A response to Adolf Hitler:  A True American:

>> Hi Rob, Hitler´s preference for May´s books was one cause they were forbidden in the GDR form the end of the 40´s until the middle of the 80´s. But: Okay, the white superhero Uebermensch was one major stereotype in May´s novels (and not only in the stories that took place in northamerica but also in arabia) but the other main hero was the honest, good indian! if i think back (i haven´t read these books for perhaps 15 years) i only remember cruel or mean white ones but no indians (that doesn´t mean, there weren´t any but the _good indian_ seems to stand much more in the foreground than any other figure). <<

Okay, if you say so. I haven't read May's books myself. But note a few things:

One, Hitler was a student of US history as well as May's books. Combining the lessons of history books, dime novels, and other sources, he may have absorbed the manifest-destiny, "might makes right" American mentality.

Two, the presence of other characters often does nothing to change the overall message. Holmes had Watson, but only Holmes fans know the Watson character's pedigree (or even his first name). Batman had Robin, but we still think of him as the grim Darknight Detective, not a philanthropic big brother. TV cops and detectives—McGarrett, Mannix, Kojak, Ironsides, Cannon, Barnaby Jones—had assistants or sidekicks, but no one remembers their names or roles.

The central character is the one who becomes the cultural icon, not the hangers-on. It doesn't matter how good or noble the others are (no one doubted the virtue of Lois Lane or Alfred the butler). Few sidekicks rise to the level of cultural icon on their own. (Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, are a couple of exceptions.)

Western heroes only prove the point. While everyone knows about the Lone Ranger, Daniel Boone, and Robinson Crusoe, who knows or cares about Tonto, Mingo, or Friday? Does anyone collect their memorabilia, write books about them, or propose movies based on them? No. We remember these characters only because they reflect the main characters' glory. They tell us nothing on their own.

Three, people have a remarkable ability to selectively absorb information from fiction. John Wayne didn't kill Indians in every Western movie, but it seems like it because he always had the mentality of someone who would kill Indians if it suited his purposes. May's character, Old Shatterhand, may have been the same.

Dirty Harry, Rambo, and the Terminator never killed Indians, but I'd put them in the same category as John Wayne. Their attitude was, "I'm gonna kill anyone or anything that gets in my way." That's a common archetype of Western civilization—perhaps the archetype—so "good Indian" characters aren't necessarily enough to counteract it.

I presume the "good Indians" in May's books weren't much different from the "good Indians" in reality. Starting with Pocahontas and Squanto, many, many Indians helped the European invaders, traded with them, lived peaceably beside them, etc. Yet America's dominant attitude was "We're civilized and they're savages."

If the historical reality wasn't enough to modify the American mindset, I wouldn't expect May's books to do it. Sounds like May mainly reinforced this mindset with characters like Old Shatterhand, then subtly counteracted it with "good Indian" characters. Given how deep-set our mindset is, I think we need (and Hitler needed) more than that. A book where the death-dealing hero dies, loses everything, or at least gets thrown in jail would be more like it.

Anyway, thanks for the information!

The debate continues....
>> please try to [read May]. it´s not as easy as with drugs ;) you don´t have to try drugs to know they are bad <<

I'll try, but with the hundreds of things I have to do, it's unlikely I'll get to them anytime soon.

>> it could be very useful to read books you are speeking about... <<

I don't need to read about them if I quote other people's views. These people are the experts on May's books, not me. That's what a reporter or scholar does: compiles, organizes, and synthesizes the expertise of other people.

>> than the same would happen to him if he would be a star trek fan today? <<

Possibly, although the Trek characters generally don't shoot first and ask questions later. I've described Captain Kirk as a Western, cowboy-like hero many times. See Why Write About Superheroes? for the latest instance.

>> the star trek humans are nothing else than your good old american pioneers, if you ask me. <<

Yes. Gene Roddenberry originally conceived Star Trek as a space version of the TV show Wagon Train—a "Wagon Train to the Stars." He had worked on Westerns before and he made this analogy explicitly.

>> there was an german phrase, 100 years ago: "am deutschen wesen soll die welt genesen" -- that´s if the whole world were like germany if would be the best for the world, it would be a better place. <<

I don't doubt that Hitler tapped into older feelings of Germanic or Aryan superiority. He obviously followed in the footsteps of Bismarck, among others.

>> old shatterhand is a similar character like superman. strong, unbreakable, ever on the side of the good ones, helps them in need... <<

There you go. I've added a section to my Hitler writeup, comparing Nietzsche's Superman to the comic-book Superman. Check it out in Giving up PEACE ON EARTH.

>> oops -- now we have a big problem. if i remember right, old shatterhand never killed an indian. <<

I said Old Shatterhand may have been the same. If he only "defeated" Indians rather than killing them, he's still similar to John Wayne. Wayne didn't kill Indians in every movie either. But you can be sure he came out victorious.

Here's what I quoted again. It seems Old Shatterhand defeated Indians, at least:

Old Shatterhand:  An Indian's best friend?
>> he was much more the "friend of the red man". <<

Being blood-buddies with one Indian, Winnetou, doesn't make him a "friend of the red man." What did he do for the Indian people overall? Did he oppose the Army attacks on them? Stand up for them in Congress? Write books and articles championing their cause? What?

>> i needed quite a time to realize that in the western culture there are a lot of novels or movies where the indian is a disgusting, very bad character. <<

Yes, indeed.

>> to close the circle to hitler, the nazis produced a movie named "jud süß" (i never saw it myself, it´s forbidden in germany) with a very high propagandistic effect. some weeks ago i read that one man who saw this film in the 30´s said "when we left the cinema we wanted to kill the jews, because we were so embaressed by thils film". <<

The media often inspires violence, though it's usually not this direct.

>> there is absolut no coinzidence to may´s novels. <<

You just said one movie was enough to rile up viewers against Jews. Couldn't several dozen novels rile up readers against Indians?

Some excerpts on May and Old Shatterhand. The first comes from Salon, 11/27/02; the others come from the Web:

So to restate what I originally summarized, Old Shatterhand is a classic Western hero with a faithful Indian sidekick who helps him defeat and kill evil Indians. May's books featured a good stereotype and a bad stereotype, but little of the complex reality of Indian culture and life, I suspect. It's possible Hitler ignored the message of the "good Indian" Winnetou and concentrated on the more central message of a Siegfried in buckskins, carrying out God's will against the merciless pagan savages.

It doesn't particularly matter if Old Shatterhand killed or even defeated Indians personally—though he apparently did both. If he was a typical Western hero, he upheld law and order to the Indians' detriment. He implicitly made it safe for more white Americans to colonize Indian territories.

Blame Superman for Vietnam?
>> blame him for the cruel things hitler and his helpers did is as absurd like blaming superman for vietman. <<

If and when you read my Why Write About Superheroes? posting, you'll see I've related our cultural heroes to our cultural choices and preferences. I make that even more explicit in my overall summation of the American mindset. There I say America has a John Wayne mentality or mindset.

Our superheroes led the battle against the Nazis in the '40s—as did John Wayne. Wayne was prominent in the '60s as a Vietnam War hero in The Green Berets. Other notable heroes to come out of the Vietnam War were Rambo and the Punisher.

I wouldn't say Superman caused us to fight in 'Nam, but Americans with a Superman-like mentality did. The evidence that we think of ourselves as the world's greatest country, a superhero personified, is almost overwhelming. For instance:

>> Dirty Harry, Rambo, and the Terminator never killed Indians, but I'd put them in the same category as John Wayne. Their attitude was, "I'm gonna kill anyone or anything that gets in my way." This is a common archetype of Western Civilization—perhaps the archetype—so "good Indian" characters aren't necessarily enough to counteract it.

i agree. <<

I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with me. The Old Shatterhand attitude is the John Wayne attitude is the Dirty Harry attitude is the Rambo attitude is the Superman attitude. They're all variations on the same basic attitude.

The only difference is that Superman is generally nicer than the others. He locks people up rather than shooting them dead. But he still practices vigilante justice against those he deems evil while ignoring others who are equally evil.

This attitude defines the American mindset, and it also (in a perverted way) defined Hitler's mindset. The cowboy either killed Indians or stood by while "progress" killed them. Hitler took the cowboy attitude a step further and systematically exterminated his Indians (the Jews). But the underlying attitude—white might makes right—was the same.

>> Yet America's dominant attitude was "We're civilized and they're savages."

it was a bit more with tragic and romantic, end of an era of free life <<

Yes, yes. The noble savage, part of the vanishing breed. From what I've read of May's vision, it's the classic Western archetype.

Here are some more experts who have summed up May's vision:

Old Shatterhand:  the Martin Luther King of his time?
>> and i´ve to add that the main source of the "good" of old shatterhand was his christian religion, he saw the indians with the same rights like the white. <<

Christianity is a primary source for most of the good and bad Europeans and Americans have done through the centuries, so that doesn't tell us much we don't already know.

