News HBO draws ire after 'Confederate' announcement

[marillion]

I'd love to see the John Birmingham alternate WWII books turned into a series.. I found them pretty fun to read... The idea of a Civil War alternative is enticing, however... It would be interesting to see how slavery and civil rights evolved/devolved following a victory for the south... And how pressure from the world at large plays into it..

 

[Tuskin38]

With industrialization and automation slavery the way it was used in the 1800s would basically go extinct.

It would have to evolve or be done away with entirely.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of CSA what if stories have slavery eventually go away because it is just isn't economically feasible.

I'm interested to see how they approach this.

 

[Shawnster]

Sounds interesting. Execution will be key.

A shame that the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting cancelled Underground, a moderately popular show. Don't want to take a chance of making Christians feel bad about the actions of their ancestors.

I do not understand your choosing to single out Christians in this manner. It is not logical. Many atheists (and other religions no doubt) had the same ancestors. Plenty of Christians in the North were anti slave abolitionists or, at the least, opposed slavery.

To paint all Christians with the same pro slavery brush is the same as painting all Muslims as terrorists or all Americans as gun loving climate change deniers.

Please do not confuse the pro slavers fanaticism with my religion.

 

[LJones41]

All this show would have to do is portray slavery as honestly as possible and without the "Gone With the Wind" BS.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of CSA what if stories have slavery eventually go away because it is just isn't economically feasible.

It is economically feasible. That is what makes slavery so insidious and terrible. One would not have to limit to slaves as cotton pickers. Hell, they had slaves working in Richmond's Tredegar Iron Works before the Civil War.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

All this show would have to do is portray slavery as honestly as possible and without the "Gone With the Wind" BS.



It is economically feasible. That is what makes slavery so insidious and terrible. One would not have to limit to slaves as cotton pickers. Hell, they had slaves working in Richmond's Tredegar Iron Works before the Civil War.

Well, it is economically feasible in the right situations. But that brings us right back to the question of when and where this show will even be set. In a highly automated economy, there isn't much room left for manual labor, except perhaps as household servants, gardeners and a few other highly individual areas. Especially not when you follow the old south party line of never, ever educating slaves in any way (except maybe religion).

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that global opinion turned against slavery even before the civil war and the Brazilian empire, which was just as obsessive about slaves as the CSA, was dragged kicking and screaming into a slavery ban less than 20 years after the civil war, so I really don't see how a hypothetical CSA maintains official slavery for much longer than that without becoming a global pariah on the level of North Korea.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The South could only have won if it had secured recognition by Britain and France. Even though some of the rich power brokers were sympathetic to the South, other oligarchs and politically progressive radical movements in Britain would have precluded any such recognition. France under Napoleon III seemed content to follow Britain's lead in such matters. The North's larger population and its wider and more efficient industrial base sealed the fate of the South. Robert E Lee seems to have picked the wrong side given that he was somewhat progressive himself -- even illegally educating some of his slaves I seem to recall reading.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery
I think the war with the South would have lasted a far shorter time had Lee reflected on the probable futility of his choice of sides.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The South could only have won if it had secured recognition by Britain and France. Even though some of the rich power brokers were sympathetic to the South, other oligarchs and politically progressive radical movements in Britain would have precluded any such recognition. France under Napoleon III seemed content to follow Britain's lead in such matters. The North's larger population and its wider and more efficient industrial base sealed the fate of the South. Robert E Lee seems to have picked the wrong side given that he was somewhat progressive himself -- even illegally educating some of his slaves I seem to recall reading.

http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery
I think the war with the South would have lasted a far shorter time had Lee reflected on the probable futility of his choice of sides.

It wasn't really a question of efficacy. He operated under a personal code of honor and considered it his unquestionable duty to defend his home state if it were attacked. And, while he found the idea of secession stupid, he also had philosophical issues as to whether the union was actually worth supporting if the people were so incredibly at odds with one another that they had to be forced together at gunpoint. Which is not entirely an unfair position.

