Current Events > would people get mad at an alternate history series with white slaves?

(+) Yeah! (+)

like say HBO was gonna make a show where Africa rose to power instead of Europe. And when Africans colonize the Americas, they use slaves from Europe. and the show is set in like the 1800's during the height of the slave trade. Would it be offensive to people?

I'd watch it
---

cultural differences: the show
---

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.
---

would be hard to understand what people are saying since they won't be speaking English
---

What kinds of songs would the slaves sing?
---

Already happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden_(film)

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?
---

PoopPotato posted...

What kinds of songs would the slaves sing?

god save the queen
---

Alternate history really only works when you make one or two big changes and follow the logic from there. Making Africa the dominant power in the world would require so many changes to history that they may as well be writing a new Lord of the Rings instead
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

I'd suspect the lack of a need for agriculture. Same with mesoamerica.

OpheliaAdenade posted...

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

In Northern Africa, I think being conquered by the Romans and then Islamic invaders set them back pretty badly. But it was a bizarre dichotomy, when you had people in America with electricity and telephones while people in Africa were living in primitive tribes with no technology or even written language.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

I'd suspect the lack of a need for agriculture. Same with mesoamerica.

That would make sense. Nature provided for pretty much everything, so there wasn't any need for societal advancement. You don't need towns or businesses if everything you need is right outside.
---

PoopPotato posted...

What kinds of songs would the slaves sing?

Smells like teen spirit.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

IQ.
---

they could just make more shows about rome or ancient/classical greece. or ones that involve the ottomans and barbary pirates
---

donkeyjack posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

IQ.

Jesus Donkey. :v could you hate yourself any more?
---

donkeyjack posted...


Even though I don't doubt that there are people here that think that

I did not think anyone had the meat balls to post it
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

I'd suspect the lack of a need for agriculture. Same with mesoamerica.

That would make sense. Nature provided for pretty much everything, so there wasn't any need for societal advancement. You don't need towns or businesses if everything you need is right outside.

maybe it's because the environment was more forgiving than Europe, or something like that; if where you live is more "forgiving", then you might not create strong buildings, for example, since you don't need to.

but idk if it was because of agriculture, because there were pastoralists in Africa long before the Europeans came.
---

r4X0r posted...

In Northern Africa, I think being conquered by the Romans and then Islamic invaders set them back pretty badly. But it was a bizarre dichotomy, when you had people in America with electricity and telephones while people in Africa were living in primitive tribes with no technology or even written language.

Wouldn't this rather be a boon since they would bring the inventions of nations across the world to the region?

I mean, Egypt is a more modern part of the continent isn't it? Pretty sure that is in the North and Conquered by the Romans and Islamic Invaders.
---

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

Not all of Africa was stone age. There were very wealthy kingdoms in North and East Africa as well as Mali and Ghana in West Africa.

Tho an above poster is right in that way too many factors would have to change to make a world where Africa and Europe switch places. Alternate history works best when you have a single point of divergence. Can't just rewrite the entirety of history to make it work.
---

boxington posted...

but idk if it was because of agriculture, because there were pastoralists in Africa long before the Europeans came.

If your lands suck at preventing starvation, you'll figure out agriculture and animal husbandry pretty quickly.

If, however, there's plenty of lizards or buffalo wandering around just waiting to be hunted, why bother?

I mean there were huge numbers of white indentured servants from Ireland etc. Many of them died before serving out their terms of servitude. It's not like any of that is a secret, it's just...pretty emphatically ignored by people who don't really care about history anyway.
---

It depends on how it would be presented. If it ends with white people getting the better of their slavemasters and winning all on their own, then yeah it would probably be pretty poorly received.
---

Its its marketed as a totally impossible but fun to think of series then sure.

Problem with the whole confederacy series is that more and more people were agaisnt slaves. The notion that Confeds winning the civil war would result in slavery even still is ridiculous. Theres be rebellions, other countries, us not being in UN, UN Telling us not to have slaves...confederacy was about cotton prices. Not slavery.
---

I would watch that, I love alternative history.
---

LittleRoyal posted...

Problem with the whole confederacy series is that more and more people were agaisnt slaves. The notion that Confeds winning the civil war would result in slavery even still is ridiculous. Theres be rebellions, other countries, us not being in UN, UN Telling us not to have slaves...confederacy was about cotton prices. Not slavery.

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if the south had won and kept slavery, just as the industrial revolution was starting. Mechanization would have made slaves obsolete pretty quickly - what happens to them?

Questionmarktarius posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Problem with the whole confederacy series is that more and more people were agaisnt slaves. The notion that Confeds winning the civil war would result in slavery even still is ridiculous. Theres be rebellions, other countries, us not being in UN, UN Telling us not to have slaves...confederacy was about cotton prices. Not slavery.

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if the south had won and kept slavery, just as the industrial revolution was starting. Mechanization would have made slaves obsolete pretty quickly - what happens to them?

Probably very similar breed of post slavery racism
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

donkeyjack posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

r4X0r posted...

You're always going to find somebody who's offended by something. It would have to be one hell of an alternative history though, given that Africa was largely stone age into the late 19th century.

I've always wondered what made African nations develop so much slower than European ones. Was it the topography?

IQ.

Jesus Donkey. :v could you hate yourself any more?

Look at Africa they all of that resources and get do nothing with it? I'm sorry but something else is going upstairs. Nobody is home.
---