The "same rights"...when he wasn't killing them, you mean. Did he ever tie up an Indian, transport him to jail, and make sure the Indian got his day in court before a jury of his peers? I don't need to read May's books to guess the answer to that one.

"Civilized people" had and have the law to protect them. That's the whole point of the Western archetype. Cowboys like Old Shatterhand and John Wayne imposed their values, which were only loosely related to America's constitutional protections, on bad guys. It was called frontier justice. The only "rights" most Indians had was to suffer or die if some cowboy implemented his form of "justice." If they ever got real justice in a Western movie or novel, starting with due process of the law, I don't recall it.

>> perhaps you should try this link: http://karlmay.uni-bielefeld.de/kmg/sprachen/englisch/index.htm <<

The link no longer works, but here's what used to be there:

"True Americans" stood for slavery in 1776 (when they wrote it into the Constitution) and in 1861-1865 (when half of them fought wholeheartedly for it). "True Americans" have started wars against everyone from Indians to Arabs. Again, comparing Old Shatterhand to a true American, whether it's John Wayne or a Founding Father, doesn't tell us much we don't already know.

This is a romanticized view of Karl May, the West, and America. I'd hardly take it seriously based on its tone. The "noble savage" of May's books was still a savage. Even if Old Shatterhand killed only a few "bad Indians," I doubt he did much to thwart the greedy and merciless American civilization.

Of course, I don't know exactly what Old Shatterhand advocated, since these sources don't specify it. He clearly battled and killed some enemies, including some bad Indians. The question is how many Indians he saved from cowboys like himself.

He sounds vaguely like the Lone Ranger, who was merely a more benign version of John Wayne. The Lone Ranger didn't stop the Trail of Tears, the Black Hills land grab, or similar injustices. His defense of the status quo helped the white man and hurt the Indian, whether he personally hurt Indians or not.

As I said before, to counteract our dominant mindset—where the noble hero kills the savage villain—we'd need "a book where the death-dealing hero dies, loses everything, or at least gets thrown in jail." Unless I miss my guess, Karl May's books reinforced the Euro-American mindset. They contributed to Hitler's idea that the white Anglo-Saxon (Aryan) Christians were meant to rule. And that non-white pagan savages were meant to vanish.

Americans like to think they're all about good and evil. "President" Bush has proved that by casting the latest terrorism as—once again—good vs. evil. He's used precisely the simpleminded formula found in any standard comic: I'm good and you're bad.

In reality, Americans have been the evil ones many times, starting with their enslavement of blacks and slaughter of Indians. That's the point of comparing American values to Native American values and seeing which are superior. And that's the point of calling Hitler a "true American."

I think you're missing my point, so I'll try again.

Americans had a romantic view of Indians before Karl May wrote his books: The noble savage. Pocahontas, who saved Captain Smith. Squanto, who helped the Pilgrims. Chingachgook and Uncas, the faithful companions of Natty Bumppo. Sacagawea, the faithful companion of Lewis and Clark. Hiawatha. Minnehaha. Ramona.

This didn't change the overriding American view of Indians as savages, marauders, and killers. In fact, it helped cement it. We mythologized a few good Indians as paragons of virtue. We placed them firmly in the distant past, where they couldn't affect contemporary political policy. (Note that May's books are set in the early, pioneering phase of the American West, before the land was largely settled.)

We contrasted these few romanticized, legendary Indians with the unnamed and unlamented masses of Indian people. Who were these anonymous "braves," "squaws," and "papooses"? Well, they weren't larger-than-life heroes like Chingachgook or Winnetou, so they didn't matter. We could safely dismiss them as unworthy of our attention—inconsequential and irrelevant.

The good Indians were mostly gone except in our memories and stories (books, illustrations, movies). The remaining Indians didn't deserve anything because they weren't unnaturally brave and noble. In other words, they didn't live up to the imaginary standard set by the non-Indians' Indian heroes. They were good-for-nothing heathens, scalawags, drunks, and beggars.

This attitude toward Indians continues today. We see it most often in the mascot debate. We "honor" the Indians of yesteryear by depicting the most exceptional examples—the mighty chief, the fierce warrior, the beautiful maiden—and ignoring the rest. By freezing the Indians in amber, locking them up in a museum, we don't have to deal with their continuing reality. We especially don't have to deal with our role in their continuing reality: the genocide, the broken treaties, the generations of oppression and neglect.

May's books are more of the same. May focused on Winnetou as the exception to the rule. The superhumanly "good Indian" didn't tell us that all Indians were good. Paradoxically, it told us that most Indians were neutral or bad, because they didn't live up to the "good Indian" standard.

All this is the white man's myth-making, not reality. In fact, like people of every cultures, most Indians were exemplary people. Plenty of eyewitnesses have testified to this. For example:

This theory of romanticizing the Indian—honoring the best while ignoring the rest—isn't just mine. I'd say it's pretty standard among those who have thought about the mythology of the Indian. Here are similar thoughts from a book review in the LA Times, 12/26/04:

In particular, Alan Trachtenberg's book Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, Making Americans, 1880-1930 shows how one romantic story hurt rather than helped Indians:

Hmm. People who remember a vanishing breed because they're afraid of ethnic diversity. Could this possibly have anything to do with the German people's love of Karl May even while they were instituting pogroms against Jews? Yes, I think so.

Whether he realized it or not, this is what May was doing with his Old Shatterhand/Surehand/Firehand books, I'd say. It's what German club members and other wannabes are doing by imitating 19th century Indians. If Hitler had eliminated the Jews, I bet he would've memorialized them as museum pieces and mascots too.

The debate continues (11/8/05)....
>> Rob, I would not disagree with the Hitler connection too much, be it that May's western books are more likely to inspire a Mother Theresa rather than a Hitler. Would you like to get some articles about Winnetou, Old Shatterhand or a more specific description of May's Indians? <<

We can talk about it when I have more time. I'm busy now.

>> Correct, Hitler would never have gotten the idea that exterminating of peoples is something to be done or approved from May's books [BAD YANKEE!!!] <<

He could've gotten the idea that America was fated to overcome the Indian races because of its Western/Christian superiority. The how of accomplishing this would've been a secondary point.

>> Rob, you should not talk about things you do not understand. <<

I'm not sure you understand what we're talking about. I'm an expert on the hidden messages in Native-themed legends and stories. A positive character like Chingachgook, Tonto, or Winnetou can still send a negative message about American history and the role of Indians in it.

>> Please check the titles of the movies based on the May-mythos, OK? <<

Titles are irrelevant. What matters are the internal messages—both the overt and subliminal ones.

>> May's attitude was more: "We (Germans) are civilized and they (White Americans) are savages (or at least bad-uns)". May's hostile Indians are rather sympathetic, they have a reason in the lack of reasonability of the American invaders, to the point that you would not mind them conquering St. Louis, but that the idea of torturing the heroes of the book to death for ionstance is rather all what makes them hostile. <<

If any Indians torture anybody, readers may perceive them as savages and subhumans who don't deserve to live. I'm not sure how you missed this message, but a positive character like Winnetou doesn't outweigh it.

>> What death dealing hero are you talking about, of course May's clear accusation of unfairness, theft, murder, robbery...will NEVER fly with people who have sworn allegiance to the flag representing those ideals, crimes. <<

I was talking about any fictional Western hero, including Shatterhand and Winnetou, whom you admit killed people when "necessary." Fact is, killing people is almost never necessary, so it sends a message about how lawless the West is—how it needs to be civilized. Hitler had the same idea—improving the world by ridding it of "subhuman" people like the Jews.

The debate continues (12/23/05).....
>> It has to be assumed that the search for the origin of the name "Winnetou" must end at nothing but May's imagination. <<

I think the name is a combination of two well-known Indian words: Winnebago and Manitou.

>> Titles are irrelevant. What matters are the internal messages—both the overt and subliminal ones.

Not when you are looking who the main hero is. <<

As I said, I'm an expert on the hidden messages in Native-themed legends and stories. Who the main hero is only one small part of the totality of messages in a work of fiction. Again, if you don't understand this, you don't understand how to analyze literature.

In short, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the hidden messages—not who the main hero is. Therefore, it's you, not me, who doesn't know what we're talking about.

>> Rob Schmidt, ever heard of the concept of Justice? Ever heard of HEROES? <<

I've probably heard of those subjects since before you were born. So? Again, I'm looking beneath the surface of a work like Winnetou—looking beyond the obvious themes to the less obvious ones. If you don't understand this, again, you don't understand what we're talking about.

More on the Hitler/May connection
More evidence of the cowboy influence on Hitler, with my comments interspersed:

Tomahawks and painted faces. Cowboys and Indians shooting each other. Hm-mm. Whatever positive values Germans like Hitler supposedly learned from May's books, they also learned Indians were warlike savages who embodied the "kill or be killed" mentality, apparently.

