• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

HBO Talk ‘Confederate’ Controversy, Defends Slave Drama, Not The Way It Was Announced

Nichelle and Malcolm are really good writers and it's bizarre they've been kind of erased out of this entire conversation.

Cause it ain't their show. It wasn't their idea. D&D when announcing this talked about how it was their idea and how they'd been talking about it for years, that this was a passion project for them. Then they brought in Nichelle and Malcolm after.
 

oneils

Member
Slavery was not the only factor it was a major Factory but caused the sucessionn that caused the Civil War. You can continually try to point it back to that reason but it's not 100% the reason why the war started in the first place. And the facts are there to back it up

Continually? I said it once.
 
Right what a fucking CRAZY concept

D&D remind me of children. I be they always really really really wanted to do this, then Trump got elected and they're still like "yeah let's still do it we're geniuses." They don't know how to let it go.

Part of their announcement was actually in fact stating that they'd been wanting to do this idea for years
 
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument with everybody on this post I thought the same thing as you all a few weeks ago. I was actually corrected by one of my co-workers who's a history major and that's the reason why I'm sharing this information with you guys.
 
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument with everybody on this post I thought the same thing as you all a few weeks ago. I was actually corrected by one of my co-workers who's a history major and that's the reason why I'm sharing this information with you guys.

All roads lead to slavery. The articles of succession states as such. Heresy isn't admissible. Unless you can show proof otherwise, you have no point.
 
Well then why would that website post more accurate data and the pie charts would be 100% slavery. Not Divided up into multiple categories

Okay let's look at those charts, you have:

Slavery
States' Rights
Lincoln
Economic Anxiety
Context

On the subject of Context: "Context refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument." So that can be thrown out wholesale.

Slavery? Self explanatory
States' Rights....to own slaves
Lincoln? They took issue with him being an abolitionist...goes right back to slavery
Economic Anxiety because the south was dependent on...slavery that the north wanted to get rid of.

It literally all goes back to slavery.

But please go on.
 

royalan

Member
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument with everybody on this post I thought the same thing as you all a few weeks ago. I was actually corrected by one of my co-workers who's a history major and that's the reason why I'm sharing this information with you guys.

And this is a Sterling example of why I don't fuck with the premise of this show.

Because the effects and impact of slavery has ALREADY been trivialized to hell and back in this country.
 
Okay let's look at those charts, you have:

Slavery
States' Rights
Lincoln
Economic Anxiety
Context

On the subject of Context: "Context refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument." So that can be thrown out wholesale.

Slavery? Self explanatory
States' Rights....to own slaves
Lincoln? They took issue with him being an abolitionist...goes right back to slavery
Economic Anxiety because the south was dependent on...slavery that the north wanted to get rid of.

It literally all goes back to slavery.

But please go on.


That's a slavery pie.
 

Mumei

Member
Okay let's look at those charts, you have:

Slavery
States' Rights
Lincoln
Economic Anxiety
Context

On the subject of Context: "Context refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument." So that can be thrown out wholesale.

Slavery? Self explanatory
States' Rights....to own slaves
Lincoln? They took issue with him being an abolitionist...goes right back to slavery
Economic Anxiety because the south was dependent on...slavery that the north wanted to get rid of.

It literally all goes back to slavery.

But please go on.

Precisely.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
I really dont care.

Well obviously because your arguments have little merit and people have torn them to pieces several times over and yet here you are still. Your coworker being a history major doesn't mean he isn't a deluded racist or anyone of the types to try and make the Confederacy sound better than it was.
 

WriterGK

Member
Two facts:
There are more black people incarcerated now in the USA then there ever were slaves
Number two there were more white then black slaves
 
It's a distinction with no difference. Yes, they wanted to form their own country. Why? Slavery. If every answer you give leads back to "slavery", then the correct answer is "slavery." It's obfuscation to avoid that answer.



And they had dreams of expanding. They didn't just want to be left alone:



And remember when you parrot Lost Cause mythology:





You're too optimistic, I think. For one, even while it was officially illegal, the South continued to use slave labor through the 1940s in the form of contract leasing, with the vast majority of the black population who weren't in that situation so constrained by a web of laws and extralegal threats (like lynching) that though nominally free, they weren't really free. And the South had already begun diversifying its slavery practices by the 1860s. They were already using slaves to mine for ore by the end of the war; the foundry, arsenal, mines, and furnaces in Alabama, increasingly run by slave labor as the war came to its end, became integral to the Confederacy's ability to make arms.

