names. I found this to be very disappointing, especially after reading the entire book and THEN finding the disclaimer, "While the events described and some of the characters in this book may be based on actual historical events and real people, Nannie Little Rose is a fictional character, created by the author, and her diary is a work of fiction" on the VERY LAST page of the book. I felt like I was purposely deceived, as everything in the book is made to appear that it is a true accounting and diary, complete with an epilogue detailing what happened to Nannie Little Rose after she left Carlisle - down to the number of children she had and the year of her death.
In addition, because this is a FICTIONAL accounting by someone who is not Indian, one has to question the feelings presented by the characters she has invented. As someone who has some knowledge of what Carlisle was like for its students and how it made them feel and how being there affected their entire lives (my father-in-law was a Carlisle student and spoke about what life was like for him there), I feel that only someone who is Indian, or who has spoken to an Indian who experienced Carlisle, could truly represent their thoughts and feelings about what it was like for them. Rinaldi should have attempted to find someone who actually attended Carlisle to get their personal story to base her characters' thoughts and feelings on. Otherwise, it is just another white person's take on what it is like to be Indian.
In this book, Carlisle is presented very favorably. Some of the injustices are described, but in a somewhat whitewash fashion. I did, however, find Rinaldi's description of an Indian child's first day at Carlisle to be pretty realistic and moving. The 'great experiment' that Capt. Pratt practiced on these people was, in all reality, an attempt at ethnic cleansing. These Indian children were forced to attend the Indian schools. They were stripped of their identities (separated from their families and then separated by their sex, clothes taken and burned, forcibly bathed and de-liced, their hair cut - for an Indian a very traumatic event - names taken and given new Anglo/Christian names) and beaten and punished if they ever spoke their language or did anything remotely 'Indian' again. How is this not like the holocaust for the Jews, save being placed in a gas chamber?
Just like Capt. Pratt with his idea for Indian schools like Carlisle, Ann Rinaldi seems to have had good intentions when writing her book. Her writing and story is good and informative, but unfortunately, by deceiving the reader into thinking it is a true story written by a real person - a Native American, who really attended Carlisle - everything she writes is then suspect and colored by a white person whose experience and understanding can never truly compare. I would recommend reading this book to get a basic idea of Carlisle, but to read further in order to obtain a true accounting.
Unfortunately, though this book has some historical accuracies, it is NOT a true story. Nannie Little Rose did not write this diary, in fact, she never existed. The author, Ann Rinaldi, visited Carlisle and its graveyard and, fascinated by the names on the headstones, decided to write a story about Carlisle and its students using the names on the headstones to create the characters in a fictional account. She did do research and used events that occurred at Carlisle to weave her story, however the events did not take place in the time period covered in her book and any feelings or events specific to the characters are not real - just their names. I found this to be very disappointing, especially after reading the entire book and THEN finding the disclaimer, "While the events described and some of the characters in this book may be based on actual historical events and real people, Nannie Little Rose is a fictional character, created by the author, and her diary is a work of fiction" on the VERY LAST page of the book. I felt like I was purposely deceived, as everything in the book is made to appear that it is a true accounting and diary, complete with an epilogue detailing what happened to Nannie Little Rose after she left Carlisle - down to the number of children she had and the year of her death.
In addition, because this is a FICTIONAL accounting by someone who is not Indian, one has to question the feelings presented by the characters she has invented. As someone who has some knowledge of what Carlisle was like for its students and how it made them feel and how being there affected their entire lives (my father-in-law was a Carlisle student and spoke about what life was like for him there), I feel that only someone who is Indian, or who has spoken to an Indian who experienced Carlisle, could truly represent their thoughts and feelings about what it was like for them. Rinaldi should have attempted to find someone who actually attended Carlisle to get their personal story to base her characters' thoughts and feelings on. Otherwise, it is just another white person's take on what it is like to be Indian.
In this book, Carlisle is presented very favorably. Some of the injustices are described, but in a somewhat whitewash fashion. I did, however, find Rinaldi's description of an Indian child's first day at Carlisle to be pretty realistic and moving. The 'great experiment' that Capt. Pratt practiced on these people was, in all reality, an attempt at ethnic cleansing. These Indian children were forced to attend the Indian schools. They were stripped of their identities (separated from their families and then separated by their sex, clothes taken and burned, forcibly bathed and de-liced, their hair cut - for an Indian a very traumatic event - names taken and given new Anglo/Christian names) and beaten and punished if they ever spoke their language or did anything remotely 'Indian' again. How is this not like the holocaust for the Jews, save being placed in a gas chamber?
Just like Capt. Pratt with his idea for Indian schools like Carlisle, Ann Rinaldi seems to have had good intentions when writing her book. Her writing and story is good and informative, but unfortunately, by deceiving the reader into thinking it is a true story written by a real person - a Native American, who really attended Carlisle - everything she writes is then suspect and colored by a white person whose experience and understanding can never truly compare. I would recommend reading this book to get a basic idea of Carlisle, but to read further in order to obtain a true accounting.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 21, 2015
Good God there is so much wrong with this book. As a story, a historical narrative, and a story from a Native POV.
This book is about being ripped away from your culture and being forced to assimilate, and yet it didn't focus on the devastating loss of having said life ripped away. Occasionally it showed a glimmer or two of it, but that's it. Where was how horrific it was? This book shows it as more or less uncomfortable, but perfectly acceptable. They show a freaking residential school as a pleasant place overall, regardless of a few irritations. The longer you read, the more painful it gets.
Then there are the historical inaccuracies. The overall coming of age story could have been an interesting one, but it was bogged down by all the other crap. The terrible portrayal of history is cringe worthy (even more painful given the thought that this might be the first introduction kids have to the history of residential schools). Kids being desperate to stay at the school? Are you kidding me? They literally tried to kill any and all signs of Native culture. It was the goal, not some benevolent desire to help children. The fact that the historical note calls the schools a success is even more terrible, because the abuses that came out of there are the stuff of horror movies. Are you freaking kidding me? How can anyone looking back at residential schools think they were remotely good in any way?
The only good thing I can give this book is that it fully went into how much learning English grammar sucks. That's it.
This book is about being ripped away from your culture and being forced to assimilate, and yet it didn't focus on the devastating loss of having said life ripped away. Occasionally it showed a glimmer or two of it, but that's it. Where was how horrific it was? This book shows it as more or less uncomfortable, but perfectly acceptable. They show a freaking residential school as a pleasant place overall, regardless of a few irritations. The longer you read, the more painful it gets.