Where are the peace, tolerance, and understanding May's books supposedly inspired? It's not evident from this staged scenario. If Germans in the politically correct year of 2001 are still playing cowboys vs. Indians based on May's books, it's more than possible that Hitler took the same message from them.

I say again that the surface message in May's books doesn't necessarily matter. You have to look at the deeper message, what I call the meta-message, in the context of Euro-American history. Unless I miss my guess, May's Westerns promoted the idea of "civilization" over "barbarism." Hitler's goal was Nazi-style civilization over the uncivilized Jews and other non-Aryans.

"Winnetou" may be a combination of "Winnebago" and "manitou"—neither of which have anything to do with Winnetou's Apache heritage. Again, the implications are clear. To May Indians weren't a diverse people with hundreds of distinct cultures. They were either "noble savages" or merciless killers, good or evil, white or black. Old Shatterhand took care of the latter and let his fellow Americans take care of the former.

Hitler also had severe personality disorders. No wonder he admired May.

It couldn't be much clearer that Hitler saw himself exactly as May did. May fantasized himself a hero, a cowboy, Old Shatterhand and so did Hitler. Each thought they embodied the best of Euro-Christian virtues.

Like other Western heroes, Hitler believed it was his duty to bring peace and enlightenment to the world. If this peace and enlightenment required killing the savages and pagans who stood in his way—well, too bad. As Madeleine Albright, Tim McVeigh, and other righteous warriors have made clear, "collateral damage" sometimes can't be helped.

Hitler sought to impose his version of "Manifest Destiny." His version was similar to the American version. Americans wanted to bring freedom and democracy to the world—except to the Indians who were enemies, the blacks who were slaves, the women who couldn't vote, and the foreigners who occupied territory the US could use. Hitler also wanted to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to a small subset of the world's population—him and his Aryan followers.

The Bible and the Western: Hitler's twin sources. Also the twin sources for the modern superhero and America's self-image (same thing). See Why Write About Superheroes? for more.

Funny. If the politically correct sign is correct, the Germans with rifles, tomahawks, and war paint didn't get the message. Neither, I'm guessing, did Hitler.

Rob

The debate continues (6/13/06)....
In which Rob reads Winnetou...look out!

>> And your reason to assume so is? Does it have anything to do with his Sioux or Comanche heritage? <<

No big reason. It just sounds like it, that's all. From the text, we know May was familiar with the word "manitou," and "Winnetou" sounds similar.

It's pretty clear May didn't know many if any Indian words. In cases like that, authors often make up "foreign" words that sound like real words.

>> YOU are the one who does not understand that to analyze literature you have to have to read it. <<

No, actually, I don't have to read it. I can rely on the many educated people who have read it and analyzed it for me. Unless they're all mistaken, an analysis based on their analyses will be just fine.

>> Otherwise, if you show you have not read the book, or read the judgement of people who know what they are talking about <<

I did read the judgments of people who had read the book and knew what they were talking about. I quoted them on the Web page that started this discussion. Did you forget those judgments?

>> No, it's Rob Schmidt who doesn't know what we are talking about, I am talking about your errors. <<

I finally read Winnetou and there wasn't a single error in my assumptions. It was about as I thought it would be. I knew that because I trusted the judgments of those who read the book before me.

The only error I've made in this whole discussion was saying Old Firehand and Old Shatterhand were the same character. I corrected that trivial flaw long ago.

>> WE are talking about May and his characters, you may be looking for hidden messages, but how can you find a hidden message, if you cannot find at least an accurate source? <<

Again, the sources I quoted were accurate.

>> If Meier is saying that the number of books about Old Shatterhand is more than 70 novels, he doesn't know what he's talking about <<

As you said, it probably depends. Maybe Meier was counting every book where May made himself the protagonist. Since "Old Shatterhand" was May's nickname for himself, Shatterhand was arguably the protagonist whenever May was.

In any case, this is a trivial detail. There's no point in debating how Meier derived his number when it doesn't matter.

>> Being blood-buddies with one Indian, Winnetou, doesn't make him a "friend of the red man." What did he do for the Indian people overall? Did he oppose the Army attacks on them? Stand up for them in Congress? Write books and articles championing their cause? What?

If you knew what we are talking about you wouldn't ask that <<

First of all, the above was mostly a series of questions, not statements. I asked you to tell me all the things Old Shatterhand did to champion the Indians' cause. I don't recall your providing an answer.

More to the point, the statement above remains accurate. Old Shatterhand does nothing in Winnetou except save a few individual Indians. In this book, at least, he does nothing to advance their cause as a race.

>> yes, Old Shatterhand wrote books championing their cause. <<

You mean within one of May's novels, the character Old Shatterhand wrote a book championing the Indians' cause? Okay, what was the name of that book within a book, and which novel did it appear in?

>> So you are unreliable and even though you have a point, you are making it weaker and weaker by showing your own ignorance. <<

Which ignorance is that? Since my writings have been completely accurate so far, I await the first instance of an ignorant error on my part. Go ahead...enlighten me.

But don't waste my time telling me you think Winnetou is the hero of Winnetou. You can believe whatever you want, regardless of the facts, but don't pretend it's anything more than your opinion.

Old Shatterhand not a cowboy?
>> You wouldn't insist so much on using the word cowboy, if you knew the care May used to set his white (and mixed blood) heroes apart from cowboy heroes, not that it matters for what you are talking about <<

May was writing in German, not English. I don't even know if Germans had a word for "cowboy" then. Do you?

In any case, it doesn't matter what May called his heroes. Even if he didn't think they were cowboys, they were. Why? Because they fit the dictionary definition of "cowboy."

The opinions I've read say Old Shatterhand is a cowboy. For instance:

See Adolf Hitler:  A True American for an explanation of why Old Shatterhand was a cowboy hero even if nobody called him one.

>> it just shows that you are so fixed on putting an influential text you don't know in the categories you do know that you are hurting your own case. <<

My case is more solid now than it's ever been. Nothing you've said has touched my assertions in the slightest.

>> You do? For your information, we are not talking about "a work like Winnetou", we are talking about what you said about Winnetou I-IV and its characters. <<

As I said, I'm talking about what I say I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about Winnetou I, May's other books, and their influence on Hitler. I'm also talking in general about literary analysis, American history, and Native stereotyping, as well as what makes a hero. So we're not just talking about one book.

>> You show again and again that you have not looked at the text, so no sane person will believe you have been looking into Winnetou for themes obvious or not, and that's my point. <<

Well, if I "show" it, you certainly have not shown it. Again, show me a single significant error in my writings so far. Show it and prove it's an error. Your opinion that my opinion is wrong isn't an error, it's simply your opinion.

>> You should either read Winnetou or make clear that you have not read Winnetou, and that your knowledge about the books is third-hand at best. <<

I made that clear in my first comment on May's books in Adolf Hitler:  A True American:

And my knowledge at that point came from people who had read the books, so it was secondhand, not thirdhand.

>> I understand what you are talking about, but to me it seems you don't know what WE are talking about: Carl May AKA Old Shatterhand and Winnetou. <<

That's one of the things we're talking about. It's not the only thing.

>> So to restate what I originally summarized, Old Shatterhand is a classic Western hero with a faithful Indian sidekick who helps him defeat and kill evil Indians. May's books featured a good stereotype and a bad stereotype, but little of the complex reality of Indian culture and life, I suspect. <<

Yep, that's still correct. I nailed it before I read Winnetou.

>> Your words, you place Winnetou on the sidekick level, WRONG he is the tragic hero in his own right <<

He's a tragic sidekick hero, perhaps. This is semantics, friend. Someone who appears in only part of the book and doesn't cause the main events to happen isn't the hero or the protagonist. He's a sidekick or supporting character—whatever you want to call him.

In other words, he's Tonto to the Lone Ranger or Uncas to Natty Bumppo. Both pairs of characters were "blood brothers" or the equivalent, but the white character was clearly the first among equals. He was clearly the hero.

Again, read what others have said:

They get it even if you don't. The character with the most page or screen time is generally the hero. The character who accompanies him is generally the sidekick.

Indian chief outranks super-cowboy?
>> the more as he is described commander of the Apaches, which means that he is outranking Old Shatterhand etc. <<

Old Shatterhand doesn't have or need a rank because he stands outside the Apache hierarchy. Outside and above it, I should say, since May considers whites superior to Indians as a whole.

Only Winnetou and his father Inshu-Chuna are nominally equal to Old Shatterhand. The rest of the Indians are inferior. And since Shatterhand defeats both Winnetou and Inshu-Chuna in trials, he's superior to them too. Their titles mean nothing compared to that.

>> There are very few evil Indians, what do you need evil Indians for when rightfully selfdefending Indians are attacking you? <<

On the contrary, May describes both the Apaches and Kiowas in Winnetou as savage, marauding, and warlike. He doesn't describe any other Indian tribes, much less any peaceful ones.

