Why is "Gone With the Wind" considered offensive?

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't understand how anyone could watch it and not find the depictions of African Americans offensive. They are stereotypes and caricatures with no exploration of their inner lives, no sympathetic light shined on their plight. Their reality as enslaved people is completely ignored. We are supposed to sympathize and connect with the white woman who has to make a dress from curtains, when she's surrounded by enslaved human beings who have no autonomy, who could be sold on a whim and separated from their family--their children, spouse, elderly parent-- any day.

And I'm sorry, but people who enslaved other people are the bad guys. No matter how many other admirable qualities you think they have. If someone is otherwise noble and kind in other respects but thinks it's fine to enslave another human being in their household, that automatically makes them a bad person.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We must not read or acknowledge anything about our past. It’s just too offensive to a few people.

Lol, the only things from our actual past that are accurately depicted in GWTW is that the Civil War took place and the United States won.

So sorry you are too simple to understand nuance. I suppose you want to ban The Kite Runner and Crazy Rich Asians too.

I don’t want to censor or ban any works cited in this thread, I just think it’s ridiculous to treat GWTH like it’s anything but fiction. It’s not a recounting of our past. It’s pablum produced during the Jim Crow era, a few years after peak KKK membership and the unveiling of many of our Confederate monuments. It’s the glorification of the Confederacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We must not read or acknowledge anything about our past. It’s just too offensive to a few people.

The only way you can understand the past is to read about it. Unfortunately lots of people want to ban reading history books that expose the reality of the past because it doesn't glorify the nation to read about slavery, genocide, bigotry, the suppression of women and the exploitation of the poor.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

People talk about offensive portrayals in GWTW, but what truly shocks me is the casual racism and anti-semitism in British 19th century literature. It is striking because these books always have Christian moralizing and plots that reward the good, honest and kind protagonists. It still seems so discordant that the authors (despite knowing what was happening in British Colonies and that Jews were shunned in polite society) weren’t somehow more enlightened.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Many parts of the movie glorify slavery.

How does it glorify slavery? I haven’t seen the movie nor read the book.

Troll.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

It's part of the "Lost Cause" mythology created by the South after the war. Yes, read about history. But take in your myth with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised no one mentioned how Rhett Butler was part of the KKK! That's where he was riding off in the night when there were "troubles"

Not just him, every single white Southern man.

[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?

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.

[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?

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.

But the problem with GWTW specifically is that large amounts of white people still believe this version of history! If there comes a time when Americans know that this was a worldview that existed but that it was incorrect, then, by all means, I hope GWTW is read and enjoyed as the sweeping epic story it is. But, again, there are way too many people who BELIEVE it and want to go back to that way of life and idealize white Southern aristocracy and everything vile it was built on.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

Sadly, I read the book and saw the movie pre-internet and didn’t give the slave portrayal a second thought. Many people fell in love with the movie like any romantic costume drama. Obtuse and privileged, sure- but not intentionally racist.