Why is "Gone With the Wind" considered offensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's confederacy fanfic. Plantation owners are heroes. Slaves have no desire to be free. Southerners fought for their way of life or out of boyish immaturity. Union soldiers are evil.

This. It's part of the Lost Cause spin that some southerners try to put on slavery and the civl war. When someone says they like that movie, I just assume they're racist, but smart enough not to openly admit it

Yeah, they can't possibly like it because of Max Steiner's soundtrack or Clark Gable's performance or any of the other memorable non-race-related aspects of the film.

No, that's a privilege I don't have.

[Anonymous]

It seems that the average DCUM liberal considers this book “problematic” because it’s not an accurate history of slavery focused on the most violent and abhorrent acts committed on plantations. The fact that the book and movie are not and were not intended to be ABOUT slavery is irrelevant. The fact that the book and movie are known works of fiction is also irrelevant.

Basically, criticizing the book for not being a completely different book…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Wait, are you saying that's not true? Or that white people aren't supposed to know?

OMG are you this stupid?

The book’s omniscient narrator being racist AF is way worse than if the narrator was first-person Scarlett, who of course as a product of the time was racist AF. What about that difference font you grasp?!

DP but you are aware that Soul Food exists, aren’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Wait, are you saying that's not true? Or that white people aren't supposed to know?

OMG are you this stupid?

The book’s omniscient narrator being racist AF is way worse than if the narrator was first-person Scarlett, who of course as a product of the time was racist AF. What about that difference font you grasp?!

DP but you are aware that Soul Food exists, aren’t you?

Yes, dear. I’m aware that it exists and that some Black people like it, some don’t. Just like some white people like it, some don’t. You don’t get to categorically say anything is “dear to Negro hearts” as if all Black people think the same way about everything, and as if a white author writing as an OMNISCIENT NARRATOR gets to declare what “Negro hearts” love. Again, some more, the book would be more defensible if it were written from the POV of a racist woman who was the product of her time and upbringing. It is not. The narrator is an omniscient, timeless being who apparently is racist and therefore racism is the objective, all-knowing, all-truthful norm. If you don’t have a problem with that, guess what you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Its been a long time since freshman English classes, but I don't remember omniscient narrators being the arbiter of universal truths or what is right and just.

They are the source for the feelings and motivations of the characters and the experiences of the characters...yes, the watermelon and BBQ comment is stupid and racist by modern judgements, but it sounds like something the characters would have thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Wait, are you saying that's not true? Or that white people aren't supposed to know?

OMG are you this stupid?

The book’s omniscient narrator being racist AF is way worse than if the narrator was first-person Scarlett, who of course as a product of the time was racist AF. What about that difference font you grasp?!

DP but you are aware that Soul Food exists, aren’t you?

Yes, dear. I’m aware that it exists and that some Black people like it, some don’t. Just like some white people like it, some don’t. You don’t get to categorically say anything is “dear to Negro hearts” as if all Black people think the same way about everything, and as if a white author writing as an OMNISCIENT NARRATOR gets to declare what “Negro hearts” love. Again, some more, the book would be more defensible if it were written from the POV of a racist woman who was the product of her time and upbringing. It is not. The narrator is an omniscient, timeless being who apparently is racist and therefore racism is the objective, all-knowing, all-truthful norm. If you don’t have a problem with that, guess what you are?

You’re unhinged, ma’am. Saying that BBQ and watermelon are dear to black peoples’ hearts (and negro would be perfectly appropriate with respect to the vernacular at the time the book was written) is about the least offensive, least racist thing you can say. It’s like saying white women go batshit crazy for pumpkin spice lattes. Do all white women like them? Of course not! But it’s a) generally true at a population level and b) not remotely racist (words have meaning, and you clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “racist”).

(Let me also take a wild guess that you’re the type that thinks a slap on the butt is a violent sexual assault that should be met with serious prison time and a lifetime on a sex offender registry…)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the average DCUM liberal considers this book “problematic” because it’s not an accurate history of slavery focused on the most violent and abhorrent acts committed on plantations. The fact that the book and movie are not and were not intended to be ABOUT slavery is irrelevant. The fact that the book and movie are known works of fiction is also irrelevant.

