Gone With the Wind Fans discussion

As much as I love Gone with the Wind, I feel very uncomfortable reading parts of it, particularly the glorification of slavery and the Klan. The comparisons of African Americans to animals and objects is especially disturbing. I just don't know how to reconcile my appreciation of the novel with my distaste for the racism in the novel.

This is an interesting article on GWTW (movie and novel) and race:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/...

I guess, to me, there are several factors to take into account when reading GWTW. First, Margaret Mitchell was raised to view the Confederacy, slavery, and the Civil War in a certain way. On her first day of college at Smith, she demanded to be changed to another section because a black girl was in her class. Moreover, the novel was written in the 20s and 30s, which was the height of Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Also, the novel does take place during the Civil War era in the Southeast--not exactly a time of peace and equality.

I'm rambling on and don't have any answers, but I just felt compelled to get these thoughts off my chest.

Has anyone else experienced this conflict?

Here's another article dealing with race and GWTW from The New Yorker last year (2009):


http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics...

It's called "The Real Rhett Butler" and discusses Victor Fleming, the production, and race. It's a pretty interesting read.

I have this problem too. Moreover, I can't always excuse Margaret Mitchell for it, as long as there were people raised in the same circumstances that wrote more nuanced books on the issue. The book is undeniably racist and presents an inaccurate view of the Reconstruction period in particular, but I love it despite these things.

skyebugs wrote: "I have this problem too. Moreover, I can't always excuse Margaret Mitchell for it, as long as there were people raised in the same circumstances that wrote more nuanced books on the issue. The book..."

I agree completely--Faulkner is a great example from that time period. He had some issues, too, but his stuff does investigate where this hatred comes from.

The main reason I enjoy it so much is because I love how Scarlett survives no matter what. Her undying will power is infectious and, to me, the best part of the novel. The romance is good, too. :)

I really believe that Margaret Mitchell was less racist in her private life than most of the people surrounding her, and yes, the Morehouse College donations are a good indicator of that. I also read that she volunteered as a nurse at the black hospital in her youth. (Though neither of these things necessarily implies a person is not racist, but in this case I will take them as that.)

However, her writing is very biased. Admittedly what bothers me more is the second part of the book, the Reconstruction period (that the Everett report indicates as too biased, and that Mitchell herself admits was the case in her July 27th reply), but the first part can be judged from this perspective as well. The universe she is building is her own, not the strictly historical one (and that stands for any novelist), and she chose to depict a world of happy slaves.

How she could have depicted the life on the plantation without that? I don't know, but what I do know is that William Faulkner managed that, the same year, with Absalom, Absalom. I don't want to give any spoilers for that book, but while he gives a Southern perspective as well, he manages to show that it's just that: a perspective, not the absolute truth, and to hint very strongly to the fact that there was something rotten in the antebellum Southern society.

Admittedly, Faulkner didn't always manage this, and a novel like Sartoris/Flags in the Dust is closer to the perspective in GWTW, but Absalom, Absalom is not. It is, I think, impossible for a novelist to give a completely objective view of reality. There is no such thing as a slice of life unaltered, consciously or not, by the author's views, and in this case Margaret Mitchell's views (that were shared not only by the general public, but even by most historians at the time) colored the universe in GWTW, and they were views laden with racial prejudice. (Faulkner, it must be said, was uncannily in tune with the emerging schools of thought, that were much more nuanced, at least in Absalom, Absalom.)

Again, this doesn't stop me from loving the book, but, it's important for me to state this problem clearly and distance myself from it. It's quite simply a part of the book I condemn.

About Margaret Mitchell's July 27 letter, I am very sorry, I thought Shaninalux had quoted that part of it in her post as well. It was thoughtless of me not to check first. Anyway, here it is: "He [Everett] wrote 'the author should keep out her own feelings in one or two places where she talks about negro rule.' He is absolutely right in that matter and I thank him for calling my attention to it. I hope I would have caught it in my rewrite--or that my husband would have done so but perhaps he wouldn't have. I have tried to keep out venom, bias, bitterness as much as possible. All the V, B&B [venom, bias & bitterness, I suppose] were to come through the eyes and head and tongues of the characters, as reactions from what they saw and heard and felt." I will argue in a different comment that she didn't accomplish what she set out to do in the last sentence, and Everett's criticism continues to stand.

