I saw these recently, and it showed the confederacy in a 'positive' light, all brave, noble, and freedom loving, and the black slaves as happy, hard-working, and grateful.
2007-04-14 05:36:27 · 15 answers · asked by pantocool 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Gone With The Wind portrays life as it was at the mid 1800's in the South...We cannot rewrite history, and it would be stupid to portray events as anything other than what they were. There were "good" (if slave owners could be good?) owners and bad owners. This tale was told from a Southerner's point of view...you would expect a sympathetic look at the South, wouldn't you? No matter how you look at it, the book is a masterpiece of writing and editing.
2007-04-14 05:45:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The people of the Confederacy were fighting for their rights. They weren't some evil entity that should be shown in a negative light. They wanted equal representation in the government - because at that time states were represented based on population only. And the agricultural southern states were being taken advantage of by the populated industrial north. Every American citizen should appreciate the Confederacy for their fight, no matter which side fo the M-D Line you are from.
As for the slaves being happy and hard working. Of course the majority of slaves were not this way. But there were many "house slaves" that were very close with their owners. Especially during the war.
2007-04-14 05:48:31 · answer #2 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It was racist propaganda when it was written, and is insipid racist revisionist history now. The south was not in the least bit accurately portrayed. There was no such thing as a "good" slave owner, just as there is no such thing as a "good" kidnapper. The Civil War was started by southern treason over slavery, which the movie doesn t even address. It is romanticized dreck and anyone pretending that it is anything but celluloid malfeasance is either woefully ignorant or outright dishonest.
2016-01-18 16:41:35 · answer #3 · answered by Buck W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why no longer? it incredibly is the way it replaced into....it incredibly is history have you ever by no skill taken history at school? The action picture replaced into no longer inteneded to be racist it replaced into exhibiting how the warfare between the states affected no longer purely the black women and men however the white as nicely. they had to bond mutually just to devour and stay to tell the story. It replaced right into a tricky time for all, merely like each and every warfare. this is history!!!
2016-12-26 07:37:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at the time this movie was made that is the way people belived, i am positive the slaves were not happy but back then the slave owners probably didnt care, if it was made today it would probably be considered racist though
2007-04-14 05:41:18 · answer #5 · answered by Tazzy375 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. The definition of racism has changed over the years. When it was filmed, it was not racist at all. It actually INCLUDED real black people, and even gave them prominent parts in the film. Hardly a racist gesture!
Political Correctness has REALLY gotten out of hand when people think they can hold the past to current standards.
2007-04-14 05:43:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
it also showed the slaves as stupid and helpless. Yes it's racist but not as racist as "Birth of a Nation".
2007-04-14 05:52:56 · answer #7 · answered by slinda 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it was made in a different time and from a different perspective. Hardly intended to be racist.
2007-04-14 05:42:55 · answer #8 · answered by Danagasta 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Its stereotypical but it is also a product of its times. If it was made today, no one would accept it but that was the norm back then.
2007-04-14 06:06:21 · answer #9 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is written from the perspective of a Southerner. The viewpoint is historically accurate.
2007-04-14 05:43:28 · answer #10 · answered by greengo 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