|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 27, 2017 18:13:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CaliBoy1990 on Jul 30, 2017 16:57:16 GMT
Hello, SpanishSpy.
I will try to keep my response as brief & concise as possible, so here goes.
Having heard about the Confederate project, I can honestly say that there are, indeed, some legitimate concerns that it may not be handled well(though I've observed that most of the more extreme reactions have, in fact, instead come from the "Outrage Warriors" on the fringes of the left.). However, though, I must also say that the fears expressed by some that this could severely tarnish AH as a genre on the whole, in the eyes of decent (non-reactionary) people are quite overblown, to be honest: if that truly was the case, then it would have happened long ago, either with the Drakaverse or TL-191, or more recently, the TV adaptation of The Man in the High Castle.
At worst, this could possibly delay the mainstreaming of the genre by some years, and in my view, that would be a shame, and Confederate would become a cautionary tale of what not to do. Other than that, though, we should be just fine in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 4, 2017 17:37:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 7, 2017 14:32:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 7, 2017 14:34:21 GMT
Why has nobody complained about the Man in the High castle series, is being a victorious Confederacy worse than a victorious Nazi regime.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 7, 2017 18:01:26 GMT
Why has nobody complained about the Man in the High castle series, is being a victorious Confederacy worse than a victorious Nazi regime. A good question. Possibly its a factor that the US is a lot more sensitive to a story about the continuation of slavery to the present day, as it reflects on a very sore point in their own history than a more general disaster for humanity of the Axis winning WWII? [Especially considering that IIRC the original book has the virtual extermination of both virtually all the Slavic and Negro populations of the world, or at least those that fell under Nazi control, which in total human terms is a hell of a lot more suffering than I suspect in the victorious Confederation series.] Or more generally that people have very low expectations for Nazi German so atrocities by them are expected but a scenario where the US produces such horrors is less acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 7, 2017 18:06:00 GMT
Why has nobody complained about the Man in the High castle series, is being a victorious Confederacy worse than a victorious Nazi regime. A good question. Possibly its a factor that the US is a lot more sensitive to a story about the continuation of slavery to the present day, as it reflects on a very sore point in their own history than a more general disaster for humanity of the Axis winning WWII? [Especially considering that IIRC the original book has the virtual extermination of both virtually all the Slavic and Negro populations of the world, or at least those that fell under Nazi control, which in total human terms is a hell of a lot more suffering than I suspect in the victorious Confederation series.] Or more generally that people have very low expectations for Nazi German so atrocities by them are expected but a scenario where the US produces such horrors is less acceptable? That was what i was thinking that the story about slavery and the Confederacy comes much closer to home than a German dominated planet they know is fiction.
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 9, 2017 4:41:30 GMT
Why has nobody complained about the Man in the High castle series, is being a victorious Confederacy worse than a victorious Nazi regime. A good question. Possibly its a factor that the US is a lot more sensitive to a story about the continuation of slavery to the present day, as it reflects on a very sore point in their own history than a more general disaster for humanity of the Axis winning WWII? [Especially considering that IIRC the original book has the virtual extermination of both virtually all the Slavic and Negro populations of the world, or at least those that fell under Nazi control, which in total human terms is a hell of a lot more suffering than I suspect in the victorious Confederation series.] Or more generally that people have very low expectations for Nazi German so atrocities by them are expected but a scenario where the US produces such horrors is less acceptable? I think it's a variation of your point: slavery is a particular talking point of certain segments of the American left (an awfully American-centric thing, yes, but I see that as one of their great ironies) and, having positioned themselves as the arbiter of culture, are lashing out at that which seems to contradict their stated position on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on Aug 13, 2017 15:26:43 GMT
I thought it was a good piece overall, and I agree with most of it.
I disagree to an extent here. I don't think the Rebels could have won the war...but they didn't have to win, they just had to not lose. Lincoln was not an emperor, and his popular mandate to fight the war could easily be revoked in the case of some dramatic battlefield failures.
---
My general note on Alternate History and Controversial Topics.
It's perfectly fine to show surviving colonial, slaveholding, nationalist, etc. empires, but only if we seriously grapple with how they look like. Too often, alternate history falls into a trap where it only assigns agency to people in the metropole of an empire, and it removes agency from everyone in the periphery. For example: British Empire timelines where the year is perpetually 1910 with regards to the empire. Or CSA timelines where slave unrest is never a thing.
It's great to make a timeline where India/Egypt/Ireland are still part of the British Empire, but only if we make a dynamic timeline where the relationship between India/Egypt/Ireland and Britain changes as the late 20th century progresses. It's not great to basically freeze India/Egypt/Ireland in time and assume they will have no political developments for over a century.
Similarly, as you said, a Rebel timeline should engage with the struggles that the Rebels will have after independence. Politically, their state is going to look like Pakistan...at best. A Rebel timeline writer should also assign agency to both enslaved blacks and poor whites, rather than seeing them as mere accessories for the planter aristocracy.
|
|
|
Post by NapoleonCorinII on Aug 21, 2017 22:18:36 GMT
If I may step in, I don't think The Idea of a Confederate States of America surviving into the modern-day might make an interesting TV Show, but from what I've heard of "Confederate" it sounds like another piece of shit, similar to "CSA: The Confederate States of America".
The thing is, It's not only ASB as hell, but the idea of a Confederacy continuing slavery into the modern-day is crazy, while slavery was written into their constitution, Confederate Nationalism would eventually change from the "I want my slavery" Mentality of the Civil war to just plain Nationalism by 1900. If it is going to survive many would have to go from the then simple Agrarian Life Style common in the south to industrialization and urbanization. These practices don't need slavery, and British and French Pressure would cause an amendment ending slavery by, at the most, 1950. Even in OTL, many Confederate States were pushing to abolish the practice before the civil war had even ended, and with less dependence on slavery as urbanization/industrialization is forced so that confederates can compete with the north, it is most likely it would end in the late 19th/early 20th century, far before the mid-century mark. Sure, racism could definitely exist, but not slavery.
Also, if they do make this, I pray they don't use Lee's flag instead of a real Flag used in OTL.
|
|