Why is "Gone With the Wind" considered offensive?

[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.

[Anonymous]

* affectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it can be a good book/movie to show your child/children what the unfortunate predominant thought process was at the time. But you need an educated adult to guide and frame it properly and to know whether your child is ready for this type of nuance. BUT: white children need to grow up learning about this. It is real and it was real. Maga folks will like to say, “We do not have racial anymore!@ but kids need to learn how to identify it.

FFS, not just white children.

--AA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Which is fine. What you described doesn't hurt anyone. Every period in history had an underclass of serfs or slaves who were horribly abused. You can still enjoy the pretty things of those eras. Otherwise there would be basically no art, literature, music or fashion.

Now if these balls include black people dressed as slaves, which I've seen, that would be wrong. Just a party with hoop skirts sounds lovely.

[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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And? Who do hoop skirts hurt, exactly?

[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?

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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

DP.

In history class? No. In English/literature? Absolutely.

Not every novel about the USSR needs to be about gulags. Not every novel about the American South needs to be about slavery.

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

DP.

In history class? No. In English/literature? Absolutely.

Not every novel about the USSR needs to be about gulags. Not every novel about the American South needs to be about slavery.

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

+1

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

DP.

In history class? No. In English/literature? Absolutely.

Not every novel about the USSR needs to be about gulags. Not every novel about the American South needs to be about slavery.

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

Interpreting literature by forbidding discussion of context??? Wow. Would hate to be in your class.

[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?

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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

DP.

In history class? No. In English/literature? Absolutely.

Not every novel about the USSR needs to be about gulags. Not every novel about the American South needs to be about slavery.

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

Interpreting literature by forbidding discussion of context??? Wow. Would hate to be in your class.

I grew up in a town that from 2016 on has been decidedly pro Trump and pretty far from wokeness. But back in the good old 1990s at our public high school, we spent so much time in English class talking about what was not explicitly stated on the page but the meaning/intent which was often driven by context of the story. Here in anonymity, I will tell you that I was quite bad at it despite being an otherwise great student. So my 16 year old self would be glad to ditch the exercise. But my 40-something self is kind of baffled by these posters who think novels should be taught without historical context or that is somehow a new or liberal thing.

[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?

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.

Would you say the same thing about a novel that romanticizes communism in the USSR and overlooks the gulags and the authoritarian nature of that society and the lack of individual freedom? Would you be okay with such a novel being read in schools without any discussion of its propagandist nature, with no woke analysis of how it centers a utopian view of what in reality was a cruel and horrific system? Be honest now if you would be fine with such a novel being ready purely as a work of art with no historical context allowed to be mentioned.

DP.

In history class? No. In English/literature? Absolutely.

Not every novel about the USSR needs to be about gulags. Not every novel about the American South needs to be about slavery.

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

Interpreting literature by forbidding discussion of context??? Wow. Would hate to be in your class.

They didn't say that at all.