Gone with the wind was one of the most racist novels I've ever read

[African_Love]

I'm trying to enjoy it (and it's an otherwise great novel) but the author can be considerably obnoxious and childishly stupid at times. Is it really beyond her that not all of the slaves were in love with their "owners" and had no desire to be free and equal? Never mind her subliminal comparison of slaves to monkeys or Black people as being inherently lazy, stupid etc.


Edit: I'm halfway, by the way. Chapter 31/page 729 as of this post.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It is a little dangerous and inaccurate to say things such as "the author is obnoxious" or is racist because of certain events or phrasings in a book. There are other factors to consider such as the social context and time the work was written, before assuming the racism or sexism in a work. Also, it does not necessarily follow, it certainly shouldn't follow, that a racist character or phrase in a work signifies a racist author. Of course it might be the case, but it is very rash to jump to that conclusion.

Within a work of fiction I have few problems with characters who are racist, sexist or whatever, as long as the work stands its ground and is not part of some sort of propaganda of course, the art of the text is all that matters and flawed, even a racist obnoxious characters, are fair game. No material should be out of bounds to the artist, no matter how much we are personally repulsed by such things.

[African_Love]

It is a little dangerous and inaccurate to say things such as "the author is obnoxious" or is racist because of certain events or phrasings in a book. There are other factors to consider such as the social context and time the work was written, before assuming the racism or sexism in a work. Also, it does not necessarily follow, it certainly shouldn't follow, that a racist character or phrase in a work signifies a racist author. Of course it might be the case, but it is very rash to jump to that conclusion.

Within a work of fiction I have few problems with characters who are racist, sexist or whatever, as long as the work stands its ground and is not part of some sort of propaganda of course, the art of the text is all that matters and flawed, even a racist obnoxious characters, are fair game. No material should be out of bounds to the artist, no matter how much we are personally repulsed by such things.

This is the mentality that I adopted when I started the book and in most cases I understood she was just portraying the common sentiments of the 19th century American South but having reached part 4 and hearing the author, the narrator not one of the characters, talk about the 'affectionate relation between slaves and slave masters' and the 'insolent negroes' who were riled up by the freedmans bureau in believing themselves equal to whites and slavery having been unjust, Gwtw was 'culturally biased' even for the time period it was published (the late '30s).

[dfloyd]

I don't know. I can say that GWTW is one of the best of the Civil war era books ever written. I have read it unabridged twice and seen the movie at least seven times. Also, many of the Civil War attitudes were still prevalent in the south in the 1930s. Fortunately, most of that has passed. Mark Twain, when writing about Negroes - he called them negroes or colorored people - frequently had a paternalistic attitude about southern blacks. You just have to take these into account. I truly believe that neither Mark Twain or Margaret Mitchell were racist. They were both personalities of their time.

I was born in the south and lived there for many years. But I have been able to overcome my early prejudices. We are in a new time; in the last election, I voted for President Obama. Don't try to rewrite history or call people racist that just had the attitudes of their time. Obama got elected because he didn't dwell on the race issue. And that's why Jesse Jackson would never have been elected.

[African_Love]

I don't know. I can say that GWTW is one of the best of the Civil war era books ever written. I have read it unabridged twice and seen the movie at least seven times. Also, many of the Civil War attitudes were still prevalent in the south in the 1930s. Fortunately, most of that has passed. Mark Twain, when writing about Negroes - he called them negroes or colorored people - frequently had a paternalistic attitude about southern blacks. You just have to take these into account. I truly believe that neither Mark Twain or Margaret Mitchell were racist. They were both personalities of their time.

I was born in the south and lived there for many years. But I have been able to overcome my early prejudices. We are in a new time; in the last election, I voted for President Obama. Don't try to rewrite history or call people racist that just had the attitudes of their time. Obama got elected because he didn't dwell on the race issue. And that's why Jesse Jackson would never have been elected.

You both make some good points but I would have expected more from an author who lived in the 30s, at least if she lived in the north. Because it's written like something that could be published today, I guess it's easy to forget that Georgia was very different 70 + years ago. Flat out racism wouldn't have surprised me but the idea that slavery was some fantastic, symbiotic relationship is beyond me. I got pissed off when I read Robinson Crusoe in the 7th grade, I remember throwing the book out, lol.

[JBI]

It is a little dangerous and inaccurate to say things such as "the author is obnoxious" or is racist because of certain events or phrasings in a book. There are other factors to consider such as the social context and time the work was written, before assuming the racism or sexism in a work. Also, it does not necessarily follow, it certainly shouldn't follow, that a racist character or phrase in a work signifies a racist author. Of course it might be the case, but it is very rash to jump to that conclusion.