Then there are the historical inaccuracies. The overall coming of age story could have been an interesting one, but it was bogged down by all the other crap. The terrible portrayal of history is cringe worthy (even more painful given the thought that this might be the first introduction kids have to the history of residential schools). Kids being desperate to stay at the school? Are you kidding me? They literally tried to kill any and all signs of Native culture. It was the goal, not some benevolent desire to help children. The fact that the historical note calls the schools a success is even more terrible, because the abuses that came out of there are the stuff of horror movies. Are you freaking kidding me? How can anyone looking back at residential schools think they were remotely good in any way?
The only good thing I can give this book is that it fully went into how much learning English grammar sucks. That's it.
April 14, 2013
Bad fiction, bad history. This book is riddled with inaccuracies and presents a false picture of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, a mission of cultural genocide against American Indians, as a necessary evil. Throughout the book Rinaldi shows blatant disregard for facts regarding the customs of the tribes represented, including that of her main character, Nannie Little Rose, and even misidentifies the tribes of prominent historical figures. Does Scholastic not bother to fact-check historical fiction before endorsing it?
In addition to her haphazard approach to history, her comment about "Happy hunting grounds" in the author's note is ignorant and condescending enough to make any decent person vomit. This is not a good book for children.
In addition to her haphazard approach to history, her comment about "Happy hunting grounds" in the author's note is ignorant and condescending enough to make any decent person vomit. This is not a good book for children.
March 24, 2019
This book is an attempt to rehabilitate the genocidal civilizing projects enacted against Native Americans in the 1800s and it failed utterly. It was my first real exposure to the actual details of the ongoing genocide our country is built on, and my takeaways from the book were not the ficititious ‘nice’ things that colonizers did at the school - I actually don’t remember that part of the book at all - but the horrific things that they did to these children: cutting their hair, forcing them to cut grass with scissors, introducing them to rigid gender roles and then humiliating them for their inability to fit them, rooming them with kids from different tribes so they couldn’t speak their own language. I read the book as a straight depiction of child abuse and Stockholm syndrome, and though that was probably not the white author’s intent, it definitely goes to show that if you show the trauma that oppressors enact barefaced, there is no amount of prevaricating about it that will convince children that it was for the best. However, it may be because I’m Jewish and I started learning about the Holocaust from a very young age that I responded to the book the way I did; there are too many parallels between the Holocaust and the genocide that has been occurring here (not accidentally - Hitler drew inspiration from the reservation system) for me to have been taken in by this low-budget Thieresenstadt of a book.
March 10, 2020
This is a horrible book. I don't even know how to write this review because I am so disgusted.
To start--the character writes in a stilted English that is just so contrived and unrealistic. I get that the idea is that she was learning English but there is no actual connection to how someone learning English would write and talk and how it's presented int the book. It's clearly just a white person's stereotypical perception of broken English and on top of being insulting, it makes the story difficult to read.
The character wants to do well at the boarding school and sees her brother as a trouble maker for not wanting to fit in. The character's parents tell her to try to do well to make them proud and to try to fit in. It's maddening. In real life these children were forcibly kidnapped from their parents. The idea that it was some type of opportunity is just so disgusting.
The author tries to equivocate this deeply traumatic and horrific part of U.S. history. Yet, even the historical presentation in the back of the book makes it impossible to make it equivocal. It would be laughable if it wasn't so maddening.
To start--the character writes in a stilted English that is just so contrived and unrealistic. I get that the idea is that she was learning English but there is no actual connection to how someone learning English would write and talk and how it's presented int the book. It's clearly just a white person's stereotypical perception of broken English and on top of being insulting, it makes the story difficult to read.
The character wants to do well at the boarding school and sees her brother as a trouble maker for not wanting to fit in. The character's parents tell her to try to do well to make them proud and to try to fit in. It's maddening. In real life these children were forcibly kidnapped from their parents. The idea that it was some type of opportunity is just so disgusting.
The author tries to equivocate this deeply traumatic and horrific part of U.S. history. Yet, even the historical presentation in the back of the book makes it impossible to make it equivocal. It would be laughable if it wasn't so maddening.
October 10, 2025
What was done to the Native American people and their culture by the whites in the name of "helping them" is a part of the history of the United States that is absolutely disgusting and horrific. Every time I read a book that talks about the residential schools the children were sent to makes me so angry. These children had everything about them stripped away, their hair was cut, they were given white peoples clothing to wear, and anything they brought from home was taken away from them. The Carlisle School did not seem as bad as some of the other schools I have read about, but it was still sad and shameful what they did and how they treated the children.
August 21, 2021
Oof. Okay. This was... a lot. The short version of this review is that I think if someone was going to tell a first-person story of a young woman's experience in the American Indian Residential Schools in a Dear America series, it did almost the best that it could. But that being said, I have a lot of complicated feelings about this book.
First of all, that this book is written in a first-person diary format in English for young readers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries builds in an implicit bias, that we are never hearing the narrator's perspective in her own language, but in the language thrust upon her by white assimilationists. This diary literally chronicles, even down the the language used to tell the story, the active genocide of the Sioux people and other Native American tribes through the assimilation of their children, and it's really hard to forget that and enjoy the story.
For what it's worth, like with other Dear America books about really difficult, scarring, shameful moments in American history, I honestly found this one fairly well done. It didn't shy away from the traumatic moments or the horrific nature of the situation while also taking the sharpest edge off for young readers: they have time to discover the depth of the horror when they're older. It also was not without it's nuance; our main character struggled in the limbo these schools placed children in, between preserving and continuing to embrace her culture while also learning and adapting to her new situation. But it also recorded the nightmares of it too - the number of children who died (which was vastly underreported, as we are learning this year in the news), the number of children who were punished and actively ran away for resisting, the discomfort and grief from being forced to live between their original culture and the new one they are forced into, it's all included in this book.
However, my biggest problem lies somewhat in the choice of author, or the author who chose author this book. Ann Rinaldi is white, and I have a hard time believing there was no Sioux author who would have been the more appropriate person to tell this story. Now, I have read a fair number of Ann Rinaldi books and I absolutely trust her as a historic researcher and I know the lengths she will go to to accurately write historic fiction. But, as a white woman, she is telling this story from the oppressor's perspective which means that even amidst the honest record of the death and trauma and grief and horrible consequences of these schools is this vague tone of the inevitability of the decline of the Native American.
