Confederate. Can a TV show lead to a new civil war?
The creators of the "Game of Thrones" David Benioff and Daniel Brett Weiss promised to shoot the show "Confederate". According to the plot, the southern states defeated in the Civil War in the United States and successfully seceded from the Union and created their own country with a slave system.
Now the present comes, Americans are on the threshold of the Third American Civil War (no words about the Second War, it is an intrigue).
HBO explains that the palette of the characters will be diverse: fighters for freedom and abolitionists of the death penalty, slave hunters, politicians, journalists and many others.
However, all this caused an extremely strong reaction in the media and social networks.
The creators of the "Game of Thrones" had been criticized even before it was decided to shoot. In social networks, the idea was called ambiguous, and the words "white supremacists" appear in the comments. White supremacists are those who offend unfortunate blacks who are supposed now to call each other P.O.C. - a person of color.
Here are some examples of comments:
"The Confederation was a failed separatist country";
"Confederate" is an example of how white people think that black people feel good now. As if we (black) do not take the show as a challenge ";
"White creators of the series who say they want to write a white slavish fanfic."
"Considering what scenes of rape were in the" Game of Thrones ", I'm afraid for what will be in the "Confederate ";
... and the fans of Abraham Lincoln:
"I cannot imagine an alternative tale in which monuments of the leaders of the Confederation will be all over America."
The media support these comments. So, American journalists accused Benioff and Weiss of being white in advance. But the fact that the executive producers are black is wonderful. This, according to the publication, helps to prevent a conflict, and then the series will become a "dream of a white supremacist," since this is a "lit match in a pool of gasoline" in the current political climate.
They did not forget to compare the idea with the plot of another series - "The Man in the High Castle", which has an idea that the countries of the Nazi bloc won in the Second World War.
According to the liberal paradigm in the US, repenting before once humiliated and offended blacks has become something that is accepted. For many years, Americans have been taught that the Confederates were fierce slave-owners and exploiters, and the northerners liberated and united the country.
It is not surprising that blacks speak about the Confederacy in a negative context. Even a fierce campaign against confederal symbols was launched not so long ago in the US. It began with the provocation of a mentally ill young man, who had photographed with the "confederate" and then shot black people in the church.Ex-President Barack Obama personally intervened in this high-profile case and called the "confederate" a symbol of hatred and racism. After that, the symbolic almost disappeared from the popular online stores, and even in the Louisiana bakery, they refused to print the cake with the flag. Someone even called the film "Gone with the Wind" a racist one ...
In general, it somehow reminds a hysterics in front of the all-powerful Pepefrog.
the problem is that the real history of the South and the North in the distant 1860s has been completely forgotten.
The North that took over the South
The Civil War of 1861-1865 is a painful topic for Americans. America has not had so many causalities since then. However, the battle for the interpretation of historical events is still going on.
It is generally accepted that slavery was the main stumbling block. In fact, everything rested on the desire of the North to dominate, including financially. We should not forget that only 7% in the Confederation owned slaves at the beginning of the massacre, and there was no really painful problem with slavery.
At the beginning of 1861, the main conflict was the desire of the southern states to resolve independently their domestic affairs, including legislative and financial matters. Slaves were a secondary matter, they were ready to give up slavery sooner or later.
It is important to understand that Abraham Lincoln, about whom schools tell with respect, actually carried out an aggressive activity without thinking about the interests of the South. Now it is seldom said that it was him who spurred the war and sorted out financial issues of the northern states in detriment of the southerners.
One of the urgent topics was the proposal of the Republicans to introduce the "Morella tariff". If the North specialized mainly in factories, then the South owned an agrarian territory. The southerners exported three-quarters of their output and mainly bought manufactured goods. Even then, they had to give 15%, and thanks to Lincoln, the fee jumped to 37% (with the condition of an increase to 47% in three years). For the South, this meant to go broke voluntarily or to buy from the northerners. That is obvious that a tax innovation was invented to make the southerners tax slaves of the North.
"The North used the artificially inflated question of slavery for the aggressive actions, but the real reason for the war was the question of the economic dependence of the South from the North. The Southerners wanted independence, the northerners wanted to retain the raw materials, " historian M.V. Guminenko wrote about the Civil War.
Of course, Lincoln’s slogans led to the fact that a number of states (South Carolina, then Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana) left the Union, and formed the Confederation of States of America by 1861. Soon, they were joined by other states, including Texas.
And then a bloody and merciless war was actually provoked. Thanks to the factories, the northerners had the equipment and numerical advantage to fight successfully. And, in fact, those "southern aggressors" simply defended their own territories during the war. Naturally, the simple exhaustion of the brave southerners’ forces inevitably led to a loss. Lincoln knew what he was betting.
"It turned out that although the North won and achieved its goals, the main characters turned out to be in the South," publicist YegorKholmogorov wrote in his rubric “Culture”."It is also understandable why it happened: the northerners’ behavior was not so heroic. During the war, Lincoln actually established a dictatorship in the country that helped him to manipulate elections. His striking force was migrants from Europe. Germans and Irishmen were sent from a ship to fight to earn citizenship, while generals Grant and Sherman behaved in the South like vandals. "Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell does not embellish the northerners’ ferocity ..."
"If the Southerners won in 1865, the whole modern world, including us, would not talk about the US as an aggressor who declared himself a" world hegemon " and is interfering in the affairs of other countries, suppressing disagreeable regimes by force of arms, overthrowing governments and separating states that do not satisfy the States do not like, " Guminenko states.
Here is the liberal paradigm: if you're telling the truth about the Civil War, you automatically spur a new one. History is getting blurred, and, perhaps, "Gone with the Wind" will become a banned literature on the shelf next to "Mein Kampf". Let's see how the creators of the "Game of Thrones" will solve it - but, at least, they will be extremely cautious after the scandal.