Another response to The Indian-Oz Connection from Eric P. Gjovaag, author of an excellent FAQ on Oz:

Eric,

>> I also notice that you haven't said anything about my condemnation of what Baum wrote in those editorials. <<

I thought I quoted your entire paragraph on the subject. Namely:

Did you condemn Baum's editorials anywhere else? If so, I must've missed it.

>> Nevertheless, the entire FAQ was recently updated, including the one you alude to, at Was Baum a Racist? I hope this new version will better meet with your approval. <<

I hope so too. I'll check it out.

>> But I doubt it. <<

Considering I said your FAQ was "excellent" overall, I'm not sure why you'd doubt it.

Your new writeup is fairly good. I'd say it's relatively balanced, though you're still putting a positive spin on Baum. Some comments:

>> In Baum's fiction, some passages clearly reproduce racial stereotypes of his day. His "official" Oz books are fortunately free of these, with the notable exceptions of short passages in The Patchwork Girl of Oz and Rinkitink in Oz (see the second paragraph of question 2.19 for details). <<

The Oz books seem to be free of racial stereotypes because they're free of races. Are there any examples of his writing about races (real races, not pseudo-races like the Munchkins or Quadlings) that are free of stereotypes? Again, every example you've given of his writing about a real race is negative.

>> At the same time we acknowledge those patterns, we should note that Baum's Oz books generally champion the value of folks learning to live together. Sometimes this message comes in the same passages that contain offensive stereotypes. The Tottenhots episode in Patchwork Girl of Oz ends with them and Dorothy agreeing, "you let us alone and we'll let you alone." <<

One could construe this as a policy of racial harmony through racial separation. What if a Tottenhot wanted to move next door to Dorothy or marry her best friend? Would Dorothy agree that the Tottenhot was still letting her people alone?

That leads to a point that I made with someone else. Namely, that the people of Oz don't live together in harmony, except in rare circumstances. They live in separate kingdoms and make a point of distinguishing themselves: by geography, heritage, even color. While they don't fight (although it's implied that the Emerald City imposed its will on the other kingdoms), they don't intermingle or intermarry either. The land is basically segregated, not integrated.

You can spin this positively if you want: The Ozians didn't kill or hate or oppress each other, so everything was hunky-dory. And I can spin it negatively: The Ozians were rigidly isolated except for the few people who traveled or mingled in the Emerald City. They weren't much different from early 20th-century Americans, most of whom didn't join the KKK or other hate groups. They lived their separate lives, ignorant of others and feeling superior to anyone who was different.

Regardless of how we spin it, the fact remains: a system of peaceful but segregated kingdoms is not the civilized world's ideal for the 21st century. "Separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional and un-American in 1954. It's not a wonderful message for today's multicultural children; it's a mixed message at best.

Ghost Dances promised death?
>> Friction between the Sioux, forced to live on a small portion of the land they'd once controlled, and white settlers was inevitable. The "Ghost Dance" movement promised that all whites on the continent would soon be buried under a thick layer of new topsoil. <<

The Ghost Dances were peaceful, in general. They were basically all talk (i.e., constitutionally protected free speech). Even the extreme Lakota version, which was only one variation, prophesied only the removal of non-Indians. It didn't say how this would happen or whether it would be violent.

So the Ghost Dance "threat" basically wasn't one. Unless white settlers were a lot better informed than today's white folks are about Indians, I doubt they took it seriously. I doubt they even knew of it. We're talking about people who were illiterate or who lived on isolated farms and ranches, remember.

For those who had heard of the Ghost Dance, where did they get their "information" from? From rabble-rousing newspapers such as Baum's, presumably. So white people scared other white people by raising irrational fears of an Indian uprising. Then they used their self-generated propaganda to justify genocidal acts against the Indians.

In short, you're equating the barely-perceivable Ghost Dance threat with the real threat the Sioux faced of eradication. The two are not morally equivalent by any stretch of the imagination. The Sioux had far more reason to feel threatened and to react to those threats, as they did at Little Bighorn. Unlike the white settlers' fears, their fears were justified.

