Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Welcome to the C.S.A.

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted October 24, 2006.


A fake British documentary explores what would have happened if the South had won the Civil War.
Advertisement

I love a good alternate history yarn for the same reason I love science fiction. Both genres analyze present-day trends by projecting them into another reality. That other reality might be the future or simply a transformed version of the present.

In the United States, there are two incredibly popular alternate history scenarios: 1. What if the South had won the Civil War? and 2. What if Germany had won World War II? “C.S.A: The Confederate States of America”, a fake British documentary made by Kansas filmmaker Kevin Willmott, answers both questions.

After its limited release in the theaters two years ago, the movie achieved cult status in DVD form, which is really its natural medium. It's fascinating to watch “CSA” on a television set because the movie is meant to resemble a snippet from a TV station, complete with freaky commercials and news breaks, that is airing a "controversial" British documentary about the history of the CSA.

Blending dark humor with painstakingly researched historical revisionism, Willmott begins the movie with a fake commercial for insurance. The clip looks exactly like something you might see on ABC, including the fact that everyone in it is white. Then the announcer says, "Our insurance protects you and your property," and the camera pans over to a smiling black boy who is clipping a hedge. This is a present day in which slavery still exists.

The British documentary reveals how this came to pass. After the South wins the Civil War with the help of France and England, the president heals the rift between North and South by offering Northerners slaves to help reconstruct the bombed-out cities of New York and Boston. Deposed president Lincoln flees to Canada, followed by 20,000 abolitionists including Fredrick Douglass and Henry David Thoreau.

Shortly thereafter, Chinese laborers in California are also declared slaves. The CSA annexes South America and becomes entrenched in a Cold War with what politicians call Red Canada. Several African nations collude with the CSA to maintain the slave trade, and we see historical footage of an African leader reassuring his people that only the "inferior tribes" are sold as slaves.

Hitler retains control over Germany when the CSA refuses to intervene in World War II, although the president does say it's too bad the Germans are killing Jews instead of enslaving them.

What's sheer genius about this alternate history is how much of it is drawn from actual US history. We hear about Native Americans being rounded up and put into orphanages, which actually happened; and the fake commercials advertising things like "Darkie Toothpaste," "Niggerhair Cigarettes," and "Coon Chicken" are all based on real products sold long after the abolition of slavery.

More chilling are ads for anti-depressants aimed at controlling slaves, and for a TV show based on “Cops” called “Runaway.” The message may be heavy-handed, but it nevertheless rings true enough to be thought-provoking: US popular culture is only one degree removed from being that of a slave-owning nation.

The same goes for US political culture. Historical figures and events in “CSA also remain virtually unchanged. Kennedy is elected president and calls for abolition right before being assassinated, and the Watts Riots are portrayed as a "slave uprising." Reagan's presidency heralds a new spike in the slave trade. Experts explain how the Internet has helped rejuvenate interest in the science of slave control, and we see clips from the Slave Shopping Network, where bidders can choose to break up a family or "buy the complete set."

Willmott has said in several interviews that "CSA" is not about what could be, but what is. He points out that African Americans and other people of color may not view the film as an alternate history so much as a reflection of a true history that many whites still can't quite see. Maybe that accounts for why the film, which received an enthusiastic reception at Sundance in 2004 and critical raves, didn't make it onto DVD until quite recently. Freed from the confines of traditional movie theater distribution, I think this flick will at last find the audience it deserves in online communities, where people can simultaneously watch, discuss, and recommend it.

In fact, I can't think of a better movie to share in small pieces on YouTube or MySpace, enticing people to rent or buy it and get the whole story. Its message should be out there, spreading like the world's most virulent antiracist media virus, infecting the nation one computer screen at a time.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: culture, civil war, annalee newitz, csa, films, slavery

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Interesting take but not likely...
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Oct 24, 2006 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pretty interesting twist in history but I'm not sure that the South would have kept slavery. It was a declining institution.

The war wasn't started over slavery but a more complex set of circumstances. Soldiers on both sides didnt really care if slavery as an institution was abolished or not. The south proclamed the government was trying to control and ruin their livelyhood & culture even though most southerners didnt own slaves. Northerns were feed the line that the south was threatening the government and existence of the US.

There were hardcore parties on both sides the believed for and against slavery but most didnt care. States rights were probably the main issue with slavery as the means of shinning the light on the issue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting take but not likely... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Interesting take but not likely... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Interesting take but not likely... Posted by: Conservasaurus
This film is an embarassment.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 24, 2006 7:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It cherrypicks history with a cackhanded understanding of the slavery era South and simply makes things up to somewhat parallel actual history, or just outright disregards history or logic for a better storyline (ie: annexation of South America).

I'm not too surprised Brits made this movie.

And those products? Keep in mind... those are only historical to a NON-SLAVEHOLDING America. Using them to depict a slave holding America is dubious at best and is intellectually dishonest.

I wonder, having not seen all of the film... to they at any point deal with those who felt slavery was a "necessary evil" for the success of the cotton economy? How is the rise of industrialism handled in that context?

I'm guessing its not handled at all. This is just another excuse to propagate the lie that the civil war was wholly or at least primarily about slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little embarrassed for the two previous commenters
Posted by: Thimker on Oct 24, 2006 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It always troubles me to read people trying to explain away the slavery-based origins of the Civil War/War between the States. Yeah, sure, it was about states' rights...to permit slavery. Please, this question has been answered for a long, long time. Not even worth arguing about any more.

I saw this movie when it played at the Roxie several months ago -- the lesson I took from it was that the U.S. has a far stricter class structure than I'd realized, and I already knew that the U.S. was riddled with class issues. Now that I've seen those "Runaway" segments, I'll never feel an urge to watch "Cops" again. Isn't the lower class funny? Cute little proles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feeding the trolls? Posted by: Salty_Dog
Revisionist history
Posted by: Salty_Dog on Oct 24, 2006 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure that the South would have kept slavery. It was a declining institution.

This is BS. The slave power was aggressive and very wealthy. The institution of slavery was straining to expand into the West and the Carribean. It was in fact putting contraints on Free States, such as in the Fugitive Slave laws. It sustained a class of wealthy landholders whose children could continue to achieve similar levels of wealth only by finding new land resources on which to exploit slave labor.

As for most people not caring that much about slavery, this is another canard based on projecting our current indifference to the issue onto the past. Plenty of people recognized with Lincoln that the Union was not sustainable half Free and half slave. Yes, they might have agreed to leave slavery alone if it was not aggressive, but the slave power was not going to rest quietly in the south--wittness the blood baths in Kansas and Arkansas as the slave power tried to extend its power there.

The revisionist history of Conservasarus is motivate by some ideological committments--after all, the war that freed the slaves continued to challenge the conservative ideology right up to Martin Luther King's marches, and continues today as the Republican's use the race card to split southern whites from progressives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Revisionist history Posted by: magistre
» RE: evisionist history Posted by: Paul Cardwell
Feeding the trolls?
Posted by: Salty_Dog on Oct 24, 2006 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, you might be right, I'm might just be feeding the trolls. But I've heard this particular revision often among southerners who really can't reconcile their love of country with a local heritage that is so fundamentally at variance with what they think the country is today. The only way out of the paradox for them seems to be the idea that the evil of slavery must have been on a natural course of taking care of itself by slowly evolving out of existence some how. Not a shred of evidence for this... but this is emotional logic of southern pride, not history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feeding the trolls? Posted by: yesman
Civil War Remenants
Posted by: elliottness on Oct 25, 2006 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think the Civil War had nothing to do with race and slavery - why do we have Black people being hung on telephone poles and a "black" city being torched to stop black labor from stealing white jobs and white women? And all of this in the early 1900's nonetheless...

The East St. Louis Riots of 1917

East St. Louis in 1917 had a strong economy boosted by World War I. In response, many African Americans were recruited to work at the Aluminum Ore Company and the American Steel Company. However, resentment on the part of whites planted a fear of job security in the population, which eventually manifested itself in rumors at a labor meeting on May 28 of black men and white women fraternizing. Immediately, 3000 people from the meeting rushed downtown, beating every African American in sight. They destroyed buildings and attacked people, 39 people were killed including nine white persons. The National Guard was called in, preventing further rioting, but rumors continued to circulate about an organized attack from the blacks.

On July 1, 1917, a black man shot his white attacker, which was retaliated with a drive-by shooting. When police came to investigate, the African American who had been attacked returned fire, thinking them to be the drive-by shooters from before. The next morning, thousands of racist white spectators who saw the bloodstained automobile as an excuse to march into the black section of town and started rioting. After working with local police, fire fighter, and elected official whick stood by all allowed cutting of the water hoses in the fire department, the rioters burned entire sections of the city, shooting the inhabitants as they escaped the flames. Claiming that "Southern niggers deserve a genuine lynching,"1 they hanged several blacks. Guardsmen were called in, but several accounts reported that they joined in the rioting rather than trying to stop it. Almost everyone participated, including "ten or fifteen white women, [who] chased a negro woman at the Relay Depot in broad daylight. The girls were brandishing clubs and calling upon the men to kill the woman."2

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Confederates for Racial Equality"
Posted by: Tankerdeath on Oct 25, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we in the South so backward and inferior that the Abolitionist movement wouldn't have risen in the South even in the wake of a Confederate victory? Or is common goddam decency strictly a Northern trait?