Basically, criticizing the book for not being a completely different book…

Because of its racist caricatures. If you can read or watch those and brush them off as no big deal that probably means you've never had to deal with racist caricatures all your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Wait, are you saying that's not true? Or that white people aren't supposed to know?

OMG are you this stupid?

The book’s omniscient narrator being racist AF is way worse than if the narrator was first-person Scarlett, who of course as a product of the time was racist AF. What about that difference font you grasp?!

DP but you are aware that Soul Food exists, aren’t you?

Yes, dear. I’m aware that it exists and that some Black people like it, some don’t. Just like some white people like it, some don’t. You don’t get to categorically say anything is “dear to Negro hearts” as if all Black people think the same way about everything, and as if a white author writing as an OMNISCIENT NARRATOR gets to declare what “Negro hearts” love. Again, some more, the book would be more defensible if it were written from the POV of a racist woman who was the product of her time and upbringing. It is not. The narrator is an omniscient, timeless being who apparently is racist and therefore racism is the objective, all-knowing, all-truthful norm. If you don’t have a problem with that, guess what you are?

You’re unhinged, ma’am. Saying that BBQ and watermelon are dear to black peoples’ hearts (and negro would be perfectly appropriate with respect to the vernacular at the time the book was written) is about the least offensive, least racist thing you can say. It’s like saying white women go batshit crazy for pumpkin spice lattes. Do all white women like them? Of course not! But it’s a) generally true at a population level and b) not remotely racist (words have meaning, and you clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “racist”).

(Let me also take a wild guess that you’re the type that thinks a slap on the butt is a violent sexual assault that should be met with serious prison time and a lifetime on a sex offender registry…)

Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

NP. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE savage beating or rape of an enslaved person or even a reference to those actions. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE instance of an enslaved person’s resistance or running away or helping others to escape. It is not an accurate portrayal of history when there is not ONE reference to a speech, article, argument or oration by an enslaved person or a free Black person, speaking out for justice. It is a highly romanticized version of slavery where each and every slaves just loves their captors, just wants to stay on the land where they have been forced to work, and is blindly loyal to their captors and the system. In fact they look down on freed enslaved peoples and jeer at them. So there’s that.

I understand what you are saying. But there is no one narrative for any time in history.

If your setting is the home of a happy family in WW2 Germany...it doesn't negate the fact that Jews were being slaughtered at the same time and that happy family was probably complicit.

This idea that there is only one lens in which to view history is nuts. Yes slavery was an abhorrence. But does it follow that any fiction novel set in that time MUST be historically accurate, reflective of political movement at the time and acceptable by our 21st century standards?

Humans are complicated. Memories and emotions and time muddy the waters of what is "truth." I don't know enough about Margaret Mitchell's background, but I imagine she is channeling the perspectives of people she knew who lived in the South around the Civil War. Don't make her responsible for fact checking their narrative. As much as I hate the terms "my truth" and "my lived experience"...maybe it was theirs. We don't have a time machine to get the view of the slaves in those same stories...and thats true for most of history.

Go back and read the point that a major problem is that it’s not told from Scarlett’s POV. It’s an omniscient narrator saying watermelon and BBQ “are so dear to Negro hearts.” You would have a point IF it was Scarlett first-person POV.

Wait, are you saying that's not true? Or that white people aren't supposed to know?

OMG are you this stupid?

The book’s omniscient narrator being racist AF is way worse than if the narrator was first-person Scarlett, who of course as a product of the time was racist AF. What about that difference font you grasp?!

DP but you are aware that Soul Food exists, aren’t you?

Yes, dear. I’m aware that it exists and that some Black people like it, some don’t. Just like some white people like it, some don’t. You don’t get to categorically say anything is “dear to Negro hearts” as if all Black people think the same way about everything, and as if a white author writing as an OMNISCIENT NARRATOR gets to declare what “Negro hearts” love. Again, some more, the book would be more defensible if it were written from the POV of a racist woman who was the product of her time and upbringing. It is not. The narrator is an omniscient, timeless being who apparently is racist and therefore racism is the objective, all-knowing, all-truthful norm. If you don’t have a problem with that, guess what you are?