>> His 1891 editorials picked fights with the town's ministers, fire department, school administrators, and eventually high school students. By April, Baum sold the newspaper and moved to Chicago. He never again wrote about Native American policy. <<

Because he was never again an editorial writer, presumably. So did he soften his views? Sounds like he never had another opportunity to write about Native American policy, which doesn't mean his views changed. Lack of opportunity doesn't equal lack of racist feelings.

>> Baum's editorials on Sitting Bull and Wounded Knee therefore seem less like deep-seated convictions and more like the remarks of a man under stress expressing anger and fear in a way that his society allowed. <<

Or both.

>> Baum was a product of the nineteenth century, born five years before the Civil War began. During his life, and long after, the United States was a segregated society in which European-Americans held power and set policy. People of all other ethnic backgrounds were denied equal services, opportunities, and respect. Within that society, many of Baum's beliefs were progressive, but since then our values have become much more inclusive. For example, Baum and his relatives spent decades advocating women's suffrage, and today no politician would conceive of saying that only one sex should be allowed to vote. We therefore can't judge Baum solely by twenty-first century standards. <<

We can't judge him solely by today's standards, but we can judge him. So he was a typical American by 19th-century standards—in other words, a racist. And he's definitely a racist by 21st-century standards.

There you go. I've judged him by today's standards and by the standards of his time. So what's the problem? You and I basically agree. I wonder why other people have disagreed with us?

>> Baum expressed racism, but simply labeling him as racist neglects how he differed from his contemporaries. <<

Luckily, I haven't "simply" labeled him a racist. I've looked at the arguments in depth and concluded he was about as racist as his contemporaries. He probably wasn't much worse, but he probably wasn't much better, either. Many of his contemporaries expressed charitable "Christian" views toward minorities while denying them rights or opportunities.

Baum and his contemporaries weren't as bad as Hitler, arguably, since they didn't order the extermination themselves. But they were as bad as the Nazi soldiers and German citizens who knew the Holocaust was happening but didn't act. Baum's editorials may have been an aberration, technically speaking, but he didn't say one word against the ongoing genocide of Indians. That makes him as guilty as most Americans of his time.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher
PEACE PARTY

Gjovaag responds (11/11/02)
I hope you don't mind, but I'm sending this response to J. L. Bell, as he was my co-author on the question about Baum being a racist. This was a tough question to answer — probably the toughest, in fact — and I want him to see how we're handling this, as we're really both just a couple of liberal white guys coping with our own history.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert V. Schmidt wrote:

>> I thought I quoted your entire paragraph on the subject. ... Did you condemn Baum's editorials anywhere else? If so, I must've missed it. <<

Okay, I goofed here. I'd been working on the new version of the FAQ for so long, I forgot what was in the previous version. So you couldn't quote my condemnation because it wasn't there. My apologies.

>> Nevertheless, the entire FAQ was recently updated, including the one you allude to, at http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/faq06.html#5. I hope this new version will better meet with your approval. But I doubt it.

Considering I said your FAQ was "excellent" overall, I'm not sure why you'd doubt it. <<

Because at the time I read your editorial, I thought you were making me out to look bad. I see that I was off base there, and I apologize for the snap judgement.

>> Your new writeup is fairly good. I'd say it's relatively balanced, though you're still putting a positive spin on Baum. <<

I wouldn't go so far as to say "positive," as I tried to be balanced and show both sides, but yeah, if it's positive, it's because it's a website devoted to L. Frank Baum. Your site is devoted to a different agenda, and so has a different spin on the issue.

>> Again, every example you've given of his writing about a real race is negative. <<

Well, yes, but also look at what other children's authors wrote at the time. Look at how Hugh Lofting treated Africans in the "Doctor Doolittle" books, or J. M. Barrie depicted "Indians" in "Peter Pan." Baum was much milder in his treatment of different ethnic groups than others. Is it an excuse? Nope. But at least he kept them few and far between.

