Why is "Gone With the Wind" considered offensive?

[Anonymous]

[img]

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?

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.

That was the question. Would you be okay with no historical context mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]

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?

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.

That was the question. Would you be okay with no historical context mentioned.

And I continue to be okay with that in a literature class setting. Is that ideal? Obviously not, but “forbidding” and any discussion of context is a silly and unrealistic hypothetical to begin with. However, it’s also totally fine to treat the novel as a standalone piece of fiction and analyze the characters as they are written. If someone gave a person with zero knowledge of history this book, would that person be able to enjoy it? Why or why not? What might they think of the characters? The plot?

It’s not a history textbook. It’s a fictional novel. It’s also not about slavery. If you want to read a novel about slavery, there are plenty to choose from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]

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?

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.

That was the question. Would you be okay with no historical context mentioned.

You were not asking a question, but I'll answer. It's fine to mention the historical context and explain the stereotyping of black people and then move on to the novel's main themes. As the other PP said, if you wanted to make the discussion all about slavery, choose a book about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

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?

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.

That was the question. Would you be okay with no historical context mentioned.

And I continue to be okay with that in a literature class setting. Is that ideal? Obviously not, but “forbidding” and any discussion of context is a silly and unrealistic hypothetical to begin with. However, it’s also totally fine to treat the novel as a standalone piece of fiction and analyze the characters as they are written. If someone gave a person with zero knowledge of history this book, would that person be able to enjoy it? Why or why not? What might they think of the characters? The plot?

It’s not a history textbook. It’s a fictional novel. It’s also not about slavery. If you want to read a novel about slavery, there are plenty to choose from.

Sounds like a pretty basic middle school level of analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

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?

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.

That was the question. Would you be okay with no historical context mentioned.

And I continue to be okay with that in a literature class setting. Is that ideal? Obviously not, but “forbidding” and any discussion of context is a silly and unrealistic hypothetical to begin with. However, it’s also totally fine to treat the novel as a standalone piece of fiction and analyze the characters as they are written. If someone gave a person with zero knowledge of history this book, would that person be able to enjoy it? Why or why not? What might they think of the characters? The plot?

It’s not a history textbook. It’s a fictional novel. It’s also not about slavery. If you want to read a novel about slavery, there are plenty to choose from.

Oh hun slavery is the elephant in the room that you cannot pretend is not there when you are writing about the antebellum / Civil War south. I mean really.

If there were absolutely no enslaved characters in the book, maybe you could do that. But when you add stock, thinly drawn characters based on racial stereotypes it's ridiculous not to bring up the fact that they are racial stereotypes.

Why do you not care that your fellow Americans of African ancestry were deeply offended by this book and the movie when they came out? Why does that not bother you?

[Anonymous]

I agree with earlier posters that a forward providing context is needed. One would hope understand what was really going on in the background if they are from older generations.

Childhood often gets whitewashed for example. Spankings, getting the strap/belt, etc. were acceptable methods of punishment, yet we rarely see that from TV parents or in books about the pre-1980s/1990s.

GWTW is a good book/movie to discus the headspace of America at the time it was written and the time and place it portrays.