Within a work of fiction I have few problems with characters who are racist, sexist or whatever, as long as the work stands its ground and is not part of some sort of propaganda of course, the art of the text is all that matters and flawed, even a racist obnoxious characters, are fair game. No material should be out of bounds to the artist, no matter how much we are personally repulsed by such things.

er... not quite. It isn't a stretch to call them racist, and is totally a fair call to sat so. As for your other point, as to context, yes, we use that as an excuse to make exception for intolerance as within the thought of the time - that doesn't mean such a statement isn't racist or whatever, it just means we make excuse for it, and realize that it is part of the time period.

[dfloyd]

your Robinson Crusoe, I have a nice one for sale.

[African_Love]

your Robinson Crusoe, I have a nice one for sale.

I ripped out a couple pages from the school copy or something like that, as I recall. It wasn't my own.

[soundofmusic]

I'm trying to enjoy it (and it's an otherwise great novel) but the author can be considerably obnoxious and childishly stupid at times. Is it really beyond her that not all of the slaves were in love with their "owners" and had no desire to be free and equal? Never mind her subliminal comparison of slaves to monkeys or Black people as being inherently lazy, stupid etc.


Edit: I'm halfway, by the way. Chapter 31/page 729 as of this post.

The first time I read Gone with the Wind; I was indignant at the way Southerners were portrayed. Several years later, I remembered water fountains that had signs (Whites only), there were sometimes filthy bathrooms that had signs (coloreds) and cleaner white bathrooms. Schools were segregated until I was in 11th grade; the schools in "Black neighborhoods" were poorly supplied, over crowded and had overworked and sometimes under qualified teachers.
I learned to appreciate the book and the movie as a real work of art for that time period.
A few years ago, I saw "The Color Purple"; I remain horrified... Yet I speak with people who talk about the great ending or "Well, that happens". Gone with the wind doesn't show a father raping, beating and selling his children.
The "Song of the South" by Disney is considered inflammatory; yet it shows a cheerful, elderly man telling children wonderful stories...

[kelby_lake]

Remember, the opinions of the narrator are not those, necessarily, of the writer. To an extent, writers assume a persona even if they're writing in the third omniscient.

I do not know the tone of Gone With The Wind but is she voicing her own opinions or repeating what people genuinely thought?

[Rachel1965]

I read 'gone with the wind' many times as a young girl and teenager, this was back in the 'seventies and we hadnt got into political correctness, at that time.
I genuinly loved 'Scarlette Ohara Hamilton Kennedy Butler, and always felt the story was her story and her life.
I dont think that Margaret
Mitchel was racist she was just writing from her time and from a fairly innocent point of view.
I loved it as a good girl story and dont wish to look on it badly.


Rachel

[African_Love]

'Scarlette Ohara Hamilton Kennedy Butler

Thanks for the spoiler, I'll pretend I didn't read that, lol.

How anyone could love Scarlet is beyond me. Melly is probably my favorite character, as cliche as it is for me to choose the 'nice' girl.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It is a little dangerous and inaccurate to say things such as "the author is obnoxious" or is racist because of certain events or phrasings in a book. There are other factors to consider such as the social context and time the work was written, before assuming the racism or sexism in a work. Also, it does not necessarily follow, it certainly shouldn't follow, that a racist character or phrase in a work signifies a racist author. Of course it might be the case, but it is very rash to jump to that conclusion.

Within a work of fiction I have few problems with characters who are racist, sexist or whatever, as long as the work stands its ground and is not part of some sort of propaganda of course, the art of the text is all that matters and flawed, even a racist obnoxious characters, are fair game. No material should be out of bounds to the artist, no matter how much we are personally repulsed by such this.



er... not quite. It isn't a stretch to call them racist, and is totally a fair call to sat so. As for your other point, as to context, yes, we use that as an excuse to make exception for intolerance as within the thought of the time - that doesn't mean such a statement isn't racist or whatever, it just means we make excuse for it, and realize that it is part of the time period.

