• Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
choralcrusader8613

Dillards 24 - Smug Bible Tweets and Maneaters (Jill/Derick/Israel/Baby Dillard)

196 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Georgiana said:

To be fair, it's actually Ashley and Melanie who represent the gallant, Antebellum South.  This is why they struggle, are lost, and one of them dies in post-War Georgia.  Scarlett (and Rhett) more correctly represent the New South: they do well, they survive, but in order to do so, they must become completely unscrupulous.  They're terrible people, and the book is pretty clear about that. 

One thing I will give the book is that it does contain a survivor account of the impact of the total war on the south (from Mitchell's grandmother).  Sherman's march to the sea contained what would be considered today to be MULTIPLE war crimes.  He was completely unconcerned with targeting the fleeing and fractured army.  He very much MEANT to wage war against civilians, as he considered The South as being completely belligerent.  The accounts of the people who survived this are important, but they were long omitted from the official history that sought to glorify the victors.  Instead, their only outlet was in movements that romanticized the old south, so it can be difficult  to separate these very real and very valid criticisms of Northern Agression from the pure fiction also part of the movement.

Uh-oh. Northern Agression (sic)? And capitalized?

I'm black, and Twelve Years a Slave more accurately represents southern chattel slavery than the fantasy that is GWTW. 

The south committed many crimes against humanity while enslaving other human beings. Even the founding fathers were slaveowners.

Sorry, no sympathy here. What about the impact of hundreds of years of unpaid labor, rape, and degradation on my ancestors? 

Imma tiptoe out, inflammatory topic here.

32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

Growing up in England, GWTW wasn't in our curriculum.

It's not a part of the curriculum across the country.  My part of CA and its high school curriculum had nothing to do with GWTW.  

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GWTW wasn't part of our curriculum either and I went to school in South Carolina.

Edited by PennySycamore
clarification
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Uh-oh. Northern Agression (sic)? And capitalized?

I'm black, and Twelve Years a Slave more accurately represents southern chattel slavery than the fantasy that is GWTW. 

The south committed many crimes against humanity while enslaving other human beings. Even the founding fathers were slaveowners.

Sorry, no sympathy here. What about the impact of hundreds of years of unpaid labor, rape, and degradation on my ancestors? 

Imma tiptoe out, inflammatory topic here.

Yeah, she kind of lost me at Northern Aggression too. Like I'm sure atrocities were committed on both sides as they always are in any war but let's not forget the many atrocities that had were committed while slavery was an institution (and would have continued to be committed) and that the south could have completely avoided the war. 

Ive never read the book so can't really comment on it. I'm a northerner who has a weird curiosity about southern culture and its appeal. 

Rhett always felt like the North to me because he's constantly trying win over someone who wants nothing to do with him, despite them being meant to be together. 

I can't remember where I read it but that Margaret Mitchell was actually making fun of the society but that a lot of this was overlooked or missed. Not sure if this is true or not. 

It reminds me of this super snobby New England club that throws an annual Gatsby party. Like these people are all really terrible people (except Nick, and maybe Gatsby who is misguided more than anything) and the author was making fun of them, not glorifying them.

 

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VeganCupcake said:

Btw why is Derick so awkward acting? He wasn't homeschooled was he? Granted maybe he feels unnatural on camera. But it's strange how he acts just as awkward as homeschooled Ben and the Duggars. 

No, he wasn't homeschooled, he's just awkward. I was homeschooled for one year and I was about as awkward afterward as I was before. It makes sense though-- I can't imagine many not-awkward people wanting to marry into the Duggar circus. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Uh-oh. Northern Agression (sic)? And capitalized?

I'm black, and Twelve Years a Slave more accurately represents southern chattel slavery than the fantasy that is GWTW. 

The south committed many crimes against humanity while enslaving other human beings. Even the founding fathers were slaveowners.

Sorry, no sympathy here. What about the impact of hundreds of years of unpaid labor, rape, and degradation on my ancestors? 

Imma tiptoe out, inflammatory topic here.