His general comments about Indians are similar. Indians may have been noble once, he suggests, but now (when the stories take place) they're corrupt and degraded.

If that isn't evil, it's close. It certainly isn't the opposite. According to May, most Indians were bad in some way, not good.

>> A basically peaceful, pacifistic character like Old Shatterhand, and to a slightly lesser degree Winnetou, is looking ridiculous against evil Indians. <<

Old Shatterhand isn't a peaceful character. Like a typical cowboy hero, he resorts to violence or threats of violence throughout Winnetou.

I don't know which book you've been reading, but it doesn't seem to be Winnetou. I'll list all the violent episodes in the book when I get around to my writeup. There must be a dozen of them.

>> It has hidden and obvious messages (that is if you don't consider Winnetou IV), suggesting clearly that it is not FAIR, but that the Indian has to go, that that is fate <<

Saying the Indian has to go is a negative, anti-Indian message. I'm amazed you don't understand this. The Indians did not have to go and, in fact, didn't go. When someone says they had to go, it's the same as saying they were inferior...couldn't compete with the white man...deserved to disappear and die.

In other words, May's fictional Indians were worse than real-life Indians, who actually survived the evils thrust upon them. May thought Indians would vanish because, as he made clear many times, they were savages compared to civilized men like Old Shatterhand. The only way they could equal Shatterhand was if they were taught by a white teacher (Kleki-petra) and acted white (as with Winnetou's perfect English).

>> I know it shows NOTHING of the complex reality of Indian culture and life, granted, it's historically incorrect by placing a lot of the developments in "Indian territory" a lot later than in reality <<

Exactly. And simplifying Indian cultures to the point of stereotypes is another way of denying their humanity. It's another way of portraying them as inferior.

May may not have intended this message, but the message is there nonetheless. It's one of the subtexts I've been talking about.

>> it does tell people, not to object, to allow it, which is effectively the same as supporting it outright <<

Again, exactly. Which is why I said Old Shatterhand is a bastion of white supremacy like Superman, the Lone Ranger, or a John Wayne character.

>> the complete works give a slightly different point of view, but most people don't read Winnetou IV <<

Given how you've misread the first Winnetou book, I don't trust your reading of Winnetou IV.

>> so effectively you are talking about books promoting a laisser faire attitude when confronted with genocide AND that may give people ideas. <<

Old Shatterhand did a little more than just allow genocide to happen. He did the surveying that got the subjugation of the West started. When the Apaches confronted him about the survey, he didn't rip up the second copy of it. He took it back to civilization to get paid for it.

In other words, when told how he was helping to destroy Indian life, he kept doing it. This is exactly like the typical Western or cowboy hero. He saves individuals in peril but does nothing to stop the tide of "progress."

>> I am talking about the fact that you are factually incorrect to an embarassing degree, so much that I start to doubt whether you can read German at all. <<

I can't read German at all. I read the English translation of Winnetou by David Koblick. Unless the book was mistranslated, my analysis remains correct on every point.

Rob

Round 2:

>> Unless I miss my guess, Karl May's books reinforced the Euro-American mindset.

He never was popular in the States, probably because of his descriptions of the invading white christian savages. <<

May reinforced the Euro-American mindset among his readers, whoever they were or are. That includes Germans in general and Hitler in particular.

>> Granted, but THAT I have always considered evidence of the fact that May was according to my standards, a dirty sexist, not worth bothering with. <<

I'm sure most people of his era were sexists. The point is that Winnetou reinforces the Euro-American ideal of white male supremacy. One can't defend it on the grounds that May believed in equality among men and women.

>> Could you cite the chapter for that? <<

Chapter 12, pgs. 183-184. Winnetou says, "[Old Shatterhand] wants someone on his own level or even higher; he would not take an Indian maiden for his squaw."

Describing Nsho-chi, Winnetou continues, "Among Indian women, yes; my beautiful sister is above them all. But compare yourself with the daughters of palefaces. What have you seen and heard, what have you learned? You know what red women know, but not what a white squaw has learned and what she must know to fit in paleface society. Selwiki-lata looks at you and finds you beautiful; but he seeks more than beauty, he wants qualities he cannot find in an Indian maiden."

Sure, the character Winnetou says this, but no true Indian thought himself inferior to the white man. For all Old Shatterhand's talk of how Winnetou is his brother, this passage reveals May's true thinking. Whites are superior in general except for individuals such as Winnetou.

The whole idea that Nsho-chi should join white society is racist and sexist on the face of it. If Old Shatterhand wanted to be with her, he could abandon white society and join the Apaches. But that's unthinkable to Shatterhand/May because he believes white Christian society—i.e., German society—is the pinnacle of civilization. He won't give it up for something inferior.

>> Did a mixed-race marriage ever occur in May's books? Somehow, I doubt it.

Der Scout (precursor version of Winnetou II), Winnetou's aunt has a white husband.
Old Surehand III (Old Surehand's parents)
Winnetou IV (But I don't know whether you would consider a white-looking half-Hopi with an Apache mixed-race). <<

Probably not the third case. In fact, I might not consider any of these examples valid unless I read about them myself. Sadly, your interpretation of Winnetou I suggests you've lost the ability to read the books objectively.

>> There you go. This is the real point.

What? That the Nazis managed to use the most popular writer of their language? <<

Yes. So May (probably) influenced Hitler. If you agree, then what's the problem? What are we arguing about?

>> His dreams are rather simple, and as becomes clear in Winnetou IV, no matter how stupid No-Tschi is acting, it is Old Shatterhand's fault that she is dead. <<

Hitler's dreams were simple too. Aryan Germany is the pinnacle of civilization, as shown in Karl May's books. Conquer the non-Aryan world and kill or enslave the non-Aryans, as Old Shatterhand helped the Americans do.

If the savages "vanish" before we have to put them in concentration camps, great. If not, civilization will roll over them and wipe them out. One way or the other, that's the Aryan plan for those who aren't white Christians.

Old Shatterhand helps the white man conquer by subduing the "bad" minorities (Indians, Jews) for the greater good. There's no need for him to understand that the Kiowas or whoever had legitimate grievances. Shatterhand doesn't know or care about the broken treaties or the onerous reservation system.

>> Nonsense. You said Winnetou was the star of the book, which is flatly wrong.

Cite me where I said that. <<

"Your words, you place Winnetou on the sidekick level, WRONG he is the tragic hero in his own right, blahblah, which does give a slightly better image of him as a person, the more as he is described commander of the Apaches, which means that he is outranking Old Shatterhand etc."

Again, this is flatly wrong. Old Shatterhand is the hero of the book. If you don't like the word "sidekick," call Winnetou something that makes you feel better. I don't care what you call him, but he isn't the hero or a tragic hero. He isn't anything but another hero in this book.

Star of world = star of book?
>> Winnetou IS the star of the world described in the book, that is my point. <<

Okay, but that's a different point. Being the star of the world in the book isn't the same as being the star of the book. And it's kind of irrelevant, since we see that world from Old Shatterhand's white Christian viewpoint. We may be looking at Winnetou's world—at least in the second half of the book—but we're looking at it from Shatterhand's world.

In other words, May is filtering the world through his Germanic sensibility. He's presenting his views about the proper place of whites and Indians. And that's what the reader experiences firsthand: Shatterhand/May's thoughts and feelings, not Winnetou's.

>> because we don't know EVERYTHING about him, Winnetou is the one to dream about, to sing about, to be admired. <<

You can dream about whoever you want, but the typical white male reader will identify with the protagonist and hero of the book—namely, the white male Old Shatterhand.

>> Old Shatterhand does everything better, except for saving people who matter and that kind of thing. Winnetou is MYTH. <<

Winnetou may be a secondary myth, but Old Shatterhand is the primary myth. This kind of superheroic man is as old as Thor or Siegfried and as new as Nietzsche's Ubermensch.

Really, your talk about who you think is the hero or the myth is irrelevant. Old Shatterhand dominates the book and he's whom the average reader identifies with.

When you find a statement saying Hitler identified with Winnetou more than Old Shatterhand, please let me know. Until then, how you interpret the book is irrelevant to how Hitler interpreted it.

>> Winnetou is in Winnetou I the engine which makes things happen <<

How, by getting captured like a greenhorn and being a helpless victim for two-thirds of the book? Wrong again. Old Shatterhand is the one who makes things happen every step of the way.

If you disagree, give me an example of an event Winnetou initiates on his own. If he's the so-called engine, you should be able to come up with several examples.

>> (Mind you, Winnetou had existed for about 18 years already, when this book was published.) <<

All characters have their (fictional) histories preceding them. Such histories are immaterial unless they appear in the book itself.

>> In the book it becomes quite clear that Winnetou is actually the hero, the hero in the tragedy. <<

No, that doesn't become clear. As I've already stated, Old Shatterhand is clearly the book's hero.