As for the war lasting shorter or longer... Lee was a big deal, but the south actually had quite a few excellent generals. And possibly the most significant issue that caused the war to last as long as it did was not the intelligent generals of the south, but the incompetent/overly cautious generals of the north. If Grant and Sherman had been in charge of the war effort from the start, Lee and Jackson may not have been able to hold them back so easily.

 

[Anwar]

^ Yeah, but the enslavement of mainly white people in Italy circa 30 BCE doesn't exactly have direct ties to the economic and political harassment of an American ethnic minority today. So: your point, exactly?

That if they cared so much about how evil Slavery was in and of itself they should complain when it shows up in any form. As it is, anti-Slavery people only really care about how it happened in America in the last 200 years and not anyone else who suffered from it, so they should be honest about it at least.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It wasn't really a question of efficacy. He operated under a personal code of honor and considered it his unquestionable duty to defend his home state if it were attacked. And, while he found the idea of secession stupid, he also had philosophical issues as to whether the union was actually worth supporting if the people were so incredibly at odds with one another that they had to be forced together at gunpoint. Which is not entirely an unfair position.

As for the war lasting shorter or longer... Lee was a big deal, but the south actually had quite a few excellent generals. And possibly the most significant issue that caused the war to last as long as it did was not the intelligent generals of the south, but the incompetent/overly cautious generals of the north. If Grant and Sherman had been in charge of the war effort from the start, Lee and Jackson may not have been able to hold them back so easily.

Lee was perhaps too noble for the age in which he found himself. But, yes, the early Union generals were a bit crap, weren't they - I'm thinking particularly of McClellan and Burnside.

 

[BillJ]

I do not understand your choosing to single out Christians in this manner. It is not logical. Many atheists (and other religions no doubt) had the same ancestors. Plenty of Christians in the North were anti slave abolitionists or, at the least, opposed slavery.

To paint all Christians with the same pro slavery brush is the same as painting all Muslims as terrorists or all Americans as gun loving climate change deniers.

Please do not confuse the pro slavers fanaticism with my religion.

America is a Christian nation, Sinclair a Christian ownership group. Why cancel an moderately popular, well-done show for any other reason?

Christians need to own up to their errors of the past, and what they are currently doing to America. Before they destroy it following demagogue's like Donald Trump.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Sounds interesting. Execution will be key.

A shame that the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting cancelled Underground, a moderately popular show. Don't want to take a chance of making Christians feel bad about the actions of their ancestors.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Nice blanket statement about "Christian ancestors",.

 

[Skipper]

'Confederate' team knew backlash was coming

The creative team behind HBO's "Confederate" has responded to the intense backlash to their alternate-history drama.
In an interview with Vulture posted late Thursday, "Game of Thrones" showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss and fellow executive producers Nichelle Tramble Spellman and Malcolm Spellman addressed concerns that were raised almost immediately after "Confederate" was announced.

Some critics called the premise harmful and questioned whether such a show was appropriate considering divisions that already exist in American politics. Others were irked that Benioff and Weiss, who are white, are tackling a story that rewrites black history.

So, Man in High Castle that imagined a different ending for the WW2 (72 years ago) is ok, but talking about the hypothetical South victory (152 years ago) can be "harmful"?

 

[arch101]

Lee was never completely on board with the Confederacy's whole program. He simply could not ever raise a hand against his beloved Virginia.

 

[Mudd]

As a series premise and given the creators this sounds like a terrific idea.

Yes, absolutely everyone will find something objectionable about it no matter how it's approached.

And the problem is...?

 

[Gaith]

Lee was never completely on board with the Confederacy's whole program. He simply could not ever raise a hand against his beloved Virginia.

I'm sure the Devil took that into account when choosing Lee's fire pit assignment.

So, Man in High Castle that imagined a different ending for the WW2 (72 years ago) is ok, but talking about the hypothetical South victory (152 years ago) can be "harmful"?