Word. I was going to write some verbose reply about why I think "Gone With the Wind" is simply "The Birth of a Nation" told from a distaff perspective, but instead I'll simply attach this flag from the 22nd Colored Regiment to illustrate that they had no illusions about who the aggressor was:

 

22nd.jpeg

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a book that takes place in Mississippi and many of the women admire Scarlett. I watched the movie once and didn't like it. But as a Canadian I'm always interested in how the Civil War is invoked in Contemporary American politics. Especially with the South and this myth of a golden age that is their rightful heritage. Of course that is for white Southerners. Their attachment to family history, to the land they were born and raised on, to the sacrifices made in the civil war, and a local culture of hospitality, faith, good cuisine, and time spent with family sharing in it all. That's what they want to defend. But it ignores that much of it was built on the backs of slaves who weren't considered fully human. I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on how the south might be able to celebrate it's unique history while honestly facing it's brutal past? I think this cognitive dissonance is fueling a lot of white Trump support to raise up the mythical golden age of yore, while not acknowledging what that means for their black neighbors. And if you think Sons of the Confederate Veterans or other groups are anachronistic, think again. They are actively political and work with the League of the South, who is: a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans.” The league believes the “godly” nation it wants to form should be run by an “Anglo-Celtic” (read: white) elite. - From the Southern Poverty Law Centre. I wonder how the Duggers fit into these politics in Arkansas.

 

14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious about what people think of Cold Mountain (the book) and its representation of the war?

I do agree that Sherman's March involved war crimes, mainly against women and children who were too poor to be slave owners at any rate. And Sherman also did some pretty terrible things to recently freed slaves as well. 

However, I get why the focus is now on the devastating effects of slavery, since it lasted so much longer, was so much more widespread, and has not been adequately represented in popular media depictions. But I also disagree with the modern take that we can dismiss Sherman's crimes (which included fairly brutal rapes) because they were against civilians living in the area of the aggressor (and I do think the South was the aggressor). I think it can also feed into white Southerners rallying around the "Old South" ideals and all of the historical whitewashing and outright racism that goes hand in hand with that. 

Sorry if I'm rambling. My thoughts go around and around on this topic.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In war there are always unspeakable and unnecessary crimes against humanity committed on both sides. 

And I truly believe that crimes cannot be relativised by other crimes. It gets blurry when it is about protecting the live of someone who cannot defend himself. But torture, rape and burning everything down (three general examples- I know almost nothing about American history. For my degree I concentrated on Europen history.) are not about protecting. War does terrible things to the mindset of people who fight in/ experience it.

 Speaking up about whatever war crimes the North committed will never white wash the history of slavery in the US. 

And now I will be quiet as this is not my history.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PainfullyAware said:

I just read a book that takes place in Mississippi and many of the women admire Scarlett. I watched the movie once and didn't like it. But as a Canadian I'm always interested in how the Civil War is invoked in Contemporary American politics. Especially with the South and this myth of a golden age that is their rightful heritage. Of course that is for white Southerners. Their attachment to family history, to the land they were born and raised on, to the sacrifices made in the civil war, and a local culture of hospitality, faith, good cuisine, and time spent with family sharing in it all. That's what they want to defend. But it ignores that much of it was built on the backs of slaves who weren't considered fully human. I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on how the south might be able to celebrate it's unique history while honestly facing it's brutal past? I think this cognitive dissonance is fueling a lot of white Trump support to raise up the mythical golden age of yore, while not acknowledging what that means for their black neighbors. And if you think Sons of the Confederate Veterans or other groups are anachronistic, think again. They are actively political and work with the League of the South, who is: a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans.” The league believes the “godly” nation it wants to form should be run by an “Anglo-Celtic” (read: white) elite. - From the Southern Poverty Law Centre. I wonder how the Duggers fit into these politics in Arkansas.

 

I would argue that Trump is a result of decades of GOP using the southern strategy. In many ways are country's political landscape is still largely impacted by the civil war. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that people are upset by war crimes committed to their ancestors. Nothing excused violence and rape of civilians. Burning things may have had strategic value but it also could have been cruelty. 

