Confederate: bad idea or the WORST idea?

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Scene 1, Charleston South Carolina.  Brothel.  Lots of boobs.  Old white men having a conversation complaining about falling profits for SLAVERINC with some light fondling on the side.  You know they are bad guys because of their facial hair

Scene 2, New York.  Rally.  No boobs yet.  People are protesting the fact that the US hasn't defeated its Southern neighbor yet (seriously, like why not, given the economics of the whole thing, but I digress).  We meet one of our heroines, leading the chants.  We find out later that she has great boobs.

Scene 3, Birmingham Alabama.  We see slaves working in factories.  Sucks to be them.  We meet some more bad guys.  They are looking at the slaves wondering if they would make good cannon fodder.

Scene 4, San Francisco.  We meet a confederate who has been admitted to Stanford.  We know he is a confederate because he has facial hair.  We know that he will be morally complex because he has great abs.

Scene 5, Mississippi.  Gratuitous plantation scene with some light torture and blood.

Scene 6, New York (now the capital of the US):  government people talking government things.  

Scene 7, Richmond:  Ditto.

Scene 8:  Cliffhanger.

There you go, first ep.  Boobs, butts, abs, violence, and zero nuance.  I'm going with pretty awful.  But who knows.

 D&D owe you some royalties for your IP lady. Because you know this is how it's goin' down. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Are they ripping off Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory books?

It's not like we don't have precedent for fiction where technologically advanced civilisations have slavery. A lot of Sci-fi normally includes at least one alien species that maintains a slavery system. Never the humans of course.

I think I'd rather continue to watch Underground though.

If one of the end goals of this series is to see the slaves along with the support of sympathetic free people rise up and win freedom and the abolishing of slavery then it could be worth a look. But if it's just going to be a backdrop to stories of the lives, loves and trials of various characters it doesn't sound very appealing. 

[john]

Nichelle and Malcolm Spellman (black writers of Justified, Empire etc) are in to executive produce too, although I notice that announcement was only made after the backlash.

The problem is at least as much from the fact that GoT isn't racially diverse enough as it is from the premise of Confederate.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

At its heart the U.S Civil War was about slavery and was the real reason (Though it there was denial of that even during that time).

To clarify, it seems that slavery was a major issue but not out of moral reasons or anything as progressive but rather because of the economic structure and differences between the North and the South. It is quite clear that the abolitionists were a minority both in the North and the South prior to and during the Civil War.

Quote

Many thought Slavery was dying near the end of the 18th century until invention like the Cotton Gin changed the economics. On the eve of the Civil War most of the wealthiest places were located in the South. 

I know that, but a society and economy based on slavery would never have succeeded in developing into a truly and properly industrialized power.

If we take this ridiculous setting at face value - of the Confederacy successfully seceding - then they would have quickly ruined themselves economically simply because they continued to practice slavery and failed to develop a proper modern 19-20th century economics/industrialist society. Slaver societies are not exactly progressive. They don't have to be. The ruling class owns a lot of the workforce as their property and can live off the work with much more impunity than it can in non-slaver societies.

As to the racist aspect of the whole thing:

The idea that one could make a TV show on the premise of an alternative outcome of the Civil War without seriously dealing with racist issues simply doesn't make a lot of sense. Slavery as practiced in the US is very much a racist construct (back in the really good old days slavery was much more equal), and any work of art or entertainment dealing with it has to deal with racism, too. Nothing we know about this project we are talking about here indicates they are approaching this thing in a proper way.

For instance, what would be really interesting if you make something about slavery is if you created a non-racist slavery context. That can be done. Another way to make things more interesting could be having slaves freeing themselves instead of them being freed.

But the scenario we see at hand here doesn't look as if it has the potential to not reinforce racist stereotypes or separate racism from slavery.

[briantw]

26 minutes ago, john said:

The problem is at least as much from the fact that GoT isn't racially diverse enough as it is from the premise of Confederate.

I tend to find that sort of argument unfair because Game of Thrones is an adaptation of a book that predominately features white characters.  Is there a single viewpoint character in the entire series thus far that isn't white?   

