The reason I couldn’t parse Dale Sam’s post is because I couldn’t imagine that the things you pointed out wouldn’t be slack-jaw obvious. I’m still holding out hope that I’m simply misunderstanding him.
I imagine if TNS was remade with 2014 sensibilities, Patrick Swayze’s character would have had a black butler who’d been his childhood friend. This friend would have had his own storyline that, although intersecting with the dominant one (of course), would have allowed his perspective and the perspective of other black people to be highlighted and probed. Whom on the Maine plantation wanted to run away? What were their fears and hopes? What did they think life in the North looked like?
And on the North side, why not show what free blacks thought about the War? They signed up to fight. They also were abolitionists. They dealt with Northern racism, too.
Anyway…I haven’t seen NaS. I see it’s a fictional drama with the trappings of real events. I think some part of my brain thought it was more of a historical drama.
So…yeah…put in whatever storylines you want. Hopefully the new ones would have a good deal of research put into them.
If all of this comes as news to you (despite Google being a browser tab away), then this only underscores my point about the cultural insensitivity, biased storytelling, and historical misconceptions that shaped television programming in the 80’s and it’s influence on the American conscious. Apparently it’s still has had an effect on you.
The books and movies centered around two wealthy white families, one from the North and one from the South. It’s not possible to bring in every aspect of that period into their story.
I think the reason he asked that is that North and South, the miniseries, was based on North and South, the novels by John Jakes. Of course, blacks really don’t play that big a role in those books either, except for a storyline about Patrick Swazie’s character’s wife, who’s black and passing, and, in the third book, a Buffalo Soldier who uses stage magic and sleight of hand to impress the Cheyenne and save one of the main characters’ lives. I think there’s also a runaway slave who falls in love with one of the main characters, and then, after the war starts, joins the army and gets killed.
But the trilogy, considering it’s about the Civil War, the years leading up to it, and after, really does ignore black people for the most part. There are black characters, but most of them aren’t really well developed or people you care about…it’s like “Oh, look at all those poor black slaves”, but “those poor black slaves” are, for the books, for the most part, and undistinguished mass, not individuals of their own.
Who are “people” and why are they “uncomfortable” with a picture of the rebel flag? If you are a black person who lived through the 1960s or before and/or have had your ass kicked by racists waiving that flag, then I certainly understand. I also think that those people should realize that there are non-racist reasons for using the flag, but that would at least be a good starting point for debate.
If you are 19 years old in 2014 and live in New York and have never been exposed to southern racism, then the fact that you are “uncomfortable” with the flag is totally a learned experience without any rationale.
In any event, there should be a give and take on each side and a good reason for a de facto ban on symbols. To make something verboten, there should be an articulable reason for doing so that goes people some undefined group of people feeling uncomfortable.
Sure, of course. But the Southern family has a plantation with a lot of slaves, and I don’t know that more than 3 or 4 even get a name, and as far as I know, the only one who gets an actual story is the slave Cuffey (I’m wrong. He didn’t join the army and get killed in the war. He runs away in the second book and then starts a slave rebellion that gets the Southern family’s plantation burned down and the Southern main character’s mother killed). But he’s the only slave on the plantation who gets any narrative arc at all.
Priam too. He’s the one who married Virgilia. As far as the rest of the slaves go, slaves in any culture are by definition not fully developed human beings. They haven’t been given the chance to fully develop, and being seen to think for themselves is dangerous.
I don’t remember the Cuffey storyline in the miniseries, and it doesn’t show up in the wikipedia summary. In fact, I think the storyline you’re talking about was changed in the show so that Justin (Madeline’s ex husband) was the one who burned shit down and killed Orry’s mother:
So not only did the show revise history to ignore the complexities of black people, it went one step further and ignored whatever black character development there was in the book? What seems blatant now wasn’t so obvious then.
Yeah, the miniseries wasn’t willing to easily kill off interesting characters. In the book, Justin died suddenly after getting shot in the ass while playing soldier with his boys on his land. Of course in the miniseries there had to be a dramatic confrontation between him and Orry.
Given what the focus of the miniseries was, as much family drama as Civil War history piece, you might as well complain that the movie Glory didn’t cover enough ground because it was too focused on a black regiment.
You seem to think that the racist assumptions of white supremacists–who had a vested interested in seeing slaves as “not fully developed human beings”–actually means that human beings stopped being human beings.
I can assure you that this isn’t true. If someone kidnapped you, shackled you, and enslaved you, that would not stop your brain from thinking. As amazing as it sounds, you could actually carry on conversations with other black people and reveal your true thoughts about things. You might even know how to read because you learned on the sly! And while it is fascinating to consider the possibility that the perception of whites was equivalent to how blacks actually existed in their private lives, it is safe to say that there was a huge discrepancy between these two things.
I should have said, “at least not before the books did.” Jakes was much more willing to kill major characters off, and in not too dramatic ways. Orry and Justin’s deaths were particularly random and sudden.
No. I’m just saying that slavery diminishes people. And so do its equivalents: totalitarianismdoes the same thing. The point is to turn people into compliant beasts of burden in both cases, and to a large extent it succeeds, at least with the average person. There are exceptions, and they get written in the history books.
That’s why 12 Years a Slave was so interesting, because it did take a free, educated, fully developed human being and made a slave of him. But in most cases, they were born into slavery. They were given no education. The brain needs stimulation to develop and slaveowners went out of their way to insure there was as little as possible.
Virgilia tried that. Reporters talking to people living under totalitarian dictatorships try it too. I’m sure that they’ve got thoughts they’d like to share, but they are too afraid to share them, which was accurately portrayed in North and South when Virgilia tried to get slaves to talk to her candidly.
I agree with you that North and South COULD have made more of an effort, but their portrayal of African-Americans was sufficient for the purposes of the story, and accurate, if shallow. Since almost all the black characters were slaves, it would have been harder to go any deeper into their personalities as long as they were in bondage. I suppose they could have showed us more private conversations between slaves, but since the focus of the story are the Mains and the Hazards, anything else was purely extra.