And why is it such a controversial book/movie?
>>17980103It’s a yankee fabrication. Atlanta never burned. Don’t believe that shit
>>17980103It shows how the North were monsters and in this day and age that's racist but holy fuck the movie felt like it would never end
a completely accurate depiction of the southern genteel, all high IQ anglo saxons, vivacious and full of spirit, the epitome of culture and social grace, who built a paradise for themselves in the humid south until other white people disrupted it>slavesand? not a big deal, they were gentle and kindly towards their negros>thinking they could win the warblockader runners like Clark Gable could have potentially given them the assistance they needed, the British had their own claims on north America and there was potential for their assistance, at this time the French were moving into Mexico also, things were chaotic, anything could happen with faith and courage, it is only with hindsight bias we point our fingers and say "oh, this happened and this happened, as it should, elementary really"
About as accurate as Schindler’s List.
>>17980124So pure bullshit?
my mom used to look like Vivien Leigh
>>17980103Downplayed the role of the Klan during the Yankee occupation.
It's controversial because it "romanticizes" the south, when it's ultimately a romantic story. It doesn't portray the slave owners as evil monsters, blacks as indisputably and metaphysically pure, good, and intelligent, and shows the Civil War from the side that lost, therefore a "bad" movie. It doesn't matter that the book actually is critical of the south and southern society, it's just not critical enough of it for liberal tastes. The liberal wants every black character to be einstein, every White slave owner to be an uneducated monstrous redneck from Appalachia (even if the regions of Appalachia were on the side of the Union as often as the Confederacy), etc etc. As for it's accuracy it's based on the actual recollections of a woman during the war, it's about as accurate as any memoir is going to be.
>>17980160Yes. The entire movie is built on unfalsifiable myths.
>>17980254My son's mom looked like her, hey wait a minute...
>>17980345Even to the point where now the only state completely within "Appalachia" decided to break away and join the Union (West Virginia). Appalachians also swayed Maryland and Kentucky to not join the rebels.
>>17980320No, there is a klan scene in this movie but they couldn’t say it by name because of the controversy. It’s when Rhett butler, and the Confederate veterans are playing cards and one of them isn’t there. I believe someone came in late and was shot because they were doing klan activities like sabotaging a yankee base nearby or something
>>17982039I thought about this being a West Virginian and all and I am like 99% sure the only reason WV didn’t join is it’s too mountainous to really have plantations so no one there really cared about the issue… It’s not as if we love you Yankee Jew dogs…
>>17982594WV is a ruby red, traditional, conservative state mostly in the last 20-50 years.That said in the mid-19th century West Virginia was a hotbed headache for Plantation Southerners. I had some family in WV so I am fond of the state but it would be like comparing Texas politics of 1858 to Texas politics of 1970 or 2024, the difference is almost like landing on Mars almost.
>>17982730>West Virginia was a hotbed headache for Plantation SouthernersReally? Appalachia seems like the last place a plantation Southerner would want to settle
>>17982730Correction: Ruby red in the last 5-10 years prior to that labor-union-Democrat for the last 50 or so years (putting it outside the post 1972ish Democratic Party eg: Joe Manchin being the spoiler on Capitol Hill for 10 years).
>>17980345it definitely romanticizes slavery, ignoring its brutality by showing all the field slaves as loyal good natured servants happy with their position, and the house slaves as loving aunt jemima types.
>>17982732Exactly my point, glad we agree.Richmond and before that Williamsburg was in the Empire business not realizing that Wheeling, Morgantown, Parkersburg and Beckley --in short-- just made people into Yankees.I heard for part of the 20th century Weirton was the the fastest growing and largest economic city in WV, and almost to a man they relate to Pittsburgh and Cleveland more than Richmond and Charlottesville.
>>17982738>Exactly my point, glad we agree.Sorry wasn't the anon you were responding to. >and almost to a man they relate to Pittsburgh and Cleveland more than Richmond and Charlottesville.IIRC West Virginia secession was more or less a hat trick pulled by traders and similar types sympathetic to the North
>>17980124
>>17980103>another winner from that era
>>17982735This is how most people here think slavery actually was. Let me amend that, they don't actually think that but they pretend to in order to own the libs. What they actually think is that blacks are beasts so it doesn't really matter if you treat them poorly.
>>17982588As I said, they downplayed the role of the Klan. Are you stupid? Yes or no.
>>17984832Well they couldn’t outright depict the Klan because of politics at the time. The NCAAP and similar groups were making a stir about the film.
>>17984806Natural slavery as a concept enforced by a beneficent master is something Aristotle wrote about at length. Perhaps you have heard of him. I doubt he wrote that to “own the libs” though I can see a politically minded douchebag such as yourself may think so.
>>17984857>Can't answer the questionLet's try again: Are you stupid? Yes/No.
>>17984866What question? They couldn’t depict the Klan by name the way Borth of a nation did thirty years earlier for instance because politics changed drastically. There is no question.
>>17984870>It can't readI'm so glad I don't have your brain. For the third time, the question I put to you is: Are you stupid? It is a yes or no question.
>>17980103It's a badass movie regardless. Everyone who dislikes it can shut their whore mouth. Peak Southern Culture next to any book by William Faulkner or Mark Twain.
>>17984874Yeah, sure. Whatever
>>17984882Okay, that is what I thought. Enjoy your handicapped life.
>>17984895Ok
>>17984865>something Aristotle wrote about at length. Perhaps you have heard of him.Aristotle was wrong. and don't pretend this debate is really couched in something has high minded as Aristotelian philosophy. There are plenty of dim witted whites and I can only think of one radical southern thinker who advocated for their slavery.
>>17982735>>17984806>unless slaves are being tortured on screen 24/7 it's romanticismThis is what liberals unironically believe. Look at actual compilations of interviews with ex-slaves, many of their lives changed very little after slavery ended, because it was mostly either agricultural or domestic labor, not constant abuse and torture.
>>17985197>Things were still shit for them afterwards so literally owning them as property was ok
>>17985207It shows slavery wasn't about constant torture and abuse. Yet when slavery isn't portrayed as constant abuse and torture in a move like GWTW it's called "romanticization"