There are an awful lot of Oz fans who think that the few stereotypes shouldn't be tampered with, and that Books of Wonder committed an extremely horrible crime by altering the Tottenhot chapter of "Patchwork Girl." But there are also many of us who understand the need to alter the text to appeal to today's audience, and appreciate the job Books of Wonder did.

One more word on races in Oz: There are actually very few descriptors of what people looked like, at least in Baum's Oz books. Nobody's sure exactly why this is, but I suspect it's because Baum himself was not a fan of long descriptive passages. But this has the added benefit of allowing a child to see a character however he or she wants to. I deliberately did not show the pictures in "The Marvelous Land of Oz" to a class I was reading it to, as they were primarily African-American, and I hoped that they would see Tip without being prejudiced by Neill's art. This lack of descriptors has also helped in the depictions of Dorothy in other countries — I have a terrific cover for a Japanese edition of "The Wizard of Oz" showing a clearly Asian Dorothy — and I also think it helped "The Wiz" to become accepted by non-African-American audiences. So, no, there are no Earth races in Oz, but that's partly because Oz is not on Earth, and partly because the Ozites could be of ANY race. Oh, yeah, and let's not forget, many of the major Oz characters are not even human! Can we really say that the Scarecrow is white? And Jack Pumpkinhead is certainly orange...

>> What if a Tottenhot wanted to move next door to Dorothy or marry her best friend? Would Dorothy agree that the Tottenhot was still letting her people alone? <<

This gave me the rather absurd picture of a Tottenhot marrying Toto!

But seriously, that's a good point. I will point out, however, that the America that Baum lived in was also separated, and Baum wrote what he knew about. Could Baum have written about a Tottenhot moving to the Emerald City and setting up a candy store or something? Sure. But he didn't, because I don't think that was the kind of story he was trying to write. Baum was not a social reformer, he was just a story teller. He probably didn't write about an integrated Oz only because he didn't imagine it.

>> The land is basically segregated, not integrated. <<

As was America during Baum's lifetime. As was also pointed out in the FAQ, there were also some exceptions, although admittedly few and far between.

>> The Ozians ... weren't much different from early 20th-century Americans, most of whom didn't join the KKK or other hate groups. They lived their separate lives, ignorant of others and feeling superior to anyone who was different. <<

Hey, let's not resort to stereotypes here: I doubt every American living in isolation felt superior to others. But point taken. But I still say that this does not make Baum an evil person, merely a product of his own culture and upbringing.

Baum wasn't writing for today
>> "Separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional and un-American in 1954. It's not a wonderful message for today's multicultural children; it's a mixed message at best. <<

But Baum was not writing for TODAY, he was writing for his own time. Baum died in 1919, thirty-five years before Brown vs. Board of Education. Oz may have been a Utopia in 1900, but as you've pointed out, it might not be today.

Let me add, however, that the Oz books are not about isolated tribes and villages. They are about adventurous people going out and traveling among and between those people. Sometimes they learn from each other, and sometimes it doesn't work, but the main characters are not the Tottenhots and other strange people. The main characters are Dorothy and Tip and the other characters who go out and do things. That, if you ask me, is a much better message for today's children.

>> Unless these white settlers were a lot better informed than today's white folks are about Indians, I doubt they took the Ghost Dance "threat" seriously. I doubt they even knew of it. <<

I'm certainly no expert, but yeah, the white settlers did feel threatened. There were calls in Aberdeen (although not by Baum in the "Pioneer," if I remember correctly) to arm all of the citizens to protect themselves from the "savages."

>> The Sioux had far more reason to feel threatened and to react to those threats, as they did at Little Bighorn. Unlike the white settlers' fears, their fears were justified.

Of course they were. But I was writing from Baum's point of view, not the Lakotas'. I was trying to get into Baum's head and figure out why he wrote what he wrote, not to justify his point of view.

