Talk:C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

The Domination

I just added the series of books The Domination to "See also". It has a similar imperial theme in an alternate reality, although it deals with South Africa spreading, rather than the CSA. samwaltz 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that is an appropriate link? Alternative history involving a white supremacist state? Maybe I just answered my own question. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section removed

The notice of unsourced comments posted by another editor did not get any reply, so I removed the "Criticism" section. This is a work of fiction and should not be analyzed as if it were a work of history. Also, the section made unsupported claims about what historians think a successful C.S.A. might have done next. Not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, the points need proper sourcing and to not represent fringe views, but the editor above was completely mistaken.

Part of the video is the claim that a Southern invasion of Latin America was already planned to establish a tropical empire and reliable sources belying that would be entirely appropriate. — LlywelynII 22:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Strange (vanity?) external links

One of the external links is confederate apologetics from a blogger who actually did not see the movie. I *honestly* have no problem with confederate apologetics or pro-CSA alternate history, but it is odd to link from this entry. If we want to link to WP articles about various conceptions of the confederacy, or a something like that, I have no objection. But this link seems inappropriate because it is (1) Confederate apologetics (2) from someone who has no authority (3) who did not see the move in question (4) but who frames what he says as an "impression of CSA." The next time I return to this page I will remove that link unless someone will argue for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.152.162 (talk • contribs)

I for one thought the link was useful. It can be very difficult to find any intelligent discussion at all about little-known works of fiction. Many of the comments in his blog are from people who did see the movie. Certainly his views are not NPOV (though you misread them if you think they're "confederate apologetics"), but it's fine to have that in an external link. Redquark 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Redquark! I completely agree with you about intelligent discussion of works of fiction, but I think you can hardly discuss a work of fiction intelligent without reading/viewing it. Linking to it for the sake of *two comments* from people who saw the film would be stretching it. But as I said, if you insist I won't remove it. (And, by the way, I think I *did* understand his views. I think as a Canadian you may be unaware of a long American tradition of trying to make the connection between secession and slavery seem entirely coincidental through over-simplification and obfuscation. Like I said, there is a place for Confederate apologetics on WP (just like there is a place for the book "1421"), but it would only be appropriate to link to this person if his remarks were a reaction to having seen the movie or he had actual standing as an expert on American history.)

In all honesty, that shouldn't be listed as an external link, but should instead be used as a source for some type of "critical reaction" section for the article. EVula 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the quality of the writing or notability of the author. Most blogs aren't WP:RSes and shouldn't be used as sources. — LlywelynII 23:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Reminded of

I just saw it on dvd yesterday, good or bad, it reminded of the 90's tv show Sliders. Anybody else, remember this show? Lugnut215 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with making this article better. Abeschr (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember watching that series, and I've even met some of the cast too. But I think that you are trying to tell everyone who reads this, that the movie bore certain similiarities with certain episodes of "Sliders". I recall at least seeing one episode in which "The Republic of Texas" had not only never ceased to be, it went on to be all there was to be, essentially making the whole of Planet Earth into "The Republic of Texas". To make that observation of yours relevant to the article about the movie, were you trying to infer and/or imply plaguerism by the movie's makers? That they stole the concept and ideals from the series "Sliders"? Just wondering. Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Erroneous Assumptions

An anonymous editor is reintroducing a section of opinionated prose about what's wrong with this movie. While it's OK to call attention to the views of notable reviewers in an article about a movie, it is not OK to express your own opinion. Go write in your blog instead, or post to a movie site. Please see What Wikipedia is not. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction

I've noticed on the movie's official website as well as the Region 2 DVD that the film received several favourable reviews when released here in the United Kingdom. Provided appropriate references can be found, is it worth adding them to the article? Crablogger (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fictionist Films

A few wiki pages make reference to a film within the CSA called "Tarzan: Lord of the Nigs". Does anyone recall where in the CSA film the Tarzan film came up? Dustman15 (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If that did appear during the movie, I missed it. Possibly plausible high-order vandalism? — LlywelynII 22:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Section removed

I've removed the 'References to actual culture' section from the article as being wholly uncited and home to a great deal of Sherlocking (ie. deductive reasoning). We cannot do that here in Wikipedia, and it cannot return to the article in its present form.
That said, if references can be found from Reliable Sources, some if not all of this can return. To that end, I've moved the whole section to the discussion page:

"Many allusions are made to actual cultural events or products in present-day society. For instance, one of the "commercials" features a Cops-like program called Runaway. It featured escaping fugitive slaves instead of criminals, and has the antebellum song "Run Nigger Run" as its theme song. Also, the film describes fictional works in literature and motion pictures made to ease tensions after the "War of Northern Aggression," including the popular novel Summer of My Union Soldier. Excerpts are shown from the film adaptations of A Northern Wind (the story of Violet O'Hara, and one of the most famous Confederate films of all time), The Dark Jungle (about the war of conquest in Latin America), and the propaganda film I Married an Abolitionist.

"References are made to political issues in present-day society as well. For instance, after John Ambrose Fauntroy V is accused of having a black great-great-grandmother, which under CSA law would make him a colored person, he states, "My great-great-granddaddy did not have sexual relations with that woman". The film closes with Confederate schoolchildren reciting a modified form of the Pledge of Allegiance, substituting "Confederate States of America" for "United States of America" and ending the pledge by saying, 'with liberty and justice for all white people. Amen.' "

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was mistaken. As is, the text is almost entirely just descriptive of the actual film. It should be in the synopsis section, not off on its own, but the writing is mostly fine and it doesn't require separate sourcing. Some bits ("most famous Confederate film of all time") need rephrasing to place the claim in-universe, though.

The real-life parallels shouldn't be hidden as WP:EGGs in the links, but they're so on-the-nose that they don't need to be sourced either (WP:BLUE). They just need to be given as parentheticals so the parallel and link are both more clear. — LlywelynII 23:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

ADVERTS in the movie on youtube separate sold as real authentic adverts

I have seen a lot of youtube videos and i have read tons of blogs, where those adverts of the movie are shown as real adverts and people claim that they are real.

Of course some can suspect that things like SHACKLES etc. are only fake but other adverts like the BLACK TOOTHPASTE are described as authentic adverts

some bloggers claim that the toothpaste advert has been banned and was actually from asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.216 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no BLACK TOOTHPASTE. There's Darkie Toothpaste, which was absolutely a thing and still exists in East Asia rebranded as "Darlie" but with the same minstrel-style logo.

What all of the videos and blogs you're seeing missed (as did the redditor whose comment got me to watch the movie) is that some of the products were real. The actual advertisements were done only within the movie, albeit in a style similar to earlier ads. One of the major false notes of the project was that some of the ads (including for a mammy-based Leave It to Beaver clone) are clearly from earlier eras but presented as if they were airing alongside the documentary on Confederate Channel 6 in San Francisco in the 1990s.

This seems to be a common-enough misconception that it's worth finding WP:RSing on the point and adding it directly into the article and probably the lead. — LlywelynII 23:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Liberia as a CS State?

While I was editing the article, I noticed that it stated that Liberia had somehow become a Confederate State. Was it mentioned anywhere in the movie that Liberia had be taken over by the Confederacy? I don't remember that ever be mentioned on the article until I went to edit the article. I just what to know if this actually happened in the film or if this is just a lie. I copied and pasted the paragraph that mentioned that Liberia was now part of the Confederacy.

In 1929, with Mexico, Central, and South America, Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and the Caribbean all part of their "growing empire" from their expansionist campaign, the C.S.A. was hit by 1929 economic crash, forcing them to retreat into isolationism, but extricates itself by reviving the trans-Atlantic slave trade with new African slaves provided by collaborationist African leaders who enslave members of other tribes and sell at the Confederate state of Liberia. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying it was stated in the film itself? I just washed the section you're talking about ("Hard Times") and it says absolutely nothing about Liberia. Was it hidden in a different part of the film? — LlywelynII 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I was asking people if the mention of Liberia being a Confederate State was canon or not, I wasn't stating that it officially was. I watched the film a while back and it wasn't mentioned at all, so I have no idea where the user who originally put that info on the article (which appears to have been removed a while back) got that false info from.

Sorry for taking so long to reply to you by the way. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove YouTube link in external links section

Please remove YouTube link in external links section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphjerald (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? — LlywelynII 23:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)