I love that woman and want to bear her children.
The Assyrian Christians (NOT Iraqi) at work were showing it at lunch. I commented to a Jewish pal (we worked in Skokie) that I, a goy, was uncomfortable that they were showing Nazi propaganda. His reply was, “Yeah, but it is BRILLIANT propaganda! You should watch it.”
I wanted to slap that [del]girl[/del] woman, white or black.
In reference to your editing point, Butterfly McQueen was in her twenties, but Prissy in the book was only fifteen.
I think you’re missing the point. The problem isn’t that it shows slavery, but that it doesn’t show slavery’s warts.
No it isn’t.
Melanie was the one I wanted to slap. Man she annoys the hell out of me. And she’s worse in the book.
The objection that many people have the SotS, as I understand it, is that Uncle Remus directs all his nurturing toward a white child, and is dismissive and even a little cruel to the black children in the movie. There doesn’t seem to be any reason given-- if it were clear he were being paid to care for Johnny, or something, or if he were at least equally kind to all the children, but it’s mainly his treatment of the black children, and one in particular named Toby (IIRC), that comes under fire.
This seems like a fair and probably historically accurate objection.
But it is a shame that sociological objections to the movie have gotten it banned (well, voluntarily withdrawn), because the mixture of live-action and cartoon is pioneering.
Personally, I don’t have any objection to it never being re-released in theaters, but it really ought to be available to film students.
And the point about the film being for children, vs. GWTW being an adults’ film making the difference is really important. Personally, though, I always had a problem with the universal hatred for Birth of a Nation, which is a brilliant film, while people weep over GWTW, and it plays on TV all the time. Birth of a Nation is racist, but I don’t know that it’s really any more racist that GWTW. Maybe less subtle, but the Klan was all but dead when the film was made. The the film brought about a revival of it was as big a shock to DW Griffith as to anyone.
Maybe GWTW has such staying power because it is about individuals, about very personal experiences of a slice of history. Birth of a Nation showed a number of people higher in the pecking order, both real and imaginary. It was really about the Civil War, as opposed to the individual experience of the war. It’s legitimate to criticize how a film handles historical facts, but when a film is depicting a personal experience, and it isn’t pretty, well, that’s just how it is sometimes. You don’t like it leave the theater.
It’s kind of like All Quiet on the Western Front. It’s not about America’s enemy. It’s about some individual people and their struggles.
And you expect me to know that? Yeah, IIRC Wife mentioned it once or twice, but I only saw the movie twice because she made me. As for the book, she’s the one who read it multiple times.
But 15? I have several daughters I did not slap silly when they were 15. 
FWIW, it’s easily available on the Internet, as is Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs.
Birth of a Nation is far far worse in it’s portrayal of blacks. Blacks are the main villains in the film, justifying their repression at the end. In GWIW blacks at least aren’t portrayed as being actively evil.
I’m a librarian, and I would be very surprised if Adventures of Huckleberry Finn had in fact been banned in “many” libraries – at least in the US. For all I know there’s some other country where it is widely banned, but although Huck Finn has frequently been challenged in the US, to the best of my knowledge it has been very rare for it to actually be removed from an American library.
Removing the book from libraries isn’t even necessarily the goal of these challenges; the only ones I’ve heard about in recent years were trying to get Huck Finn dropped from high school English classes.
And arguably a sanitized, if not glamorized version.
GWTW is viewed as such an iconic movie that I doubt it will get “banned”. At most, there will be earnest panels of commentators holding forth during broadcast breaks, to explain how the warts were airbrushed.
I have to say that I’m not too keen on the whaddaya-trying-to-do-by-denying-history argument, as it’s used to defend things more objectionable than this film, such as modern-day official displays of the Confederate flag.
The article, already explains one difference. Song of the South came across as racist even while they were making it. Disney was warned that people would see it as racist, but made it anyways. It was heavily protested, but they kept re-releasing it.
That said, I personally would have no problem with Gone with the Wind never being re-released. It’s there if you need it for film history or to study the romanticization of the Dixieland South.
That said, I actually would also prefer that Song of the South get one final and permanent release, in a proper context, with the disclaimers and people talking about it, the same way the old racist cartoons have been.
Once again pointing out that human emotions are rarely polarized but exist in shades of gray.
But isn’t that the fault of Margaret Mitchell? The movie and the book certainly do not depict the cruelty of owning slaves. There are some eye rolling scenes, like when Pork says Mist’ Gerald would never whup him, because he’s an expensive n-----r. Scarlett only hit a slave once, and as noted above, Prissy may have deserved it and Scarlett was on edge with the baby coming at the same time as the Yankees. Certainly Mammy and Uncle Peter put Scarlett in her place, with Mammy refusing to let her go to Atlanta by herself and Uncle Peter refusing to drive Scarlett around after she didn’t defend him to the ignorant Yankees.
Slavery is wrong, always. But I don’t know that Scarlett and Melanie or even Miss Pittypat could see that. To them, it’s a part of their life. Margaret Mitchell chose to focus on how the South suffered during the Civil War and not whether the North was right.
On the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. PBS series “Finding Your Roots”, Keenen Ivory Wayans learned that a distant relative of his had been a slave and was separated form his owner while in Canada. Rather than staying in Canada a free man, he made his way back to his owner in one of the Carolinas IIRC. Gates noted that such instances were rare, of course, but I don’t think anyone saw that coming.