Another response to The Indian-Oz Connection:

Rob's reply
>> The article on L. Frank Baum was the biggest load of malarky I've ever read in my entire existence. <<

Keep reading. I have hundreds more postings where that came from. <grin>

Did you join my group just to tell me that, then quit? If you were hoping the system would forward your message to the entire group, it didn't. Only I have "send" privileges. You should've just sent your message to me.

>> It's sources are demented, it shows a remarkable lack of scholarship, and it's frankly biting the hand that feeds. <<

That's funny considering Robert Venables, a lecturer at Cornell University, quoted most of Baum's two editorials from the originals on microfilm. How much more scholarship do you want than Baum's own writings, quoted at length?

As for biting hands, Baum's hand doesn't feed me. My own hand feeds me. I don't know what you're talking about here.

>> Was is a fictional book that has in fact no real research based on the life of a certain Mr. Baum. <<

I never said otherwise. You've invented a straw-man argument in order to knock it down. Let me know when you want to discuss something I actually wrote.

>> If you had read the book you'd have noticed that it portrays Dorothy Gale as a real person (she was not) <<

I've read Was several times, which I'm guessing is more than you have.

>> The fact that you choose to use this to paint L. Frank as a racist who created Munchkins and Winkies out of the Native American people is a stretch to say the least. <<

Actually, I used Baum's editorials to paint him as a racist, not the book Was. Nowhere in the section on Was did I mention racism. You've confused the two halves of my essay, which shows your level of scholarship.

>> The Munchkins, Emerald City, and Winkie lands are inspired by a variety of old world fables along with New York mixed in with healthy exaggeration from Lyman. <<

Did Baum say that, or is that someone's opinion? Even Baum can't be sure of his sources unless he has a photographic memory of his entire life. No author can.

Geoff Ryman's opinion seems to be that Kansas's landscape and history, including its Indians, may have influenced Baum. Maybe they did. There's no way you can disprove that unprovable opinion.

>> He was a city boy first and foremost and his association with Native Americans was positively nothing until that point and we have no reason to believe that they were in any way wretched enough to inspire the hatred you are accusing of him. <<

So what? Prejudiced people often have little or no exposure to the people they're prejudiced against. That's often why they're prejudiced.

Call for genocide was satire?
>> The editorial was not true it was a disgusted attack on the antics of the American Military of which L. Frank Baum was nearly killed by as you might well read if you bothered to. <<

Where did you get this revisionist theory, and what's your evidence for it? Surprise me and prove Baum's alleged motives are more than someone's unsubstantiated speculation.

Talking about reading...read Baum's words again: Wounded Knee was "a disgrace to the war department." No satire there; it's a straight criticism of the military. So where's the alleged satire?

I don't know about you, but I'm a professional writer. I've written satires before (e.g., Us Against "Them"). You don't satirize something by stating your opinion plainly, as Baum did in his comments on the military. You make an exaggerated or unbelievable case against your target to ridicule it.

Read more of Baum's words:

Again he mentions the incompetent military. Again, no satire. So where's the alleged satire? Interpret this editorial as you think Baum intended his readers to interpret it. Explain the "satire" if you can.

Robert Venables dismissed the idea that Baum was writing a parody or satire. Your contrary opinion is hardly better than his. Venables also gave Baum credit for having conflicted feelings on the issue. But the bottom line is Baum's "final solution."

>> If you are interested in this point you may well want to re-read over it and then check the man's life. <<

No need. His editorials were racist and I said as much. Racism against Indians for the purpose of criticiaing the military, an unrelated subject, is still racism.

>> The Land of Oz and all of it's peculiar inhabitants is a monument to the integrated state of the United States of America idealized with Old World fables but purified of the taint of Old world murders <<

Spare me the hero worship. The United States is supposedly a monument to the "integrated state" of the United States. In other words, the US is supposed to be the promised land, the city on the hill, the ideal. That it's never lived up to its self-image is sort of my point.

The land of Oz has four kingdoms that are racially identical and pure, where people seldom mingle with "foreigners" from other kingdoms. It's idealized in the sense that white Anglo-Saxon Ozians and a few magical animals and individuals get along well. There are no significant minorities in the Oz books, so the "ideal" is how white subcultures (read British, German, Scandinavian, Italian, et al.) can live in peace. Ho-hum...not much of a message compared to a groundbreaking work like Huck Finn.

