'Wizard of Oz' Family Apologizes for Racist Editorials

[Fridays Child]

In the late 1800s, L. Frank Baum, author of The Wizard of Oz, wrote racist editorials in a South Dakota newspaper, calling for the extermination of native Americans. Some believe those editorials sparked the Wounded Knee massacre of 1890. Now Baum's family is offering a public apology.

Audio from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5662524

[shain from kane]

1. If he only had a brain ...

[MuseRider]

5. Or a heart

but he did have nerve. :crazy:

[Kutjara]

2. Too bad he didn't live to see 'The Wiz'.

That would have really baked his noodle. :)

[sinkingfeeling]

3. About time.

[Kagemusha]

4. Someone explain to me why his distant descendants must apologize.

Certainly this is a bad thing and no one should be happy to be associated with it. But I am asking here, what good does it do to apologize in his name? If Hitler had had a grandson, would that grandson's apology mean anything to Jews worldwide? I think not. So I don't understand the value of such an apology.

[Kutjara]

6. Good point.

I'm not sure if it's more of an attempt to rehabilitate the old racist or to redeem the family name, but either way it seems a bit of a sham.

Speaking of which, I'd like to apologize on behalf of my family for the pain and suffering my distant ancestor Grok the Caveman caused during his murderous rampage of 120,000 B. C.

[oscar111]

13. Grok was horrid

apologies are not enough


LOL

[Fridays Child]

9. Well, there may be some value to the ones apologizing...

...and, if I recall the radio report, Lakota descendants of Wounded Knee victims have welcomed the apology, hoping that it will open the door to eventual government acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

A few months ago, there was a story about a British man who went to Africa to apologize for his ancestor's participation in the slave trade. It was very moving.

Reconcilliation, no matter how insignificant it may seem, can only be good. :)

[shain from kane]

10. They had the courage to admit it, if they are not cowardly lyin'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Well I'd presume...

because they inherited his money and his name.

[BlooInBloo]

12. You've never apologized for a drunk uncle...

... or an errant child, or...

Wow. If that's the case, then I suspect it would be impossible to convey to you the value of apologizing for someone closely related to you to people wronged.

But don't mistake your inability to comprehend the value with there not being any value.

And I don't recall anyone (except you) saying they MUST apologize. I welcome correction on that, of course.

[Kagemusha]

14. I politely disagree that apologizing for the dead is the same thing.

Because I wouldn't be able to credibly claim I was doing it on the dead family member's behalf instead of for my own. I see nothing wrong with apologizing for someone that you know would actually want to do it themselves in their own name if they had the opportunity (or in the case of a child, if he/she was older and wiser). What if the man meant what he wrote at the time he wrote it? Wouldn't any apology then be dishonest? A dishonest apology is an apology not worth making, as I humbly see it. If you can't be sure in your own heart that the person you're apologizing for WOULD apologize, don't assume. Let the dead stay buried.

Mind you, I'm all for disagreeing with the sentiments the writer made 116 years ago.

[bigtree]

7. For 116 years I've been dying to tell him what I thought of him!

And now... well, being a Christian man, I can't say it!

[arwalden]

8. Oh, You!

That's very good! :thumbsup: