Internet outrage at HBO's next series "Confederate" - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]At this point, all we really know about the TV show Confederate is the name, the basic premise, and the fact that the writers of Game Of Thrones are involved. But some people are worried that the show will exploit the historical wounds of African-Americans, and they want HBO to put a stop to it before it goes any further. On July 19, HBO announced that once Game Of Thrones had wrapped up, production would begin on an original new series called Confederate. The show would tell the story of the lead-up to the Third American Civil War, in an alternative timeline in which the southern states of America have seceded and slavery remains legal. This is how HBO described the show: [quote]The story follows a broad swath of characters on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone — freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate and the families of people in their thrall.[/quote] The show is the creation of Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and DB Weiss, with Nichelle Spellman (The Good Wife) and Malcolm Spellman (Empire) also on board as executive producers and writers. The final season of Game Of Thrones might not air until 2019, which means we're probably a long way from watching Confederate.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/game-of-thrones-creators-confederate-project-is-controversial/8760386[/url] Sounds interesting, but I'm curious about what happened to the Second American Civil War in this timeline. Some of these Twitter comments are stupid: [quote]@BonneSauvage decent ppl: slavery, a stain upon humanity, should never be depicted for cheap entertainment hbo: yes but what if#noconfederate[/quote]

It will be an interesting show I think and I hope it will not only be focused on the US but we will see some parts of the world too.

Isn't there a book series about something similar to this? About the Civil War being won by the South or there being two Americas? I don't see what the problem is especially since it's own the idea that's been announced? It's not like what Channel 4 in Britain tried to do, and make a "comedy" series out of the Great Famine in Ireland... Eh, I would think it would be important to see where they go with it first.

Sounds a lot like 'The Man in the High Castle'.

Such outrage is a promo on a golden plate. HBO can tackle sensitivity, they succeded with boob-o-thrones. Premise is interesting, just hope it won't end up staggering like the man in high castle series.

After seeing the remarkable speed with which Game of Thrones tanked in quality after the second season (which was already notably worse than the first), I wouldn't want the writers of GoT anywhere near a series with such a sensitive topic either. But that's probably not why most people are complaining.

I don't see the outrage, other than a knee-jerk reaction. Are we not supposed to talk or depict parts of history we don't agree with, or are unhappy with? Pointing a spotlight on these parts is an interesting way to weave the beginnings of a story, true or not. Why would Schindler's List be okay, yet not this? (I am aware of the controversy that surrounded that movie at the time.) Perhaps I'm missing the point here; I'm from the EU, so this perhaps doesn't hit as close to home as it should? We have plenty of movies focusing on fascism and the "wrong" side of history, following the Nazi's, Jewish concentration camps and all the horrible parts of WW2. Yes, a lot of that was met with similar outrage, but in the end; they shine a light on history a lot of people would rather forget and turn it into a source of entertainment. Look at "Allo Allo" and many other British content produced surrounding WW2 for both sides.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52524817]Isn't there a book series about something similar to this? About the Civil War being won by the South or there being two Americas? I don't see what the problem is especially since it's own the idea that's been announced? It's not like what Channel 4 in Britain tried to do, and make a "comedy" series out of the Great Famine in Ireland... Eh, I would think it would be important to see where they go with it first.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure there's been several "what if the South won the American Civil War" books, but Southern Victory by Harry Turtledove is at least one I can think of. Though that series ends in the 40s.

[QUOTE=Scot;52524821]Sounds a lot like 'The Man in the High Castle'.[/QUOTE] Which is a pretty fucking good show imo. Dunno why everyone bitching seems to think "WE CAN'T WRITE A STORY ABOUT THIS IT WAS TERRIBLE SO LET'S JUST IGNORE IT FOREVER OUTSIDE OF HISTORICAL PURPOSES" while people make WWII content all the time.

Why are people complaining? It's no worse a concept than the Man in the High Castle or the Handmaiden's Tale.

People need to grow a pair and have some thick skin. It's a sensitive topic, sure, but the reality of slavery is that it happened. In fact, it still is happening all over the world, even here in North America. This is such an interesting subject, because it could of actually happened. Some people seem to forget the whole Turtledove concept of how the South could of won the war. The simple reality? Someone didn't fuck up a courier mission, and delivered a letter without dropping it. The Union's generals were in general some of the most incompetent fucknuggets possible. The only saving grace for the union was the willingness to wage total war, the navy, and far more resources thanks to industrial northern states.

