Game of Thrones' Producers' next move: Confederacy. Sigh

Cafe Society
81

Incorrect. You are hand-waving away the difference between discrimination (ugly though it was) and forced labor.

More on this below.

Which is exactly what I said (and therefore not a viable counter-argument).

Again, in each of these situations you offer as defense of the proposition that the American South could have (if allowed to secede) kept a third of its population enslaved for a century-and-a-half past the historical Civil War, you are hand-waving away the problems inherent in obtaining involuntary labor from substantial numbers of people (aka slavery).

Repression and discrimination are not the same thing as slavery. They’re all bad, but they are not the same thing. The Soviet Union’s economy did not feature a third of its population working at gunpoint. North Koreans suffer terrible privations and little liberty, but, again, it is not the case that a third of them work under the guns of the other two thirds.

Yes, repressive governments can and have obtained involuntary labor at gunpoint. And slavery on the small scale certainly exists today, even here in the US (as someone upthread mentioned).

But if you want a 21st century economy that runs on slavery, with a third of the population working under state compulsion—a phenomenon that did exist for a few decades in the American South—then you are going to have to resort to conditions that do not exist.

Think about large-scale slavery as a state policy in this century. The closest you can come to it is, perhaps, the factories that make electronic devices in China. There, the people work long hours for little pay; they may even be locked in. But those factories don’t breed their workers. They have to rely on the fact that the Chinese economy offers so few attractive alternatives, that people are willing to come to the factories and agree to work for such pay as they can get.

Slavery would not work there because it wouldn’t be cost-effective to have someone with a gun standing over each worker. And if you have only one or two or six guys with guns for a room full of workers, the workers will find a way to revolt. If they don’t revolt in the work room, they’ll revolt in the corridors or in the dormitories or in the mess hall or in the exercise yard.

Forced labor at gun-point doesn’t work any better in prisons, and for the same reasons. If you want skilled work done, the prisoner-slaves will sabotage it; if you want unskilled labor, the cost of the guys with guns makes the unskilled labor you obtain cost-ineffective.

Large-scale forced labor at gun-point is simply not economically viable in the 21st century. And none of the examples you’ve offered contradict that fact.

82

The Novel Lion’s Blood has that premise. North America is an African colony and slaves come from Europe.

83

A plantation in Mississippi experiences an uprising. The slavers have a huge militia of white men who might or might not own slaves themselves, but who fear for their lives in the case of a slave uprising, within a few hours’ muster. This is fundamentally different from the situation in Haiti, where there was no backup force of racist whites to concentrate force against a mass uprising.

I don’t know about exact numbers, but peasants were forced to work on “collectives” that kept farmers at near-starvation (or, too often, like eleven million or so times too often, just starvation) conditions; if they didn’t produce enough for the state, they’d be sent to re-education camps. That’s not precisely the same thing as American slavery, but it’s pretty damned close.

What percentage of North Koreans get to choose the conditions of their work, and what are the penalties for refusing to do the work the state asks you to do?

84

In the books one part of the divergence from history is that the Southern loyalists leave the new United States with their slaves and go to a newly Dutch South Africa.

Sure Guns of the South was a science fiction timetravel story set during the Civil War. (To be honest he shows Lee in way too favorable a light but I digress) But Turtledove’s Southern Victory Saga is a straight up alternative history with no science fiction elements. By it’s name you can probably figure out what it’s about. Over 11 novels he first shows how the South wins the war then through several self contained series he follows the history of the two countries through the 1940s. I don’t think it hits any of the pitfalls you are worried about.

85

The one big pitfall it does hit is that it’s turgid. It’s crazy-dull (to me). I think I either made it almost through book one or just barely into book to before I decided I didn’t care. The more historical Turtledove is, the duller his writing gets.

I honestly don’t see why people are having hysterics over this. It’s probably the second most-used alternate history out there (“Hitler Wins” is number one). It’s not like there’s anything really new they could explore. A much more interesting proposition would be “What would have happened if the South lost and a chunk of the south was given to the now ex-slaves as “reparations”–they have their own country as of 1865–now what?”

86

That’s the weirdest part, given that they made their names on “Quasi-medieval Europe with knights and dragons and magic and shit, plus some exotic foreign lands”–a totally new concept in storytelling.