Yes quite:

Looking at this situation logically, and take into account the fact that I have not read this work - I was speaking generally upon "racist" (or feminist etc) issues in literature, you could apply the following to this particular work:

a) The "racist" comments are due to the nature of the context of the time the work was situated in. (Nigger etc, may have been a standard address for a black person then, but can such a term be considered "racist" by the standard of the day, even if it is totally unacceptable today?)

b) The "racist" comments are due to the nature of the context of the time the work was written in. (For example my grandfather sometimes says "coloureds" because this was politically correct at the time of his youth. This is perhaps racist today, but does this mean my grandfather is racist or is it that time has simply moved on and he is a little behind the times?

c) The racist comments are due to the nature of a particular character or group of characters in the text and are consciously employed as such by the author for whatever reason, i.e. to show how blacks were treated then etc.

d) The racist comments are due to the nature of a particular character or group of characters in the text and are subconsciously employed as such by the author for whatever reason.

e) The author is consciously using racist terms to cause controversy for whatever reason, i.e. to increase sales or to cause a stir etc, (this doesn't seem likely but it could be a factor).

f) The author is subconsciously using racist terms to cause controversy for whatever reason.

g) The author is subconsciously racist.

h) The author is consciously racist.

i) A mixture of the above.


This also does not take into account if a person reads this work via a translation, which of course means the racist comments could be employed via the culture of the translator, or the context the translator writes in, or the fact that the translator could be racist, subconsciously or otherwise.

Overall, whatever, it is not as straightforward as it seems. Racist, sexist, homophobic - or any such apparent comments interest me because they appear to open up the text even more as I state above. It is overly simplistic to dismiss such work from the context of 21st century eyes and to apply our standards to other eras (which I am not saying the original poster is doing having read her reply to my first comment) but even so I am very wary of dismissing any work as "racist" or "sexist" because of the overly politically correct times we live in.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally willing to accept that this work is in fact inherently racist, and that the author is indeed racist by nature, even by the context of the time, but overall, I am very cautious, very cautious, of such terms and wouldn't want to jump to any such conclusions without really studying the text in question.

I think it is a very interesting subject and opens up the text more than it closes it, and I abhor the fact that works are being banned all over the place due to the politically incorrect brigade, when in the end common sense and a little understanding of the nature of literature is all that is really required.

[blazeofglory]

I like this book, and it is really a very interesting novel and what is so special about this book is it depicts villages and folks that are so natural and vivid.I feel nostalgia when I read this about.

[stlukesguild]

To build upon what Neely is saying, I would also note that the artists/writers of the 20th and 21st century may most certainly have more than bit to answer for when seen by future generations (and would certainly have been true from the perspective of past generations) in terms of what is morally, ethically acceptable. I certainly believe that racism, sexism, xenophobia, and prejudices of any sort should be open to discussion, but considering the degree to which the notions of what is or is not "acceptable" varies much from culture to culture and across the ages I find it somewhat presumptuous (assuming of the moral superiority of our own position) to dismiss a work of art or imagine it as being fatally flawed because of the fact that it does not reinforce my own beliefs, experiences, and even prejudices.

***********

By the way... love the movie... the book didn't do much for me.

[JBI]

To build upon what Neely is saying, I would also note that the artists/writers of the 20th and 21st century may most certainly have more than bit to answer for when seen by future generations (and would certainly have been true from the perspective of past generations) in terms of what is morally, ethically acceptable. I certainly believe that racism, sexism, xenophobia, and prejudices of any sort should be open to discussion, but considering the degree to which the notions of what is or is not "acceptable" varies much from culture to culture and across the ages I find it somewhat presumptuous (assuming of the moral superiority of our own position) to dismiss a work of art or imagine it as being fatally flawed because of the fact that it does not reinforce my own beliefs, experiences, and even prejudices.

***********

By the way... love the movie... the book didn't do much for me.



Oh, I wasn't playing the value game - the whole point though, is one can, without dismissing the book as trash, still discuss issues of race, gender, or whatever within a text, and still realize that they are coming from a position which, culturally, was perhaps a little barbaric - Homer's morality is probably the best example.

[African_Love]

To build upon what Neely is saying, I would also note that the artists/writers of the 20th and 21st century may most certainly have more than bit to answer for when seen by future generations (and would certainly have been true from the perspective of past generations) in terms of what is morally, ethically acceptable. I certainly believe that racism, sexism, xenophobia, and prejudices of any sort should be open to discussion, but considering the degree to which the notions of what is or is not "acceptable" varies much from culture to culture and across the ages I find it somewhat presumptuous (assuming of the moral superiority of our own position) to dismiss a work of art or imagine it as being fatally flawed because of the fact that it does not reinforce my own beliefs, experiences, and even prejudices.