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, briantw said:

I tend to find that sort of argument unfair because Game of Thrones is an adaptation of a book that predominately features white characters.  Is there a single viewpoint character in the entire series thus far that isn't white?   

The viewpoints aren't particularly racially different, but the show itself is set across a pretty giant world, and if anything it went more racist in the adaptation. 

[S John]

Defintely a potential landmine, but I'll give it a chance.

[TheKitttenGuard]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

To clarify, it seems that slavery was a major issue but not out of moral reasons or anything as progressive but rather because of the economic structure and differences between the North and the South. It is quite clear that the abolitionists were a minority both in the North and the South prior to and during the Civil War.

I know that, but a society and economy based on slavery would never have succeeded in developing into a truly and properly industrialized power.

If we take this ridiculous setting at face value - of the Confederacy successfully seceding - then they would have quickly ruined themselves economically simply because they continued to practice slavery and failed to develop a proper modern 19-20th century economics/industrialist society. Slaver societies are not exactly progressive. They don't have to be. The ruling class owns a lot of the workforce as their property and can live off the work with much more impunity than it can in non-slaver societies.

As to the racist aspect of the whole thing:

The idea that one could make a TV show on the premise of an alternative outcome of the Civil War without seriously dealing with racist issues simply doesn't make a lot of sense. Slavery as practiced in the US is very much a racist construct (back in the really good old days slavery was much more equal), and any work of art or entertainment dealing with it has to deal with racism, too. Nothing we know about this project we are talking about here indicates they are approaching this thing in a proper way.

For instance, what would be really interesting if you make something about slavery is if you created a non-racist slavery context. That can be done. Another way to make things more interesting could be having slaves freeing themselves instead of them being freed.

But the scenario we see at hand here doesn't look as if it has the potential to not reinforce racist stereotypes or separate racism from slavery.

I agree the difference were mainly economic not moral, and abolitionist were quite a minority, and hated at that. The South though wanted to protect and expand slavery. Their victories in the 1850s in the end fuelled the Fire-Eaters instead of placating them and pushed succession even though there was absolutely no immediate threat to go after slavery directly.

I think the statement that a modern/industrial economy could not be built on Slavery to be somewhat Pollyanese view in the end. The Plantation system had many elements that will be familiar to a modern Corporation. The South Industry was behind the North but not hopeless. Also, many company towns practice were very close to Slavery but was not called it.

Slavery societies are not Progressive but can be  quite Prosperous. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

And it mentions this is a third American Civil War, so I wonder if it's even a period piece. 

[rocksniffer]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Scene 1, Charleston South Carolina.  Brothel.  Lots of boobs.  Old white men having a conversation complaining about falling profits for SLAVERINC with some light fondling on the side.  You know they are bad guys because of their facial hair

Scene 2, New York.  Rally.  No boobs yet.  People are protesting the fact that the US hasn't defeated its Southern neighbor yet (seriously, like why not, given the economics of the whole thing, but I digress).  We meet one of our heroines, leading the chants.  We find out later that she has great boobs.

Scene 3, Birmingham Alabama.  We see slaves working in factories.  Sucks to be them.  We meet some more bad guys.  They are looking at the slaves wondering if they would make good cannon fodder.

Scene 4, San Francisco.  We meet a confederate who has been admitted to Stanford.  We know he is a confederate because he has facial hair.  We know that he will be morally complex because he has great abs.

Scene 5, Mississippi.  Gratuitous plantation scene with some light torture and blood.

Scene 6, New York (now the capital of the US):  government people talking government things.  

Scene 7, Richmond:  Ditto.

Scene 8:  Cliffhanger.

There you go, first ep.  Boobs, butts, abs, violence, and zero nuance.  I'm going with pretty awful.  But who knows.

good one Mlle!

 

i read one of the turtledove books some yrs ago...i seem to remember it was not very good, in my not so humble opinion, so i can't imagine that this would be any better...i usually enjoy hbo's series, though not all...but this just seems like a stupid premise

 

and i tend to agree with Kal, that i need not see shit to know something has an unlimited potential to be shit

 

 

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I think the statement that a modern/industrial economy could not be built on Slavery to be somewhat Pollyanese view in the end. The Plantation system had many elements that will be familiar to a modern Corporation. The South Industry was behind the North but not hopeless. Also, many company towns practice were very close to Slavery but was not called it.