High Castle takes place in the 1960s, not the present day, and unlike Confederate nostalgia, there isn't exactly a large swath of the country fantasizing about being ruled by Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, so that's hardly a 1:1 equivalent.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Sounds interesting. Execution will be key.

A shame that the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting cancelled Underground, a moderately popular show. Don't want to take a chance of making Christians feel bad about the actions of their ancestors.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I do not understand your choosing to single out Christians in this manner. It is not logical. Many atheists (and other religions no doubt) had the same ancestors. Plenty of Christians in the North were anti slave abolitionists or, at the least, opposed slavery.

To paint all Christians with the same pro slavery brush is the same as painting all Muslims as terrorists or all Americans as gun loving climate change deniers.

Please do not confuse the pro slavers fanaticism with my religion.

I agree with Shawnster. White Christians were abolitionists. And Black Christians / the Black CHurch have helped keep African AMericans strong and were vital in the Civil Rights movement.

Sinclair literally just bought WGN AMerica, so unless Underground was making bg ratings, I can understand (though not agree) with their decision. I haven't seen the show yet , so I don't know the quality. But interesting that neither BET nor Oprah WInfrey decided to pick it up. They aren't conservative whites...


---as for the show itself... i think it's an interesting concept...but they need to make sure they add depth to the characters and culture...so the metaphors to today's world are SOOOobvious

 

[Shawnster]

All this show would have to do is portray slavery as honestly as possible and without the "Gone With the Wind" BS.



It is economically feasible. That is what makes slavery so insidious and terrible. One would not have to limit to slaves as cotton pickers. Hell, they had slaves working in Richmond's Tredegar Iron Works before the Civil War.

I've watched Spike Lee's CSA mockumentary twice, but I'm still trying to remember... Didn't it detail the technological advancement and how slavery adapted? Slaves took on more service oriented rolls. Heck, the illegal immigrant/migrant workers of today aren't treated much better than slaves, with the chain/whip being threatened deportation.

The only "drawback" I see is population. Supply and demand. There would be too many slaves for the market to bear. Maybe some slaves would be used in retail and fast food establishments?

High Castle takes place in the 1960s, not the present day, and unlike Confederate nostalgia, there isn't exactly a large swath of the country fantasizing about being ruled by Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, so that's hardly a 1:1 equivalent.

That's what I was thinking. High Castle takes place so soon after WWII that we're still dealing with first generation Nazis. Modern day CSA would be, what, fourth generation Conferates?

 

[JD]

Well it's simple: slavery is monstrous. No need for nuances here.

Of course, but how do you want to portray the slave owners for example, are they all evil mustache twirlers, are some nice to their slaves, or some cruel. Are there slaves who work against those who try to escape? How much resistance is there against slavery? Is there a modern Underground Railroad?

 

[Skipper]

Of course

I'm not sue how many American people agree on the "of course" part...
For example:

I used to lead tours at a plantation. You won’t believe the questions I got about slavery.

1) People think slaveholders "took care" of their slaves out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than out of economic interest
There is a surprisingly prevalent belief out there that slaves' rations and housing were bestowed upon them out of the master's goodwill, rather than handed down as a necessity for their continued labor — and their master's continued profit.

This view was expressed to me often, usually by people asking if the family was "kind" or "benevolent" to their slaves, but at no point was it better encapsulated than by a youngish mom taking the house tour with her 6-year-old daughter a couple of years ago. I had been showing them the inventory to the building, which sets a value on all the high-ticket items in the home, including silver, books, horses, and, of course, actual human people. (Remember that the technical definition of a slave is not just an unpaid worker, but a person considered property.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Lee was perhaps too noble for the age in which he found himself. But, yes, the early Union generals were a bit crap, weren't they - I'm thinking particularly of McClellan and Burnside.

I used to live in Fredericksburg, so I've seen the battlefield there several times. Burnside was the worst of human scum to send drafted kids in *repeated* frontal assaults against that hill.