Why is "Gone With the Wind" considered offensive?

[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

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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

[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?

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?!

[Anonymous]

My work here is done. :lol:

[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.