The irony of this view (that we shouldn't expect others to have our standards of morality, out of respect for other cultures, is that, in this case, it defends an artist/writer who herself, arguably, lacks respect for other cultures and has failed to empathize with 'the other'). I'm willing to put Gone With the Wind in context because it was written in the 1930s and the story revolves around events in the 19th century American South but I doubt most Black Southerners would have ever found its racist undertones acceptable, whatever the time period, even if the normalization of such attitudes prevented them from grabbing their attention or outraging them.

[kiki1982]

Has anyone ever thought of the fact that the author possibly mimicked a voice that is racist, although she is not herself, so as to become an auctorial narrator in the times of the Civil War? (Free indirect speech so to say, but then with an auctorial narrator who is part of the society of ladies who sees slaves as happy people)

Of course this work is racist to our views now. We might be racist to views in the future. The fact that some get goosebumps of this book is a sign that they still cannot cope with the past. Of course it is not unlikely that some (read: quite a lot of) blacks did not love their masters, but some undoubtedly did. Some even had children with them out of love. On the other hand, there must have been loads of masters who mistreated their slaves and who were not liked, but it is not about that. The whole civil war was about the question of losing money (losing political control at the cost of slavery, and all the money connected with that). Obviously, that is the background of that book, it is not at all the foreground. The foreground is how just that division that started the Civil War, divided and affected more than just states, it also affected people... Naturally they were in favour of the slave-trade: think about all the money they were to lose if they had to pay their slaves and could not sell them... I know it sounds cold (and I am certain I am now deemed a racist), but so was the reality. The US would never have become the country of rich landowners without the slave trade (nor some in Britain for that matter). But other than that, ladies were totally oblivious to politics, but were affected too... If only through loosing their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands.

Actually it is the same as complaining about the crimes of Robespierre when reading The Scarlet Pimpernell and countless other books of writers with the French Revolution in the background.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The irony of this view (that we shouldn't expect others to have our standards of morality, out of respect for other cultures, is that, in this case, it defends an artist/writer who herself, arguably, lacks respect for other cultures and has failed to empathize with 'the other'). I'm willing to put Gone With the Wind in context because it was written in the 1930s and the story revolves around events in the 19th century American South but I doubt most Black Southerners would have ever found its racist undertones acceptable, whatever the time period, even if the normalization of such attitudes prevented them from grabbing their attention or outraging them.

I know, but I just think it is such a slippery slope to go down. Similar arguments arise from Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" critics have been arguing for and against it as a racist novel for years and years, some people want the novel completely removed from all syllabus's, some see it as ahead of its time and ironic in its depiction of British colonialism and all manner of things! For me this only adds more layers of interest to the novel and the issues which surround it. The thought of not studying such texts because of criticisms of racism from 21st century point of view does not go down well with me at all.

Even if a text does depict racism is it not better to read and study these texts in the open, as opposed to hiding them away and pretending racism didn't (doesn't) exist?

[soundofmusic]

Thanks for the spoiler, I'll pretend I didn't read that, lol.

How anyone could love Scarlet is beyond me. Melly is probably my favorite character, as cliche as it is for me to choose the 'nice' girl.


I actually admired Pork and Mammy the most of all the characters; they were the glue that kept everything together! After the war they nursed the family, kept an eye on Gerald and knew how to find and prepare food.
Scarlett is a bit narcissistic and amoral; but she took responsibility for many admirable people who were like roaches on their backs. I don't know that I would have let Ashley talk me into taking care of the woman he chose instead of me!

[kelby_lake]

Has anyone ever thought of the fact that the author possibly mimicked a voice that is racist, although she is not herself, so as to become an auctorial narrator in the times of the Civil War?

Yes, in my last post (well, sort of):
Remember, the opinions of the narrator are not those, necessarily, of the writer. To an extent, writers assume a persona even if they're writing in the third omniscient.

I do not know the tone of Gone With The Wind but is she voicing her own opinions or repeating what people genuinely thought?

[kiki1982]

oh, my God :eek:, was I so blind?

Man it must have been late when I wrote that!

[hellsapoppin]

''Even if a text does depict racism is it not better to read and study these texts in the open, as opposed to hiding them away and pretending racism didn't (doesn't) exist?''


Agree 100%.

In the past I have read that Mitchell was a racist. This does not mean that she wanted slavery to be resurrected or that she applauded lynching. But there is an evident undercurrent of apologia for the old southern ways. Today, it is likely that she would not harbor such archaic thoughts.

Meantime, it is literature of the type she wrote that enlightens us as to the warped and archaic ideas that prevailed in society at that time. Hopefully, we can all learn that such bigotry was mindless and counter productive to the needs of society then and now. On that basis, we must not close our eyes to those books. Instead, we should read them with an open mind and hopefully glean some possibly good lesson from the unfortunate circumstances they reveal from that era.