Christ almighty. Give us some credit down here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Capitalism = freedom Posted by: Burton
» RE: Capitalism = freedom Posted by: yesman
» Please explain to a fool (me) Posted by: nickptar
Satir
Posted by: Burton on Oct 25, 2006 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several African nations collude with the CSA to maintain the slave trade, and we see historical footage of an African leader reassuring his people that only the "inferior tribes" are sold as slaves.

They got that part right. The slave trade would not have worked had not Africans themselves colluded.

Hitler retains control over Germany when the CSA refuses to intervene in World War II, although the president does say it's too bad the Germans are killing Jews instead of enslaving them.

The Confederacy was not anti-semitic. In fact, one of their chief cabinet officers was Jewish.

More chilling are ads for anti-depressants aimed at controlling slaves,

Sort of ike Ritalin? Time for students to rise up in revolt!

US popular culture is only one degree removed from being that of a slave-owning nation.

How so?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet History
Posted by: hole11 on Oct 25, 2006 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slavery still exist. Look in your wallet and examine your slave papers.

Let's remember Europe aiding the "South," to keep us occupied while Maximillian was in Mexico. Ships and guns were also ordered for the unindustrial south, though they did do everything that they were against. States rights or individual rights? They started the draft first and allowed masters to buy out of fighting a foiled war.

Follow Judah P. Benjamin to his masters and I doubt if anyone would stand for jews being killed or enslaved by a Hitler if the South won.

Wouldn't Cuba be added like Puerto Rico? Hawaii and the Philipines be added to the sugar empire with Coca-Cola running Mexico?

The only difference if the South won would be that we would be under the Queen like Canada, Australia and those other so called common wealth countries.

This notion that history could be changed is such a fallacy. Judah P. Benjamin set up a unified south to fail just as Hitler set out to destroy much of Europe to get the real issue of divide and conquer.

Would there be an IRS if the south won? That is the kind of alternate history I would be interested in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AlterNet History Posted by: Burton
Like Looking through a Mist
Posted by: jmooney on Oct 25, 2006 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have until recently been a follower of Abraham Lincoln's. However, I am coming to believe that he fought the war not really to stop slavery or save the union but to put into place his more Hamiltonian vision of what a federal government should be. As a liberal I have generally supported an activist federal government to provide more general equality to the populace. But I am starting to wonder if the price of all that hasn't been too high. Look at the mess we have with a strong federal government (particularly executive) marching us into pre-emptive, illegal wars without the explicit, Constitutionally-required Congressinal declaration of war.

I also wonder if we paid too high a price with 500,000 plus thousand that were lost in the Civl War and the precedent that was set by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other rights, which has probably given great comfort to the current White House occupant who has done much the same in our era.

Less than 100 years before the Civil War, the colonists waged a war to free themselves from England. Why shouldn't the South been allowed to go in 1860? I doubt many of the states in any part of the union would have voted for the Constitution had they thought that they would not have been able to leave the union at some later date. They barely voted their way in, but had to fight their way out.

Slavery was and is an abomination, but if the north was so pure and good regarding slavery it could have told the South to go and then proceded to repeal the Fugitive Slave law and welcome all runaways into their areas. But northern states didn't want this. Yeah, they wanted to limit the spread of slavery, but why? So that those new areas could be bastions for whites. They didn't want blacks in the north and they didn't want blacks in the west. They wanted them quarantined in the south.

So much of this type of discussion is so predictable. Slavery was starting to crumble in the rest of the world, and there's no reason to believe it would not have crumbled in the South, and had the north let the south go and encourage slaves to come to freedom in the north, slavery would have probably gone away quickly and the south would probably have sought to re-enter the union anyway, and 500,000 plus thousand folks would not have died, the south would not have been destroyed, and the carpet bag era would probably not have come into play thereby not creating the atmosphere that poisoned race relations in the south for another generation.