Which is my biggest, biggest beef with this book. It wasn't inevitable that the old ways of the American Indian died, these residential schools that are the subject of this book, and all the other tactics discussed *in this book* actively contributed to the genocide that white people love to romanticize as being "inevitable." And that made this book really difficult to accept, regardless of how well it was researched and the honesty with which it educated young readers about this dark chapter in American history that is so often glossed over. I'd be interested in seeing if there are any books for young readers out there who could address this topic better.
First of all, that this book is written in a first-person diary format in English for young readers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries builds in an implicit bias, that we are never hearing the narrator's perspective in her own language, but in the language thrust upon her by white assimilationists. This diary literally chronicles, even down the the language used to tell the story, the active genocide of the Sioux people and other Native American tribes through the assimilation of their children, and it's really hard to forget that and enjoy the story.
For what it's worth, like with other Dear America books about really difficult, scarring, shameful moments in American history, I honestly found this one fairly well done. It didn't shy away from the traumatic moments or the horrific nature of the situation while also taking the sharpest edge off for young readers: they have time to discover the depth of the horror when they're older. It also was not without it's nuance; our main character struggled in the limbo these schools placed children in, between preserving and continuing to embrace her culture while also learning and adapting to her new situation. But it also recorded the nightmares of it too - the number of children who died (which was vastly underreported, as we are learning this year in the news), the number of children who were punished and actively ran away for resisting, the discomfort and grief from being forced to live between their original culture and the new one they are forced into, it's all included in this book.
However, my biggest problem lies somewhat in the choice of author, or the author who chose author this book. Ann Rinaldi is white, and I have a hard time believing there was no Sioux author who would have been the more appropriate person to tell this story. Now, I have read a fair number of Ann Rinaldi books and I absolutely trust her as a historic researcher and I know the lengths she will go to to accurately write historic fiction. But, as a white woman, she is telling this story from the oppressor's perspective which means that even amidst the honest record of the death and trauma and grief and horrible consequences of these schools is this vague tone of the inevitability of the decline of the Native American.
Which is my biggest, biggest beef with this book. It wasn't inevitable that the old ways of the American Indian died, these residential schools that are the subject of this book, and all the other tactics discussed *in this book* actively contributed to the genocide that white people love to romanticize as being "inevitable." And that made this book really difficult to accept, regardless of how well it was researched and the honesty with which it educated young readers about this dark chapter in American history that is so often glossed over. I'd be interested in seeing if there are any books for young readers out there who could address this topic better.
November 26, 2014
In this book it's about a little girl named Nannie Little Rose. She's a Sioux Girl who got forced to go live somewhere where she was not from. He parents were very poor and could barely get by. She left to go to her aunts house in another country because her mom thought her aunt could take better care of her. She didn't like this idea. She had moved and things started changing. She ended up liking it.
July 16, 2023
Subtitle: "Everybody Needs to Chill Out; A Review"
(NOTE: I have edited this review, you will see a note at the bottom explaining.)
There's quite a bit of controversy over this particular title in the D.A. series. I'm on the fence on this issue for a few reasons...
1. Confusion over whether Nannie Little Rose actually existed: If you are a reader of the D.A. series, to my knowledge, NONE of the girls are real and that's always been the format. I read these titles with the understanding that they are historical *fiction*. There are frequently fictional interactions with real historical figures, but that is common with historical fiction. I have also adopted the habit of reading the supplementary material in the back PRIOR to reading the diary, which is a personal choice any reader can make. I've never been fooled into thinking these diaries are entirely true stories, and I don't hear this complaint about the other D.A. titles to this degree. Why THIS one?
2. Whitewashing of the truth: You have to keep in mind that these titles are for younger readers, mostly a Middle Grade audience. If you want gutwrenching realism, these aren't and have never been the books for that. Rinaldi was clearly writing for a younger audience. Anyone angry over the "whitewash" needs to remember that as well--it's a MIDDLE GRADE, HISTORICAL FICTION title. I wouldn't ever expect to find full historical accuracy in a book of that category.
3. Context: This diary is told from the point of view of a 12/13 year old. A 12 year old would not have had a full understanding of the ongoing issues at stake at the time. It actually speaks to Rinaldi's skill in creating her narrative in her main character's voice. The scope of Nannie's understanding WOULD have been somewhat limited.
All of this being said, I found the book interesting. And I think it did some of what Rinaldi intended; I might be motivated to look further into the subject for more of a factual account.
ETA:
I'm going to do an ETA rather than a dirty delete, I fully own the cringeworthy content in the original post -- I think it's important for those of us involved in a dialogue to acknowledge our prior statements and beliefs and also our efforts to amend.
I really screwed this one up, and I'm embarrassed by it, as I should be.
When I read this now, and in light of the comment posted regarding my review, I realize I wrote an insensitive, tone-deaf review that was extremely narrow in scope. As a reader now, I am cognizant of these sorts of things in my reviews--but this review is from 11 years ago, the aforementioned comment from 6, and I thankfully am a different person now than I was then.
While my original post was never intended to minimize or invalidate the generational trauma of indigenous cultures, I know that I should know better--that I do not get to control the discrepancy between what I MEAN to say and what is UNDERSTOOD by my readers. Not sharing their trauma is not an excuse for failing to consider it in a sensitive manner.
Growth is painful sometimes, folks. Sometimes we need to admit when we've been wrong or insensitive or downright awful. This is one of those times.
(NOTE: I have edited this review, you will see a note at the bottom explaining.)
There's quite a bit of controversy over this particular title in the D.A. series. I'm on the fence on this issue for a few reasons...
1. Confusion over whether Nannie Little Rose actually existed: If you are a reader of the D.A. series, to my knowledge, NONE of the girls are real and that's always been the format. I read these titles with the understanding that they are historical *fiction*. There are frequently fictional interactions with real historical figures, but that is common with historical fiction. I have also adopted the habit of reading the supplementary material in the back PRIOR to reading the diary, which is a personal choice any reader can make. I've never been fooled into thinking these diaries are entirely true stories, and I don't hear this complaint about the other D.A. titles to this degree. Why THIS one?
3. Context: This diary is told from the point of view of a 12/13 year old. A 12 year old would not have had a full understanding of the ongoing issues at stake at the time. It actually speaks to Rinaldi's skill in creating her narrative in her main character's voice. The scope of Nannie's understanding WOULD have been somewhat limited.
