I could not find your reference, but here some information about this. Actually, he did not suggest the ongoing genocide itself, he just suggested to go on with it until the complete extermination. "During the period surrounding the 1890 Ghost Dance movement and Wounded Knee Massacre, Baum wrote two editorials about Native Americans for the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer which have provoked great controversy in recent times because of his suggestion that the safety of White settlers depended on the "extermination" of the remaining Indians. The first piece was published on December 20, 1890, five days after the killing of the Lakota Sioux holy man, Sitting Bull (who was being held in custody at the time). Following is the complete text of the editorial: Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead. He was not a Chief, but without Kingly lineage he arose from a lowly position to the greatest Medicine Man of his time, by virtue of his shrewdness and daring. He was an Indian with a white man's spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his. In his day he saw his son and his tribe gradually driven from their possessions: forced to give up their old hunting grounds and espouse the hard working and uncongenial avocations of the whites. And these, his conquerors, were marked in their dealings with his people by selfishness, falsehood and treachery. What wonder that his wild nature, untamed by years of subjection, should still revolt? What wonder that a fiery rage still burned within his breast and that he should seek every opportunity of obtaining vengeance upon his natural enemies. The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroise. We cannot honestly regret their extermination, but we at least do justice to the manly characteristics possessed, according to their lights and education, by the early Redskins of America. Following the December 29, 1890 massacre, Baum wrote a second editorial, published on January 3, 1891: The peculiar policy of the government in employing so weak and vacillating a person as General Miles to look after the uneasy Indians, has resulted in a terrible loss of blood to our soldiers, and a battle which, at best, is a disgrace to the war department. There has been plenty of time for prompt and decisive measures, the employment of which would have prevented this disaster. The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extirmination [sic] of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past. An eastern contemporary, with a grain of wisdom in its wit, says that "when the whites win a fight, it is a victory, and when the Indians win it, it is a massacre." These two short editorials continue to haunt his legacy. In 2006, two descendants of Baum apologized to the Sioux nation for any hurt their ancestor had caused. These editorials are the only known occasions on which Baum articulated such views. For example, aside from the vocabulary, he did acknowledge many Americans of non-White ancestry in The Woggle Bug Book, though in a stereotyped manner for the sake of comedy. The short story, "The Enchanted Buffalo", claims to be a legend of a tribe of bison, and states that a key element made it into legends of Native American tribes. Father Goose, His Book contains poems such as "There Was a Little Nigger Boy" and "Lee-Hi-Lung-Whan." In The Last Egyptian, Lord Roane uses "nigger" to insult the title character, while in The Daring Twins, set in the American South, the only character to use the term is a boy from Boston complaining that his mother uses their money to help "naked niggers in Africa." Baum mentions his characters' distaste for a Hopi snake dance in Aunt Jane's Nieces and Uncle John, but also deplores the horrible situation of Indian Reservations." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_L._Baum#Editorials_about_Native_Americans "In 1891, Frank L. Baum (gentle author of the WIZARD OF OZ) wrote in the ABERDEEN (KANSAS) SATURDAY PIONEER that the army should "finish the job" by the "total annihilation" of the few remaining Indians. The U.S. did not follow through on Baum's macabre demand for there really was no need. By then the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated and renamed the land of the free and the home of the brave. Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law." Source and further information: http://nativenewsonline.org/~ishgooda/racial/holid2.htm

Oh pleeease! He proposed no such thing. He basically said that if the whites were to keep up their killing of the Indians, they'd better make sure to get them all or there would be trouble down the way. Was he wrong? I don't think so. The best thing would've been to stop with the killing altogether, but Baum was too much of a realist to suggest that this was a possibility for the whites of his day and age. I suppose next you'll be up in arms over Jonathan Swift's (Guliver's Travels) avocation of cannibalism in his essay "A Modest Proposal" (1729). You really have to stop taking things out of context, or in the case of your reference, stop taking the writings, as gospel, of those who have taken things out of context. Hope this helps.

Here's more information: This is the quotation I cited in the question: --- Shortly before the massacre of almost 200 Indian men, women, and children at Wounded Knee in South Dakota in 1890, Baum, the editor of the state's "Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer" advocated the extermination of the Indians. "The nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are." Following the Wounded Knee massacre, Baum wrote, "we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth." --- This hasn't been taken out of context, as has been suggested. The first quotation is from an article published 20 December 1890 in the "Saturday Pioneer" about the death of Sitting Bull ("With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished..." and the quotation goes on as written above). More information can be found on the Baum wikiquote page: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Frank_Baum.