But you know how these crimes could best be objectively acknowledged and remembered? To have fair and objective analysis of history without racial bias, whitewashing, or personal/sociocultural agendas. As soon as the south can acknowledge truth of the situation then I think we as a country can legitimately discuss war crimes. But right now war crimes are being exploited as propoganda to justify, excuse, and generally rewrite history.

The south committed treason. They were traitors who betrayed their country and the foundations of democracy and the constitution to defend an abhorrent institution that abused and exploited other human beings. They took up arms against their country rather than abide by principles of democracy. And they lost! In most countries at the time (and still to this day) everyone involved in a failed coup is killed. Not just the soldiers, their entire family and any citizen who aided the cause. 

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, when people talk about the "good old days" of the antebellum South, to me that's basically saying "I long for a time when I would have been allowed to own black people".

Even in the north we get a lot of misplaced nostalgia/bullshit. There was some dude who wrote an editorial in my hometown newspaper about how everything was so much better when nobody had smartphones and the menfolk would come home to a nice pot roast beef in the oven and everyone went to church on Sunday and no one talked about politics, and I was so tempted to write a letter in response saying that the time he longs for never really existed and he could have saved us all a lot of time and eyestrain by just writing that he misses the days when Blacks and Jews had to be out of the town limits by sundown (yes, this was a thing in my hometown well into the 1960s).

19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Honestly, when people talk about the "good old days" of the antebellum South, to me that's basically saying "I long for a time when I would have been allowed to own black people".

Even in the north we get a lot of misplaced nostalgia/bullshit. There was some dude who wrote an editorial in my hometown newspaper about how everything was so much better when nobody had smartphones and the menfolk would come home to a nice pot roast beef in the oven and everyone went to church on Sunday and no one talked about politics, and I was so tempted to write a letter in response saying that the time he longs for never really existed and he could have saved us all a lot of time and eyestrain by just writing that he misses the days when Blacks and Jews had to be out of the town limits by sundown (yes, this was a thing in my hometown well into the 1960s).

My father had a lot of nostalgia for the good ol' days of the 1950s. I've learned to bite my tongue and not point out that it wasn't so great for lots of people of the wrong color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I think it was the Daily show that discussed how all the conservatives who remember the good ol' days of a simpler time are actually remember their childhoods when everything seemed good and simple.

Not only was the south terrible for black slaves, there was vast income inequality between rich and poor whites. But poor whites had the social status of being above blacks and could dream of being landowners one day (even though it was near impossible- can't compete with a farm that has slave labor!) so they didn't recognize the inequality of their own situation. I see this as still relevant in a lot of ways. 

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when it comes to Sherman -

Yes. He did and ordered pretty terrible things. Especially in South Carolina because that's where the Civil War really broke out and he knew he wouldn't be able to really restrain his troops' anger.

One thing to remember though, is that he and his superiors wanted an end to the war. And one of the most effective ways to do so is to attack the other side's supplies. If you cut off their Army's access to reliable supplies of food and ammunition then they won't be able to continue fighting as well as they had before. So his actions and orders during that period weren't entirely about just revenge or causing as much pain to innocent people (white and black) as possible - it was also about strategy and trying to end a horrifically bloody war as quickly as possible.

Does it make what happened ok? No. Definitely not by modern standards. But it's also not ok that some of those innocent civilians he targetted helped to support a treasonous war effort intent on preserving a culture and economy based off the enslavement of an entire race of people.

Full disclosure - my ancestor fought at Gettysburg and was part of Sherman's March to the Sea. No idea what he may have actually done during that time - but I am both proud of his overall service and saddened at the things he may have been part of during the march as well. I think it's entirely possible to simultaneously feel both pride and shame or regret. Some of those longing for the past are incapable of feeling both though because the truth of the past is too uncomfortable or painful for them to fully acknowledge how things actually were. And some people are just assholes who only care about themselves, so uncomfortable truths simply don't matter to them.

And now I'm out. Because my baby is singing the song of her people.

