This is hardly an accurate alternative history. The point of divergence is, at best, laughable, and the idea that the South could conquer all of the North equally so. The idea that slavery could remain viable economically after the turn of the 20th century is false. The entire movie is littered with factual inaccuracies, and is little more than propaganda.
That's my rant about it anyway.
I am in total agreement. It was nothing but hateful, spiteful half-truths, and by half-truths, I mean lies cloaked in some level of fact but skewed to ridiculous levels.
share[deleted]
I live in the South. Metro Atlanta to be precise. Let me just say right off that the idea of slavery is in itself despicable, and I do not agree with it in any way. That being said, this entire Alternate History is simply laughable to me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Okay, proof please.
Where are KKK hoods sold. Yes, I realize there a few idiots who still make up the KKK but I'm not buying your story. The KKK are hated everywhere and the last major KKK rally (if you can even call it major) occurred in the North (Ohio to be exact).
IME there is much more racism in the North than the South.
The Confederate flag is not politically correct and neither was Sambo's Restaurants, but that does not mean that either are the symbols of hatred or racism that you or Spike Lee and others claim they are.
BTW, I bet you don't know the story of "Little Black Sambo". It's actually a very good children's story and not racist in the least. It doesn't even involve anyone of African descent. If anything, it's specist as it portrays tigers as greedy and self-destructive.
While I realize the movie was meant to be satirical, it failed on a number of levels mixing fact with fiction to give off an impression that racism is alive and well in America and that a large majority of us are still racist.
Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben racist? What about other iconic marketing symbols that were white? Are they not racist towards whites? Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot - only white people can be racist in this politically correct world that some feel we should live in. And thus many of the stereotypes of white people portrayed in this movie are not only accepted, but embraced and applauded.
And yes, I acknowledge that America's history has a dark side and racism was indeed a major problem, but this movie isn't even good satire.
Do you actually believe that racism is no longer a problem in America?
Because that is just not true.
Racism IS alive and well in this nation. Read the comment boards after a news that even hint at being about race. The bile spewed by these Neanderthals is eye opening. Just because it's not out in the open doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.
Oh, and aunt Jemimah and uncle Ben have been toned down over the last few decades. They come from the same time as those other products.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
The problem as demonstrated by Jynx of Pokemon is this knee jerk reaction to anything we think may be racist...even if it isn't. Research has shown that Jynx did NOT come from minstrel shows but rather from a mixture of Japanese mythology, No theater, and manga.
The Japanese mythology involves Yama-uba, the mountain Crone who is often depicted as a dark skinned female. In No theater actors who portray Yama-uba use a heavy tanning or "black-face" make-up. Bulbapedia touches on this and "Game Theory: Pokemon Racism, Jynx Justified" goes into the details.
Another factual detail that is over looked is that Urd and her mother Hild from Norse mythology in the _Oh My Goddess!_ manga are depicted as dark skinned women and that manga series started in 1988 while Jynx didn't appear until 1996.
This is why people tend to dismiss claims of racism in the United States...too many cry wolfs on things that are NOT racist.
I know the story of Little Black Sambo, you don't know the history of the Confederate flag. But then you don't understand that using a black slave as your corporate mascot is racist, so I guess you don't know much.
shareIf I recall, wasn't the avowed segregationist Lester Maddox one of Georgia's most popular governors back in the 1960's and 70's? Wasn't the campaign gimmick that helped get him elected over and over the passing out of pick handles like the ones he used to beat black customers who tried to eat at his 'Whites Only' restaurant?
Maddox got elected despite the fact that the South lost the Civil War...imagine if they had won!
Who cares if it isn't possible, the movie is entirely hypothetical.
Also, Propaganda? Are you serious?
Why does everyone assume that this is meant to be "alternative history," when it is really a satire? The point of the film is not to offer a legitimate "what if" scenario for the Confederacy winning the Civil War. It is meant to highlight the ways in which the South DID win in the long run by pointing to the long-term failure of the nation to deal with its racism. Look at the way it deals with racism in American popular culture, the development of legal discriminations against various races, even the way historians looked back on certain periods of American history. These are all meant to present the similarities between U.S. history as it actually occurred and this "hypothetical" case in which the South conquered the North. Southerners keep taking it personally in this forum, but it is not just about the South--it is an indictment of AMERICAN racial policies from the Civil War to the present (although the South, of course, had aspects of the problem that did not exist elsewhere after the Civil War). So please, use your minds, stop taking it as a personal attack, and stop calling it "alternative history." Or, maybe, rent it and actually WATCH THE FILM!
shareYou are absolutely correct it is a satire and not an alternative history.
shareI agree with everything you said. There is a misconception in this country that racism and bigtory only exists in the south. It is all over America.