All of this being said, I found the book interesting. And I think it did some of what Rinaldi intended; I might be motivated to look further into the subject for more of a factual account.
ETA:
I'm going to do an ETA rather than a dirty delete, I fully own the cringeworthy content in the original post -- I think it's important for those of us involved in a dialogue to acknowledge our prior statements and beliefs and also our efforts to amend.
I really screwed this one up, and I'm embarrassed by it, as I should be.
When I read this now, and in light of the comment posted regarding my review, I realize I wrote an insensitive, tone-deaf review that was extremely narrow in scope. As a reader now, I am cognizant of these sorts of things in my reviews--but this review is from 11 years ago, the aforementioned comment from 6, and I thankfully am a different person now than I was then.
While my original post was never intended to minimize or invalidate the generational trauma of indigenous cultures, I know that I should know better--that I do not get to control the discrepancy between what I MEAN to say and what is UNDERSTOOD by my readers. Not sharing their trauma is not an excuse for failing to consider it in a sensitive manner.
Growth is painful sometimes, folks. Sometimes we need to admit when we've been wrong or insensitive or downright awful. This is one of those times.
January 16, 2020
This was a highly romanticized version of historical events. Calling it historical fiction is...insulting. The author changes names, events and gets things wrong. Everything is flowery and wonderful for the most part. It sounds like a glorified boarding school complete with white adults who actually care, which is not true if you read any of the non-fiction first hand accounts that have been flooding the market for the past several years. Children didn't want to be there, the majority of the adults were stern and cruel but the author spins it and makes it sound like children didn't want to leave and 98% of the adults were kind and caring people who didn't look on indigenous children as savages.
Most children were forced into these schools against their will, torn from their families in an attempt to annihilate any indigenous culture via assimilation. The amount of children that died in the care of these places was just a convenient side effect to the ultimate goal of demolishing all indigenous ways of life. Children were abused, mistreated, starved and worked to death in schools like this one. This romanticized version of events is nothing short of insulting.
Nannie Little Rose is not in anyway an accurate representation of what a child going into a residential school would be or how the experience would go. The representation of the white adults involved was a joke. The only one that seemed remotely true is Woman-Who-Screams-Alot. Everything true and therefore unpleasant was basically glossed over. Even the children who died are glossed over, save Pretty Eagle.
Even the historical notes are whitewashed to make things seem less horrible than they were. Yeah, 4000 students went through Carlisle but less than 600 graduated. I wonder why that is? Anyone? No, not going to tell us? Well let's read between the lines and ignore the suggestion of it all being dropouts and runaways, shall we? We can assume a significant amount probably died due to poor conditions and being over work. These schools were basically child labor camps after all.
I get that this is a children's book. I get that. But this book is a blatant lie. Sure it mentions a couple of times that the government didn't honor its treaties with the indigenous peoples and blatantly screwed them over with lawyer talk. But does it talk of the horrifying conditions they were forced into? Does it talk about how children were taken from their parents? No. It makes it seem like everyone was willing and happy to go along with the decision to send these children to these schools. Minus Charles...but eventually he is converted too somehow. Absolutely ridiculous.
The more I write this the more annoyed I get so I am just going to quit now with one last thing. In order to call something a historical fiction I think it still needs to reflect the events of the timeline the story takes place in accurately. This book does not do any of that. It's pretty much propaganda for the 'good' the government was doing at the time, not set in a realistic fashion that tells the truth through the use of fictional characters. Just call it a work of pure fiction loosely based on real events with a nice thick coat of whitewashing.
Most children were forced into these schools against their will, torn from their families in an attempt to annihilate any indigenous culture via assimilation. The amount of children that died in the care of these places was just a convenient side effect to the ultimate goal of demolishing all indigenous ways of life. Children were abused, mistreated, starved and worked to death in schools like this one. This romanticized version of events is nothing short of insulting.
Nannie Little Rose is not in anyway an accurate representation of what a child going into a residential school would be or how the experience would go. The representation of the white adults involved was a joke. The only one that seemed remotely true is Woman-Who-Screams-Alot. Everything true and therefore unpleasant was basically glossed over. Even the children who died are glossed over, save Pretty Eagle.
Even the historical notes are whitewashed to make things seem less horrible than they were. Yeah, 4000 students went through Carlisle but less than 600 graduated. I wonder why that is? Anyone? No, not going to tell us? Well let's read between the lines and ignore the suggestion of it all being dropouts and runaways, shall we? We can assume a significant amount probably died due to poor conditions and being over work. These schools were basically child labor camps after all.
I get that this is a children's book. I get that. But this book is a blatant lie. Sure it mentions a couple of times that the government didn't honor its treaties with the indigenous peoples and blatantly screwed them over with lawyer talk. But does it talk of the horrifying conditions they were forced into? Does it talk about how children were taken from their parents? No. It makes it seem like everyone was willing and happy to go along with the decision to send these children to these schools. Minus Charles...but eventually he is converted too somehow. Absolutely ridiculous.
The more I write this the more annoyed I get so I am just going to quit now with one last thing. In order to call something a historical fiction I think it still needs to reflect the events of the timeline the story takes place in accurately. This book does not do any of that. It's pretty much propaganda for the 'good' the government was doing at the time, not set in a realistic fashion that tells the truth through the use of fictional characters. Just call it a work of pure fiction loosely based on real events with a nice thick coat of whitewashing.
February 23, 2011
My Heart is on the Ground (Sioux School) / 0-590-14922-9
This installation in the Dear America series details the life of a Sioux girl, brought to live at a school for American Indian children to learn American English and the customs of the Caucasian Americans. This book has generated a great deal of controversy and concern, but I feel that (as best I can fathom) Rinaldi has done the best she can with a difficult period of history.
The diary format is employed here, as elsewhere, with dual 'languages' - plain type denotes the narrator's attempts at English, italic type denotes her native language. As in other Dear America diaries, the diary device is meant as a teaching device and the narrator's English improves throughout the story. This dual writing device is useful because it shows the narrator's sympathetic struggles with a new language, without muting her inner thoughts or making her seem 'stupid' for her poor communication.