Oz may be free of the taint of murder, since it's a fairy-tale land. But I'm not sure why you attributed murder to the Old World. Americans have killed millions in their wars for "civilization." Not only did they massacre Indians, but they butchered each other in the Civil War, so they know killing.

But Oz reflects the taint of Old World authoritarianism. At the beginning of the series, the land was ruled by five monarchs: the four witches and the dictatorial Wizard. At the end, Ozma and the Tin Woodman have replaced the Wizard and the Wicked Witch of the West, but no one has stood for a democratic election. Oz reflects the conservative American belief that the power elite, not the people, know best.

>> Baum attacked Witches dying thanks to hot shoes and your suggesting that he advocated genocide! <<

You've got to be kidding if you think the death of two witches was a statement for or against genocide. As for what I'm suggesting, read Baum's words yet again: "...the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." Baum convicted and condemned himself by his own words, not by my suggestions.

"There's no place like home"...a message for girls?
>> He attacks traditional gender roles with his female heroes <<

Befuddled girl needs three male figures to survive...literally falls asleep on the job (in the poppies)...is led on a wild goose chase by another man (the Wizard)...kills her adversaries (the witches) accidentally...is carried to safety by more male figures (the Winged Monkeys)...desperately wants to return to the safe comfort of home...etc.

If you want to talk gender roles, compare Dorothy's desire to go home with, say, Ariel's desire to leave home in The Little Mermaid. You'll see Dorothy is hardly a proto-feminist.

>> the assumptions of militant Christianity (Good witches) <<

Oh, so Baum did intend the witches to subvert Christianity? And he stated that explicitly? Christian fundamentalists will be glad to hear it, as that will justify their banning of the books.

>> in Emerald City of Oz he encourages all beings to become pacifists as Ozma says that no one has the RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BEING <<

Whoa, deep message there. So Baum confirmed the message of every religion since the Neanderthals first practiced religion. How impressive...not.

>> in Glinda of Oz he attacks the Very concept of WAR in itself! <<

Even if true, so what? Lots of racists opposed war, built countries, and helped their fellow men. Your error is in thinking good and bad can't coexist in one person like Baum.

>> Baum did make one peculiarly racist scene in the Road of Oz regarding black cannibal tribesman but that was because of their exagerration not any attempt at genetic predispositioning. <<

In my posting The Indian-Oz Connection, I note three instances of prejudice against blacks other than the one in The Road of Oz. Your offering makes four. Sounds like a pattern of prejudice to me.

>> I am ashamed at this magazine that when presented with a fine upstanding moral man who advocates tolerance, progressiveness, and love for one's fellow humans that they would take such a cheapshot at an American Hero whose works are underepresented in the Libraries of America Today because their message is still too powerful for traditionalists. <<

It's an e-mail newsletter, not a magazine, Mr. Scholar.

I'm ashamed you couldn't put up a better argument against my essay. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

I suspect you wouldn't accept any criticism of your fairy-tale idol, whether it was a cheap or expensive shot. But prove you're not a blind hero-worshiper and give me a valid criticism of Baum, one you believe is true.

Like I said, a lot of moral Americans—from George Washington on down—have committed evil in their time. By "evil" I mean the twin original sins of American history: killing Indians and owning blacks. Abraham Lincoln would've kept blacks enslaved to preserve the Union. Etc.

Calling any author, much less an author of juvenile fiction, an "American Hero" is your opinion and barely worth discussing. Twain or Steinbeck, maybe, but Baum? I doubt you'll find him on many lists of American heroes.

Whether the Oz books are underrepresented or not isn't my problem. I suggested people read Was and Was is a paean to Oz, so I implicitly endorsed the Oz books. That's despite the fact that they, like most stories of their time, were a paean to white America.

Just for the record, The Wizard of Oz is one of my all-time favorite books. I have two editions and I've probably read it 10 or 20 times. But being an excellent story with an uplifting message doesn't make the book perfect or Oz a utopia.

>> -Charlemagne <<

What a painfully appropriate signature. Another white man who conquered people in the name of civilization.

Related links
A shining city on a hill:  what Americans believe
Fun 4th of July facts
Defining great American literature

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .