Gone with the Wind, both the novel and the book have won wide-spread appreciation and acclaim. But the danger lies, because of its popularity. Just because it’s popular doesn’t mean its right. Birth of a Nation was popular. Does that mean it was morally right?
Margaret Mitchell might be the best story-teller ever and Scarlett O’ Hara the most adorable heroine of all times, but that doesn’t in any way justify the book’s racist and sexist attitudes.
Malcolm X once said, “The white Southerner, you can say one thing – he is honest. He bares his teeth to the black man; he tells the black man, to his face, that Southern whites never will accept phony ‘integration.’ The Southern white goes further, to tell the black man that he means to fight him every inch of the way – against even the so-called ‘tokenism.’ The advantage of this is the Southern black man never has been under any illusions about the opposition he is dealing with.”
Gone with the Wind is racist, but since its language is more subtle, we tend to gloss over it. We love pretty women in luxuriant ball gowns, huge mansions, the fight for a so-called “noble cause,” dancing and music. Its unrealistic portrayal of the South and its many historical inaccuracies has not affected its popularity; or maybe it’s popular because it has successfully glamorized the slave era.
Everyone is familiar with the great success of the movie and the film. What was surprising is that most reviewers praised Gone with the Wind and lamented the passing away of the “glorious South.” A South, which never existed except in the white man’s mind.
Black Loyalty:
Why should Afro-Americans be loyal to the whites who have enslaved them? Beats all logic! But this is the premise on which Gone with the Wind and Uncle Tom’s Cabin operate. In both novels, you have Afro-Americans – Uncle Tom and Mammy – being extremely loyal to the whites, who repay them for their loyalty by selling their kids and spouses, branding them as property, and chaining them to unremitting labour.
Uncle Tom and Mammy are also the “happy slaves.” What are they trying to do? Condone slavery? Were they trying to establish that the Afro-American was happy under the white man’s rule?
Malcolm X is dead against these “Uncle Tom characters or integration black fools.” I can so empathize with his views.
None of the white people in the book, including Rhett and Ahsley (the only two men who don’t follow the common herd), give Afro-Americans any credit for intelligence.
Scarlett own words are: “How stupid negroes were! They never thought of anything unless they were told.” “How dared they laugh, the black apes! She’d like to have them all whipped until the blood ran down. What devils the Yankees were to set them free!”
The author herself, in a narrative portion says, “The blacks were like monkeys. Destroying everything they could lay their hands on….A menace to white women.” What a horrible insinuation! That the Afro-American cannot appreciate his freedom? “Blacks are like monkeys?”
Mitchell even compares their mentality to that of little children, “who must be fed, clothed and protected.” So many characters in the book, say what Mitchell feels, that Afro-Americans don’t and can’t do anything unless they are ordered to do so.
Characters like Pork and Uncle Peter embody the silent loyalty and faithfulness expected of the white man, after denying the Afro-American his freedom, his dignity and life.
Slaves can only have minor roles and must be happy with their lot. Selznick’s Gone with the Wind is in many ways worse than the book. Prissy, who is shown as a lazy girl in the book, is turned into a really stupid person in the film.
Gone with the Wind also sends out the message: “Nice blacks stay with their masters. Nice blacks don’t want freedom. Nice blacks hate Abraham Lincoln. Wicked blacks run riot, desert their masters and desire white women.”
Even in Uncle Tom’s cabin, the nice Afro-Americans are the ones who chose loyalty to their masters over freedom.
Strong Female White characters
One of the positive aspects is the strong female white characters it portrays. Scarlett is in a way legendary. Her survival instincts are high. Where men have failed, she not only succeeds but triumphs. She cares a naught for social approval, whether it comes to marrying three men in a row or sharp, cut-throat business dealings.
Though the book tries to portray Ellen and Melanie as noble women with the “right” values, I don’t find them half as appealing as Scarlett. Scarlett thinks for herself. Her desires are independent of her husband’s desires. She doesn’t act like a goody, goody. If Ellen and Melanie were really all that good, they would have opposed slavery, not turned a blind eye to the sufferings of black people (I know I’m beginning to sound like a Methodist preacher, but I can’t help the vehemence).
In one of the lines, Scarlett says that Uncle Tom’s cabin is nonsense. She claims Southerners always treated their “darkies well.” She denies the existence of bloodhounds or arms to keep slaves from escaping. Lines like these are absolute rubbish! What person, in his right mind, would prefer slavery to freedom? And Margaret Mitchell is also asking us to believe that the whites did not use force to keep the blacks from revolting. Too much, I say! So lynchings never happened?
Even Rhett Butler, who has not inherited many of the prejudices of the white Southern (ironically) “gentleman,” feels justified in killing a black man, all because he has the termity to get “uppity with a white woman.”
Gerald O Hara, who is generally portrayed as a kind-hearted shrewd Irish Southerner, also feels “blacks are inferiors.” Scarlett’s mom exhorts her to treat “inferiors kindly, but firmly.”
Problems with the film
The film, glosses over war, death, disease, racist slurs, brothels, adultery and miscarriages. The film also greatly alters the original script. Scarlett O Hara obviously cannot be portrayed a virgin waiting to be ravished by Rhett Butler, so they do the next best thing. She doesn’t have any children till Rhett comes along. Since a mother of two on her third attempt at marriage might not sound glamorous, the film tried to make her first two marriages almost non-existent in the minds of the viewer and highlight only the glorious romance with Rhett.
But even here, the night of the showdown, when Rhett forcibly takes her to his bed…there is something too distasteful and insidious, because Scarlett is shown to have enjoyed the semi-rape; dangerous conclusions can be drawn. And both in the movie and book, there is the constant refrain that Scarlett needs someone to boss over her or she would bully them.
There is also the suggestion that a marriage can be happy only if the wife submits to her husband or at least pretends to submit to him.
Hattie McDaniel became the first Afro-American to win an Academy Award for her role in Gone with the Wind. But then again, this cannot be taken as a real step forward. The very same Hattie Mc Daniel was unable to attend the Georgia premier of the movie, because Georgia was a segregated state. Clark Gable, to his credit, protested, but in the end McDaniel solved the problem for the racists by not appearing for the show.
The Ku Klux Klan
It is a shame that racist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan are still allowed to function in the US. Both the film and the book justify the actions of this despicable organization. According to Mitchell, respectable white men join this organization to protect the honour of their white women. The Ku Klux Klan has used violence to suppress Afro-Americans, Jews, Roman Catholics and labour unions.
There is also strong evidence to suggest that Margaret Mitchell was influenced by D W Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. Birth of a Nation, is the archetypical white supremacy film, which justifies lynchings of black men. I can only end by quoting Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird: “you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption, that all negroes lie; all negroes are basically immoral beings; all negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is in itself, gentlemen, a lie.”
(Justification for this long diatribe: I read Gone with the Wind when I was 10 and loved it. The references to Afro-Americans made me uncomfortable. But it was only after I became 14 did I come to fully realise the depth of racism in the book. I have for long wanted to write this, and I still haven’t written everything I want to say…but that will have to wait)
If you do not want your indignation to shoot further through the roof…you may not want to look at this article
http://hnn.us/articles/9142.html -its recent history, much more recent than the book or movie. I found it while wading through Patriocentricity, cults and all sorts of craziness out there – incredible. 🙂
I read the article and was shocked. I know white supremacists still exist in America, but didn’t know that they had such fervent support.
And about “my indignation shooting through the roof”….. 🙂 I really like ur sense of humour.
Do you blog?
This is WAYYY cool.
im doing a history project on them RIGHT now…
haha!
bye!!!
I agree with what you have authored in you your posting and hope you understand my feelings about racism in regards to journalism in the media.
http://ourcountryspresident.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/online-news-service-racism-in-journalism/
viadoooo esse porra é pika para caceteee uhullllll
beijos gostosas de todo o brasil eu pego voces de jeito minha sexys uiui
minhas sexys branquinhass eu sou um negãoooooooooooooo =}
bejos na b……
I have loved and watched Gone With the Wind since I was eight years old. When I was younger watching the movie I was more interested in the pretty dresses and the debonair gentlemen than the actual storyline. As I watch it now I realize and see the racism in the movie and I have read the book and see it there as well, and I agree that the book/movie should not be praised for the racial slurs and innuendos, but I am a avid book reader and movie watcher and I believe that the movie should be praised as on of the greatest movies of all time. Although the movie is nothing like the book, the movie portrays a wonderful tale of a different kind of love between a man and a women, where the man is laying everything on the line and the woman has to realize that she loves him instead of the normal story in which the woman has to express her feelings in order for the man to realize that he loves her.
I fully realize that that is not the point of your post, but I think that the movie at least needs to get the respect of people because of the major cinematic accomplishments for the time period that it was made in.
Slavery , wrong, wrong . But , blame the portuguese that sold them away to the white plantation owners whose descendants are paying dearly today with the increasingly huge population of these africans in the south and holds a lot of hate towards the white of today that are no longer slaves owners , neither the “brothers” are slaves .They should concentrate their hate on the arabs , that took them out of the peaceful little villages en the middle of the jungle , away from the warm of their families , to sale them out to the portuguese , and today these africans are muslems , because they believe that being christians makes them “uncle Toms ” .Today 2009 they still cry : racism , this only denotes lack of real pride and only anger and a poor excuse to rape white women or just impregnate them for the hell of it .I feel sorry for the blacks of the plantation days , it was unjust , but not for the blacks of today , they are slaves of their own ill passions .
It’s fiction. Get over it. 😀
I agree with Stephanie. It’s fiction, meant to tell the true story of the Old South. The Old South may have been ugly at times but it was still the truth. It didn’t glamourize it, I don’t feel. I think it was just a story with the ugly truth in it. It’s ironic how no one mentioned the Africans that sold their own people to the white man either. The truth of the matter is that it was a good story and will remain a great story and no one will stop liking the story just because of the details. It should be noted that movies these days contain much more racism and ignorance yet people watch because they like the entertainment.
Alright, now I am completely against slavery and I think that it was a horrible practice that the people of the south (not to mention other parts of the globe) to have done to the african americans.
However, slamming the novel and book (I have seen and read both) is a blatant disregard for the times that they were written/filmed.
The book for example, was written in the 1930’s southern woman, who, in her own way does slam slavery but remember she herself was southern woman. Of course she is going to glorify the south and what they stood for. And, as for Scarlett O’Hara, who I myself admire for her survival skills and iniative she shows and obviously posesses, who you have a fair go at with her quotes and the awful things that she said in relation to the black community, has just lost everything because the african americans were freed. She came from a wealthy, southern plantation owning family and her world was destroyed. She was left with a baby that she didn’t exactly want and couldn’t provide for, another baby who was the child of the man she thought she was in love with, a servant who annoyed the living daylights out of her and Melanie, the kind and selfless woman who is married to Ashley and also annoys Scarlett to no end. Not to mention the dead mother, crazy father and two annoying, spoilt little sisters. It is, actually quite reasonable that she holds some of those views, of course in today’s society they are seen as awful and wrong but think about what context this novel is written in. Think about the character and her trials and efforts that all happened, in her eyes, for nothing because the yankess fought for freedom.
On many counts you are right but you are also picking and choosing your facts in order to make your argument sound more plausible.
I hope that this does not cause any offense to you or any readers of this comment. It was not the intention of this comment. I hope that this is merely seen as a semi-argument for the context in which the book and movie was written and filmed.
Olivia
yeah. racism is never correct. it’s i the movie. but we must remember, many people in the past used to treat their servants good. there was a beautiful relationship i them. Intentions differ from person to person. and I like film because of ther characters. scarlet’s attitude. how she throws happiness, Clark gable as Rhett buttler’s awesome.
There is a world of reality, and a world of fiction.
Storytelling belongs to the world of fiction, not a world of reality. For ‘Gone with the Wind’ to evoke such emotion is for the book became a best seller, and why the movie production was made in the first place.
Whatever emotion is evoked from the story it is anything but ‘indifference’. And that is the prerequisite of the publishing and movie industries. ‘Gone with the Wind’ has climbed it to the status of an All-time Classic, and will continue to climb, as the story is timeless.
Pamela
Everything everyone said about racism in the book is true. But another real tragedy was the way men expected women to act just for their benefit, it was just stupid and ridiculous.