>> Sounds like he never had another opportunity to write about Native American policy, which doesn't mean his views changed. Lack of opportunity doesn't equal lack of racist feelings. <<

Um, the man wrote several dozen books over the course of his literary career! Trust me, if he felt the need to give his views on white/Native American relations again, he would have. I'm not saying his views changed, but he just never said anything about it in his published works — including in the Oz books.

>> Baum's editorials on Sitting Bull and Wounded Knee therefore seem less like deep-seated convictions and more like the remarks of a man under stress expressing anger and fear in a way that his society allowed.

Or both. <<

And yet I tried to point out that his editorials were not typical of his other writings, both in Aberdeen and later.

>> We can't judge him solely by today's standards, but we can judge him. So he was a typical American by 19th-century standards—in other words, a racist. And he's definitely a racist by 21st-century standards. <<

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. But I also want to add that I do not believe his racism — and it is mild when taken over the entire course of his life — was not an inherent character trait of Baum. Had he been born in 1956 instead of 1856, he would most likely have felt much differently.

The big difference here is that I am condemning the few instances of racism Baum expressed, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as some of his critics seem to want — or, for that matter, turning a blind eye to the bathwater, as some others seem to do. (I cringe every time I read somewhere that Baum was just kidding when he wrote those editorials.)

>> There you go. I've judged him by today's standards and by the standards of his time. So what's the problem? You and I basically agree. I wonder why other people have disagreed with us? <<

Oh, trust me, it seems there are a lot of Oz fans out there who don't want to agree with ANYTHING I say. Then there are Baum's critics who want to condemn the entire Oz series for the "Pioneer" editorials, even though they really had little to do with each other.

>> I've looked at the arguments in depth and concluded he was about as racist as his contemporaries. He probably wasn't much worse, but he probably wasn't much better, either. Many of his contemporaries expressed charitable Christian" views toward minorities while denying them rights or opportunities. <<

Which was actually part of the point I was trying to make.

>> Baum's editorials may have been an aberration, technically speaking, but he didn't say one word against the ongoing genocide of Indians. That makes him as guilty as most Americans of his time. <<

Right. He was no different than anyone else in a racist, segregated society. Which is ultimately the point I was trying to make. But that doesn't mean the Oz books are therefore invalid. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, does that suddenly mean the Declaration of Independence is a load of garbage? (Okay, a load of hypocrisy, but still no less valid.) Lyndon Johnson was a racist redneck, but that didn't stop him from championing some of the greatest civil rights and desegregation reforms in American history. We as readers need to judge a work on its own merits, not whether or not the author was someone we are in total agreement with on every issue.

So now, one question: May I use some of your points in the next issue of my FAQ?

—Eric Gjovaag

The debate continues (12/11/07)....
Eric,

I finally found time to continue our old discussion, so....

>> Your site is devoted to a different agenda, and so has a different spin on the issue. <<

JL Bell questioned my agenda, noting I have "multiple" pages devoted to Baum (actually, one page and six responses) and none devoted to Col. James Forsyth, "the commander who oversaw the action at Wounded Knee." Right, because BlueCornComics.com isn't a straight history site. It's more of a sociocultural site—one devoted to the concept of the multicultural perspective.

If you want the facts about Wounded Knee, you can find them in countless books and websites. Analyses of Baum's editorials are much harder to find. Thus, I'm performing a service that few if any pundits have undertaken.

Why Baum? Because like Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and Teddy Roosevelt, he's a leading figure of American culture. His stories have helped shaped millions of impressionable minds. In other words, he's one of the arbiters of our cultural values values.

Therefore, his views on Indians are relevant here. He's a perfect example of how Americans had a myopic, prejudiced view of the "outsiders" in their midst. It's ironic, and thus enlightening, because so many people consider him a paragon of virtue. Americans presume that their leaders and heroes (from presidents and generals to beloved figures like Baum) can do no wrong.