The school is shown in a very mixed light and, I feel, the terrible plight of the American Indians is shown here very starkly. The narrator explains how they have fewer animals each year to hunt, because the practices of the Caucasian Americans are causing the extinction of the animals. She tells with sadness about the slaughter and starvation of her people, and the other American Indian tribes. Although the school staff believes they are doing her a favor in turning her from her 'barbaric' past, she bravely insists that her past is not barbaric, that she is a proud descendant of a unique and beautiful culture. She accepts the training taught to her at the school for HER own purposes only - she wants to use what she learns to go back to her people and help them, in whatever way she can. In this way, I feel that the narrator character is one of the strongest and bravest characters in the Dear America series - willing to take on the world to save her people.
There are some frightening parts here that may not be acceptable for small children. The narrator's closest friend goes into a trance and either dies or (as our narrator is convinced) is buried alive by the foolish medical staff. Other children die of various illnesses, and the medical staff at the school is (probably accurately) shown as not very competent. The teachers are, in general, cruel and vicious and refuse to treat the different tribes as different - they treat all the children as one conglomerate whole of "Indians", which chafes the students and causes much private dissension.
I cannot say with accuracy how much of this book is correct in terms of tribal customs of Hopi, Sioux, etc. I can say that this book seemed, to me, to be very sympathetic and in the spirit of the best of the Dear America books. I would recommend this to any child, and any inaccuracies I would use as a stepping stone to learn more about this subject and to explain how poorly the American Indians were treated.
~ Ana Mardoll
This installation in the Dear America series details the life of a Sioux girl, brought to live at a school for American Indian children to learn American English and the customs of the Caucasian Americans. This book has generated a great deal of controversy and concern, but I feel that (as best I can fathom) Rinaldi has done the best she can with a difficult period of history.
The diary format is employed here, as elsewhere, with dual 'languages' - plain type denotes the narrator's attempts at English, italic type denotes her native language. As in other Dear America diaries, the diary device is meant as a teaching device and the narrator's English improves throughout the story. This dual writing device is useful because it shows the narrator's sympathetic struggles with a new language, without muting her inner thoughts or making her seem 'stupid' for her poor communication.
The school is shown in a very mixed light and, I feel, the terrible plight of the American Indians is shown here very starkly. The narrator explains how they have fewer animals each year to hunt, because the practices of the Caucasian Americans are causing the extinction of the animals. She tells with sadness about the slaughter and starvation of her people, and the other American Indian tribes. Although the school staff believes they are doing her a favor in turning her from her 'barbaric' past, she bravely insists that her past is not barbaric, that she is a proud descendant of a unique and beautiful culture. She accepts the training taught to her at the school for HER own purposes only - she wants to use what she learns to go back to her people and help them, in whatever way she can. In this way, I feel that the narrator character is one of the strongest and bravest characters in the Dear America series - willing to take on the world to save her people.
There are some frightening parts here that may not be acceptable for small children. The narrator's closest friend goes into a trance and either dies or (as our narrator is convinced) is buried alive by the foolish medical staff. Other children die of various illnesses, and the medical staff at the school is (probably accurately) shown as not very competent. The teachers are, in general, cruel and vicious and refuse to treat the different tribes as different - they treat all the children as one conglomerate whole of "Indians", which chafes the students and causes much private dissension.
I cannot say with accuracy how much of this book is correct in terms of tribal customs of Hopi, Sioux, etc. I can say that this book seemed, to me, to be very sympathetic and in the spirit of the best of the Dear America books. I would recommend this to any child, and any inaccuracies I would use as a stepping stone to learn more about this subject and to explain how poorly the American Indians were treated.
~ Ana Mardoll
May 18, 2025
Oh boy. Where to start.
I was only 4% into this when I started getting bad vibes. Something about giving a girl a diary and then requiring that you, as her teacher, need to read it to see her progress with grammar and the English language as a whole did not sit right with me.
Around the 17% mark, Nannie talks about how her brother is shaming everyone at the boarding house because he somehow got a hold of some moccasins and a knife and was doing a chant/dance outside for everyone to see. It reminded her of home, but yet that was something shameful? And that's when I knew this book was not ever going to get any better. But these stories are short, so I powered through with the faintest bit of hope that there would be some decent educational takeaway from this story.
Nannie spends all of her time trying to please the adults around her, and it appears that she has no grasp on what this terrible school is actually doing. It made me sad to read, and not in the way I like to be sad when I'm reading books.
I was not aware of the controversy around this one until I finished the book and went to look at other reviews to see if people felt the same way about it as I did.
This is a gross misrepresentation of this period of history. This story made it seem like it was an honor for children to be chosen to attend the school, and the parents sent them happily. That is not how it happened. Many of these kids were kidnapped and held at this school against their will. They were abused and punished for trying to hold on to their culture. Their homes were invaded, and they were tricked into giving their land away, and then they were forced to acclimate to live the way the "White Man" said they should live.
Of the Dear America books I've read, they have not shied away from dark pieces of history. They have been graphic (by middle grade standards) and have stayed relatively true to the story they are trying to tell. But this is something else entirely. I've said this in other reviews, that there's a certain sense of disbelief you need to have when reading these books. But this is beyond that in the fact that it's really just rewriting history and providing a false narrative and I'm really not down with that at all.
I don't think kids should read this. I don't think adults should either. I'm glad I've read other Dear Americas to know that the series is good and educational and can start good conversations, because if this was the first one I ever read, I would have never looked at another book in this series again.
I was only 4% into this when I started getting bad vibes. Something about giving a girl a diary and then requiring that you, as her teacher, need to read it to see her progress with grammar and the English language as a whole did not sit right with me.
Around the 17% mark, Nannie talks about how her brother is shaming everyone at the boarding house because he somehow got a hold of some moccasins and a knife and was doing a chant/dance outside for everyone to see. It reminded her of home, but yet that was something shameful? And that's when I knew this book was not ever going to get any better. But these stories are short, so I powered through with the faintest bit of hope that there would be some decent educational takeaway from this story.
Nannie spends all of her time trying to please the adults around her, and it appears that she has no grasp on what this terrible school is actually doing. It made me sad to read, and not in the way I like to be sad when I'm reading books.
I was not aware of the controversy around this one until I finished the book and went to look at other reviews to see if people felt the same way about it as I did.
This is a gross misrepresentation of this period of history. This story made it seem like it was an honor for children to be chosen to attend the school, and the parents sent them happily. That is not how it happened. Many of these kids were kidnapped and held at this school against their will. They were abused and punished for trying to hold on to their culture. Their homes were invaded, and they were tricked into giving their land away, and then they were forced to acclimate to live the way the "White Man" said they should live.