[QUOTE=Krahn;52524827]I don't see the outrage, other than a knee-jerk reaction. [/QUOTE] "internet outrage" = a handful of people with a few hundred followers made some tweets

I get that history can suck royally, but white washing it helps no one than to serve those who wish to only see the world through rose-tinted glasses. History is a continuous series of events that are happening now as we speak. Does retelling that same history, but in fictitious form de-value the events at all? No it doesn't, you see many mediums that use history many times over as a basis for their settings and how the plot moves forward. Having a show as a supplement to the real thing is great alternative to reading up on the actual events. However the show isn't and shouldn't be considered a replacement to the actual events.

South Carolina did nothing wrong

[QUOTE=gk99;52524836]Which is a pretty fucking good show imo. Dunno why everyone bitching seems to think "WE CAN'T WRITE A STORY ABOUT THIS IT WAS TERRIBLE SO LET'S JUST IGNORE IT FOREVER OUTSIDE OF HISTORICAL PURPOSES" while people make WWII content all the time.[/QUOTE] It feels like WWII has been kinda romanticized in a way, maybe because it was so clear cut that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were the bad guys which everyone pretty much universally agrees on other than some wackos.

[QUOTE=Scot;52524865]"internet outrage" = a handful of people with a few hundred followers made some tweets[/QUOTE] Well, one of them is the person who started the "Oscars are too white" thing.

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;52524892]It feels like WWII has been kinda romanticized in a way, maybe because it was so clear cut that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were the bad guys which everyone pretty much universally agrees on other than some wackos.[/QUOTE] Also Italy,why people always forgetting them,it would be nice to have some serial about WW2 Italy.

I remember this it was in Red Dwarf and all the characters died in the second season.

[QUOTE=download;52524804]@BonneSauvage decent ppl: slavery, a stain upon humanity, should never be depicted for cheap entertainment hbo: yes but what if#noconfederate[/QUOTE] I think that argument only holds up when its a topic that everybody universally agrees upon. A surprising amount of Americans, at least where I live, dont consider all people equal. I'm glad shows like this exist, for example, because my mom watches everything HBO puts out and she has some pretty nasty beliefs. Narrative is a really good tool to show you somebody else's perspective.

So I think it's cool having a discussion about things like Confederate, but I wish we didn't ever report on outrage on the internet. The internet has so many different people on it that you can find anyone with any opinion on anything if you look hard enough, and some people are just pretending to have some opinions for attention and others are just bots. And you can't bloody tell the difference between those 3. I've always maintained that on Twitter you can find a quote to support literally anything you have to say on people's opinions. Therefore saying the internet is x about y is useless. We're all internet peoples right here, and we're not outraged about confederate. Some people that exist and aren't very bright but are very angry, it seems largely irrelevant to me. We can discuss the topics surrounding their anger, I think because of America's race problem we probably should in this case, but "people are mad on the internet" is just cheap. [editline]31st July 2017[/editline] Btw I know we're not in the thread and the article doesn't much either, it's literally just the thread title that bothers me...