>> Schmidt, what makes you think A)that I was talking about Winnetou I? <<

I've told you what I read: the David Koblick translation of Winnetou.

>> You act like somebody who claims to be able to judge the entire output of Marvel after the reading of a single graphic novel. <<

If the single graphic novel was representative...yes, I could judge Marvel's entire output, At least in terms of its central themes, as I've done with May's books.

For instance, read the first volume of Spider-Man or Fantastic Four stories. Stan Lee incorporated his vision in these comics.

To quote an interview with Lee (Stan Lee's Super-Heroes), "Marvel super-heroes were set in real places and had human lives and human problems." Marvel has never deviated from that.

More to the point, I've quoted people who have read many of May's books. Winnetou I proves they were right.

You said I couldn't judge May's output without reading Winnetou. I read it and it proved I judged May correctly.

Now you think I need to read more books? If I read two books and they prove me right, will you say I need to read three books? If I read three books and they prove me right, will you say I need to read four? Sorry, we aren't playing that game.

Did May change his message 180 degrees and advocate something other than white superiority in his later books? If so, then prove it. Prove that Winnetou I is completely unrepresentative of May's books. Because this book proves my case, not yours.

"Old Shatterhand is central"
>> Of course, Old Shatterhand is central and all <<

Stop right there. Again, you agree with me. "Old Shatterhand is central"...end of discussion.

>> but he is also boring. <<

Says you. I say they're all two-dimensional characters at most. And Winnetou is more one-dimensional than Old Shatterhand or Sam Hawkens. To me, he's a boring cardboard character.

In any case, even if Old Shatterhand is "boring," it doesn't mean he isn't the most influential character in the book. Clearly he is.

>> You mean that that translator edited "Westman" out of the book? <<

Koblick used a real word rather than a made-up word when he translated it, yes.

>> Only fight? Read again. <<

No need. I remember Winnetou I well. Tell me when the second fight occurs in it, if ever.

>> Winnetou has already the achievements equivalent to all the ones in the lives of five old warriors, when the modern version is introduced in Winnetou I. <<

And yet, Old Shatterhand defeats him. In fact, Shatterhand proves his physical superiority to every Indian in the book, including Winnetou, Inshu-Chuna, and Tangua.

Moreover, Old Shatterhand is superior to every previous Westerner according to the evidence in the book. That means he's surpassed tens of thousands of Anglo-Americans in his brief adventure.

>> And you judge that by a translation of Winnetou I ??? <<

Yes, since I can't read German. Why, do you have some reason to believe Koblick didn't translate the book correctly?

>> You haven't read Winnetou III? <<

No, and why should I? The first book sets the stage for subsequent books. It's almost always the key work in a series.

You suggested I read one of May's books and I did. Now you want me to read more? Why...because you didn't realize how the first book would prove me right? Too bad for you.

Besides, I've quoted people who have read all the Shatterhand books. They know them as well as you do and they agree with me.

>> I guess we are talking about different things, I talk about May's America. You talk about Winnetou I. <<

I'm talking about how May's books, as demonstrated in Winnetou I, could've influenced Hitler to dream of Aryan supremacy. You're talking about how your love for a phony Apache has blinded you to May's underlying message.

I'm not sure what "May's America" means, but based on Winnetou I, it's a place where whites are generally superior to Indians. Where minorities like Indians (and Jews?) are so degraded they deserve to disappear.

>> Anyway, will you take on the movies, the comic books, the audioplays, the plays, the musical? <<

Did any of those exist in Hitler's time? Did he see or hear them? If not, they're irrelevant to my point.

In other words...no, because I've quoted people who have read all the Shatterhand books. They know them as well as you do and they agree with me.

Round 3:

>> Huh? As far as Ndns go, you are correct <<

Why don't we just stop there? I'm correct, period. <g>

>> as far as the earlier books go, of course, even May himself got sick of that "doomed race"-stuff and the ending is a whole lot more positive. <<

Who knows if the average German reads all the Winnetou books? Who knows if he takes his lesson from the last book rather than the first one? Who knows how much Hitler read or where he got his ideas from?

This is all speculation. Fact is, one can easily see a message of white superiority in Winnetou. Period.

>> May saw (in a very European world) the whiteys being the boss the dominant race of his time <<

And so did Hitler, which is the point.

>> which was a very common view in his time. <<

Yes. Teddy Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt and The Winning of the West) also thought whites should dominate the world. Unlike Hitler, Roosevelt didn't put his thoughts into full-scale action.

>> May was more of a "It's a White Man's World"-guy than a "It Should BE A Whiteman's World"-writer, I would say. <<

Anyone reading a book with a "It's a White Man's World" attitude can easily use that to support an "It Should Be A White Man's World" attitude. "It was a white man's world, it is a white man's world, so it should remain a white man's world" goes this train of thought.

And why is that wrong? Because it's not a white man's world in most parts of the world. Saying it is a white man's world is misstating the facts. Unless May was simply ignorant of these facts, he was projecting how he thought the world should be when he falsely described how it was.

>> Don't you mean that he made Winnetou say that? <<

Yes, he made Winnetou state a view that Old Shatterhand didn't contradict, that no true Indian held, that was at odds with the facts. Since Winnetou's speech is worthless as a piece of writing, we can be sure Winnetou was acting as May's mouthpiece.

FYI, white women don't know more than Native women. They simply know different things. For example, white women know how to shop in a supermarket while Native women know how to skin a buffalo. Only a racist thinks one race of people knows more than the other.

>> Huh? The Nazis managed to use the Bible for their purposes too, that says nothing about the book by itself. <<

The Bible also speaks of the superiority of the "chosen people" (Old Testament) and Christians (New Testament). Jesus is the Christian Superman saving the Israelites just like Old Shatterhand came to save the Indians.

The Nazis couldn't have used the Bible's messages unless the messages were there. So yes, how the material is used does say something about the material itself.

>> Where did I say that? Anyways, it's correct. Winnetou is the star, the great hero, who is beyond having to prove himself. <<

Well, if you didn't say it before, you said it now. Thanks for proving again that my statements were correct.

But I'm sorry, your opinion still doesn't make it so. Winnetou is "the star" in your imagination, not by any objective standard. Old Shatterhand has the most scenes, performs the most feats, and wins every duel.

>> He is however the character that sold the book (especially out of Mofrica), where people were rather soon fed up with a guy who always knew everything better <<

"Mofrica"? What's that?

I suppose it's just a coincidence that every Winnetou book has a Surehand or Firehand or Shatterhand in it? Sure it is.

If Winnetou was truly the star, May should've written several books about him alone. So tell me: How many books starred Winnetou without a white man as his partner?

One victory means Shatterhand won
>> Only fight? Either you didn't read it well or the translator is even worse than I thought. 1 victory, 1 draw. <<

Or you misinterpreted it, as you've done before.

Their first and only fight in Winnetou occurs in Chapter 9, pgs. 133-134. It takes place when Winnetou and Inshu-chuna break free from the Kiowas and try to escape. Winnetou runs into Old Shatterhand and Shatterhand takes him down rather easily.

If I missed a fight, it doesn't change much. Even a record of 1-0-1 means Old Shatterhand is superior. Really, I must thank you for supporting my argument, although you seem to think you're contradicting it. Even if they drew 100 times, Shatterhand is still superior if he won once.

>> No, Winnetou is the main hero <<

More of your opinions. I'm not wasting much more time on them.

Have you read The Last of the Mohicans? Who do you think is the hero of that? Uncas, because he's the title character? Guess again.

>> What is causing you to treat Old Shatterhand as if he had anything to do with real America? <<

I didn't say Old Shatterhand had anything to do with the real America. I said Hitler may have gotten his ideas about Aryan superiority and eradicating "degraded" minorities from May's books.

What's causing you to treat Winnetou as if the book is sharing his perspective rather than Old Shatterhand's? Don't you understand that the reader generally identifies with the protagonist, especially if the narration is written in first person?

>> His landscape, yes, the battles, the plots, are mostly real, but distorted almost beyond recognition, but Old Shatterhand is just a little boy's "If I grow up" increased. <<

I guess the distortions also influenced Hitler, since he believed in the supremacy of white Christian Germans like Old Shatterhand.

>> Look take the Dark Knight Returns, who is the protagonist there?
Batman, but that doesn't mean that Superman is not the greatest hero in that book <<

Huh? How far off the mark can you get?!

You're right about Batman but dead wrong about Superman. Oops.

I've read that volume a dozen times, so I know its message by heart. Batman is the hero as well as the protagonist. We see the world through his eyes and his vision carries the story.

Moreover, he defeats Superman in their only battle. DUH. Superman may be the "greatest hero" in someone's eyes, but not in the eyes of Batman or the people of Gotham City. Whether it's physically or philosophically, Batman wins in this series.