There, I said it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like Looking through a Mist Posted by: Salty_Dog
» RE: Like Looking through a Mist Posted by: Salty_Dog
» RE: Like Looking through a Mist Posted by: Salty_Dog
» RE: Like Looking through a Mist Posted by: Salty_Dog
Is you is.... or is you ain't..Nah..You is.....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Oct 26, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....In evaluating some of the (thinly hooded) posts we ought recall that a mind is a terrible thing to waste..But, in the interest
of herd thinning intellectual economy,...we can be a little less than thrifty. :)

Intellectuals may contemplate....gingerly...counter factual 'alternative histories'...racists live in them.
Even a simple minded elementary grasp of the tsunami of
virulent,murderous terror against Blacks that engulfed the South during and after Reconstruction would understand the
significance and nature of that dynamic...just as rape is as
much an act of imposing power as opposed to sex drive...just as the Nazis were willing to continue to divert scarce resources and manpower to relentlessly prosecute the Holocaust...
Slavery certainly became at least as addictive to its white supremacist practitioners on a psychological basis as compared with its economic aspects.
The notion that there is some 'Invisible morally guided Hand'
that serves to mediate the 'rational actors' of nation states to
undertake sane rational actions in their own self interests,e.g.
Slavery had become unchic....Soooo passe elsewhere..surely
the rational white men of the North would have been able to
come to terms with their Southern brethren and avoided the
Civil War..etc.,etc.
..This notion seems to be demonstrated as absolutely falsified
based on known fact history (start with Iraq) as opposed to
counterfactual fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ahem... armchair psychologist... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
We're forgetting one very important thing:
Posted by: deStearns on Oct 26, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the South was seceding--separating from the rest of the country for the sake of self-governance and -direction--not conquering. That is, the CSA would have been the CSA (it may or may not still have slavery, it may or may not have helped in WW II, it may or may not have annexed various South American countries), but whatever it was or did it would have had its northern border on or around the Mason Dixon line. Lincoln might have fled, but he would have fled no farther north than Philadelphia. The South wanted nothing at all to do with conquering or legislation, with making the country do what it wanted to do; indeed, this last notion--universalization of values--would have been entirely inimical to their position: that states should have the right to define their own destiny, as it were.

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, I guess, is why I bring this up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And that is EXACTLY.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» in defense of the South Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» add Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: add Posted by: Salty_Dog
» RE: in defense of the South Posted by: Salty_Dog
What If Scenarios Are Always Interesting
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 26, 2006 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can recall reading a book in junior high school regarding the author's premise if the CSA won the war. And according to some historians it nearly happened. Or it could have, might have, but didn't. The Confederates were hampered by the lack of railroads to move large quantities of war materiel and didn't have as many troops as the Union. And people had to travel long distances to get to the front.
The Confederates, however, had help from England to keep Southern materials (mainly cotton) flowing to the British Empire and war would have crippled the lucrative trade between the two. The Union naval blockade was a devastating blow to England's economy.
Hypothetical scenarios such as this give pause to the status quo of the 1860s and actually some proposed another question believing the South was justified to rebel against the United States and to keep slaves for a pivotal point in the South's economy.
Regardless of what premise is discussed, some would argue that the English would have preferred the United States to have a slave economy in order to keep commodities flowing. It might have been an early NAFTA thing, possibly. A country will reap tremendous profits by buying goods produced with cheap labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reparations
Posted by: LDavistrueblue on Oct 27, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The North did prevail but justice did not. It occurs to me that the trillion, or so (including extended medical care & nation reconstruction), we're sinking so far into the leveling of Iraq might have been put to better use bringing both black Americans and our indian population fully into the middle-class with a sustainable business base. Same cost, maybe, and no one killed.


[Some good speculative fiction must be around regarding a German WWII victory but I haven't read such...one likely scenario an efficient German industrial giant organized by the Generals who (finally) had disposed of Hitler.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reparations Posted by: suki
» Tell that to blacks or indians... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Read Philip K. Dick
Posted by: FURonnie on Oct 29, 2006 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a take off of a popular book in the early 1960's by sci fi writer Phillip K. Dick I remember it was called "A Man in High Castle"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy" Posted by: Allison
Slavery in the CSA in a flat world?
Posted by: steve-a-saurus on Oct 30, 2006 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How would the institution of slavery adapt to the current trends of globalization? Would the US be insourcing work? Would mechanization of production work greatly reduce or remove many slaves from the CSA? Would you have to educate slaves to operate more sophisticated machines, and if so wouldn't it make an uprising more likely?

...where's Thomas Friedman when I need him???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]