This was the basis for a later shift to industrial slavery, which was more brutal than the slavery that preceded it. In the first two years that Alabama started leasing its prisoners, 20 percent died; 35 percent in the second; 45 percent in the fourth. This practice was wildly profitable, bringing tens of millions of dollars into state government coffers and creating the single largest revenue for Alabama. Even today, though far less brutal than it was prison slave labor remains widespread.

And if the South felt like they too large a slave population to control, I think I'd sooner expect genocide than abolition. Though I imagine it'd simply lead to much more brutal practices in which slaves weren't viewed as holding as much value individually and were worked to death.

Plus you have to consider the possibility that the South would try to further expand south, as I mentioned earlier in this post. I think that it's just too optimistic to assume that slavery would've simply faded away.

Would the South have begun using Native Americans and Mexicans had they won the Civil War? And what factors made Africans more appealing and accessible over other ethnic groups, such as Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Polynesians?
 

Mister Wolf

Member
It's amazing how willfully ignorant you want to believe a certain narrative despite the overabundance of facts saying the contrary.

People pull this shit all the time throughout history. Lie and lie until you get the majority to believe it and then it becomes the truth.
 
Slavery was not the only factor it was a major Factor thar caused the sucession that caused the Civil War. You can continually try to point it back to that reason but it's not 100% the reason why the war started in the first place. And the facts are there to back it up

It's the only reason that matters. The others were window dressing, irrelevant.

You history major friend is wrong, the prevailing and overwhelming historical POV of the US Civil War and the secession of the southern Confederacy was over slavery. This is the consensus drawn from 152 years of study.
 

akira28

Member
Well then why would that website post more accurate data and the pie charts would be 100% slavery. Not Divided up into multiple categories

this sad dude here talking about 100 percent pie charts. take that shit. theee. fuck. out. of. here.

you're transparent as fuck. slavery was the primary factor. only factor? no. Main factor. I dare you to say states rights and try to pretend the state right wasn't the right to keep and hold slaves.

you have one point, and you can't even hold on to that. "not the only factor, not the only factor"
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Could you imagine the impact on WW1 and WW2 if that would of happended? There are way more variables that just slavery to this.

A strain of Marxist thought holds that the South successfully seceding would have been a net positive for history since the US would not have become the preeminent global power that successfully challenged the Communist Bloc.
 
I absolutely love alternate timeline stories, will watch this. Perhaps it will do for me what Man in the High Castle wasn't able to do due to being weirdly boring despite the awesome premise.
 
”The producers have said they're not looking to do Gone With the Wind 2017," he said. ”It's not whips and plantations. It's what they imagine a modern-day institution of slavery would look like."

Gonna go out on a limb and say that this was probably a large part of it...
 
I'm not gonna say it'll be trash or shouldn't be made, just that I have low expectations considering D&D's track record.

Well then why would that website post more accurate data and the pie charts would be 100% slavery. Not Divided up into multiple categories

You understand that those pie charts are purely counting the words in the articles of secession and assigning them to certain topics without any consideration of their qualitative value? It's the most superficial analysis you could perform, and it still basically leads you back to slavery being the overwhelming cause. Your argument is nonsense.
 
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument with everybody on this post I thought the same thing as you all a few weeks ago. I was actually corrected by one of my co-workers who's a history major and that's the reason why I'm sharing this information with you guys.

I know you're probably ignoring this thread now, but there are actual historical experts and professors who say it was all about slavery, not just a student. Your co-worker is either misinformed or someone who thinks that the South is a lot more noble than it was.
 

El Topo

Member
I know you're probably ignoring this thread now, but there are actual historical experts and professors who say it was all about slavery, not just a student.

I'm sure you'll find professors and experts in the South that will claim it totally wasn't about slavery. I think it is more reasonable instead to point e.g. at this article that touches on how historians in general think about it.
 