That Batman is superior is clearly true in Frank Miller's eyes also. Anyone reading DARK KNIGHT RETURNS has to know that Miller favors Batman's approach to the world. Whatever you may think, Miller thinks Batman is the greatest hero.

If you read Miller's body of work, you'd know he consistently champions the human hero over the superhuman one. Batman, Daredevil, Elektra, Martha Washington, Marv in SIN CITY, et al. You can read his message in any of his works: that brains and heart (e.g., Batman or Daredevil) beat power and wealth (e.g., Superman or the Kingpin).

>> Look Winnetou embodies America in May's works, he is the greatest myth <<

These are your opinions, nothing more. If you have some facts to offer, we can discuss them, but we aren't debating your unsubstantiated opinions.

I don't care how popular or beloved Winnetou may be. I care only that Hitler may have read and absorbed May's message of white superiority—the message plainly evident in Winnetou.

>> the best loved and most recognized character created by May. <<

Are you sure that was true in Hitler's time? Did Hitler himself recognize or love Winnetou? Maybe he loved Old Shatterhand best.

In any case, you can love Winnetou while still absorbing the books' message of white supremacy. That's a point you've failed to grasp.

Complex messages need complex thinking
Similarly, you can appreciate Dr. Doom's majesty while rooting for the Fantastic Four to beat him but also hoping he'll get away. This is the kind of complex thought process a reader of Winnetou may go through. He admires Winnetou even as he agrees the white men deserved to take over the continent.

This kind of thought process happens all the time. It's the whole point of romanticizing Indians in paintings or Wild West shows or sports logos. We love those Indians, we think they're great and noble, and we're glad they're gone. We love them precisely because it's safe to do so—because they no longer threaten us.

I've discussed this point many times in postings such as Tonto and the "Good Indian." Read it and learn something. As I said, this is what we're talking about. Until you understand this, you haven't a clue why Germans and Americans love stereotypical Indians such as Winnetou.

>> Shatterhand is just an arrogant, deceptive, attention loving guy who writes a lot boring stuff about him before he starts about our beloved Winnetou. <<

More opinions. I don't "belove" Winnetou, so this is irrelevant.

Let's stick to the facts. Whether you like it or not, Old Shatterhand dominates Winnetou I. If he's the narrator in the other Winnetou books, he may dominate them too.

>> Junior partner? <<

Yep. By any measure except your fantasy that Winnetou is the hero, Old Shatterhand dominates the book.

>> The supreme war chief of the united Apaches and Navaho, the junior partner of a trickster too poor to buy his own horse? <<

Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Old Shatterhand's shooting and fighting skills make him superior to any single Indian. Titles and wealth don't mean anything when someone can kick your butt. If that weren't the case, Lex Luthor or the president would be the hero of DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, not Batman.

Whether it's Robinson Crusoe, Huckleberry Finn, or Peter Parker, titles, wealth, and power have absolutely nothing to do with heroism. The hero is "a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life," according to the dictionary. That's Batman in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and Old Shatterhand in Winnetou. Winnetou doesn't risk or sacrifice anything compared to Shatterhand.

In addition to his physical prowess, centuries of white Christian heritage have made Old Shatterhand the Ubermensch he is. Winnetou shows that Indians can't match him, even though they try. We see this explicitly when the book describes Kleki-petra instructing the Indians in the white man's culture. Or when it describes Winnetou speaking flawless English, wearing a white man's robe, or reciting "Hiawatha." An Indian is Shatterhand's equal only if he becomes as white as Shatterhand.

>> His guns, his stallions, his education, everything has been given to him and Winnetou was the greatest among the people giving things to him, as he did give him status <<

Old Shatterhand earns his spurs, so to speak, by proving himself superior to the Westerners before he meets Winnetou. Besides, the honors Winnetou gives Shatterhand mean nothing to the rest of the world. And as far as I can tell, Shatterhand never abandons white society for Indian society. In his world—namely Karl May's world—white people belong with other white people, in control of the country, ruling politically and economically.

Old Shatterhand may be second to Winnetou in Apache society, but that's relevant only to the Apaches. It's irrelevant to people like Sam Hawkens, who respects Shatterhand because of his abilities, not his Apache status. And it's irrelevant to the Wild West as a whole, where Shatterhand is No. 1. Hawkens clearly thinks Shatterhand is the greatest and the book's events prove him right.

Winnetou is revered only in one small tribe in one isolated corner of America. Since the Apaches are only one of hundreds of tribes, who cares what they think? To the Plains tribes, the Five Civilized Nations, or the Iroquois Confederacy, Winnetou is a nobody. If he traveled to Washington or London with Shatterhand, people would treat him as a sideshow, a curiosity, or a museum piece.

I don't particularly care if you have a Winnetou fetish. I read the book the way any newcomer would read it—by looking for someone to identify with. That pointed to the protagonist, Old Shatterhand, who thrills the reader with his heroic deeds. The average person will relish Shatterhand's dominance over everyone and everything he meets, not his part-time role with the Apaches.

>> What book? You were talking about the whole series first! <<

Yes. That's because I've quoted people who have read all the Shatterhand books. They know them as well as you do and they agree with me.

You challenged me to read one book and I read it. That book proves me right. Sorry, but you lose the debate. Better luck next time.

Rob

The debate gets repetitious (6/17/06)....
>> Of course, but there is one thing May does teach native people around the world: White Americans never listen to native people. <<

One thing? May's books also teach that whites are superior to every Indian except the best ones such as Winnetou.

>> That's the point, the central character of May's Western books is Winnetou, old Shatterhand is his Watson. <<

Wrong, judging by Winnetou I. Old Shatterhand is the main character and dominates the book. Winnetou doesn't appear in the first third of the book and is captive in the second third. Like Sam Hawkens, he's a supporting character.

>> While everyone knows about the Lone Ranger, Daniel Boone, and Robinson Crusoe, who knows or cares about Tonto, Mingo, or Friday? Does anyone collect their memorabilia, write books about them, or propose movies based on them? No. We remember these characters only because they reflect the main characters' glory. They tell us nothing on their own.

And that relates to Winnetou in what way... <<

People remember Old Shatterhand as the hero and central character, even if the title character is Winnetou.

>> John Wayne didn't kill Indians in every Western movie, but it seems like it because he always had the mentality of someone who would kill Indians if it suited his purposes. May's character, Old Shatterhand, may have been the same.

Old Shatterhand? Only when he was forced to, and with regrets. <<

You said Old Shatterhand wasn't violent. Now you're changing your tune by admitting he killed Indians sometimes. That's a start.

>> You make the mistake to equate Old Shatterhand's moral superiority over the American WHITE savages, with superiority over NATIVE Americans. <<

Old Shatterhand proves his superiority over every Indian as well as every white man.

>> Old Shatterhand is careful not to kill in a fight to the death, that kind of hero. <<

In Winnetou he killed one or two animals for sheer sport. I forget how many Indians he killed.

>> An attitude not compatible with Winnetou's crypto-Christian or Old Shatterhand's overt Christian moral code, you are insulting the heroes of millions by suggesting they would behave like a common Yankee savage idol. <<

Every vigilante hero from John Wayne to Dirty Harry has his own moral code. I didn't see Old Shatterhand fetch the proper authorities to solve any of his problems. He solved them himself using his own standard of right and wrong.

>> Of course, but you forget that Old Shatterhand was a visitor to America. His attitude was more "I am civilized and they are savages.", the they was just defined a bit different. <<

Bingo. Indians are savages...stop right there. That's all Hitler needed to understand before carrying out a similar program of extermination against the Jews.

>> Not entirely, it may seem unbelievable to you, but from the books of May (which are full of racist stereotypes and all), the true American race is described as noble, inteligent, capable of civilization, more than worthy to walk the earth, but because of bad luck beaten and doomed to go extinct or to dwell in cages called reservations until the end of the world. <<

The racist stereotypes are part of the message. They convey what May really thought about Indians. Again, this requires looking beyond the surface and seeing the book's subtext.

The Indians are not only beaten and doomed in Winnetou I, they're corrupt and degraded. According to the white man's standard, they don't deserve to live any longer. That's the message Hitler could've gotten even if Winnetou was an exception to this dismal portrayal.

>> Characters like Winnetou, the Bears, or the half blood Old Surehand seem more positive powers than Old Shatterhand himself. <<

Winnetou remains captive for much of Winnetou. He doesn't do anything that Old Shatterhand doesn't do better.

>> A book where the death-dealing hero dies, loses everything, or at least gets thrown in jail would be more like it.

Like Winnetou, you mean? <<

I was talking about Old Shatterhand, the book's hero. Did anything bad happen to him in any of May's novels? That is, did anything puncture his aura of Aryan invincibility? I doubt it.

>> I've added a section to my Hitler writeup, comparing Nietzsche's Superman to the comic-book Superman. Check it out in Giving up PEACE ON EARTH.