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like GWTW because I could not respect Scarlett as a character. I spent the whole book complaining about how she was a horrible character. To me it felt like however many pages of her complaining about not getting her way. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the reason I love Gone with the Wind is that it gives me an interesting perspective on how some people viewed the Civil War. Although I was born and raised in New Orleans, my family is from all over. I think some of my dad's family fought in the Civil War on both sides but we in no way, shape, or form long for the "old days" of the South.

I find the writing beautiful and many of the characters intriguing and multi-layered. Do I think it is an accurate portrayal of the South? No. I find some of the writing problematic, especially how rose tinted most of it is. But the book holds a special place in my heart because it is a beautifully written fantasy. I absolutely understand why many people don't like it. 

Personally, I don't want to "be" Scarlett but I admire her drive. She is a strong woman who watches her entire way of life vanish and manages to build another life from the ashes. 

Anyway I'm rambling. Hope what I am trying to say makes sense. If not, let me know. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's that verbose post I said I wasn't going to write. Regardless of what actually happened during the Civil War, the South won. It may have lost the war itself, but the won the much larger battle over interpretation by making the Confederates seem like well-intentioned patriots in the service of a "Lost Cause." What I call the "plantation movie industrial complex" couldn't have gone on as long as it did without support from white Americans from all regions of the country. This article on the Lost Cause is worth reading:

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lost_Cause_The#start_entry

Quote

The Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War typically includes the following six assertions:

1. Secession, not slavery, caused the Civil War.

2. African Americans were "faithful slaves," loyal to their masters and the Confederate cause and unprepared for the responsibilities of freedom.

3. The Confederacy was defeated militarily only because of the Union's overwhelming advantages in men and resources.

4. Confederate soldiers were heroic and saintly.

5. The most heroic and saintly of all Confederates, perhaps of all Americans, was Robert E. Lee.

6. Southern women were loyal to the Confederate cause and sanctified by the sacrifice of their loved ones.

As you can see, the Lost Cause ideology blends a white Southern exceptionalism, conservative Christianity, and racism to explain and justify the Jim Crow regime. Make no mistake about it, Margaret Mitchell was a true believer in the Lost Cause, even though she considered herself a liberal; Gone With the Wind itself was written as a rejoinder to Uncle Tom's Cabin, which Mitchell felt misrepresented what she felt was the reality of Southern slavery. I've read in some sources that Mitchell disliked Jim Crow and didn't like the fact that the black stars of Gone With the Wind were barred from attending the Atlanta premiere. If we assume this is true, it illustrates the wilful blindness of Southern liberals at the time, because Mitchell was unable to connect the dots between how the Lost Cause that she championed in her book was used to justify the system of discrimination that she claimed to despise.

Scarlett O'Hara herself is an embodiment of everything that is wrong with so-called "white feminism." The only reason that Scarlett was able to be the empowered badass that she was after the war is because she had a bunch of slaves/servants to do her grunt work for her.This is particularly true of Mammy, who is described in the book as, "shining black, pure African, devoted to her last drop of blood to the O'Haras,.." Mammy has no family, no friends, and no inner life to speak of. She is essentially a part of the scenery at Tara, like the trees or the farming equipment. In fact, Mammy's virtues are precisely the fact that she doesn't have any desire for an independent life, because that's what "bad darkies" do. Scarlett may love Mammy, but its the same kind of love one might have for a devoted dog, not for a fellow human being deserving of rights and equality. Mammy was Ellen O'Hara's slave, she was Scarlett's slave, and she continued into this role with Scarlett's children; she's practically a family heirloom with a pulse. The movie somewhat obscures this, because Hattie McDaniel's Mammy is more like Scarlett's Sassy Black Friend, but even so, Mammy is never portrayed as having any independent existence apart from what the O'Haras want her to be.

Let's also not forget that Gone With the Wind glamorizes the Klan in the scene as "freedom fighters" for white Southerners, especially when Ashley, Rhett, and Frank Kennedy go out lynching after Scarlett is attacked in the shanty town. The "purity" of white women like Scarlett must be preserved at all costs, while black women like Mammy (who in real life would have had several "mulatto" children by Gerald O'Hara) are expendable commodities. The Klan that Gone With the Wind valorizes was disenfranchising black voters, burning down black schools and churches, and lynching "uppity blacks." Yet, we're supposed to be cheering on the male characters for their "Klan curiosity"? No thanks.