You’re unhinged, ma’am. Saying that BBQ and watermelon are dear to black peoples’ hearts (and negro would be perfectly appropriate with respect to the vernacular at the time the book was written) is about the least offensive, least racist thing you can say. It’s like saying white women go batshit crazy for pumpkin spice lattes. Do all white women like them? Of course not! But it’s a) generally true at a population level and b) not remotely racist (words have meaning, and you clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “racist”).

(Let me also take a wild guess that you’re the type that thinks a slap on the butt is a violent sexual assault that should be met with serious prison time and a lifetime on a sex offender registry…)

Yikes.

Yikes? That’s the response of someone who thinks they have the mental prowess to determine the literary merit of a novel like Gone With the Wind?

Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it needs to be censored, but I do think it needs critical context, both before reading the book or watching the film.

I believe that AMC still airs the movie (over Thanksgiving?) but with an informative introduction. I hope that newer printings of the book come with a critical foreword.

It would be one thing if GWTW was told from a first-person narrative; it is not. It is told from an omniscient narrator. So it’s not Scarlett saying that watermelon and barbecue are “so dear to Negro hearts,” it is an omniscient narrator. When you consider that the omniscient narrator is racist, that says a lot about the author and about majority culture.

It would be an entirely different critical reading if it were literally just Scarlett’s perspective. But it’s not; the omniscient narrator is racist AF.

Saying that the food people like is an insult is disgustingly racist. Observing and respecting what food people like is not.

Demeaning Black people for liking watermelon is white supremacist propaganda.

https://thegrio.com/2022/07/04/i-will-never-be-ashamed-of-eating-watermelon/

[Anonymous]

wow- Yes teh omniscient narrator (the author) is stating truths about the world- rich people arent like you and me- isn't supposed to be about just those people at that time, it is supposed to be truth about the way the world works.

Are you seriously saying that A 19 year old debutante who's sole purpose in life was to snag a wealthy husband and wasn't allowed out into the sun b.c it would damage her 'complexion' would know net than teh actual peopelwho raised crops how to ...plant and harvest..raise the crops? Also most people who stayed on a plantation after were waiting there for relatives who'd been sold, that isn't even mentioned. GWTW- a book and film that I loved and which is very enjoyable, a masterpiece is probably one of the best pieces of white supremacist propaganda ever produced. Just b.c something is propaganda doesnt mean it isn't art- in many ways Animal Farm is propaganda but tbh it's not as good as GWTW is at persuading its audience.

The best kind of propaganda convinces its audience, it's insidious. The only reason people get so worked up over GWTW is b/c Americans are so sexist that we cant fathom that a white southern woman did what generations of KKK night riders could not, all the soldiers of the Confederacy could not. The men lost their war, the southern women won the peace, and Margaret Mitchell was more skillful at her craft than Lee was at his. American are just too biased against women and the female sphere to believe that something as innocent as a novel could have that much influence but another woman wrote a different novel that was also propaganda that led to the abolition of slavery 100 years before GWTW.
A lot of the art we consume is left wing propaganda (all Bauhaus for instance) , and honestly only the most unsophisticated rube is unaware. I can even agree with the message but still recognize that it is pushing a certain agenda. GWTW is pushing a white supremacist, classist agenda. It sanitizes American cattle slavery and transforms it into an acceptable caricature. Also the white people of that time didnt really know what it was like to live with such brutality. So many travelogues of that time recount the constant brutality and violence that slave owners lived with- they'd lash out and slap a child at a seated dinner, and continue on speaking as if nothing had happened while someone unused to such violence or abuse would be shellshocked. There are scarcely any accounts about the southern united states that dont remark on this casual violence and abuse even from people who believed firmly in slavery and Black inferiority. A lot of people were grossed out BECAUSE they were racist and couldn't understand how the southern slave owners could live in such close proximity to non-whites and rape them, have their children nursed by non-whites, have them cook their meals etc etc. . In fact that kind of racism was common amongst northerners and southerners pointed it out to them as evidence that slavery/servitude/Jim Crowe was the natural order and a kindness to Black Americans who otherwise would be sent back to 'Blackest Africa" and heathenry.
The reason that GWTW has to be called out as a piece of propaganda is b.c of the above racist view was prevalent only a generation ago and its pull is insidious and many Americans are still susceptible to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

I get your point, but the issue with GWTW is that many Americans still believe that its portrayal of the South is real and true. They believe that the enslaved were "better off" as slaves than as free. They believe that the enslaved loved their "masters" and were part of the family. They believed the enslaved were loyal and loving towards their enslavers and too simple to be anything but treated as children well into adulthood. They believe that black men are going to rape their white women and the women need to be protected. They believe the southern aristocracy was the height of success of our country and idealize that time period to the point they want it back.