Oh, there are similarities, the point is just that there is no real need for innovation in such a society. The ruling class will be overwhelmingly conservative not just politically but also economically and in their view on technology. Theoretically you could create and use modern technology in such a society, too, but it simply wouldn't happen. It only happens when the ruling class wants it to happen. Inventions or innovations are worth nothing if the ruling class don't see any use in them and refuse to implement them. That's the reason why many technologies and inventions made in China long before they were made in the West didn't change the political or economic landscape there - because the ruling class saw no use in allowing such innovations to take place or take root.

If you have a bunch of slaves you keep under your heel with your racist justification of your own superiority you have no interest whatsoever to develop technologies to make the work on the plantations easier and more effective/productive. Instead, you do everything you can to make it as hard as humiliating as possible to ensure the slaves never forget their place. That is more important to you than maximizing your profit.

You also don't produce goods you eventually sell to the working class as was done in the other industrialist nations. And that basically means that your wealth is built on sand, at least in the long run. Eventually it will turn out that your plantations are no longer profitable in comparison to your global competitors. The people who use technology and to increase their productivity.

You have to keep in mind that these were the days where cavalry forces were actually fighting the first tanks. The past and the future literally clashed, and the past was as doomed as it possibly could be. This Confederacy would have been eaten up the Union in no time. Or the British would have taken it back, dealing with them like they dealt with China and other backwater countries in the 19th century. 

Quote

Slavery societies are not Progressive but can be  quite Prosperous. 

Only if the overall society is about as static as the slaver society. Which doesn't seem to be the idea in the series we are talking about.

20 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And it mentions this is a third American Civil War, so I wonder if it's even a period piece. 

Yeah, that is also my point. It doesn't seem to be something set in, say, the 1890s or so, or even the early 20th century but rather in the present or at least closer to the present than the 1860s. And to buy that we would have to buy the idea that slavery as practiced in the US could survive in a 'modernized form' for decades when the entire developed world had done away with it. That is simply not a realistic (or even believable) setting.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that is also my point. It doesn't seem to be something set in, say, the 1890s or so, or even the early 20th century but rather in the present or at least closer to the present than the 1860s. And to buy that we would have to buy the idea that slavery as practiced in the US could survive in a 'modernized form' for decades when the entire developed world had done away with it. That is simply not a realistic (or even believable) setting.

I don't know about that. As others have mentioned, we've had slavery used in Fantasy and Sci-Fi settings in numerous films and novels. I'd argue that we have economic forms of slavery in our modern society. Nike, Apple, numerous forms of sweatshops, diamond mining in Africa, all engage in one form of slavery or another  

[sperry]

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't know about that. As others have mentioned, we've had slavery used in Fantasy and Sci-Fi settings in numerous films and novels. I'd argue that we have economic forms of slavery in our modern society. Nike, Apple, numerous forms of sweatshops, diamond mining in Africa, all engage in one form of slavery or another  

 

This shit drives me nuts. None of the things you described are slavery, nor even close to it.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Not true. Game of Thrones doesn't have a traditional writers room, since D&D do so much of the writing themselves. But 2 of the 4 other credited writers for show, besides GRRM himself, are women; Jane Espenson and Vanessa Taylor. 

My mistake. Though looking at the credits for those two writers, they don't really seem that many when compared to Hill and Cogman. Also, zero people of colour in the writer's room? That isn't great.

It's not really enough for me to give them the benefit of the doubt ( some of that has to do with the fact that I think GOT's writing is pretty bad, but I know people don't agree with me on that)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, sperry said:

This shit drives me nuts. None of the things you described are slavery, nor even close to it.

 It's not American slavery circa 1850, no. It's hyperbolic, sure, but it's still pretty terrible. Some poor schlep in a less developed country works really hard for a subsistence living so that you and I can have cheaper cell phones and pricey status symbol kicks. Pseudo-slavery? I'm not sure what to call it. I think economic slavery is a fair descriptor..

