User talk:Vivien755

There are many historical innacuracies on the GWTW novel page
This quote by Richard Currant is included: “No doubt it is indeed unfortunate that Gone with the Wind perpetuates many myths about Reconstruction, particularly with respect to blacks. Margaret Mitchell did not originate them and a young novelist can scarcely be faulted for not knowing what the majority of mature, professional historians did not know until many years later.” Um, excuse me? Mitchell actually got to talk to people who lived through Reconstruction, what could have come out a century and a half after it was already over? After taking many civil war classes I can’t even find any errors in the book about Reconstruction, or the way the KKK was founded. There unfortunately are many biased contemporary accounts that impress their beliefs and opinions on GWTW about this time period, that they go so far as to embellish accurate historical account with contemporary feelings and ideas. If you ever see a biased contemporary account of GWTW that isn’t based in historical reality, please correct it. Vivien755 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You say "Mitchell actually got to talk to people who lived through Reconstruction", but that does not make their recollections of the period necessarily accurate or unbiased, and what about the recollections of Black people who also lived through it? Why shouldn't their points of view be included, even if the same would apply? This is a glaring deficiency in the "research" conducted by the amateur Mitchell's collection of accounts by white people (she was untrained in the academic discipline, or even in writing about history). It should be obvious that "taking many civil war classes" doesn't make you an expert on their subject, nor does it lend your opinion more weight than the historical interpretations of professionals who have spent years studying the subject.


 * And besides, given that the Reconstruction era ended in 1877, I'm old enough to have talked to people who lived through it myself, but that certainly doesn't make me an expert, nor does it make my opinions about it more authoritative than anyone else's. This is why Wikipedians must use reliable sources written by authorities in their field. Mitchell was not an authority. Carlstak (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Carlstak
What you just said is innacurate. Mitchell interviewed elderly confederates that were still alive in her time, and yes, there would be bias coming from any side, Black or White, but it’s still Reconstruction contemporary testimony, which is more valid than 2018 testimony. Mitchell was a college educated journalist, and was more than qualified to do this. As I mentioned, Harold Latham of Macmillan fact checked all of her sources before publishing the book. A historian looking at history 150 years later with a modern mindset and modern prejudices should not attribute his own beliefs to a time period he did not live through. You say that Mitchell did not get testimony from the Black point of view, and she very well did. She spoke to many people that were former slaves and personally knew and employed many of the children of former slaves, her housekeeper Bessie being one of them. What Richard Currant is alluding to in this quote is Mitchell’s treatment of the founding of the KKK, which there are no innacuracies in. Mitchell claims that the KKK was founded as a protectionary force against violent newly freed slaves and carpetbaggers, seeking to do harm to former confederates. All contemporary evidence form this period backs this up. The KKK was necessary in this time, and only in this time, since the police were corrupt in this area of Georgia, and payed off by Carpetbaggers. It is harmful to include this quote from Richard Currant, because those who are susceptible to believe misleading information will take this as truth and discredit the book. Vivien755 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Mitchell dropped out after only only one year at Smith College because she objected to sharing classes with black students; she was not a college graduate, and held no degrees. She was racist by any modern understanding of the term, which was still completely acceptable in the South at the time. You need to educate yourself, and learn first of all that the man's name is Richard Current. Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

== You gave no credible evidence as to what I said was not true, and you shouldn’t even be adding information on the Gone with the Wind Wikipedia because you are biased. What you just said was not true, get your facts straight. She dropped out of one class at Smith because there was a Black student, and she left the school because her mother died, and none of that has anything to do what I said or why this quote should be included. You are not fit to add information to this page. Vivien755 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously you don't know what you're talking about, because I haven't added any information to the article, I just reverted edits you made that summarily removed reliably sourced material from the article. If you have complaints, you should bring them up on the article's talk page; that's how things are done on Wikipedia. You need to learn what its policies are and follow them. Carlstak (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

== You’re not in a position to revert edits I make, because you obviously don’t know very much about the author or story. This is why Wikipedia isn’t credible and should be written off, there are too many editors on here who are not knowledgeable enough about the topic, and add everything that they here online without questioning it’s validity and accept it as true.