Of the Dear America books I've read, they have not shied away from dark pieces of history. They have been graphic (by middle grade standards) and have stayed relatively true to the story they are trying to tell. But this is something else entirely. I've said this in other reviews, that there's a certain sense of disbelief you need to have when reading these books. But this is beyond that in the fact that it's really just rewriting history and providing a false narrative and I'm really not down with that at all.
I don't think kids should read this. I don't think adults should either. I'm glad I've read other Dear Americas to know that the series is good and educational and can start good conversations, because if this was the first one I ever read, I would have never looked at another book in this series again.
November 9, 2011
My Heart is on the Ground tells the story of a young Sioux girl, Nannie Little Rose, who is uprooted from her home, taken away from her family, and placed into the Carlisle Indian school where she is stripped from her culture and her identity. Nannie Little Rose tells about children of her age and culture who were being "americanized" and placed into schools where children were no longer allowed to speak their native language, wear their native dress, and were forced to change their names. These children lost their identities. When they were finally palced back into their homes, it was if they didn't know how to be a part of their once functional family. I enjoyed this book because it was told from the perspective of a young girl, Nannie Little Rose. It was sad to hear such a young person tell accounts of this history. I would suggest children between 4th and 6th grade read this book. I think that younger girls would enjoy this story more than boys because it was told from a young girl's perspective. This book would serve as a purposeful history lesson.
February 25, 2011
Controversial entry in the "Dear America" series. Nannie Little Rose, a student at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania, School for Indians loses her best friend Pretty Eagle in a shocking manner. It was a good idea to present the story of Indian boarding schools in a format accessible to elementary students, but Rinalid glosses over many of the difficulties the young Indian students faced when forced to leave their homes and families to attend boarding school. Historical material in the back makes it somewhat useful for classroom use, but the Diary format may fool young readers into thinking it is not a work of fiction. The Lexile measure is 700.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 31, 2017
I've read many reviews (1-star) for this book where the readers felt it is not an honest portrayal of the Carlisle Indian School, because the image created by this book is too positive. I don't agree. I felt the heartbreak of these children's lives being stolen from them, and it definitely made me more curious about this aspect of America's history. Considering that the protagonist is a young girl trying to find her way forward because there simply isn't a way back, and that it is written for middle-grade readers, I felt it was well-done.
August 20, 2019
Just as good as the First Time I read this!
November 10, 2017
I realize that there are number of unhappy reviews on this book but this novel did exactly what I hoped in opening the door for a great discussion with the young people that I work with. I appreciate the work that Ann Rinaldi did to research before writing this epistolary offering. I always begin her books by reading the end, the historical/author notes and that opens up the book for me.
April 22, 2010
The fantasy tag is not an accident. There are so many things wrong with this book and elsewhere on the Internet you can find a much more in-depth analysis of what they are.
November 10, 2020
I would rate this below 1 star if I could. In fact, I wish there was a 0 star option for the worst fucking book I’ve ever read. In fact, this book is better off shit on and used as toilet paper then read.
Lets start shall we? By the way, I’m not using the “American Names” for the characters. Nannie isn’t Little Rose’s name.
This book is about Little Rose, a Sioux girl who went to Carlisle Indian School in 1880 and learned “how to be a civilized American girl”. If you can’t tell already this book is Racist dogshit, and so historically inaccurate that ACTUAL SIOUX PEOPLE CALLED IT OUT. Little Rose, in the book, talks about how white people know everything and compared Jesus to demons in her tribe, and to add insult to injury, was a pilgrim in the First Thanksgiving play at the end of the book.
This book constantly shits on her tribe and there is a Subplot where her brother, Whiteshield, hates it at Carlisle and runs away, only to find out that home sucks and he should stay at the White Man School! Little Rose constantly shits on her brother for liking home and wanting to be a Sioux warrior, and thinks he’s dumb for running away because Carlisle is so great!
Another subplot is a fucking ghost story. Her friend, Pretty Eagle, came to Carlisle and had fainting spells, only to find out that she’s... going into trances to find her spirit animal? Then Little Rose gets a spirit animal that’s a MOUSE. Then Little Rose goes on a field trip, only to find out that she was BURIED ALIVE while in a trance! What the fuck? Ann, why?
The next load of shit in this book is how much they gloss over the horrors of this school. I see reviews saying “but it’s for kids! They don’t need to know!” Kids can know about slavery, the holocaust, the titanic, etc, but they can’t know about this? Bullshit!
In this book there are references to the horrors but they aren’t shown to be a big deal. Like:
-Pretty Eagle is scared to get a haircut but then is okay after, saying she likes it.
-Little Rose and her friends cannot speak their home languages and would be punished if they spoke them. Never shows sadness over not being able to speak her own language!!!!
-Little Rose is shamed for having bad grammar (the reason she got the diary) but sees it as no big deal.
-Little Rose is only scared to go to school but then loves it.
-People literally die but it’s downplayed.
-Captain Pratt, a sexual abuser and psychopath who abused kids in real life is shown as a kind mentor and role model to Little Rose and even tells her how proud he is of her for fitting in!
Now, here is some more random bullshit I’ve detected. Enjoy!
-Mentions of polygamy in the Sioux tribe. There is none. At the very least it’s rare.
-Little Roses grandad died and she was like “I’ll miss him but he’s in a better place” then moves on. That’s not how grieving works!
-Little Rose describes her diary as “talking leaves” and calls it a “Die-eerie”
-Little Rose SELF HARMS after she finds out that Pretty Eagle died with knives, cutting her hair off and cutting her arms and almost mutilating her face which hint at depression or suicidal tendencies, but it’s never mentioned again.
-Little Rose has a kind teacher but all the teacher does is lecture her on grammar.
-Little Rose calls everyone by their name except for the cook, who is called Woman-Who-Screams-A-Lot. Ann, make a character name!
If you don’t take this from me, take it from the thousands of indigenous people who are disgusted by this book.
Lets start shall we? By the way, I’m not using the “American Names” for the characters. Nannie isn’t Little Rose’s name.
This book is about Little Rose, a Sioux girl who went to Carlisle Indian School in 1880 and learned “how to be a civilized American girl”. If you can’t tell already this book is Racist dogshit, and so historically inaccurate that ACTUAL SIOUX PEOPLE CALLED IT OUT. Little Rose, in the book, talks about how white people know everything and compared Jesus to demons in her tribe, and to add insult to injury, was a pilgrim in the First Thanksgiving play at the end of the book.