[sperry]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 It's not American slavery circa 1850, no. It's hyperbolic, sure, but it's still pretty terrible. Some poor schlep in a less developed country works really hard for a subsistence living so that you and I can have cheaper cell phones and pricey status symbol kicks. Pseudo-slavery? I'm not sure what to call it. I think economic slavery is a fair descriptor..

 

That's not slavery, or pseudo-slavery, or anything close to it. Working hard for a subsistence living does not equal slavery. It's not close to it. The poor white farmers in pre-civil war America who worked their asses for a subsistence living were not pseudo-slaves.

[Squab]

21 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And it's rather perplexing to see the prognosticators in this thread and elsewhere critiquing imagined storylines and character focus for a project for which the writing has not even begun.

Its almost as if the urban dictionary definition of SJW is true.

Really, I mean how is anyone seriously expected to judge the quality of a show without a comprehensive understanding the writers/creators standing in the oppression Olympics? This is 2017 after all.

[Myshkin]

This thread: bad premise or the WORST premise?

I don't understand how it is at all possible to judge this as yet unmade TV show based solely on the very little information we currently have. Exploring an alternate history wherein the South won the Civil War is not on its face a concept worthy of our outrage. This concept of course has the potential to go very wrong, but it also has the potential to be powerful and nuanced. Here's the thing, at this point none of us know which of these things, if either, this show will be. So I have a novel proposition; we wait for more information before passing judgment.

[TheKitttenGuard]

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, there are similarities, the point is just that there is no real need for innovation in such a society. The ruling class will be overwhelmingly conservative not just politically but also economically and in their view on technology. Theoretically you could create and use modern technology in such a society, too, but it simply wouldn't happen. It only happens when the ruling class wants it to happen. Inventions or innovations are worth nothing if the ruling class don't see any use in them and refuse to implement them. That's the reason why many technologies and inventions made in China long before they were made in the West didn't change the political or economic landscape there - because the ruling class saw no use in allowing such innovations to take place or take root.

If you have a bunch of slaves you keep under your heel with your racist justification of your own superiority you have no interest whatsoever to develop technologies to make the work on the plantations easier and more effective/productive. Instead, you do everything you can to make it as hard as humiliating as possible to ensure the slaves never forget their place. That is more important to you than maximizing your profit.

You also don't produce goods you eventually sell to the working class as was done in the other industrialist nations. And that basically means that your wealth is built on sand, at least in the long run. Eventually it will turn out that your plantations are no longer profitable in comparison to your global competitors. The people who use technology and to increase their productivity.

You have to keep in mind that these were the days where cavalry forces were actually fighting the first tanks. The past and the future literally clashed, and the past was as doomed as it possibly could be. This Confederacy would have been eaten up the Union in no time. Or the British would have taken it back, dealing with them like they dealt with China and other backwater countries in the 19th century. 

Only if the overall society is about as static as the slaver society. Which doesn't seem to be the idea in the series we are talking about.

Slavery in the South had benefited from technology though. The ruling class experience first hand what technology can do.

There is always a benefit in making things more Efficent/Productive for it adds overall wealth and value. Those that prioritize hard labor to establish superiority will more likely get eaten up by the Plantations that do embrace technology.

There are a myriad of methods to establish superiority and those can be enhance with modern propaganda techniques as well. There are also more horrible methods.

The South was behind but it was not even close to China or the other Nations that were carved up by Imperialism.

[john]

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

They were both mentioned in the initial announcement by HBO, so it's hardly a case of HBO bringing them out to lay down some cover fire.

And it's rather perplexing to see the prognosticators in this thread and elsewhere critiquing imagined storylines and character focus for a project for which the writing has not even begun.

If it's not your cup of tea, that's cool. I think it's an ambitious project that, if handled correctly, could provide some interesting and insightful parallels between that time and our world today.

 

They were mentioned but their involvement wasn't executive producer status until after the backlash, I think.

And I'm not sure you need to imagine any storylines to see potential problems with this project. It's a show that will definitely cast at least some black people as slaves. It's not a historical story either, it's made up, they could have devised black parts as anything but they wanted to do slaves.

What's with all this slap in the face tv anyway? Ever since someone smoked and belittted a woman on Mad Men shows are too bald with their controversy. I think we can handle something a bit more subtle once in a while.