87

Interesting. Don’t know if I want to invest in an eleven book series unless the books have received widespread critical acclaim (and per Fenris, looks as though these don’t meet that criterion). But thanks–I’ll look into it.

Your first point is reasonable, at least in the short term.

But when the best examples anyone can give for the idea that the HBO show’s premise makes sense is “peasant collectives in the old Soviet Union” and “North Korea,” the idea’s flaws should be becoming apparent. Bear with me:

From what I can read about the plans for the show, the idea is that the show’s American South in 2017 is pretty much the exact same as it is today: gleaming cities in Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Nashville, etc., with plenty of industry and manufacturing and economic prosperity--------but with the addition of hot scantily-clad black slaves standing around calling the white people “master” and “mistress,” and providing HBO-appropriate levels of sexual services. Ooooooooo!

But, think about it: in the best examples anyone in the thread has come up with for the concept that ‘slavery could work’—peasants on the old Soviet farms and North Koreans working ‘without getting to choose the conditions of their work’ (as Loach put it)—in those places, are there gleaming cities with plenty of industry and manufacturing and economic prosperity? No. There are not.

Being ignored, again, is that a large successful economy in the 21st century based on slave labor does not exist, because forcing people to work at gunpoint imposes massive costs (all those people standing around holding the guns have to be fed) and produces poor outputs (because slaves work less industriously than do non-slaves).

Put another way: if the Civil War had ended with the South an independent nation with an economy based on slavery, would that nation, in 2017, be pretty-much-identical to actual 2017, just with lots of hot scantily-clad black people providing deference and servicing to whites?

No. It would not. No matter what David Dukes or Jeff Sessions might enjoy fantasizing: no. It would not.

If 1865 had dawned with the South an independent nation, the South would have had a lot of cotton fields and a lot of small farms worked by subsistence farmers–and not much else. Very little industry or manufacturing–and more importantly, little hope of gaining either. The steel was made in the North. The factory-machines and machine parts were made in the North.

And most crucially, the market for the cotton was the North. All of that would now be out of bounds for the South. Many European nations would, like the US North, decline to trade with the South—oh, there would be smuggling and underground trade in the South’s cotton and tobacco. But the seller who can sell only to smugglers never makes top dollar. The revenues that had been flowing into Southern hands in 1859 would be massively reduced by 1865.

And the prospects of turning that around would have been poor. People would begin to starve (as in the old Soviet Union and in North Korea now, by no coincidence whatsoever). Slaves would run off to the North and the West, and no laws would exist that would lead to their return.

So if HBO wanted to make that show—well, that would be interesting. But they’d never do it. Such a choice would make impossible the Ooooooooo!!! shivery-sexy scenes of slave auctions, and shots of gorgeous young things forced to provide sexual services, and plotlines of Noble slaves (who happen to look great scantily-clad) making Noble speeches so viewers can feel virtuous. And most of all, such a choice would mean no deliciously transgressive underlying premise: that slavery could survive for another century-and-a-half in a big successful thriving CSA, despite the fact that in the real world no successful economy is based on slavery—because blacks are, let’s face it, different from real people.

The entire enterprise is stooopid and disgusting. But it will be very popular with a certain portion of the population: it will whisper into their ears that sweet, sweet message that they crave so powerfully.

88

Toss on top of that the fact that the USA would never have stood for a slave society next door to them for 150 years. It’s not like an independent CSA would have made the abolition movement vanish. Add in the drive for control of the West, conflict with Mexico, the total lack of munitions manufacturing in the South, etc. and you see that the likelihood of the CSA continuing to exist in any form past about 1890 are virtually nonexistent. Absent a Guns of the South scenario, with sci-fi intervention, the CSA is consigned to the dung heap of history where it belongs, no matter what kind of fictional machinations you engage in.

Sherrerd - well stroked.

89

Thanks, silenus, and you make an excellent point about the abolition movement continuing its work. Also the West and Mexico points.

So much of actual human history and psychology have to be ignored for this premise to even have been advanced; it’s rather appalling that HBO execs are interested enough in serving this particular market to have entertained the idea of such a show.

