It might look like the Confederate States of America… (trailer here)
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
What If The South Had Won?
January 23rd, 2006
37 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
From OW’s Wikipedia link:
Oliver;
Are you saying that the Wingnut Nation (the tail wagging the dog)
is synonymous with the Confederacy?
That’s a bit simplistic……wait just a second…….hey!
That’s what they do. Oversimplify and Amplify!
The truth isn’t important. It’s all about winning ALL the marbles.
But, then…..do we want to be like them?
The mind boggles at the immense stupidity of such a concept. Maybe Spike Jones knows he is not a historian, but couldn’t he have found one?
Holy crap.
Spike Jonze.
Spike Lee.
Six of one…
Looks like somebody struck a nerve.
Excuse me if I confused one clown with another.
I’m afraid Oliver’s right. I watched Brokeback Mountain and now I crave the cock.
Damn you, homosexual agenda! Damn you to hell!
Looks just like a tempest in a teacup. Dosn’t look that particularly entertaining, so I won’t see it.
I think everyone just needs to relax. Movies don’t always have a sinister deeper purpose. Brokeback Mountain won’t turn you gay. Wag the Dog wasn’t about Clinton. This movie doesn’t mean all southerners are racist. Just chill out and watch whatever the hell you want.
I think its funny that you wingers get so freaked out about movies and tv. But Leroy, you’re wrong. Brokeback Mountain will turn you gay.
Ian, that’s the silliest thing I’ve heard today. Just out of curiosity… how does Oliver providing a link about this satirical film provide proof of your accusations.
Geez people… sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Get over it.
More importantly Frank, no treaty of Versailles where Clemenceau got revenge for the F-P war with crippling repayments. The expression “Lions led by donkeys” refers to how the younger generation won the war, and the old men pissed away the peace.
I thought this might have been an attempt at Harry Turtledove’s “The Guns of the South”, in which General Lee is supplied with AK47’s as well as Glycerin Trinitrate for his angina) by South African time travellers. The CSA is formed, having won. The North invade Canada. There is a referendum in two states as to which country they want to belong in. The SA troops turn on Lee at his inauguration as president when he outlines the plan to end slavery…..
Nathan Bedford Forrest runs against Leewith the support of the SA troops, but then comes around to Lee’s way of thinking. It’s a great read.
Turtledove seems to like these ‘what if’ scenarios. He has one where the WW2 combatants join forces against aliens, and another where Mohammed was a Catholic Bishop (St. Mahomet).
As to this film, I think the irony will be lost on the target audience. That said, it’s nice that the US can be relied upon for some great and original TV writing. I smell an Emmy for this film for the writing at least.
Seriously, could making all the states in the C.S.A red have been more obvious?
And surely Spike must have had at least one adviser to tell him that an incredible turn of events such as a southern victory in the Civil War would have had far more widespread effects tha he describes in his movie.
A historical advisor would have told him, for example, that if an Anglo – French alliance were possible in the 1860’s, then it most likely would have persisted until the 1869 – 70 Franco – Prussian War. Germany would have lost, making World War I, and therefore, World War II, unlikely (no Austrian corporal blinded by gas, see?).
Good lord Frank, just what has got your panties in such a bunch. If you’d taken the time to check the credits, or even paid any attention to the film presentation notes – you’d see that it’s not a Spike Lee (you’d have gotten the last name correct if you were paying attention) film. It’s “IFC and Spike Lee present… a Kevin Willmot film. Heck, Spike isn’t even the producer.
Those inconvenient facts aside… again, what is the problem? Geez… it’s a movie. What, nothing else in the news to rant about?
Interesting concept. From the website, it seems as though the film is meant to be humorous (Lincoln caught in blackface trying to escape to Canada?). A welcome addition to the genre of “what-if” fiction.
Also brings up an interesting point: since the Enlightenment (i.e., since the influence of religion dogma has been lessened somewhat in the Western world), the tide of history has embraced liberal ideals.
Now, this has sometimes been bloody and sometimes peaceful, but the victor, overwhelmingly, has been the core ideals of liberalism: Equality among man and an appeal to reason rather than superstition.
So I ask those on the other side: what is it in history that makes you believe an ideology based on war and religious dogma and hatred of the other will be looked upon favorably with the distance of history?
Gee Frank, wonder where they’d get the idea of slave states overlapping with Republican states?
Hmm…I read the novel a few years ago, and it looks to be quite different from this. Slavery had been abolished by the 1990s in the book, and the CSA had a weird form of apartheid instead.
I saw this film at Sundance two or three years ago. At that time it was still unpolished so I’m glad to see they spent the time to refine some of the satirical elements.
It’s set as if it were a Ken Burns documentary taking place on a television channel in this fictional CSA. There are satirical commercials in between segments of the show, and these really were the least polished of everything going on.
The film is interesting, it was made by a historian, not Spike Lee as someone in this thread had noted. It takes in to account many small elements of the American way of life both historical and present and twists them or carries them forward.
Interesting film, definitely worth watching.