That's why it's a problem. Nobody is actively wishing for a return to the time period of the crusades or Roman Empire or using those time periods to justify racism.

Look, I grew up LOVING both the movie and the book of GWTW. I reread it about five years ago and was embarrassed at how much I still loved the book. It has great characters, a great flow of plot, and an exciting setting. It really works as a book. But the actual content, overt glorifying of the confederacy, the idealized portrait of slavery, etc. all make it a book that is unfortunately still used by racist Americans to justify their incorrect and dangerous beliefs. So I just can't endorse it anymore.

No one, and I mean no one, believes this in 2024. Take your antiquated talking points back with you to the '90s.

Why is GWTW offensive? Because it is not aggressively moralizing and woke, plain and simple. From the culture warrior's point of view, every story touching on the antebellum South in any way must return to, again and again, the inhumanity of slavery. That must be the primary undercurrent of every story that features slaves. Because GWTW doesn't center slavery enough, it is not woke, and therefore is bad.

[Anonymous]

Seriously? You know, in the South, there are still huge groups of white people who do debutante plantation parties when their daughters turn 16 or graduate high school? In big "Scarlett-style" hoop skirts and all. There are large swaths of people who still idolize this Southern Aristocracy era.

Search "antebellum party" to learn more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely about an offensive topic, but it does such a remarkable job illustrating the fact that the world isn't as neatly split into "good guys" and "bad guys" as we'd like to believe.

Who are the “good guys”?

The "good guys" are supposedly the yankees, while the "bad guys" are supposedly the confederates, but it's really not as simple as that. Humans are complex.

No, in this case, slavery is bad, anyone fighting to maintain is bad, glorifying slavery is bad. Not to mention all the other things it glorifies (violence against women, sexual assault etc). Might these things have been acceptable back then? Maybe, but that doesn't make less problematic.

So don’t read it because our delicate sensibilities can’t handle the “problematic” truth of history?

What else should we cut out? The Crusades, ww2, the French Revolution, the entire Roman Empire? Do you think it was all sunshine and roses?

I get your point, but the issue with GWTW is that many Americans still believe that its portrayal of the South is real and true. They believe that the enslaved were "better off" as slaves than as free. They believe that the enslaved loved their "masters" and were part of the family. They believed the enslaved were loyal and loving towards their enslavers and too simple to be anything but treated as children well into adulthood. They believe that black men are going to rape their white women and the women need to be protected. They believe the southern aristocracy was the height of success of our country and idealize that time period to the point they want it back.

That's why it's a problem. Nobody is actively wishing for a return to the time period of the crusades or Roman Empire or using those time periods to justify racism.

Look, I grew up LOVING both the movie and the book of GWTW. I reread it about five years ago and was embarrassed at how much I still loved the book. It has great characters, a great flow of plot, and an exciting setting. It really works as a book. But the actual content, overt glorifying of the confederacy, the idealized portrait of slavery, etc. all make it a book that is unfortunately still used by racist Americans to justify their incorrect and dangerous beliefs. So I just can't endorse it anymore.

No one, and I mean no one, believes this in 2024. Take your antiquated talking points back with you to the '90s.

Why is GWTW offensive? Because it is not aggressively moralizing and woke, plain and simple. From the culture warrior's point of view, every story touching on the antebellum South in any way must return to, again and again, the inhumanity of slavery. That must be the primary undercurrent of every story that features slaves. Because GWTW doesn't center slavery enough, it is not woke, and therefore is bad.

:roll:

It's really just dated besides the obvious slavery issues. Makes sense, book and film came out in the 30s and have all the affections of media that came out then. Some things don't make the cut into timeless media.