And how do you think about a Native American with those characteristics even STRONGER? That is what Winnetou is. <<

Winnetou isn't stronger than Old Shatterhand in Winnetou. Shatterhand surpasses him in every way. Shatterhand has the fists of iron, not Winnetou.

Indians destined to die?
>> Winnetou is the superman, destined to die and to have his people die with him... <<

What does Winnetou do that's so super in Winnetou I? His fists certainly aren't super compared to Old Shatterhand's.

So Winnetou dies because Indians were destined to die. At the hands of the superior white man. And Jews died, according to Hitler, because they were destined to die. At the hands of the superior white man. Same message, same result.

>> But you can be sure he came out victorious.

The problem is, except for the power of his fists, Winnetou is a higly similar character <<

A similar but lesser character, you mean. But so what? The book's message comes from how Old Shatterhand proves himself superior to Indians in general. And from how he ignores their plight as a race while helping individuals.

>> What did he do for the Indian people overall?

Kicking arse of some villains and getting attention for their fate in Europe. <<

In other words, Old Shatterhand didn't do anything for Indians as a whole. He didn't oppose the Army attacks on them. Didn't stand up for them in Congress. Didn't write books and articles championing their cause. Just as I thought.

Getting attention for their fate in Europe? That wasn't likely to be much help in America. Again, Shatterhand did little or nothing to help Indians overall.

>> Did he oppose the Army attacks on them?

He prevented a battle or two, I guess... <<

You guess? Either he did or he didn't. If he did, send me the passage in the book where he did it.

>> Stand up for them in Congress?

As a non-citizen? <<

Foreigners can testify in Congress. Especially if they're as notable as Old Shatterhand, America's greatest "Westerman." And if Shatterhand couldn't testify in Congress himself, he could use his fame to mobilize Americans to help the Indians. These Americans could've petitioned Congress even if Shatterhand couldn't have.

>> Write books and articles championing their cause?

Yes. Auf Deutsch of course. <<

You mean within one of May's novels, the character Old Shatterhand wrote a book championing the Indians' cause? Okay, what was the name of that book within a book, and which novel did it appear in?

>> He did what he could. But he was just a writer with a steady hand, two damn good rifles and a shattering fist and English wasn't his language. <<

In other words, he was a typical cowboy hero. Again, Old Shatterhand did nothing in Winnetou except save a few individual Indians. In this book, at least, he did nothing to advance their cause as a race.

>> Perhaps, but May's novels would have riled the readers up against the white Yankee savages for the cause of the poor defenseless native Americans <<

Not necessarily. There are a couple of bands of savage Indians in Winnetou. There are only a few savage white individuals. Contrary to your claim, the "bad" Indians outnumber the "bad" whites.

And the worst character is Tangua, the evil Indian chief. He gets more "air time" than any evil white man. The resulting message, again, is that Indians are worse.

>> If he was a typical Western hero, he upheld law and order to the Indians' detriment. He implicitly made it safe for more white Americans to colonize Indian territories.

Bzzzzzz. Old Shatterhand is not a typical western hero. <<

Bzzzzzz. Sure he is.

>> 2) He did uphold law and order but mostly to the Indians' (short term) benefit. <<

Oh, like returning the survey information so he could get paid and the Easterners could appropriate the Indians' land? Uh-huh, sure.

>> He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns.

Senator Albert J. Beveridge, Congressional Record, January 9, 1900

And what has this to do with Old Shatterhand? <<

Karl May had a similar attitude and expressed it through Old Shatterhand, his alter ego. Hitler may have picked up this underlying attitude even though the books had one or two noble Indians.

Old Shatterhand copies Winnetou?
>> Oh, Old Shatterhand has the Superman attitude, but he has copied that more or less from the Superman of his world: Winnetou. <<

Wrong again. Old Shatterhand's abilities and beliefs are established long before he meets Winnetou. As a cardboard character, he doesn't change much (if at all) after meeting his new buddy.

>> Hitler took the cowboy attitude a step further and systematically exterminated his Indians (the Jews). But the underlying attitude-white might makes right-was the same.

Would not say that. <<

I would. And did. <g>

>> In May's America, the world has lost the one man who could have united America's people, find allies and secure peace, after his death America has lost its soul... <<

Your Winnetou fetish is kind of creepy. Anyway, after Winnetou dies, then what? If the Indians were so brave and noble, many of them should've arisen to take Winnetou's place. If he was the only one who could save them, they were plainly doomed.

And that sent an obvious message to Hitler: If a people are plainly doomed, they're not worth saving. If they're not worth saving, you might as well hasten their deaths. That way, you can take over the world that much faster.

>> Old Shatterhand: the Martin Luther King of his time?

No way, just one of the followers of Winnetou. <<

Not in Winnetou I. The Indians give more honors to Old Shatterhand than he gives to them. Shatterhand is the leader and everyone else is the follower.

>> Did he ever tie up an Indian, transport him to jail, and make sure the Indian got his day in court before a jury of his peers? I don't need to read May's books to guess the answer to that one.

Jail no, day in court before a jury of his peers? Sounds like Yankee rubbish to me. If you mean deliver an Indian to a Native American justice system, well he was more than once in the process of doing so, yes. <<

Sifting through your verbiage, I gather the answer to my question is no. We know he didn't bring Tangua to justice in Winnetou I. Bad Indians get killed, just like "bad" Jews.

>> But Karl May's stories are the adventures of an adventurer. <<

Tell me something I don't know.

>> Therefor it is illogical to suppose that they would correspond to your idea of the western archetype. <<

I'm addressing what the books were, not what I wanted them to be. They were the kind of adventures that could inspire Hitler to dream of Aryan superiority and kill anyone who got in the way of it.

>> Cowboys like Old Shatterhand and John Wayne imposed their values, which were only loosely related to America's constitutional protections, on bad guys.

Cowboy? Old Shatterhand?????????????? <<

Yes, as I told you before. Again, see Adolf Hitler:  A True American for details.

>> The only "rights" most Indians had was to suffer or die if some cowboy implemented his form of "justice." If they ever got real justice in a Western movie or novel, starting with due process of the law, I don't recall it.

That's were the May stories are different. <<

Wrong again. Tangua didn't get real justice, he got frontier justice.

>> The question is how many Indians he saved from cowboys like himself.

Cowboys who would obey every word of Winnetou? Can you please stop insulting Karl May? Cowboy, I ask you... <<

Nothing in the definition of "cowboy" prevents one from obeying a helpful Indian. And Old Shatterhand didn't obey Winnetou about anything, as far as I can tell.

When did Shatterhand do something in Winnetou because Winnetou told him to? Quote me an example if you can.

>> Well, yes and no, they strengthened the idea that this was how the world worked, but attacked the idea that this was how the world should work. <<

Wrong again. Winnetou's underlying message is that white Christians do and should dominate the world except for a few "good" exceptions such as Winnetou.

Correspondent worships second-best hero
>> Winnetou is not like Tonto, he is like Superman, like king Arthur, the greatest of the heroes of his world, their leader. <<

Hm-mm. That explains why Old Shatterhand beat him easily in their first and only fight in Winnetou.

>> Rob, what made you think that they would be divided along those ethnic lines of their characters? That is in clear violation of what May teaches there are Bad Whites and Corrupted natives <<

To Hitler, there were "Bad Whites" (non-Aryans) and "Corrupted Natives" (Jews) also. He tried to kill or conquer everyone who wasn't a Aryan like him. I guess he got that message from May, who taught him about the superiority of Aryans over everyone.

>> Unless I miss my guess, May's Westerns promoted the idea of "civilization" over "barbarism."

Christianity, rather. <<

Okay, make it civilization and Christianity. Even worse.

>> No way, Old Shatterhand was an globe trotting adventurer, not an emigrant. <<

Do you know what the word "emigrant" means? If not, look it up. Old Shatterhand could be an emigrant as well as an adventurer, since the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

>> Whose fellow Americans? Old Shatterhand never saw himself as an American <<

His fellow Americans comprising the body of white men called "Westermen." Old Shatterhand became the leader and icon of these American Westermen. He saw himself as one of them even if he wasn't a US citizen.

>> Look Rob, you are talking about those books as if you know what they are. Find out what they are before you do <<

Okay, I found out. I finally read Winnetou and there wasn't a single error in my assumptions. It was about as I thought it would be. I knew that because I trusted the judgments of those who read the book before me.

>> the message of being nice to your Native American fellow man is very clearly in it. <<

No, the clear message is that Indians are savage and warlike, corrupt and degraded. Winnetou is one of the few exceptions to that rule.

>> For his time he was certainly a lot less racist than usual and tried to fight the racist evils in his time, but to our modern standards he may have been too racist for the KKK. <<

Whether May was less racist than his peers is irrelevant. We know Hitler read his books, not his peers' books. The only question is whether these books influenced Hitler and how.

