News HBO draws ire after 'Confederate' announcement

[Asbo Zaprudder]

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.

I've watched the depiction of the attack on Marye's Heights in the movie "Gods and Generals" and read about it in several books, including The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote - the assault was a totally folly for which Burnside tried to blame his subordinates. In retrospect, many American Civil War battles appear to be grim predictions of the industrialised slaughter that was enacted in Europe some 50 years later.

 

[Skipper]

I like how you guys talk about the Civil War like it was happened yesterday.

If someone here said something like "See? This is where they fought the Battle of Volturnus!", he would receive only blank stares...

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I like how you guys talk about the Civil War like it was happened yesterday.

If someone here said something like "See? This is where they fought the Battle of Volturnus!", he would receive only blank stares...

Well, if I lived on that river, I'd probably know a lot more about that, as well. Nothing strange about being familiar with the history of your home. (And in a lot of places in the US, Civil War history is about the biggest piece of history you can find)

 

[Skipper]

Well, if I lived on that river, I'd probably know a lot more about that, as well. Nothing strange about being familiar with the history of your home. (And in a lot of places in the US, Civil War history is about the biggest piece of history you can find)

Well, the big difference is that we had a lot of battles in our lands, so it's a little peculiar that someone, unless s/he is a history buff, knows more than s/he learned at school about a particular engagement.

But you people talk about this or that battle like it was the last Monday night football game

 

[CorporalCaptain]

so it's a little peculiar that someone, unless s/he is a history buff, knows more than s/he learned at school about a particular engagement.

I don't think it's "peculiar."

In central Kentucky, there are signs from over 40 miles out to Blue Licks Battlefield State Resort Park at the site of the so-called final battle of the American Revolutionary War. One of my friends from the area told me that the locals are quite into lore of the battle.

Does that mean that there are a lot of "history buffs" in the area, interested generally in history? No, I wouldn't say so necessarily. The park is one of the few "things" in the area, so I'd say that it has an influence on the local culture as one of the things people are expected to know a few things about. Besides that, it's a patriotic subject.

 

[Skipper]

I don't think it's "peculiar.".

I said it's a little peculiar here. In some regions battles from the First Punic War (264 to 241 BC) to World War II have been fought, with dozens of other wars, skirmishes and engagements in between. If someone who isn't an historian knows so many details about a particular battle, evidently s/he is a military history enthusiast or something similar.

 

[Snaploud]

The U.S. is obsessed with the Civil War because we never really stopped fighting it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I said it's a little peculiar here. In some regions battles from the First Punic War (264 to 241 BC) to World War II have been fought, with dozens of other wars, skirmishes and engagements in between. If someone who isn't an historian knows so many details about a particular battle, evidently s/he is a military history enthusiast or something similar.

Oh, sorry for my confusion.

 

[Shawnster]

Well, the big difference is that we had a lot of battles in our lands, so it's a little peculiar that someone, unless s/he is a history buff, knows more than s/he learned at school about a particular engagement.

But you people talk about this or that battle like it was the last Monday night football game

There was a scene from the TV show NCIS where someone is speaking highly about the 200 year old history of a location. The lead character, an Israeli, asks incredulously ; "Is that old?" The point being many places in Europe and Israel / Middle East are far older than 200 years. In contrast, anything pertaining to US history is just over 240 years old.

You have had many battles in Europe stretching back hundreds or thousands of years. Wars are still being fought in the Eastern hemisphere every year. In contrast there were only 3 wars fought in the US controlled portions of the Western hemisphere and the last battle on US soil was in 1865. Unlike Italy and all Europe that saw terrible carnage twice in the 20th Century.

Had WWII been fought here, I doubt people would be so quick to remember the Revolution or the Civil War.

As for still fighting the Civil War... I do wonder if the US had developed the same policy banning the Stars and Bars and other CSA imagery that Post War Germany did in banning Nazi symbols, if things would be different and how much so. Instead, Southern states were allowed to incorporate CSA imagery into official state flags and were allowed to erect statues and honor Confederate soldiers and politicians as part of their "cultural heritage."

 

[JD]

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.

Wow, that is just crazy.

 

[Gaith]

(And in a lot of places in the US, Civil War history is about the biggest piece of history you can find)

Oh, the South has a lot more history than that! There's the eradication of the native peoples, the generations of rape- and murder-filled chattel slavery, centuries of widespread hookworm infection that kept millions in states of perpetual lethargy and fatigue, the KKK's extensive terrorism campaigns against blacks post-1865, Jim Crow and segregation, the subjugation of women as a cultural foundation, ongoing mass incarcerations and police harassment along racial lines, and a pattern of electing such brilliant statesmen as George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, and that South Carolina governor who ran off to Argentina to canoodle with his mistress while in office, conduct so farcical and disgraceful that his constituents punish him with a Congressional seat to this very day!