And this Baum-style myopia continues. After 9/11, conservatives said the same things about Arabs that Baum said about Indians. So let's stop talking about how Baum was "only" a man of his times. Americans have always believed they're culturally and morally superior to others.

>> I deliberately did not show the pictures in "The Marvelous Land of Oz" to a class I was reading it to, as they were primarily African-American, and I hoped that they would see Tip without being prejudiced by Neill's art. <<

Neill's art presumably conveyed how Baum intended to depict the races. And how readers of the time interpreted them. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think that position stands.

>> So, no, there are no Earth races in Oz, but that's partly because Oz is not on Earth, and partly because the Ozites could be of ANY race. <<

Who says it's not on Earth? Who says it hasn't been populated by ages of earthly refugees who crossed the desert as Dorothy and the Wizard did? Who says the races aren't predominantly white as they've been portrayed in every version of the books—including the ones Baum approved?

>> But Baum was not writing for TODAY, he was writing for his own time. <<

Twain was writing for his time, but he contradicted the beliefs of his time by making Jim a human being in Huck Finn. Helen Hunt Jackson did even more with her portrayal of mixed-race people in her fiction. So I don't give Baum credit for merely being a representative writer of his time. Such writers were usually racist and that's the point of my critique.

Parents, teachers, and librarians all judge books by whether they meet today's standards, not the standards of the time when they were written. So it's certainly valid to judge the Oz books by such standards. I'm not judging the Oz books, but I am judging Baum's editorials. They were racist then and they're racist now.

>> I'm certainly no expert, but yeah, the white settlers did feel threatened. There were calls in Aberdeen (although not by Baum in the "Pioneer," if I remember correctly) to arm all of the citizens to protect themselves from the "savages." <<

From the Ghost Dance? Or from general uprisings of the "savages"? They aren't the same thing.

JL Bell thought I was unfairly switching perspectives: from what the settlers knew to what they would've known a century later. Wrong. Many people at the time knew the Indians weren't marauding savages bent on the destruction of white civilization. I've referred more than once to Helen Hunt Jackson as a prime example. Many newspapers, politicians, and humanitarians at the time realized Americans were victimizing Indians, not vice versa.

For instance:

So where did the settlers get the idea that the Indians were out to get them? From the pro-settlement, anti-Indian propaganda spouted by government, business, and community leaders. From establishment voices such as Baum's.

The Indians sought a spiritual remedy precisely because people like Baum (not Baum per se, since he wrote only two editorials) were persecuting them. The persecution came first, then the Ghost Dance, not the other way around. Bell is kidding himself if he thinks the settlers were minding their own business until the Indians began "threatening" them with their religious movement.

>> I was trying to get into Baum's head and figure out why he wrote what he wrote, not to justify his point of view. <<

When you don't condemn him for his point of view, as I've done, it's hard to tell the difference. Your first writeup, before you revised it, was arguably part of the problem.

Baum never changed his tune
>> Um, the man wrote several dozen books over the course of his literary career! Trust me, if he felt the need to give his views on white/Native American relations again, he would have. <<

Being a children's book writer didn't necessarily give Baum an opportunity to write adult books or articles about Native American policy. Even today, it's sometimes difficult for a writer to switch genres.

But he wrote about Native people in his fiction several times. The depictions were uniformly bad and arguably racist.

>> And yet I tried to point out that his editorials were not typical of his other writings, both in Aberdeen and later. <<

But they were typical. Everything he wrote about Indians portrayed them as inferior and deserving of extermination.

If you disagree, what's the exception to this claim? I'd love to hear it.

>> Which is ultimately the point I was trying to make. But that doesn't mean the Oz books are therefore invalid. <<

I never said they were. In my original posting, I mainly quoted and discussed Baum's anti-Indian editorials. I began critiquing the Oz books only after you and JL Bell defended them as models of multicultural enlightenment.

>> So now, one question: May I use some of your points in the next issue of my FAQ? <<

Sure!

Rob

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

. . .