[QUOTE=Rossy167;52525119]So I think it's cool having a discussion about things like Confederate, but I wish we didn't ever report on outrage on the internet. The internet has so many different people on it that you can find anyone with any opinion on anything if you look hard enough, and some people are just pretending to have some opinions for attention and others are just bots. And you can't bloody tell the difference between those 3. I've always maintained that on Twitter you can find a quote to support literally anything you have to say on people's opinions. Therefore saying the internet is x about y is useless. We're all internet peoples right here, and we're not outraged about confederate. Some people that exist and aren't very bright but are very angry, it seems largely irrelevant to me. We can discuss the topics surrounding their anger, I think because of America's race problem we probably should in this case, but "people are mad on the internet" is just cheap. [editline]31st July 2017[/editline] Btw I know we're not in the thread and the article doesn't much either, it's literally just the thread title that bothers me...[/QUOTE] You make a great point. If we didn't feed internet outrage culture by reacting to it, I think there would be a lot less extremists of all shade spreading their shit around. It's one of the worst parts of social media; companies either refuse or only ban on reports idiots online because of "free speech" despite being entirely private companies. (of course they also say they can't police everything which is true, but I still beleive they could do a hell of a lot more when it comes to content provided by Islamists, neo-Nazis, and true extreme leftists online. I mean, they haven't even banned Donald Trump yet :v:) I don't think the idea of "containment boards" has worked out either. Shit from places like /pol/ is starting to spread to places, and it's frankly fairly scary.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52524846]People need to grow a pair and have some thick skin. It's a sensitive topic, sure, but the reality of slavery is that it happened. In fact, it still is happening all over the world, even here in North America. This is such an interesting subject, because it could of actually happened. Some people seem to forget the whole Turtledove concept of how the South could of won the war. The simple reality? Someone didn't fuck up a courier mission, and delivered a letter without dropping it. The Union's generals were in general some of the most incompetent fucknuggets possible. The only saving grace for the union was the willingness to wage total war, the navy, and far more resources thanks to industrial northern states.[/QUOTE] IMO the difference is (to invoke Godwin's) that compared to Nazis (the Holocaust happened, that's the reality, etc), where you can't just say "I'm a Nazi," wave a Nazi flag, and fit in with society, while there are people out there who [I]still[/I] openly wave the Confederate flag, say things "I honestly think they should have won," and don't have these beliefs challenged as much. Sure, there's the "that's their opinion" clause, but we're talking about people who still openly support American traitors. These people still exist, in large numbers today, and feel much more socially accepted than other topics. There's still a sizable amount of people who identify with the flag, and it wasn't until [I]recently[/I] that official U.S. entities stopped waving it along with the American flag. [I]However,[/I] I'm also all for alt history. I liked seeing Wolfenstein's "What if the Nazis won" imagery, and this could be cool, too. In fact, it could actually help to hurt people who still support it because it seems like it'd just portray it as if "if they won, things would be pretty fucked up."

Sounds like a potentially good show.

[QUOTE=Scot;52524821]Sounds a lot like 'The Man in the High Castle'.[/QUOTE] More like the "[URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory"]Southern Victory[/URL]" book series by Harry Turtledove, which i suggest everyone reads.

[QUOTE=Krahn;52524827]I don't see the outrage, other than a knee-jerk reaction. Are we not supposed to talk or depict parts of history we don't agree with, or are unhappy with? Pointing a spotlight on these parts is an interesting way to weave the beginnings of a story, true or not. Why would Schindler's List be okay, yet not this? (I am aware of the controversy that surrounded that movie at the time.) Perhaps I'm missing the point here; I'm from the EU, so this perhaps doesn't hit as close to home as it should? We have plenty of movies focusing on fascism and the "wrong" side of history, following the Nazi's, Jewish concentration camps and all the horrible parts of WW2. Yes, a lot of that was met with similar outrage, but in the end; they shine a light on history a lot of people would rather forget and turn it into a source of entertainment. Look at "Allo Allo" and many other British content produced surrounding WW2 for both sides.[/QUOTE] I don't really disagree with your point but this seems much more similar to Wolfenstein, where the Nazis won, than Schindler's List which is based on a true story. It'd be fairly similar to the people who get outraged over Wolfenstein having Nazis despite the fact they're the bad guys who you're fighting against or those morons who get outraged over Doom somehow being satanic despite the fact it's a game about slaughtering demons. (Which I'm pretty sure ain't terribly satanic, lol.)

I wish they made an actual How Few Remain show, that'd be great

Ah yes, we aren't allowed to remember history because its racist. :) Fuck people that make this fake 'outrage' Cant wait for history lessons of the future where nothing is actually shown accurately so it doesn't offend anyone.

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52525285]Ah yes, we aren't allowed to remember history because its racist. :) Fuck people that make this fake 'outrage' Cant wait for history lessons of the future where nothing is actually shown accurately so it doesn't offend anyone.[/QUOTE] I mean that's basically the US education system already. They were still doing the whole 'pretend the native american genocide didn't happen' thing and the 'civil war was about states rights, slavery was a background issue and totally not even a big deal by that point' spiel when I was in grade school.

So clearly they aren't interested in the show, if only there was a way for them to not watch it or something.

The only Alternate History paperback book on the Civil War i've read was Guns of the South. And I'm not sure that counts since it consists of a bunch of Racist Afrikaner from the future using a time machine to give General Lee AK-47's. I like that book. Wait, the article mentions the 'Third American Civil War', what about the Second? Are we just going to skip that?