And, incidentally, about comparing African Americans to animals and objects, Everett also objected to that, and this is what Mitchell replied in the same letter: "'And to refer to Mammy's 'ape face' and her 'black paws' seems unnecessary', he continues. I am grateful for this criticism, too. I do not know exactly where these phrases occur but will track them down and change them. I 'meant no disrespect' to Mammy for I have heard so many negroes refer to their hands as 'black paws' and when an old and wrinkled negro woman is sad, there is nothing else in the world she looks like except a large ape." The last sentence made me cringe.

If anyone else is interested, here's the link to what we posted of the letter: http://gwtwscrapbook.blogspot.com/201...

and a link to what we could piece together of the Everett report:
http://gwtwscrapbook.blogspot.com/p/e...

Well, there are two aspects to address in your post: Margaret Mitchell's honest view of history and how many of the book's racist comments actually come from the characters.

1. I agree that Margaret Mitchell wrote history as she perceived it, and I never claimed differently. This is what she knew about the Civil War and Reconstruction from both her family and older citizens of Atlanta and most of the history books available at the time. I wish she would have looked further than that (like others have), but it's a hard thing to do, it's explainable that she didn't, and I am not saying she should have given us anything other than her truth in GWTW.

I am also not saying I want to be passified as a reader. But that's just the thing: I am not a passive reader, so I reserve the right to judge Margaret Mitchell's truth and actively disagree with it, no matter how much I love the rest of the book. What I hold as truth is very much opposed to what she held as truth in the last part of the book. And I do believe that it's Mitchell that held those views, though she tried to keep the "venom, bias and bitterness" restricted to her characters. That brings me to my second point.

2. You assume I judge MM based on what her characters think and say. I don't. I understand why her characters needed to be racist, needed to have a very biased position. I think that's completely okay and not one of Scarlett's outbursts against "black apes" and "nigger lovers" fell into my original judgment of the book. It's not about that.

It's about how Mitchell represented the Southern POV, not only through her characters, but through her narrator as well, a narrator that seems to be impersonal and omniscient, that is there to deliver the truth about the fictional world she built for us.

The same narrator that tells us that Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful, says things like: "Aided by the unscrupulous adventurers who operated the Freedmen's Bureau and urged on by a fervor of Northern hatred almost religious in its fanaticism, the former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated to the seats of the mighty. There they conducted themselves as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild--either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance." That whole portion of the 37th chapter is Mitchell's description of the Reconstruction, not Scarlett's internal monologue.

It is not Scarlett who justifies the Klan's existence (she actively loathes it), it's the narrator that presents it as a necessity, even if impractical (but by no means immoral!). Examples like this abound in the Reconstruction section of the book, and I actually think the bitterness that seeps through the lines there disrupts the flow of the story in its entirety a little. I don't have as many issues with the first part, the war years, I think she handled that better.

It's about what she chose to depict and what she chose to leave out as well. I would have been completely fine with it if all the things she wrote were still in there, as Scarlett's POV, as the other Southern white men and women POV's, but she depicted, however briefly, one, just one slave that was unhappy with his condition, and not just because he was lazy and unworthy. That would have told me that she was aware that there is more to it than her characters knew.

There were worthy black people involved in Reconstruction as well, but in GWTW, you only have "mean niggers" that want the right to vote (dazzled by the Yankee lies, such as, and I quote Mitchell's narrator on this: "You're just as good as any white man, so act that way.") and the good devoted servants that only want to stay by their families.

Those are the choices of the author. They are not the behavior/perspective of her characters. And those are the reasons for which I reject that part of the book, while I am fine with Scarlett whining about Reconstruction herself, and even with Rhett shooting a black man because he was uppity to a white woman, because I understand that they represent the Southern society at that point in history.

Haha, yes, let's not re-enact any war. I do think both our positions are clear and that we don't disagree that radically. And at the end of the day, we both appreciate this woman's writing.

Wow! I didn't intend to start such an explosive discussion. But that is exactly what I love about goodreads. :)

I actually agree with both of you, which is why I feel so conflicted about this book. While she is portraying southerners from (her idea) of an accurate perspective, she does make a racist case for slavery. I completely agree with you Skyebugs about the second half of the novel being much more offensive. The whole defense of the Klan was almost unreadable for me. And I have read that letter where she describes black women looking like apes when they cry.

According to Southern Daughter: The Life of Margaret Mitchell and the Making of Gone With the Wind, Mitchell did have some racist views. For instance, on her first day at Smith College, she was horrified that she had black classmates. She even complained to the dean about it. Finally, she decided to switch sections.

I also read about her support of African American medical students, which in that time was a very unracist thing to do.

I've also read Absolam! Absolam!, and it is by far the most challenging novel I have ever read--even for Faulkner! That said, most of Faulkner's stuff looks at the roots of racism. To me, Light in August is another excellent novel about racism.

Nevertheless, I do really enjoy Gone with the Wind and feel Mitchell had a great talent. I think the reason she held racist views is mostly owing to the time she grew up in and the people who shaped those views (i.e. her family). I really think that if she had not been taught to think certain ways about African Americans, then she would have been more open-minded.

I'm loving this discussion!

Racism was a major part of the times Mitchell was writing about. You can't really write a realistic novel about the antebellum south if you eliminate racism from the story. People really believed that stuff because it was so deeply ingrained in the culture for generations. I don't know whether Mitchell herself held racist views or not. Mitchell's descriptions of slavery and personal prejudices were probably very sanitized compared to real life at that time. I thought the racism in John Jakes's North & South trilogy was probably worse, much more graphic.

Miranda wrote: "Racism was a major part of the times Mitchell was writing about. You can't really write a realistic novel about the antebellum south if you eliminate racism from the story. People really believed t..."

I haven't read North and South, but I plan to in the future.

Your post made me remember when I had to read the "Melanctha" section in Three Lives for a Modernist literature class. I found it much more racist than GWTW, not to mention classist. Oddly, everyone (except me) found that story so moving and fascinating and essential to the study of American literature; and many people still defend its relevance to the canon and excuse the racism as part of the times. However, it's still pretty much taboo to even mention GWTW, much less say you enjoy it or find it relevant to literary studies. So absurd.

Anonymously, Margaret Mitchell provided Dr. Benjamin E. Mays with funds to pay for the medical educations of dozens of promising African American men -- a story which only came to light several years ago, and has never fully been told -- until now.
* (from http://andrewyoungfoundation.blogspot.co...)

This documentary looks fascinating! I watched all of the videos posted from it on Youtube and am intrigued. Do you know where one can watch the movie in its entirety? Or get a DVD copy? Thanks, Jillian!

Lara

Will do! I'm determined to find this thing. :)

Also, I noticed on the website for Andrew Young Presents that there is a link to the "Andrew Young Collection": http://shop.andrewyoungfoundation.org/. I guess it's just not on DVD yet but will be soon.

I sent them a message via their "contact us" page. I should know about this soon!

The Andrew Young Foundation still hasn't responded to my emails. However, judging from the website, Change in the Wind should be on DVD eventually. It only came out a few months ago. I guess by the summer or next fall at the latest there will be a DVD. We'll see...

On another note, I've been reading Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the wind letters, 1936-1949 and found some interesting letters addressing race and GWTW. She was apparently very hurt by the accusations of the novel (and movie) being racist. In one letter, she details all of the things she has done for the African American community in Atlanta (the Moorehouse College donations notwithstanding). Apparently, she and her husband tutored black children after school in addition to supporting education and medical care for African Americans.

She was also annoyed at the criticism of her use of derogatory/racist language, arguing that the characters had to speak that way to be authentic. The language, according to Mitchell, was her way of critiquing the white perspective during the Civil War. I always figured this, especially since the characters use words of denigration, but the narrator uses Negro, black, or colored. Here's an interesting quote from a letter to Sue Myrick in 1939:

"I do not need to tell you how I and all my folks feel about Negroes. We've always fought for colored education and, even when John and I were at our worst financially, we were helping keep colored children in schools, furnishing clothes and carfare, and, oh, the terrible hours when I had to help with home work which dealt with fractions. I have paid for medical care and done nursing myself on many occasions; all of us have fought in the law courts and paid fines. Well, you know what I mean, you and your people have done the same thing. The colored people I know here in Atlanta had nothing but nice things to say, especially the older ones" (27).

The letter is very illuminating about her character, and does show her concern about racial issues. I think Mitchell was probably progressive in her relations with African Americans, but her novel shows the ambivalence she has towards the "Old South." This paradox fascinates me, which I suppose my lengthy posts reveal! Hope these aren't too long!

Hey, Lara, just stumbled across this on Sally Tippet Rains' blog (http://gwtwbook.wordpress.com/). She mentions "Change in the Wind" and says this: "The documentary will air on Georgia PBS after the first of the year and then be available to the general public." I don't know where this info comes from, but I asked on Facebook and maybe she can tell us more.

I also looked up the article she refers to in her post, from the December issue of Atlanta Magazine. It's CB Hackworth (co-writer and director of "Change in the Wind") talking about their research process, with an emphasis on a letter MM sent Hattie McDaniel after the Atlanta premiere (Hattie McDaniel, as you know, was not there, b/c of segregation):

"We uncovered fascinating pieces of 'lost' history—including the simple yet extraordinary document Mitchell composed in haste on one of the most stressful and exciting nights of her life. The handwritten note was a telegram, finally sent at 5 a.m., delivered to the home of Hattie McDaniel in Los Angeles. On the morning after the premiere of Gone with the Wind, the California actress read, 'The Mayor of Atlanta called for a hand for our Hattie McDaniel and I wish you could have heard the cheers.'"

It's all very interesting. Here's another little excerpt from it, this time relating to the Morehouse college donations:

"At first, eloquent pleas for help from Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, president of Morehouse, went unanswered by Mitchell and instead were politely rebuffed by her husband, John Marsh. However, as the famous author struggled, often unsuccessfully, to find adequate healthcare for beloved family servants Annie Rector, Carrie Holbrook, and Bessie Jordan, she became indignant over racial disparities in medical treatment and other basic services. Eventually, she developed an affectionate correspondence with the legendary Mays and became one of the college’s most generous patrons—anonymously funding the medical educations of dozens of Morehouse graduates."

You can read it in its entirety here:

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/histor...

There's at least one other article I know of that talks about Margaret Mitchell's role as benefactor of Morehouse College and also touches on an incident when one of her maids was sick and MM was disappointed in the way black people were treated re: medical facilities. If you want to read it, we've uploaded it to ifile.it for our blog:

http://ifile.it/w7o5bhz/MM%20benefact...

It really is a fascinating paradox.

PS: Sally replied and updated her post, saying this: According to the Atlanta Magazine, the documentary will air on Georgia PBS Dec. 29th and then be available to the general public through “andrew-young.tv” in early 2011.

Yay! Thank you for finding this out and sharing! I don't live in GA, but will definitely order the DVD when it's available. Thanks again!

Lara wrote: "As much as I love Gone with the Wind, I feel very uncomfortable reading parts of it, particularly the glorification of slavery and the Klan. The comparisons of African Americans to animals and obje..."

i actually do not have this conflict. i love gwtw and the slavery and klan references just go with the (haha) time period and i think it adds to the story and makes it more factually belivable and correct. i mean with all this going on the georgia in the 1860s what are the chances all of the "patriotic" men do not belong to the group which fought for their beliefs at that time? and a huge plantation with no slaves? i am not condoning any of those actions in history, but i am glad they are in gwtw because it made it more believable.

Elizabeth wrote: "Lara wrote: "As much as I love Gone with the Wind, I feel very uncomfortable reading parts of it, particularly the glorification of slavery and the Klan. The comparisons of African Americans to ani..."

I'm almost done with my third reading of GWTW, and I actually agree with you now! When I started this post, I hadn't read it for a couple of years, so my recollections were a bit skewed, shall we say. I'm also reading a collection of Mitchell's letters, and they have illuminated who she really was and what she really intended to do with GWTW. I'd say about 90% of the racism comes from the characters, which is the point. The one thing that does still bother me is how the narrator describes the black characters as apes or gorillas.

After reading the Klan section again, I really don't think she was trying to condone or condemn the Klan; it's there purely for the story and as a record of the most racist period of American history. And, honestly, I think that part of the novel makes me so uncomfortable precisely because of the issues being dealt with.

Thanks for your thoughts!

np that's what im here for! im rereading it for the fifth time. even the first time i read it, i wasnt like "gasp she put in bad stuff" i was just like, "oh, this flows nicely".