The fact is that no black movie or book is ever going to dethrone Gone With the Wind from its place in pop culture, no matter how good it is. Not only is the viewing audience more fragmented today than it was in 1939, but the average movie goer doesn't want to see a movie that's going to make them feel bad about themselves or their history, which is going to happen if you take the black history perspective, rather than the Lost Cause view. If you want to see a movie about slavery that from a completely black perspective, watch Haile Gerima's "Sankofa":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankofa_(film)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDRI5qCxveo

 

20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, grandmadugger said:

Some people are just awkward it doesn't matter how they were schooled. Ben may have been homeschooled but he was socialized a lot more than the Duggars. 

This is why a think Jeremy is a bit better than the other Duggar ILs...he is not as socially stunted, and therefore presents as better educated and more mainstream. He can probably carry on an actual conversation about a variety of topics beyond God and servants' hearts.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had mixed feelings about GWTW for years. As a young teen, I read the book the first time. I fell hook, line, and sinker for the "romance" of it all... that is, the rich people in the sumptuous clothes, served by loving servants.

When I read Scarlett, I began to think,, SUCH TWADDLE! Yeah, Scarlett could have become more mature and more giving, but when she became "The O'Hara" that was enough.

I really liked "Rhett Butler's People" better.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Even in the north we get a lot of misplaced nostalgia/bullshit. There was some dude who wrote an editorial in my hometown newspaper about how everything was so much better when nobody had smartphones and the menfolk would come home to a nice pot roast beef in the oven and everyone went to church on Sunday and no one talked about politics, and I was so tempted to write a letter in response saying that the time he longs for never really existed and he could have saved us all a lot of time and eyestrain by just writing that he misses the days when Blacks and Jews had to be out of the town limits by sundown (yes, this was a thing in my hometown well into the 1960s).

Yup. I think this is why a lot of fundies romanticize the past. Everything was great if you were a straight, cisgender, white, Christian person. And that's the perfect person, according to the Duggars and their ilk. Maybe they're not as obviously racist, but the Dillards have some incredible white savior vibes going on. Didn't some family (the Bates?) have a picture of some Civil War general hanging in their home? And the Boyer Sisters, who run a fundie blog, are super into vintage stuff and have stated that their family was on the side of the South. They- white, straight, cis Christians- were at the top of society once. They might long for a time when their identity was unquestionably the best. A time when they were unchallenged. Unquestionably superior. Instead of, y'know, equality.

And I'll just leave this here.

Spoiler

052bb6bd59e4688fcdc1f210b4dbd53b19614e-wide-thumbnail.jpg

 

052bb6bd59e4688fcdc1f210b4dbd53b19614e-wide-thumbnail.jpg

Edited by MargaretElliott
I've tried to remove the second image about four times now, but there it is. Oh, well.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Honestly, when people talk about the "good old days" of the antebellum South, to me that's basically saying "I long for a time when I would have been allowed to own black people".

Even in the north we get a lot of misplaced nostalgia/bullshit. There was some dude who wrote an editorial in my hometown newspaper about how everything was so much better when nobody had smartphones and the menfolk would come home to a nice pot roast beef in the oven and everyone went to church on Sunday and no one talked about politics, and I was so tempted to write a letter in response saying that the time he longs for never really existed and he could have saved us all a lot of time and eyestrain by just writing that he misses the days when Blacks and Jews had to be out of the town limits by sundown (yes, this was a thing in my hometown well into the 1960s).

Yes and yes. My (black) uncle does the same thing and has some seriously misplaced nostalgia about colonial days. He's always going on about how it was better when the British had control and how the country has gone south after they left (even though they built their empire by exploiting our resources/labour and then made it hard for us to compete on a global scale after centuries of colonial rule and systematic oppression) It irks me. 

I agree that the South were aggressors (in what I remember from high school history) but lets not forget that the North was getting a lot of the products made by slave labour and thus helped to sustain the economy of the South. Northerners were also racist as hell, just in a different way. :) 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now