90

Because one is factual and the other is not. One of them is teaching, the other is entertainment. One is telling things like it is, while the other will inherently have to make the slave owners compelling people that someone may like. They may just be compelling villains, but they’ll still be compelling.

How about this. We make a show where there are characters who are the main focus who are constantly talking about how bi people are all really gay. Sure, they may be the villains, but they’re compelling villains, and people like them.

It’s ongoing series, so this can’t be resolved and everyone be told it’s wrong. Because then the series would end.

Do you not think it would increase bi-erasure? Just like this show is likely to increase appreciation for the confederacy.

Think about it. These are the GOT people. And how many people really, really like the horrible people in that show?

91

Plus, there’s demographics. They can’t make the message “The Confederacy is all bad” and not lose a good portion of the country. Because a good portion of the country still thinks the Confederacy is noble.

Fiction is just not history. It isn’t something that already happened that we can contextualize. And TV shows are designed to make people want to watch, and a simple “Confederacy is horrible” is not a message people will want to watch. They have to glorify it to make it a show.

Nazis are definitely glorified in fiction. There’s this weird respect for them, even as villains.

As someone who still sees Confederate flags flown without irony, who lives in a town that still has very few black people, I do not support the idea of this show. TV just isn’t intelligent enough to surprise me and do something I don’t expect.

92

I’ve read a couple of articles about this show, and nowhere have I seen this. Where are you getting these ideas from? Specifically:
-The South will be pretty much the exact same as it is now
-Plenty of economic prosperity
-Scantily-clad black slaves providing sexual services

93

I hadn’t heard these things either. What I have heard is the producers pointed out that no script exists, not even an outline. They did say that the show will be set on the eve of the third civil war, and that the second one was sometime during the 20th Century.

94

I don’t agree with this. This proposed show will not be do any proselytizing whether it be directly or indirectly. The people inclined to think the villains are awesome in this proposed show don’t need validation. They already feel perfectly validated in their own right.

The idea we should censor art so we don’t validate a bunch of bigots is unsettling to me.

95

…nobody has suggested censoring art. Plenty have suggested that the current producers of Game of Thrones (which had a rape scene that the producers didn’t realise was a rape scene) aren’t nuanced enough (and from interviews, don’t understand history) to write a series where “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution” without turning it into a flaming trainwreck.

We live in a world where the confederate flag still flies proudly in places. Where these people decide what your healthcare will be. Where black people are incarcerated five times more than white people. Where prisoners are made to work at government buildings and in governors mansions. Why are people upset by this? Because some people would feel that the world where “slavery remains legal” and has “evolved into a modern institution” would not be unlike how many parts of America are today.

96

One can comment on the situation for black people in the real-world America by portraying an America in which black people are still enslaved.

D. B Weiss said in a Vulture interview with the producers, “Yeah, on top of what David said about history and how we’ve both been heavily invested in it since kids — it goes without saying slavery is the worst thing that ever happened in American history. It’s our original sin as a nation. And history doesn’t disappear. That sin is still with us in many ways. Confederate, in all of our minds, will be an alternative-history show. It’s a science-fiction show. One of the strengths of science fiction is that it can show us how this history is still with us in a way no strictly realistic drama ever could, whether it were a historical drama or a contemporary drama. It’s an ugly and a painful history, but we all think this is a reason to talk about it, not a reason to run from it. And this feels like a potentially valuable way to talk about it.”

97

It’s not a very plausible alternate history but I don’t see how it’s a racist concept.

98

…and one can comment on how (IMHO) poorly suited a set of producers are to tackle the subject of an America in which black people are still enslaved. If Ava DuVernay were producing this series things would probably be different. But she isn’t. Many TV shows make commentary on “real life social issues.” Some do it really really well. And some do it really really badly. Just because some people can do it, and just because the producers “intend” to do that with this production, that doesn’t mean that *these *particular producers will do that successfully. It is entirely fair to look at what these producers have done in the past, and to use that to predict what they might do with this project.

99

The producers include David Benioff, D.B. Weiss (who are white), Nichelle Tramble Spellman and Malcolm Spellman (who are African-American).
Nichelle Tramble Spellman was a writer on Justified and The Good Wife, and was also a producer on The Good Wife. Malcolm Spellman was a writer-producer on Empire.

100

…thanks for telling me a whole lot of things I already knew.