This book constantly shits on her tribe and there is a Subplot where her brother, Whiteshield, hates it at Carlisle and runs away, only to find out that home sucks and he should stay at the White Man School! Little Rose constantly shits on her brother for liking home and wanting to be a Sioux warrior, and thinks he’s dumb for running away because Carlisle is so great!
Another subplot is a fucking ghost story. Her friend, Pretty Eagle, came to Carlisle and had fainting spells, only to find out that she’s... going into trances to find her spirit animal? Then Little Rose gets a spirit animal that’s a MOUSE. Then Little Rose goes on a field trip, only to find out that she was BURIED ALIVE while in a trance! What the fuck? Ann, why?
The next load of shit in this book is how much they gloss over the horrors of this school. I see reviews saying “but it’s for kids! They don’t need to know!” Kids can know about slavery, the holocaust, the titanic, etc, but they can’t know about this? Bullshit!
In this book there are references to the horrors but they aren’t shown to be a big deal. Like:
-Pretty Eagle is scared to get a haircut but then is okay after, saying she likes it.
-Little Rose and her friends cannot speak their home languages and would be punished if they spoke them. Never shows sadness over not being able to speak her own language!!!!
-Little Rose is shamed for having bad grammar (the reason she got the diary) but sees it as no big deal.
-Little Rose is only scared to go to school but then loves it.
-People literally die but it’s downplayed.
-Captain Pratt, a sexual abuser and psychopath who abused kids in real life is shown as a kind mentor and role model to Little Rose and even tells her how proud he is of her for fitting in!
Now, here is some more random bullshit I’ve detected. Enjoy!
-Mentions of polygamy in the Sioux tribe. There is none. At the very least it’s rare.
-Little Roses grandad died and she was like “I’ll miss him but he’s in a better place” then moves on. That’s not how grieving works!
-Little Rose describes her diary as “talking leaves” and calls it a “Die-eerie”
-Little Rose SELF HARMS after she finds out that Pretty Eagle died with knives, cutting her hair off and cutting her arms and almost mutilating her face which hint at depression or suicidal tendencies, but it’s never mentioned again.
-Little Rose has a kind teacher but all the teacher does is lecture her on grammar.
-Little Rose calls everyone by their name except for the cook, who is called Woman-Who-Screams-A-Lot. Ann, make a character name!
If you don’t take this from me, take it from the thousands of indigenous people who are disgusted by this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 12, 2014
My Heart is on the Ground tells the story of a Sioux girl named Nannie Little Rose (she took up the English name Nannie) who was sent to learn in the school of the white people in Pennsylvania. She meets many challenges there, and makes enemies, along with some friends. In the end, things work out, but not until she's experienced grief, sorrow, and anger.
This book was very good with character development. Nannie Little Rose is stubborn, and boastful. But she is also caring and loyal. This book really does make you feel strong emotions, as it should. You feel sorry for the frightened Indian children when they travel to Pennsylvania.
While reading this book, I felt very angry at our ancestors. I know it is history, but just the fact that we forced the native Americans to live on reservations in their own land seems just cruel to me. I do understand that it's history, and that's how the world I'd, but believing that makes me wish the world was different.
As the story progresses, Nannie Little Rose's grammar gets better and better. Fir example at the beginning not the book, she speaks like,
" I like much cookies," instead of "I like cookies very much." It is actually very realistic with the way her writing develops, and I think the author really tried to make you believe that the book. Was an Indian girl's diary.
This book was very well written. It has realistic and believe able events happening, and brings the characters practically to life. The author clearly did their research on the customs of the Sioux Native Americans, along with other Native American customs as well. The only flaw I can see is that sometimes, the teachers (especially the lady who teaches cooking) seem a bit too nice at times. People were cruel to the natives, and we're not as nice as some of the characters in this book.
Overall a wonderful book. I recommend reading it to anyone interested in Native Americans, or to anyone who enjoys the Dear America series.
This book was very good with character development. Nannie Little Rose is stubborn, and boastful. But she is also caring and loyal. This book really does make you feel strong emotions, as it should. You feel sorry for the frightened Indian children when they travel to Pennsylvania.
While reading this book, I felt very angry at our ancestors. I know it is history, but just the fact that we forced the native Americans to live on reservations in their own land seems just cruel to me. I do understand that it's history, and that's how the world I'd, but believing that makes me wish the world was different.
As the story progresses, Nannie Little Rose's grammar gets better and better. Fir example at the beginning not the book, she speaks like,
" I like much cookies," instead of "I like cookies very much." It is actually very realistic with the way her writing develops, and I think the author really tried to make you believe that the book. Was an Indian girl's diary.
This book was very well written. It has realistic and believe able events happening, and brings the characters practically to life. The author clearly did their research on the customs of the Sioux Native Americans, along with other Native American customs as well. The only flaw I can see is that sometimes, the teachers (especially the lady who teaches cooking) seem a bit too nice at times. People were cruel to the natives, and we're not as nice as some of the characters in this book.
Overall a wonderful book. I recommend reading it to anyone interested in Native Americans, or to anyone who enjoys the Dear America series.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 27, 2019
My Heart is on the Ground is probably the most controversial Dear America book, and perhaps reportedly the most historically inaccurate. It’s the story of a young Lakota girl at the Carlisle Indian School and her experience there, and unfortunately it’s really not the best representation. That’s really a bit of an understatement, but since I don’t know much about the Carlisle Indian School (or any of those schools), I can only surmise from what I’ve heard people say about the book, as well as from the book itself.
I’m of the opinion that any book is useful for learning and teaching, which is why I didn’t give this book a lower rating. If anything, this book is a good stepping stone for a discussion on Indian schools and the treatment of the children there. It’s also a good lesson for how simplifying material to fit the audience can distort at best, and mislead at worst, other cultures and beliefs.
The story is…not great. Even I can tell the tone is tone-deaf, at best, and I only know little bits of Indian history from books such as I Buried My Heart at Wounded Knee. Just like in The Girl Who Chased Away Sorrow, the tone is completely wrong. Nannie Little Rose is way too happy about the school, even in the midst of describing how the Carlisle Indian School is visibly eliminating most everything to do with her culture.
Plus, the author’s note is so lethargic, and so vague, that it makes Rinaldi seem as if she’s deliberately downplaying the history that she must have researched, or not willing to go into more depth and nuance in a children’s book. It is possible that the audience and nature of these books pressured her, or perhaps Scholastic did. I won’t really speculate as I can’t know for sure. But it seems odd that some of these books seem so well researched, and others not at all (or the research ignored).