>> If the politically correct sign is correct, the Germans with rifles, tomahawks, and war paint didn't get the message.

Oh, the sign is correct, you misread it and you probably misunderstood the description of their behaviour too. <<

I was quoting an article that described a sign and some participants at an annual Karl May event. Since I was quoting a source, I didn't misread or misinterpret anything.

The article's author may have done so, but you don't know that and neither do I. The article sounded credible and that's what matters.

Losing debate angers correspondent (7/19/06)
>> OK, you pissed me clearly off, with your style of answering, your filthy insults and your lies, but I shouldn't have shown that to you so clearly, sorry about that. <<

I haven't lied. I don't recall any insults other than telling you you missed the underlying message of Winnetou and don't understand what I'm talking about, which seems true to me.

>> When did NIETZSCHE come up with an Aryan Übermensch? <<

The 1880s. See Übermensch for details.

>> What has Superman to do with the Übermensch? <<

"In that book, the protagonist, Zarathustra, contends that a man can become an Übermensch (homo superior; the common equivalent English translation would be 'super-human'...)."

>> If you want examples of that, you should think more of people like Doc Savage, the Shadow, some versions of Batman and of course Ozymandias <<

In case you didn't know, Doc Savage influenced the creation of Superman. The Ubermensch concept influenced both of them.

>> Superman is NOTHING like an Übermensch <<

Sure he is. He's a lot like one.

>> in most incarnations, he does NOT set his own laws to rule his actions, as he is too much on the side of the establishment <<

He decides which laws he'll obey and which ones he'll break. He decides whom he'll save and whom he'll let die. If he agrees with the establishment, it's by his choice, not the establishment's.

>> The example you gave showed that Superman is not an Übermensch, one who would overcome each setback or die to teach with his greater than Herculean effort to live forever in memories and stories. <<

Superman has overcome setbacks while risking his life innumerable times. He even "died" once while doing so, in the infamous SUPERMAN #75.

>> Superman is just a white American country boy, not somebody to whom Old Glory is a rag, not somebody questioning everything, not startingto build a morale from the "I AM"-principle, and even if he would be, he lacks the roots in humanity. <<

Let's go back to the definition in Wikipedia:

As far as I'm concerned, Superman does 1) and 3) regularly, and he does 2) when it suits him. For instance, Jesus's moral code says to help the poor and sick. Superman spends most of his time stopping crimes and little time alleviating poverty and disease. So he ignores one part of our moral code for another. In other words, he decides which part of our moral code is valid for him and which isn't.

>> Hitler took the Übermensch-concept and added Aryan stuff to that, so what you are calling Nietzsche's concept is Hitler's concept. <<

You think Nietzsche wasn't writing primarily about his own people? That he was equally concerned about "supermen" of all races? Prove it. Quote me something from his writings about black or Asian supermen.

Here, learn what one author says:

Today's views irrelevant to yesteryear's
>> And concerning why I objectively consider Winnetou the greater hero is because his name recognition far exceeeds that of Old Shatterhand <<

You believe that now, after decades of Winnetou movies and other products. In Hitler's time, I bet Old Shatterhand was more popular. Shatterhand is the main character in the books, after all.

>> Of course Winnetou I is the origin story of Old Shatterhand, that doesn't make Old Shatterhand the greatest hero in the book <<

The fact that Shatterhand narrates the book and performs the greatest feats in it makes him the hero. The fact that Winnetou appears only in two-thirds of the book and is captive for one-third of it makes him the sidekick or junior partner.

>> you with your abominable valuation of victories and violence, instead of courage and noble qualities. <<

Whatever you attribute to Winnetou, Old Shatterhand demonstrates more of it in the book. He does more of everything than Winnetou does.

>> You seem to understand "Hero" as lead character only <<

Wrong. I've explained why Old Shatterhand is the hero repeatedly. Here, read it again:

>> I use hero in it's more direct sense of person admired/outstanding for courage and noble qualities, does not seem to come clear to you, whatever I do. <<

More characters—the Westermen as well as the Indians—admire Old Shatterhand than Winnetou. Again, you haven't read the book if you don't understand how everyone literally worships Old Shatterhand. Not everyone worships Winnetou, so Shatterhand is the most admired character in the book.

>> Winnetou is as name much more commonly used, as demonstrated by this little count, and harder to quantify is that much more people know anything about him, Indian, Chief, Apache, than about Old Shatterhand. <<

This is irrelevant to my discussion of Winnetou I. It's also irrelevant to my discussion of what Hitler read as a boy and how it influenced him.

>> As such Winnetou is a greater hero, in the sense that he is more popular with the public than Old Shatterhand and thus a commercially more interesting property. <<

Irrelevant. Popularity has nothing to do with greatness. For instance, Superman is more popular than Batman, but Batman was the greatest hero in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

>> I mean Winnetou has a mythic story <<

Irrelevant, and so does Old Shatterhand.

>> Compare this to Shatterhand's story, there is a guy going around the world adventuring and writing books about it, you see greatness in that? <<

Among other things, Shatterhand saved Winnetou's life and defeated him in battle. That makes him greater than the "greatest."

>> I mean if I say Winnetou ids the greater hero, I mean that in the way that the Shadow is a greater hero than say the Avenger, in that he takes up a much more prominent place in the pantheon of heroes in the public mind. <<

This is irrelevant to my discussion of Winnetou I. It's also irrelevant to my discussion of what Hitler read as a boy and how it influenced him.

>> If you want to deny that, do that with either facts or logic, not with lies as you did in your last answer. <<

The popularity of Winnetou now is totally irrelevant to my reading of Winnetou I or May's influence on Hitler. And you'll never prove a lie because there are none. But keep wasting your time trying so I can have a laugh.

Correspondent tries once more (7/27/06)
Our correspondent forwarded a selection from Karl May's introduction to Winnetou:

>> One Question: Do you recognize this text? <<

Yes. It's a bad translation of Karl May's introduction in Winnetou I.

Did you actually read and think about some of the lines? For instance:

>> He has to make a giant jump from the lowest, hunter, to the highest stage, and when this was desired of him, there was no thought for the possibility that he had to fall and lethally hurt himself that way. <<

Translation: Indians are the lowest form of humans.

>> It is is a horrible law that the weaker has to go for the stronger <<

Translation: Indians are weaker than white men. (Which probably explains why Old Shatterhand defeated Winnetou in their first fight.)

>> we have to assume that this horror can either only seemingly or Christianly be made milder, as the eternal wisdom, which has given this law is also the eternal love. <<

Translation: Old Shatterhand can help the Indians die more slowly with his Christian wisdom and love.

Too bad you didn't include the next four paragraphs, especially the third one. Here May writes:

Are you paying attention? May doesn't say this happened to some Indians. He says it happened to the Indian—that is, to every Indian. The proud huntsman has become a murderous redskin.

May also says this shouldn't have happened and it wasn't the Indians' fault. That's the superficial and obvious message. The deeper and less obvious message (to you, anyway) is that Indians are bad. They were formerly good but now they're savages, little better than animals.

Winnetou and his small band of Apaches are the exception that proves the rule. Judging by the book Winnetou, every other tribe is warlike at best and evil at worst. The villainous Tangua is as bad as Winnetou is good, which sends a hell of a mixed message. Some Indians are noble but most of them, like Tangua, are rotten to the core.

I'm still amazed that you don't get the point. Consider the real Indians in the late 19th century or any other time. They weren't the "lowest," they weren't "weaker," and they weren't "murderous redskins." Indians like Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, and Geronimo kicked the white man's butt whenever they fought as equals. It was only the white men's superior numbers—not, as May would have it, their Christian morality—that gave them the ultimate victory.

Again, read May's words: "...slinking, lying, mistrustful, murderous redskin." This is supposedly the state of the Indian when Old Shatterhand met them and May wrote about them. It doesn't matter how this situation came about because the situation itself was derogatory. Indians were fading away because they were evildoers and no longer deserved to live. Old Shatterhand and Winnetou would try to halt the decline, but there was little they could do about it.

In the fourth paragraph after the ones you quoted, May writes:

"Yes, the Indian is terminally ill, and we stand by his deathbed." Hello? How much clearer does May have to make it? The Indians are liars and murderers, so their fate is sealed. They're goners, so it doesn't matter what Old Shatterhand and Winnetou do for them. Destiny has decreed that the Indians must die.

Hitler could've ignored the superficial pro-Indian message of Winnetou and absorbed the deeper anti-Indian message. In fact, he could've taken his lessons directly from the introduction. The Jews are liars and murderers, so their fate is sealed. They're goners, so it doesn't matter what the Third Reich does to them. Destiny has decreed that the Jews must die.

Get it now?

Rob

More on Karl May
Why we love Custer and Indians
Why Germans love Indians
New Karl May exhibit

Related links
America's exceptional values
America's cultural mindset

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

. . .