[kiki1982]

It would actually be surprising to me if Mitchell wasn't a racist in modern terms. Given that there was still, at the time this book was written, a culture of 'apartheid' in the US, it would be very strange for someone part of that society not to support those views.

There were still hospitals for only whites and only blacks seperated seeting areas on public transport, almost seperated jobs (a black man apart from the lucky few, was never to become a man of status in society), seperate living areas...

That said, it does not at all follow that she approved slavery.

So, racist in contemporary terms, no, in modern terms yes, but are those modern terms relevant?

[soundofmusic]

Mitchell's background, no doubt, gave her a "birds eye view" of the social complexites of the South. Her father was a lawyer, her mother a suffragette, she worked as a journalist and was married to an abusive moonshiner.
In such circumstances, she, no doubt, became a pragmatist like her character Scarlett. In Scarletts case, she was an "equal opportunity pragmatist"; she exploited black and white, prisoners and aristocrats, to keep control of the things and people that made her life purposeful.

[mona amon]

I feel the book is racist even by the standards of the time. The other race is portrayed as a different species; not just inferior, but almost subhuman. In the book they are work horses or pack mules. At the best they are pet animals. At worst, rampaging wild beasts. Mammy and Pork fare a little better, but they too are deporsonalised stereotypes of the faithful nurse and loyal family retainer.

I can understand the point about having to adopt a racist narrative voice, but if the author herself was not of the view that slavery was all right, surely she'd have given us some hint of it?

[soundofmusic]

If Margaret Mitchell was black; would we then consider this book of great historical significance? Would we still question the writers racism?

[dfloyd]

Margaret Mitchell or Mark Twain for having viewpoints prevalent at their time. I don't think either one was a racist, and what good does it do to call them such when you didn't live in their time? The book, GWTW, is a good book in describing the pre Civil War to post Civil War conditions in the South. I don't like to say categorically that the poster and others are wrong, but it seems to me that more contemporary wrongs can be righted without dwelling on this long-dead author and her book. And the poster comes across to me as having a very thin skin in these matters. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[hellsapoppin]

If Margaret Mitchell was black; would we then consider this book of great historical significance? Would we still question the writers racism?


Would certain white rebels have been portrayed with the same nobility of character that appeared in the book?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Originally Posted by soundofmusic
If Margaret Mitchell was black; would we then consider this book of great historical significance? Would we still question the writers racism?


Would certain white rebels have been portrayed with the same nobility of character that appeared in the book?

You see, opening up the text for discussion is far more interesting...

[mona amon]

If Margaret Mitchell was black; would we then consider this book of great historical significance? Would we still question the writers racism?

I think we should decide whether a book is racist or not based on what's in it, irrespective of what the author's race is or what his/her actual beliefs are. Let the text speak for itself.


I see no point in castigating writers of the ilk of ....

Margaret Mitchell or Mark Twain for having viewpoints prevalent at their time. I don't think either one was a racist, and what good does it do to call them such when you didn't live in their time? The book, GWTW, is a good book in describing the pre Civil War to post Civil War conditions in the South. I don't like to say categorically that the poster and others are wrong, but it seems to me that more contemporary wrongs can be righted without dwelling on this long-dead author and her book. And the poster comes across to me as having a very thin skin in these matters. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Am I 'the poster'? :)

Anyway, whether I have a thin skin or not isn't the point. I explained why I think the book is racist, even for its time. If you did not find those reasons valid, you have not mentioned why.


contemporary wrongs can be righted without dwelling on this long-dead author and her book

You are probably right about that. But if a book is racist, that's what it ought to be called, IMO.

BTW, I do not find Twain intrinsically racist, but that's for another post.

[soundofmusic]

Would certain white rebels have been portrayed with the same nobility of character that appeared in the book?

It's always interesting to see how another person interprets the same book.
In my case, I thought Mitchell painted the white rebels as a bunch of dreamers, gentlemen who were unprepared for the hardships of war and the poor, who had no horses, rifles, and had no one to leave their families with.
When Scarlett was assaulted, it was evident that it was considered her fault. Sam, a black slave, was shown as a hero; fighting off two men, jumping into a moving wagon and taking her to safety. Frank was considered an old fool and died on the road; Ashley and the others had to be rescued by a man with no principles or morals. Where are the white characters who were so noble?


You see, opening up the text for discussion is far more interesting...

:wave: Quite right, Neely. Through so many eyes, we are able to see all the facets of the author, the book, the history and the thought process of the readers.