... And yet, despite all this rich and abundant history, the region seems to have a preoccupation with those few times mostly white guys in uniform fought other mostly white guys in uniform. Mystère!

In contrast there were only 3 wars fought in the US controlled portions of the Western hemisphere and the last battle on US soil was in 1865. Unlike Italy and all Europe that saw terrible carnage twice in the 20th Century.

I assume your omission of the French and Indian Wars and many campaigns of Native American eradication prior to the Civil War, as well as the 1910-1919 US/Mexico Border War and the horrific genocide of Western Native Americans post-1865 is based on sweeping oversimplification and simple neglect, and not denialism. But the above quote is nevertheless a classic case of the white-written Anglo narrative that those brief pockets of time in which whites fought other whites are the only bits of American history worth remembering, and it's in that very context that many peoples' anxieties about this in-development show are entirely reasonable.

 

[Snaploud]

It's a bit funny that we're using the word peculiar to describe knowledge about the Civil War when southern slavery was known as the peculiar institution. I'm not sure if that was intentional.

As for there being few wars on U.S. soil: there's certainly some truth to that, though I think the War of 1812 and the gradual wiping out of the native American population gets short work in our histories. Also, as a nitpick, there was one battle on U.S. soil post 1865. It was at Pearl Harbor.

 

[Gaith]

^ There were tons of battles and whole wars fought between United States forces and American Indians post-1865 on what is US soil today, even if not all such engagements occurred on formally conquered land at the time. Surely you've heard of Custer's Last Stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

Also, even if you don't recognize the 1898 US annexation of the Philippines during the course of the Philippine–American War, and the ensuing battles fought on said "US soil" (from a certain point of view) during that conflict, again, there were numerous skirmishes and battles on mainland US soil during the 1910-1919 Border War.

And let's not forget the Battle of Blair Mountain in the West Virginia coal wars:​

 

[Snaploud]

^Fair enough. I should have said "at least one battle on U.S. soil." I was responding to Shawnster's claim that there were no post-1865 battles on U.S. soil, and I must have missed your response to him.

 

[matthunter]

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.

The US is highly dependent on the fruits of sweatshop labour in other nations to sate its need for cheap consumer goods. Slavery would simply move such labour back home...

* Disclaimer: NOT okay with either situation

 

[Galileo7]

I love this idea for a series. First I always wanted "Sliders" to go to a world were the South won. I also like that fake Documentary movie that also delt into this idea. I love alternate history stuff. PLus this is a great way to tackle modern issues in terms of racism through allegory.

This show is also on HBO. They don't make mistakes. Well maybe "Ballers" but that is it. The HBO name alone should garner some trust from people.

Jason

Agree. Sliders five seasons depicted many different present day Earths. This series will be interesting if it shows the honest horrors of such a present day and the origins of this nightmare.

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

 

[Skipper]

Oh, sorry for my confusion.

No problem. Probably I didn't make myself clear.

 

[Shawnster]

^Fair enough. I should have said "at least one battle on U.S. soil." I was responding to Shawnster's claim that there were no post-1865 battles on U.S. soil, and I must have missed your response to him.

Yeah, I missed a few. Forgot War of 1812 entirely. And I was confining my comments to North American soil. My point being it is easy to remember, recall and embellish a 200 year old battle when that was the last battle fought in your neighborhood. Or the first battle since you moved in, for that matter.


I think Gaith's response illustrates exactly why such a television show should be made. That is, if handled properly. The aforementioned Spike Lee mockumentary was handled properly.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I like how you guys talk about the Civil War like it was happened yesterday.

Unfortunately, some still do. Thus the horseshit about the "war of Northern aggression" and "the South will rise again".

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm surprised nobody has tried to make an honest film about Christopher Columbus yet. The majority of people accept how horrible the slavery practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries was but still canonize a man from the 15th century who was just as bad, and nobody has really made a film to show how the man really was.

From a cultural standpoint I think having this series is a good thing but I question whether the story they want to tell with it will be that interesting from a narrative standpoint. And I question what the role of slavery would end up being in a post-mechanized society when they have machines to do all the things slaves used to do. I guess it'd be mostly housekeeping/glorified sex trafficking?

I hope it doesn't lead to violent responses from the Breitbart crowd. Casting aspersions on their imagined dream world.