It's a satire but as much of Britain as it of the United States. There were race riots in 1919 and again in the 1950s and social riots in the 1980s. In fact, a 2004 report said that Britain had to take "urgent action" on the "racial discrimination" and "extreme racial disadvantage" through out Britain at there were becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society"
In fact, if you look there are threads of British history that keep appearing in this movie
For example, the treatment of the South Americans mirrors South Africa a British colony that only became separate from England in 1961 as much as it mirrors the Jim Crow South. Vice President Fauntroy III's meeting with Hitler has elements of Edward VIII and Chamberlain. The JBU is a clear stand in for the IRA and so on.
An interesting fact is that Fauntroy is the last name of a major US civil rights activist. And if you are wondering, yes he is black.
So just whose history is this movie really satirizing? The United States, Britain's, or both?
Both.
sharewillzilla, you mentioned that slavery would not have remained viable in the 20th century. I guess you weren't paying attention, cause one of the "experts" in the movie says that slavery has hurt the economy of the CSA for a long time by that point. That having slaves was more of a hindrance than anything. They just chose to keep them because it was more or less tradition.
shareThere's not enough satire in American culture for most people to grasp the concept. It's a BRILLIANT film, and the point of it is not to say that the South could have, would have, should have conquered the North. It's a satire on race relations.
The point of the whole movie is given at its tail end, in print. All of the outrageous racist products hyped in fake ads were real products, and it still goes on; "Just ask Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben."
And did anyone else not notice that it's a Spike Lee joint?
Yeah right, this movie is disgusting racial propaganda...only if you don't have the intelligence to grasp the concept of satire. It's a brilliant, brilliant commentary on the state of race relations in America today and in the past, and a reminder that the history books are written by those who win the wars. 10/10.
The film is patently absurd. And yes, I did notice that it's a "Spike Lee Joint" which probably makes it even worse. This was created by folks who look at Uncle Tom's Cabin and ASSume it's factual evidence rather than fiction. They paint slavery not as it was, but as they want to believe it and want for you to believe it.
It's a bastardiazation of revisionist history based on either colossal ignorance or flat out lying. For it to be satire, there has to be some element of truth. This has none. It may be a commentary on race relations in America, but only from a fantasy point of view that they wish existed and not as it really is or was.
The reality is that, as a whole, the South was more opposed to slavery than the North. The North was making beau coup cash off of the slave trade. Consider that at one point in history, the building of slave ships was the largest industry in New York. Further, the Confederate flag never flew over a slave ship while the U.S. flag flew over many. A lot of people, both North and South were opposed to the institution, but nobody really had the guts to get rid of it because it was too important to the economy. Even if the South had won, there's nothing that shows that slavery would have continued into the present, even with the Democrats.
Therefore, this was based on fantasy and Lee's desire for constant victimhood. There's no reality to it at all and therefore can't be considered satire. It's not funny or believable at all. It's ridiculous and a reflection of the ignorance of the writers, producers etc.
The North did benefit greatly from the slave trade, to be sure. Not only in shipping, but in the development of financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies. While the slave trade ended (legally, at least) in 1808, these other institutions did continue to benefit for decades, as did Northern mills processing cotton, etc.
Having raised some good points, however, you reveal your own racism and your own lapses in logic. You claimed that since it was "based on fantasy and Lee's desire for constant victimhood" it "can't be considered satire." Several posters, including myself, have pointed out how it DID bring into the fictional narrative (of Southern victory and continued slavery) several aspects of American race relations that DID actually occur: legal segregation, racist depictions of Blacks in advertising and popular culture, historians and laypeople who celebrated the "glorious cause" and downplayed the negative aspects of slavery, and so forth. Again, it is not meant to be taken as a step-by-step guide as to how history would have been different had the South won. It illuminatest the way that RACISM won and the ways that the South dictated American racial policy for generations.
If you have the time or inclination to respond, what exactly do you mean when you write, "They paint slavery not as it was, but as they want to believe it and want for you to believe it." It seems that you are attacking those who believe that slavery was brutal, violent, and degrading to African Americans, an institution that established the foundation for continued legal and extralegal abuses of Black rights to the present. What, pray tell, is the "real" story of slavery if it is not this? Also, what evidence do you have that "the South was more opposed to slavery than the North"? Last time I checked, there were some people in the South opposed to slavery, many of whom were driven out of the region or silenced. The region's postal workers confiscated abolitionist literature from the mail for fear it would incite riots. Southern states sent committees of representatives to one another in 1860-1 trying to convince other states to join the secession movement on the grounds that slavery had to be protected. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, proclaimed that it had been founded on the basis of white supremacy over blacks. And some Southerners opposed slavery only because it granted extra power to slaveholding regions in state legislatures at the expense of areas with increasing numbers of Whites that did not own slaves (see the debates in Virginia in the early 1830s, for example).
As far as I can see, you threw in a few accurate facts over the way the North benefitted from slavery to take the heat attention away from the South. If anything, your points about Northern racism reinforce the filmmakers' point about the national problem of racism and the ways the South did win the Civil War. Nobody here is claiming the North was perfect or free of racism, but you seem to use Northern racism as an excuse to deny the South did ANYTHING wrong. There is nothing to separate your writings on this site from those racists who claim that slavery was good, the South didn't really want to keep it, and that it was a "dying institution," when all historical evidence points to the contrary.
<< The reality is that, as a whole, the South was more opposed to slavery than the North. >>
Wow. Where do you get your sheets washed?
<< The reality is that, as a whole, the South was more opposed to slavery than the North. >>
Oh wait, I get it. You may be right......IF YOU INCLUDE THE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH WHO WERE OPPOSED TO SLAVERY.
IF YOU INCLUDE THE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH WHO WERE OPPOSED TO SLAVERY.
They paint slavery not as it was, but as they want to believe it and want for you to believe it.
For it to be satire, there has to be some element of truth. This has none.
The reality is that, as a whole, the South was more opposed to slavery than the North.
How can have the film been a "Spike Lee Joint" when Spike Lee is neither the director or writer, or even one of the producers, and his sole credit in the film is that of the "presenter"? I am quite sure the credit was added as an honorary mention, not to be taken at face value. Director/writer Kevin Willmott has also worked with Spike Lee in films such as Chi-Raq (as a co-writer), but in C.S.A. Spike Lee's part was limited to that of the presenter. He had no creative control neither co-produced the film, so it was quite obviously an honorary credit.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
Yeah,I agree it was a GREAT movie, for those who get it! And yes, I'm Black!
Abchulett,
I totally agree with you. You articulated the point so well! Thank you for that!😎 😎
The South tried very hard to enlist the aid of France and England. Had they provided the military forces the movie places at Gettysburg, the Confederacy could have easily won the war. As far as propaganda, this doesn't even fit the definition of the word.
share[deleted]
Still, there is no way the Confederate States could have annexed the United States, they may have been able to get the border states, if that is probably only if they seceded as well. And the CSA is able to take over the United States, and all of Mexico and South America, but not Canada?
shareAnd the CSA is able to take over the United States, and all of Mexico and South America, but not Canada?
Actually, one of the main reasons Great Britain did NOT get involved in the Civil War was the fear that a victorious Union would then invade Canada after confiscating the millions of pounds in British securities then owned. Despite their great navy Great Britain simply did not have the man power to deal with another invasion of Canada especially as things were melting down in Europe.
The main issue is assuming WWI happened in this ATL (and there is no reason to assume it didn't) there should be no Great Britain to even make this film!
In OTL US Rear Admiral William Sims was told in April 1917 by British Admiralty that unless German submarine warfare was not checked Germany would win the war.
Since in this ATL the CSA is occupied with Central and South America the US destroyers that helped break the German submarine blockade don't exist and neither do the American troops to bolster General Foch's devastated French and British Empire armies after the German Spring Offensive of 1918. So that is a stunning success.
Also with no American troops to impede the Germans Operation Georgette is a stunning success and northern English ports fall. Operations Blücher and Yorck would have been stunning successes due to no American troops and the Germans take France.
The really strange thing is in 1839 the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was formed (it still exists today as Anti-Slavery International) and even back then it "campaigned to outlaw slavery in other countries and pressured the British government to do more to enforce the suppression of the slave trade by declaring slave traders to be pirates and pursuing them as such"
Yet no mention of any effort by Great Britain to curtail the growing CSA slave trade of the 1930s is made. In fact, if it wasn't for the film being British one could be excused for thinking that Great Britain and France simply don't exist anymore.
Note that in this ATL after the creation of the CSA neither Britain and France are mentioned again. Given the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (formed 1839 and existing today as Anti-Slavery International) this non mention is significant as it would be clear by the 1920s that the CSA out of control with regards of Slavery and Britain would have be doing something.
But no the only thing about Europe is with regard to Hitler; there is NOTHING about any efforts of Great Britain to even try to impede a CSA-German alliance. In OTL, the US may have said it was neutral before Dec 7, 1941 but the US had been sending supplies to Great Britain under cash and carry (the only thing allowed under the 1930s US Neutrality Acts) since September 21, 1939. in this ATL with the CSA seemingly buddy buddy with Hitler odds are that those cash and carry goods would go to Germany not Great Britain.
For a country that should have been a major player even with a victorious CSA Great Britain is the country that for practical purposes wasn't there.
Britain was also afraid of Democracy succeeding and replacing the Monarchy.
shareThat is nonsense. Britain itself had been democratic (via the parliamentary system) for centuries with the monarch little more then a figurehead. No the real fear of Britain was losing all the wheat the United States sent them in trade (some 40%) and that investments would be lost and loans defaulted creating enormous financial losses.
shareUmmmmm.....it's not supposed to be SERIOUS. Plus,it's just a movie.