Did men think women were just silly fools and ninnys, expecting them to faint every few seconds.
And what was the deal with Ashley? Was he so weak that he couldn’t make up his own mind about anything?
That was my problem with the book and the movie.
As for the black people in the book/movie I knew it couldn’t have been so great for them to be property. Did anybody see ROOTS. Hello!!
I do not agree that the movie is racist. Maybe in a sense that the white southerners are not treated fairly, but that was only done to portray/get the feeling of what life was life back then in the south.
Racism is horrible, yes. But you are so very wrong about so many things. The story is set in an era when feeling like those presented in the book were rampant, and the book accurately depicts the sentiments of many from that time. The book is very accurate. You seem young. Who are you to presume to know what life was like post Civil War? You seem to insinuate that all slave owners were abusive and awful. Granted, most were, but have you ever read contemporary accounts? Washington owned slaves, whom were all freed after his death. They all spoke warmly of the way he treated them. There are many written accounts of former slaves saying they were never treated badly. Also, you find it offensive that the book says freed slaves could not take care of themselves. Have you ever taken a history class in your life? Imagine being captive all your life, with food and shelter provided for you, then suddenly being thrust into a world where everyone hates you, there are no job opportunities, you can’t feed your family, and there is no where to live. So yes, some slaves returned to their formers owners for protection, because frankly they couldn’t manage to live a good life in the southern atmosphere of the time. Almost none had the money to escape North. Realizing the value of freedom is not the same thing as knowing that you have to provide for yourself and your family, and frankly “freedom” has no practical application in the real world.
It seems to me that you have righteous and good opinions, but have not done enough research to be able to defend them at all. If I were you, I’d look into what you’re saying and reevaluate your thoughts.
P.S. You seem to be only responding to comments by those agree with you. Well done.
About responding to comments…I am guilty as charged. I dont respond to comments these days..but not because of a dissenting viewpoint….techincal issues..and limited net access
You said: “You seem to insinuate that all slave owners were abusive and awful”. I am not insinuating that all slave owners were abusive and awful, I am STATING that all slave owners cannot be morally upright for the very fact that they own slaves – and profit from another’s misery.
And about my ignorance or presumptions – they could be vast, considering that I am not even a US citizen. But I am anti-slavery and anti-racism and didn’t at all like Margaret Mitchell’s comparison of Afro-Americans to monkeys.
There are many, many things in the book that I found galling to say the least. I would be interested in debating with u (appreciated the sense of humour/scarcasm u revealed in the post script 😉
Regards, Rachel
The slave owners’ treatment of slaves – I feel is immaterial to the question of ethics. It is unethical and a gross violation of human rights in the first place to own slaves. Any cruelty on the part of the slave owners will only compound their initial sin – of owning them.
this article is as ridiculous as you are . get over it .
The thing you’re missing is that Gone With The Wind was not a book, or a movie, about slavery or women’s rights. It was written to portray the culture of the South before, during, and after the Civil War. It succeeded. Regretfully, racism and sexism were a part of this culture. If the racism and sexism were glossed over or cut out altogether, then the portrayal of the culture and the time would be inaccurate.
many of the negros that went north worked for northern factory owners , lived in company houses , bought from company stores and were worse off than being slaves. I am not agreeing with slavery, but the northerners used the word employee instead of slave or property to get away with the same thing the south was persecuted for.Remember also the civil war did not start out as a free the slaves war but was about economics.The cry to free the slaves was but a ruse to rally the northerners that did not give a damn about cotton and coal to fuel the northern economic engines, as they did not profit from any of it any how.If a person shows me respect regardless of color or creed I show him the same respect,show me disrespect i will show the same.
please help me in my research .i need an answer for this question soon!
write about class issues in Gone with the Wind. How does Mitchell portray characters who do not belong to the white plantation-owning class? How do the Civil War and Reconstruction change class boundaries?
A re-reading the book for the first time since high school.Ihve now gotten to 1863-64 and to my surprise there i no mention of the Emancipation Proclamatio of of the fact that blck slaves started to desert their masters right after the war began.
I do not understand! stupid school