Mumei

Member
Would the South have begun using Native Americans and Mexicans had they won the Civil War? And what factors made Africans more appealing and accessible over other ethnic groups, such as Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Polynesians?

There was apparently more widespread use of Native American slavery in the United States than has been commonly acknowledged, though I haven't actually read that book so I can't tell you how much more than that. If the South had won and if the South eventually did recover enough to make good on their plans to expand further, I don't know how they would handle the populations of the territory they took over. I could imagine displacement and ethnic cleansing, or enslavement, or some sort of second class position. It'd have to be one of those, though.

And if you're interested in the origins of slavery in the United States, check out American Freedom, American Slavery. I don't know enough about the development of the transatlantic slave trade, since it started long before that story happens. But I do know that by the time the the British colonies in what became the U.S. had begun changing its laws to have children inherit the mother's status as free or slave, the transatlantic slave trade had been going on for decades. I don't know why exactly Europeans chose the Africa (except that they were finishing off a disease-fueled genocide in South and Central America so they couldn't get their slaves there), but I'm sure someone else who knows more could explain it. But when the British colonies began expanding their use of slaves, there was already a market for African slaves. Why would they try to create an Arab slave trade or a Chinese slave trade when one already existed and was extremely active?
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
It's a distinction with no difference. Yes, they wanted to form their own country. Why? Slavery. If every answer you give leads back to "slavery", then the correct answer is "slavery." It's obfuscation to avoid that answer.



And they had dreams of expanding. They didn't just want to be left alone:



And remember when you parrot Lost Cause mythology:





You're too optimistic, I think. For one, even while it was officially illegal, the South continued to use slave labor through the 1940s in the form of contract leasing, with the vast majority of the black population who weren't in that situation so constrained by a web of laws and extralegal threats (like lynching) that though nominally free, they weren't really free. And the South had already begun diversifying its slavery practices by the 1860s. They were already using slaves to mine for ore by the end of the war; the foundry, arsenal, mines, and furnaces in Alabama, increasingly run by slave labor as the war came to its end, became integral to the Confederacy's ability to make arms.

This was the basis for a later shift to industrial slavery, which was more brutal than the slavery that preceded it. In the first two years that Alabama started leasing its prisoners, 20 percent died; 35 percent in the second; 45 percent in the fourth. This practice was wildly profitable, bringing tens of millions of dollars into state government coffers and creating the single largest revenue for Alabama. Even today, though far less brutal than it was prison slave labor remains widespread.

And if the South felt like they too large a slave population to control, I think I'd sooner expect genocide than abolition. Though I imagine it'd simply lead to much more brutal practices in which slaves weren't viewed as holding as much value individually and were worked to death.

Plus you have to consider the possibility that the South would try to further expand south, as I mentioned earlier in this post. I think that it's just too optimistic to assume that slavery would've simply faded away.

Masterful. Thank you for speaking truth to ignorance (and that's being charitable).
 

CazTGG

Member
”It's not whips and plantations. It's what they imagine a modern-day institution of slavery would look like."

So...this show is actually about human trafficking and not another whack at the thoroughly mined topic of "what if the South became its own country"?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
I think how the producers have handled race before is what has some people concerned

iwhenh.jpg

Madonna's concerts just get more and more embarrassing.
 
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...u-student-leader-more-african-american-men-p/

It's true that there are more black men in the prison system now than were enslaved at a certain point.

My guess is that poster is using that stat as some sort of "see? they deserve it" rather than "the prison industry has replaced chattel slavery"


as for the second "fact": that's just some plain ol bullshit I only ever read on the internet and never read in any book or learned in any educational setting. Obvious bullshit, basically.
 

jayu26

Member
”The producers have said they're not looking to do Gone With the Wind 2017," he said. ”It's not whips and plantations. It's what they imagine a modern-day institution of slavery would look like."
Maybe that is exactly what you should do. The "modern" confederate stays backwards and becomes isolated as no other country wants to deal with them like North Korea, while USA (North) advances technologically and socially and becomes an economic force on the world stage. I would probably watch that show.

A modern-day institution of slavery makes more sense if the salves are machines. Then you can use allegory and "nuance", whatever that means in this case. Although I know some of you have problems with Detroit (video game not the movie) which doing just that.
 
Top Bottom