Originally Posted by oink
Actually, GWIW is extremely racist and couldn't be made the same way today.
Is it "racist" if the depictions in the movie are not inaccurate? I have no idea if the O'Hara slaves would have or could have been like the movie portrays them, but if they would have or could have been that way, then how would it be "racist" to show people acting and talking the way they actually might have acted and talked? While it may be true that the O'Haras and other slaveowners were themselves "racists" in the sense that they considered the Black "race" to be inferior to the White "race" (or the English or French "race" to be inferior to the Irish "race," or the Protestant or Jewish "race" to be inferior to the Catholic "race"), is it "racist" to depict the house and lifestyle of a seemingly-"racist" family?
And, FWIW, GWTW is ultra-PC compared to THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Talk about a movie that couldn't be made the same way today....
And "racist" is often in the eyes of the beholder. Is it not also "racist" to demand that a particular "race" only be portrayed a certain way but never, never, never, ever, ever, EVER be portrayed in (a) certain other way(s)?
So while it's okay to portray, e.g., German Nazis in whatever ways one wants to portray them - e.g., evil, stupid, bumbling, heartless, oafish, etc. - even if there are Nazis that weren't that way, it's somehow "racist" and not allowed to EVER portray certain "races" in certain ways or hint that such persons might be or do such, even if particular members of that "race" do in fact act or talk or behave in those ways.
O... kay. I think I get it. Sure. Right. Uh-huh. Whatever....