And actually Frank, the Franco-Prussian War was 1870-1871. And the Victorian-era British and French were so damned suspicious of each other that I have a hard time believing that any alliance between the two could have been formed, let alone last for several years. It took a hell of a lot of prodding from Wilhelm before the Entente Cordiale could be formed.
We’ve got a hard enough time teaching our real history… and there’s so much alternative history about it’s no wonder some people get confused.
The Great Trickster must be laughing.
~~
My point that the French and the British would not have allied against the Union is still correct.
Oliver’s attention to the film consists of one point, and one point only: the clever use of red states to to represent the C.S.A. tee – hee
Never mind the fact that the Civil War began because of the anti – slavery stance of the newly – formed Republican Party, and that “Jim Crow” laws returned due to the return to power of the viciously anti – Negro Democrats in return for allowing Hayes to assume the Presidency in 1876.
We all “know that Republicans are racists”, don’t we? the evidence is everywhere — funny it never shows up here.
rainlion: suddenly we’re all just kidding around here? Gimme a break. I didn’t bring it up.
Actually, for all of those who claim history vindicates republicans as the anti-slavery party: The original Republican party WAS anti-slavery, but most historians point to the election of 1896 as the switch over. In that election, William Jennings Bryan was the democrat who fought for farmers and minorities. William McKinley was the republican who fought for bankers and the segregationists. Since then, the two parties have kept these backgrounds.
That’s from a high school government textbook. Reading is Fun-damental.
>But Leroy, you re wrong. Brokeback Mountain will turn you gay.
If only…
William McKinley was the republican who fought for bankers and the segregationists.
Evidence, please.
Oliver, what do you mean “if” the South had won?
It did. In 2004, and 2000. United States of Jesusland, and all that. Remember?
JK-Former Citizen of the United States of America
MacGruder’s American Govt. 2005 edition, chapter 5, political parties.
Want the page number?
…oh, dear. Frank_D makes the mistake that the name of the party is the character of the party.
The one thing left and right can agree on is that neither can believe Abraham Lincoln was a republican.
Too bad that book’s contents are not on the net…
However, the Electoral returns for 1896 – present are, votes and electoral votes.
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/
Except for two Wilson landslides, the Democrats took all the southern states until 1932 (Hard to do when you’re a “segregationist voting for a Republican”), when FDR took nearly everything, slipping slightly in 1940 and 1944.
I suppose you’ve never heard about bias in school textbooks
And see here
You’re right Frank, I forgot about the bias. I always forget that when something agree’s with you, its fair and balanced. When it disagrees, it must be biased. So, let’s see… that’s OW, the media, the movies, Spike Lee and now the textbook industry that are out to get you. Did I miss anyone?
L B: I didn’y say anyone was out to get me. Try as you might to to turn this on me, my point was that the data contradicted the statement. I notice that since this is so, and you can’t refute it, now you’re pulling out the “You’re paranoid” card.
Those statistics come from the University of Virginia database, not some lamebrained (most high school textbook authors aren’t even Ph. D’s) liberal’s fevered imagination. He probably has imperialists confused with racists.
Oh sure, I’m paranoid. I’m not the one disputing a book I’ve never seen, never read, nor have any proof of error with the brush of “liberal bias”. I don’t refute your claim of data. I’m simply saying that not all historians agree. But without either reading my facts or checking in on this info (FYI: Ask David Horowitz how much you can trust the universities) you have condemned my statement. How openminded of you. I have so much to learn from you.
Actually, yea. That’s what I’m saying. After all, there historians that will tell you that Lincoln was a rcaist, the holocaust never happened and a cabal of Jews controls everything.
I was merely holding out that possibility. If the hard data refutes the author’s statement, then where did he get his idea from?
And don’t tell me “not all historians agree.” Are you trying to say that all historians never agree on anything?
Wow… I can’t type worth a damn tonight…
Or think, apparently. Those kind of historians are called “revisionist” historians for a reason. They are sensationalist, not well respected, and they are merely trying to sell books. Most ‘real’ historians agree that Lincoln was not a “dyed – in – the – wool” abolitionist, and that the idea that a cabal of Jews controls everything is laughable.
Bias is not the same as revisionism. If, indeed, southern voters voted Democratic until 1932 — and they did — it is impossible to square that with the idea that Republicans had invited ’segregationists’ into their fold in 1896.
When one considers the fact that blacks were registering to vote in large numbers in the south after 1964 , and yet Republicans began winning in those states, it is more a sign that they were getting a cross section of voters of all ideologies and races.
But let’s not be reasonable — let’s start with the premise that “Republicans are racists,” and then bend the data. Isn’t that how the liberals do it?
hbtfx pcgdwjx pmrxag wmukivyz lxewgdhp nhzdcjb tidqjgaf
hbtfx pcgdwjx pmrxag wmukivyz lxewgdhp nhzdcjb tidqjgaf
nfdg jvmbgxw tzvbrqmd tenibj dimgop mlfyqcndh qgaib http://www.ivwtn.cgmfrpw.com