I think many works of historical fiction have benefit, but it’s hard to talk about any benefit to My Heart is on the Ground beyond “how to enrage people with inaccurate history.” I’m really not sure what Scholastic, or Rinaldi, was thinking. Letting children know about that time period: good. Doing it in the way they did, when any amount of historical research will reveal the opposite of what this book is saying: bad.
I’m of the opinion that any book is useful for learning and teaching, which is why I didn’t give this book a lower rating. If anything, this book is a good stepping stone for a discussion on Indian schools and the treatment of the children there. It’s also a good lesson for how simplifying material to fit the audience can distort at best, and mislead at worst, other cultures and beliefs.
The story is…not great. Even I can tell the tone is tone-deaf, at best, and I only know little bits of Indian history from books such as I Buried My Heart at Wounded Knee. Just like in The Girl Who Chased Away Sorrow, the tone is completely wrong. Nannie Little Rose is way too happy about the school, even in the midst of describing how the Carlisle Indian School is visibly eliminating most everything to do with her culture.
Plus, the author’s note is so lethargic, and so vague, that it makes Rinaldi seem as if she’s deliberately downplaying the history that she must have researched, or not willing to go into more depth and nuance in a children’s book. It is possible that the audience and nature of these books pressured her, or perhaps Scholastic did. I won’t really speculate as I can’t know for sure. But it seems odd that some of these books seem so well researched, and others not at all (or the research ignored).
I think many works of historical fiction have benefit, but it’s hard to talk about any benefit to My Heart is on the Ground beyond “how to enrage people with inaccurate history.” I’m really not sure what Scholastic, or Rinaldi, was thinking. Letting children know about that time period: good. Doing it in the way they did, when any amount of historical research will reveal the opposite of what this book is saying: bad.
September 25, 2016
If you want to know what we think of this book, read this.
For more background, also read this review of Michael Cooper's Indian School: Teaching the White Man's Way .
Beverly Slapin mentions in this article that one of the photos in the book, the one of a very young child in uniform, is actually not a Carlisle student, and that how he came to be there is a story of great pain. He is Richard Kesetta, son of Kesetta Roosevelt, a Lipan Apache woman who was captured by white soldiers in a raid on her village, and along with her brother Jack spent her entire life at the school (as a "prisoner of war"). She conceived Richard when she was raped on an "outing" (euphemism for being hired out as a servant - the school took her wages) She died of TB while he was still a baby. Jacqueline Fear-Segall tells her story in Carlisle Indian Industrial School: Indigenous Histories, Memories, and Reclamations and in White Man's Club: Schools, Race, and the Struggle of Indian Acculturation.
For more background, also read this review of Michael Cooper's Indian School: Teaching the White Man's Way .
Beverly Slapin mentions in this article that one of the photos in the book, the one of a very young child in uniform, is actually not a Carlisle student, and that how he came to be there is a story of great pain. He is Richard Kesetta, son of Kesetta Roosevelt, a Lipan Apache woman who was captured by white soldiers in a raid on her village, and along with her brother Jack spent her entire life at the school (as a "prisoner of war"). She conceived Richard when she was raped on an "outing" (euphemism for being hired out as a servant - the school took her wages) She died of TB while he was still a baby. Jacqueline Fear-Segall tells her story in Carlisle Indian Industrial School: Indigenous Histories, Memories, and Reclamations and in White Man's Club: Schools, Race, and the Struggle of Indian Acculturation.
October 18, 2019
Initially I had rated this book with three stars not being a terribly discerning rater. I tend to give authors the benefit of the doubt if it held my interest and was mildly entertaining. I was not particular enamored with the story line as the character’s motivational changes at the end were abrupt and not natural. The protagonist’s language seemed awfully contrived. I also did not like the way her friend died and that they were not more clever to devise a plan for her friend in her absence, like abstaining from trances if Nannie was not around. However once I began reading reviews on Goodreads, I had to drop the rating realizing that the impression of this school in a series intending to provide accurate information about history was completely inaccurate. I became more and more unsettled by the poor portrayal and began to research more reviews on the internet. I found a very lengthy, well researched document dissecting every deplorable error this book included. In addition the author was suggested to have copied and misinterpreted passages from real survivors of the Carlisle experience. The original Nannie Little Rose was adapted from a gravestone of a child named Nannie Little Robe who died in her 20s after being in the school for 12 years. After this I changed my rating to one star. Here is the document which is a five star article:
https://americanindiansinchildrenslit... (less)
https://americanindiansinchildrenslit... (less)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 17, 2021
When the Native American children were sent to residential schools, they were mistreated and abused. The students were forced to never speak their own language and only speak English (or else they would be hit or whipped), forced to let go of their religion, no longer allowed to wear their Native clothing or have their own cultural name.
The problem with this book is that it downplays the severity of the situation. It makes it seem like some kids going off to an ordinary boarding school. I found this book at the library when I was a kid. I didn't realize that the students were mistreated and that they had their culture taken away from them, because this book "My Heart is on the Ground" made it seem like it was just a regular boarding school experience. That's how I felt for years, because I was just a kid, so it didn't occur to me that I had read something inaccurate. Once I got older, I learned what truly happened at those schools.
I am concerned that other kids may find this book and also think that these schools are not so bad.
I do not know why this book was so inaccurate. I suppose it is possible that either the author or publisher thought that it would be too sad or serious for young readers to handle. However, there are ways to write about sensitive material for kids, without whitewashing. Unfortunately, this book made the atrocities seem less serious.
The problem with this book is that it downplays the severity of the situation. It makes it seem like some kids going off to an ordinary boarding school. I found this book at the library when I was a kid. I didn't realize that the students were mistreated and that they had their culture taken away from them, because this book "My Heart is on the Ground" made it seem like it was just a regular boarding school experience. That's how I felt for years, because I was just a kid, so it didn't occur to me that I had read something inaccurate. Once I got older, I learned what truly happened at those schools.
I am concerned that other kids may find this book and also think that these schools are not so bad.
I do not know why this book was so inaccurate. I suppose it is possible that either the author or publisher thought that it would be too sad or serious for young readers to handle. However, there are ways to write about sensitive material for kids, without whitewashing. Unfortunately, this book made the atrocities seem less serious.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews