PDA

View Full Version : The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Populism: Parable



lazserus
Mar 1st, 2007, 7:48 PM
The 1939 film The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland was an adaptation from an original children's book written by L. Frank Baum, published in 1900. The original book was entitled The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Wizard_title_page.jpg/200px-Wizard_title_page.jpg

While the book was targeted at children, Baum's work was politically influenced and metaphorically represented a very important movement in U.S. history. Each fantastical character in the story represented a different laboring group struggling to get the United States government to step in and help their cause.

It's important to understand the consequences of the Industrial Revolution in America before any of this will hold significant value. The Industrial Revolution in the United States made many a men rich (Rockefeller and Edison) while belittling and destroying the blue collar laborer. With the introduction of machine manufacturing the United States laborer became nothing more than a commodity. The mortality rate during the peak of the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. created a morbid blanket of death and mutilation. Because working conditions were constantly ignored during this period, many workers lost limbs and even perished. Railroad jobs in the States during this mid-nineteenth century were classified as the most deadly, majority of workers dying on the job. The machine became such an important aspect of industrial efficiency, the human worker was expendable at best. Company owners would employ the Scientific Management system [Taylorism] in order to get the most out of their workers regardless of the mortal costs. The wages were so low that even up to 1904 economists declared that 60% of the working man was incapable of making wages that would support their families. Therefore entire families had to work in order to bring the bacon. Children as young as 7 years of age would work in toxic coal mines at $0.39 a day to aid in feeding their families. This was before Child Labor Law and Workers Compensation laws were put into place. Before the Populist Movement laboring communities would select officials to raise stink in order to get attention. Before the Populist movement these organizations were nothing more than labor strikes, most of which turning violent. Disorganized strikes only led to death, no change or even consideration of change for laborers. Eventually groups were able to get together and start a non-violent movement known as Populism in order to make change. Granted Populism isn't coined from this particular American movement, but has existed for centuries. However, this particular movement was unique to the United States.

At this time corporations were coming into existence. Before the Industrial Revolution every company was owned by a single person and when the person died the company went to the grave with them. The Industrial Revolution left room for bureaucratic development, creating corporate entities as opposed to privately owned companies. This drastic and quick change in the business animal offered unparallel amounts of money to some and left others destroyed. BUt as these industries rapidly expanded they relied more and more on efficiency, which machinery offered. However, 19th century machinery had much more hands-on need from man than today. There was little automation 200 years ago.

In the 1890s America hit a major agricultural depression (a nationwide depression, but agriculture may have suffered the most). Crops held little value compared to other economic commodities. The nation was too caught up in the sporadic and perpetual introduction of technology. Between 1865 and 1900, there were actually two depressions that ravished America. The first was an unemployment depression when the Industrial Revolution really took precedence. It left hundreds of thousands out of work, possibly carrying the highest unemployment rate in American history (naturally based on contextual period and population). The second depression occurred economically during a period where the U.S. government couldn't decide on its currency standard, whether it be gold or silver (this was long prior to the Federal Reserve Note [paper bills] established in the early 20th century). Because the currency was in constant fluctuation, people couldn't keep on top of their financial worth, aside from the upper class. Part of the reason was that the market was being flooded with valuable metals such as gold and silver. As gold became more rare, the government decided to use it as currency so that the market wouldn't be flooded with the precious metal and the currency value dropping. But enough of detailed economic and political conundrums of the period. Where does Oz come in?

This is where things get extremely interesting, in my opinion. Each character in the tale represent important Populist groups, and L. Frank Baum was able to turn a national crises into a children's tale. I won't be dissecting the entire book, its characters, or elements, but I will attempt to put the obvious ones into perspective.

While Dorothy is important to the fictional tale, her actual political role is ambiguous and much more open to interpretation. Therefore, I will be coving her last.

Scarecrow: Scarecrow represents the farmer, possibly the Kansas farmer of the period. A few articles of the time were published specifically calling the Kansas farmers as ignorant and even bull-headed. The lack of brains for Scarecrow tells us the farmers were wise, yet were too dim witted to come up with a plan for logical change. They had no idea how to counter the agricultural depression of the late 19th century and did little more than raise a grumbling stink. They didn't have a clue how to approach reform for their industry.

Tin Man: The tin woodsman was a metaphor for the dehumanization of industrial (factory) workers. In the original tale, the woodsman was so cumbersome he'd lop off his own limps. With the abundance of tin workers in Oz, he had his limbs replaced with metals. Eventually the Tin Man [Woodsman] became part of the machine, but hated it. He had no heart, meaning that the industrial laborer was soulless and expendable. In order to keep his job he had to be more like a machine than a man. He was also treated as a cog to a bigger machine (Particular Industry), so if he lost a limb during work he was terminated and then replaced, much like you'd replace a faulty gear in a clock.

Cowardly Lion: The Lion is a little different, representing William Jennings Bryan, the first and only Presidential candidate that was a Populist. No matter how hard he struck Industry (like when the Lion clobbers the Tin Man but makes no dent and complains about dulling his talons) he was incapable of making change, or initiating reform.

Emerald City: The beacon of Oz represented Washington D.C. In the original literature Baum made the city white and bland, but wearing green [emerald] shaded classes one would see color and beauty. The world of Washington was bleak and devoid of color and culture (which can still be argued as fact even 200 years later), so in order to find clarity in the Emerald City a person would have to wear special glasses.

West/East Witches: These entities signified cultural progression, but interpreted to be aggressive. The Industrial Revolution started on the eastern coast of the United States, spilling and drowning the West in its cause. The West was always classified as the frontier, the freedom or escape. However, each witch in the tale provided significant evils.

Yellow Brock Road: This is the gold standard of currency that the Populists hated. This standard created a significantly retarded conflict with the lower paid workers, such as farmers and laborers. The original character of Dorothy sports silver slippers, not ruby. The ruby slippers was changed because the film studios were introducing Technicolor, a MAJOR revolution in filming for the period. Dorothy's original slippers were silver, which represented the Free Silver movement. The lower level businesses were trying to get silver a currency standard mainly because it was in abundance, and left room for constant inflation, allowing the poorer business owners to possibly become wealthy.

Wizard of Oz: The Wizard was a representative of the American politician. He could always give you the answers you wanted, but never perform miracles. In the book, the Wizard appeared to each character differently, or in a different image. The point was to say politicians always show you what makes you happy or what you expect, but far from truth. The Wizard never actually grants any miracles, but explains to each character that they already have the qualities they desire. This shows how politicians rely on rhetoric in order to convince their voters into thinking they'll actually make change.

These are the core parts of the Populist interpretation, but there are plenty more, such as the flying monkeys representing Plains Indians or the witches of north and south representing regional parties (Republican/Democratic). Baum ingeniously described Populism in the late 1800s by using a children's tale. Though it was entirely on purpose, it took nearly 70 years for the implications to be recognized. In 1964, Henry Littlefield published his essay on Baum's apparent attempt at making the Populist Movement easy enough a child could understand. Littlefield's essay on the subject wasn't an interpretation, but merely voiced publicly this periodical movement. Baum published a sequel to his story focusing on feminism, but the publication bombed.

jeffweeder
Mar 1st, 2007, 9:19 PM
Hows it going Laz.

Brilliant stuff, he was a very clever man.
Ill never watch the wizard of oz in the same way again.

Cartesiantheater
Mar 1st, 2007, 10:33 PM
Twas quite an interesting post...

But who the f are the lolipop guild? The Midgit minority? The "little people?"

Or maybe they represent NAMBLA? hehe

jk laz... that's brilliant work. I would have NEVER figured that story was anything more than creative art...

lazserus
Mar 2nd, 2007, 12:18 AM
The munchkins represented the overlooked laborers. They were the underpaid slaves of industrialism. They represented the common working class society.

Raptor Witness
Mar 2nd, 2007, 12:20 AM
A very nice contribution Laz. The one thing you don't mention is the most important element of the story. [Released as a film in 1939,] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)) the movie would help give inspiration to what would become a war weary generation.

Kansas is the state of Israel, reborn in 1948. Dorothy is the Virgin Mary.

The rainbow is Jesus, and the promise that after the storm would come hope of a better place to live, and the mechanism of our transportation to it. The ruby slippers are the false magic of mankind, which takes us back to the painful earthly past.


http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7123/tornadonguyenbig3sr.jpg

lazserus
Mar 2nd, 2007, 12:33 AM
You're finding theme unintentional. Baum literally wrote his tale based on the Populist Movement. It's no innuendo or even personal interpretation, it's there in black and white while Baum expresses it. Your own religious findings are completely unfounded, out of context, and sickly. Maybe you should lick the Odyssey.

Don'y distort the natural and intrinsic value of this association with tabloid garbage less fit for a retarded hobo.

Raptor Witness
Mar 2nd, 2007, 1:02 AM
You're finding theme unintentional. Baum literally wrote his tale based on the Populist Movement. It's no innuendo or even personal interpretation, it's there in black and white while Baum expresses it. Your own religious findings are completely unfounded, out of context, and sickly. Maybe you should lick the Odyssey.

Don'y distort the natural and intrinsic value of this association with tabloid garbage less fit for a retarded hobo.
The screen play was different than the original story book. It was the right movie for the right time.

The screen play is for all of us to interpret, as we see fit, because that's what fiction is for. It's called a hook.
It's intended to mean many things to many people.

DontBeAfraid
Mar 2nd, 2007, 8:48 AM
Kansas is the state of Israel, reborn in 1948. Dorothy is the Virgin Mary.

The rainbow is Jesus, and the promise that after the storm would come hope of a better place to live, and the mechanism of our transportation to it. The ruby slippers are the false magic of mankind, which takes us back to the painful earthly past.When the **** did a rainbow fly out of dorothy's crotch?

Sorry, laz, I really am just as irritated with RW's post as you.

Raptor Witness
Mar 2nd, 2007, 9:26 AM
For believers in the Kingdom of God, this isn't our permanent home. This home is about to be destroyed by God, and He's telling us in every way He knows how, without coming over the intercom.

[Tornado strikes hospital in Americus, GA - the birthplace of Habitat for Humanity] (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=144097&postcount=10)

Demonskates
Mar 2nd, 2007, 11:25 AM
Amazing read Laz. I had never heard of that before but it makes sense. Today the modern equivalent would be china.
Especially the coal mines. Every one of those workers are expendable. It would cost billions to modernize their coal mining technology. They are 50 to 75 years behind the modern standard for mining equipment. So large numbers of these workers die.
In fact its cheaper to have the person die than to give him better equipment and safty. So in that respect, it is very much like how the American industrial revolution was for workers here in the 30's. The workers are expendable.

Sammy56
Mar 2nd, 2007, 12:41 PM
Cool thread laz.

We spent almost an entire day in my AP US History discussing the Wizard of Oz and Populism last year, and we covered a lot of the stuff you did, especially the Yellow Brick Road and the Silver/Ruby Slippers. However, you hit some points we didn't, like with the Lion and the Scarecrow.


The screen play is for all of us to interpret, as we see fit, because that's what fiction is for. While there is nothing wrong with individual interpretations, laz's is one that was intended by the author. Not saying yours is necessarily wrong, but it's not a universal interpretation. Laz's is, and anyone who has read the book/seen the movie and studied this time in US history can clearly see that.

lazserus
Mar 4th, 2007, 9:38 PM
The screen play was different than the original story book. It was the right movie for the right time.

The screen play is for all of us to interpret, as we see fit, because that's what fiction is for. It's called a hook.
It's intended to mean many things to many people.
This thread is based around the original tale. If you want to make extravagant and ignorant assumptions based off the film, which was produced 40 years after the publication, then do so in the appropriate forum and thread. Attempting to make the film out to be something it's not is beyond ignorance and breeches Special Olympic material. You're a fool for considering this has intrinsic meaning and you may want to try education for a change. :google: Nazi jerk. This is intended to be a FUN and EDUCATIONAL thread. Vomiting your propaganda is far from that idea.

nrj
Mar 5th, 2007, 2:59 AM
Kansas is the state of Israel, reborn in 1948. Dorothy is the Virgin Mary.

The rainbow is Jesus, and the promise that after the storm would come hope of a better place to live, and the mechanism of our transportation to it. The ruby slippers are the false magic of mankind, which takes us back to the painful earthly past. I love AO. It let's me pull up my favorite line: Either back that up with a source or shut up.

Laz's Claims are taken directly from the horses mouth, and any one can look it up. You, on the other hand, drop some vague, personal interpretation, and start the post with


A very nice contribution Laz. The one thing you don't mention is the most important element of the story.

like it was a fact. Well, if that really is "the most important element of the story", then how come it's not even remotely obvious or you haven't backed it up with a source?

Raptor Witness
Mar 5th, 2007, 7:25 AM
Hardly anyone has read this book, nor do they care about about it. Of course the rainbow is ignored by this generation, was my point, as it's the one part of the book/movie that was authored by God. My argument was, where's the metaphor for the rainbow, but I guess that was above Laz's head?

I'll repeat what I've said before, this site isn't about social studies, and anyone who CARES about social studies or serious history would never visit it.

If Laz wants a serious discussion about the historical value of this book, coincidentally following a terrible tragedy in the United States, then let him put some introduction to that effect. Otherwise it's up to anyone's interpretation. Why don't you tell everyone the truth. A tornado tragically hits a high school in the United States, and you thought you'd post something clever here for serious discussion, when everyone's else's mind is on the tragedy or the movie or ANYTHING but the stupid book and it's historical teaching devices. Get over yourself. If I had you as my teacher, I'd slit my wrists before learning anything.

nrj
Mar 5th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Hardly anyone has read this book, nor do they care about about it. I admit that I haven't read the book, however, I don't have to read it to be interested about it. I didn't live during ancient times, but I'm very interested in ancient history.
Of course the rainbow is ignored by this generation, was my point, as it's the one part of the book/movie that was authored by God. This is the Social Studies and History Section. Don't post religion here, you know where to post that.
My argument was, where's the metaphor for the rainbow, but I guess that was above Laz's head? Well, Laz isn't a christian, that MIGHT explain it. But it doesn't. The real answer is that the rainbow thingy is an example of someone who played with symbols and got what they wanted, and has NOTHING to do with either history or social studies.


I'll repeat what I've said before, this site isn't about social studies, and anyone who CARES about social studies or serious history would never visit it. I'm interested, and I'm visting this site. Laz is interested, and he's the admin on this site. And Sammy, Demonskates and CartesianTheatre are also interested in this thread. And this site is about the HUMAN EQUATION, according to the start page, and that includes history and social studies.


If Laz wants a serious discussion about the historical value of this book, coincidentally following a terrible tragedy in the United States, then let him put some introduction to that effect. Otherwise it's up to anyone's interpretation. He DID write an introduction in the beginning of the post. What the hell's your problem?
Why don't you tell everyone the truth. A tornado tragically hits a high school in the United States, and you thought you'd post something clever here for serious discussion, when everyone's else's mind is on the tragedy or the movie or ANYTHING but the stupid book and it's historical teaching devices. Get over yourself. If I had you as my teacher, I'd slit my wrists before learning anything.Are you done writing gibberish not even remotely relevant to the topic? I can't promise I wont laugh at the ignorance, and it always makes me feel like a bad person when I do...

Raptor Witness
Mar 5th, 2007, 12:42 PM
And this site is about the HUMAN EQUATION, according to the start page, and that includes history and social studies.

You're both hypocrites, as you don't even know the definition of ["social studies."] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_studies) Google ["social studies and religion."] (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=DVFA,DVFA:1970--2,DVFA:en&q=social+studies+religion)

4) Culture & Cosmopolitanism also, world views, social views Values include:
awareness of stereotypes. bias, and point of view
awareness of multiple cultures
tolerance of cultural differences
protecting individual right to difference

These values develop through:
examining personal morals/values
compare/contrast
study of history and past experience

-----------------------------------------------------------

Take a lesson from your own discipline and show some ["tolerance"] (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance) here.

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.


Sssssssnakes. Part of the definition of social studies is TOLERANCE OF RELIGION.

Shove your "education" where the sun don't shine.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/237926304_dfe50524fc_o.jpg



.

Cartesiantheater
Mar 5th, 2007, 4:47 PM
::headesks until he bleeds::

Raptor, THAT'S NOT THE ******* POINT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

::headdesks::

This thread is about the AUTHOR'S INTENTIONS when he wrote the book. If you want to start a thread about YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION of the story, NO ONE is stopping you.

But in THIS thread we are talking about the AUTHOR'S intentions. Is that so hard to understand?

Raptor Witness
Mar 5th, 2007, 6:21 PM
::headesks until he bleeds::

Raptor, THAT'S NOT THE ******* POINT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

::headdesks::

This thread is about the AUTHOR'S INTENTIONS when he wrote the book. If you want to start a thread about YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION of the story, NO ONE is stopping you.

But in THIS thread we are talking about the AUTHOR'S intentions. Is that so hard to understand?
Ok, here's my point. The book had no influence on culture. That's why it was not, never has been, nor ever will be required reading for anybody.

DontBeAfraid
Mar 5th, 2007, 7:38 PM
this:

Ok, here's my point. The book had no influence on culture. That's why it was not, never has been, nor ever will be required reading for anybody.

from this:........?

Kansas is the state of Israel, reborn in 1948. Dorothy is the Virgin Mary.

The rainbow is Jesus, and the promise that after the storm would come hope of a better place to live, and the mechanism of our transportation to it. The ruby slippers are the false magic of mankind, which takes us back to the painful earthly past.

Are you high?
No influence? Did you read laz's opening post?
Your comment is as ignorant as me saying that the bible had no influence on culture.

nrj
Mar 6th, 2007, 8:11 AM
You're both hypocrites, as you don't even know the definition of social studies. I DO know the definition of social studies. Again, what's your problem? I know that this is history, and I've never said it was anything else (even though I'm interested in social studies too). However, you made this outrageous claim:
this site isn't about social studies, and anyone who CARES about social studies or serious history would never visit it. You're kind of a bigot if you assume history geeks wouldn't visit this site.


Take a lesson from your own discipline and show some tolerance here.

You started posting religous propaganda in a thread that was meant to educate people in history, and I will treat you just like any one else who would've done the same. You got a problem with that? Well, treat me the same when I post propaganda in a thread not related to it, and let's call it even.


Shove your "education" where the sun don't shine.

Oh... Oh no! Not again! Too... much... ignorant gibberish! Can't... stop... me... from... AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

TC
Mar 6th, 2007, 10:36 AM
Raptor the book was published long before Israel became a state, (near 50 years in fact) even the Belfour declaration didn't exist till 1917, how can you say his book has any connection to 1948 and the Jewish state? Personally I've never heard any reference made to a religious meaning behind his book.


But if you have some other reference, by all means put it up.

grendel 13
Mar 6th, 2007, 12:35 PM
Raptor the book was published long before Israel became a state, (near 50 years in fact) even the Belfour declaration didn't exist till 1917, how can you say his book has any connection to 1948 and the Jewish state? Personally I've never heard any reference made to a religious meaning behind his book.


But if you have some other reference, by all means put it up.

maybe the author was a prophet and he was really trying to show us the future through his story, hehe. i mean if we look hard enough maybe we will even find some " wizard of oz codes" predicting future events and the coming of christ!

Raptor Witness
Mar 6th, 2007, 2:15 PM
I'm not arguing anymore about the thread's intention. If populism is the subject, so be it, enough said. I'm dying to see the thoughtful remarks on this.

TC
Mar 6th, 2007, 2:44 PM
I'm not arguing anymore about the thread's intention. If populism is the subject, so be it, enough said. I'm dying to see the thoughtful remarks on this.

I think I presented a valid question ( as to dates) in regards to the so called meaning behind his book. And I would argue the point of it not having any cultural impact, there is hardly a person in the western world who hasn't heard the name, seen the movie, or read the book.

lazserus
Mar 6th, 2007, 3:43 PM
I'm not arguing anymore about the thread's intention. If populism is the subject, so be it, enough said. I'm dying to see the thoughtful remarks on this.
Well, considering the thread title sums the entire purpose of the thread up, you've run out of magical ammunition. The title of the thread is "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Populism: Parable," not "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and L. Frank Baum's Dogma."

While there's nothing wrong with starting a thread in the Religion forum expressing your opinions and personal interpretation of the original novel, it's completely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

And just for the record, the start of this thread was in no way influenced by any current events. That's merely coincidence. If it was intended to make a connection with current events I would have made that clear. I think it's you who needs to get over yourself, because you're the one being stubbornly defiant. Multiple people have all independently agreed on the purpose of this thread, and all of those that have agreed have so in correlation with why I started it.

Addition: By the way, this forum isn't a social studies forum in the means you've asked. This is a forum developed and focused on SPECIFIC social sciences, hence the name of the forum.

Raptor Witness
May 16th, 2007, 2:47 PM
[The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Populism: Parable] (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=153217&postcount=27) - Of all the places for the first EF-5 of the 21st century to hit. Not only did this monster tornado hit Kansas, but a place known for its million dollar-insured, pallasite meteorite, which is the only thing that can stop Lex Luthor?

I'll repeat what I've said before. When myths collide, it's big, REALLY big.

Populism, by its [traditional definition,] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) is a political doctrine or philosophy that aims to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.

So Laz, as much as I love ya as our head honcho, this whole collision of myths has truly come back around to bite you in the azz. :lol: [I am "populism."] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjQ7L-OBsE)


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/243374924_b102b9c72b_o.jpg
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/smallville/small04.jpg
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/stm-railway.jpg

lazserus
May 21st, 2007, 7:15 PM
I wouldn't go as far as the bite in the ass, or even say that you've proven anything. The original concept is still based off the late 19th century to early 20th century politics and working environment, not the 1930s and late 1970s. While you've made your point apparent and clear, the argument made in the beginning revolved around the concept of the original tale. No one was saying you can't associate the concept with more modern history, we all were just saying the particular point was not ordained to modern history.

Irregardless, your point is very good and I (and hopefully others) don't disagree with what you're stating and how you're applying the analogy to modern concerns. So, I wasn't bit in the arse. The original concept and purpose of the thread still stands, regardless if you're willing to accept it on historical terms or would rather apply it to MODERN history.

I do, however love the bridges you've supplied. Very nice.