I mean, let's face it:

They are unintentionally racist by revising history.
Unintentionally sexist the same way.
Due to that racists and sexists wouldn't much care for them.
Anyone who dislikes the confederacy wouldn't like the idea that they're still around.
Those who do like the confederacy would probably be upset at the way the setting just throws away some of their.. ahem... "core values".
They have mystic negroes, mystic chinese, and mystic indians.
Plus they shit all over freemasons.

Obviously there may be some other cases of intentional or unintentional insult, stupid PC-ness, historical whitewashing, stupid un-pcness, or whatnot that might make it offensive to group somehow not included above (I forget, for example, if they have anything that would insult homosexuals, or gypsies).

This setting is really the magnum opus of getting it fucking wrong, even when (tragically? ironically? fortunately?) its core concept gets it so right.

RPGPundit

I put the racism and sexism right back in.

Even to the point that the saloon staff in Enfield Colarado (fictional town I think) called this huge Native American in the corner Brick Shithouse.

revising history is racist now?

Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

It's never come up between all the shooting and the running.

Quote from: RPGPundit;425653I mean, let's face it:

They are unintentionally racist by revising history.
Unintentionally sexist the same way.
Due to that racists and sexists wouldn't much care for them.
Anyone who dislikes the confederacy wouldn't like the idea that they're still around.
Those who do like the confederacy would probably be upset at the way the setting just throws away some of their.. ahem... "core values".
They have mystic negroes, mystic chinese, and mystic indians.
Plus they shit all over freemasons.

Obviously there may be some other cases of intentional or unintentional insult, stupid PC-ness, historical whitewashing, stupid un-pcness, or whatnot that might make it offensive to group somehow not included above (I forget, for example, if they have anything that would insult homosexuals, or gypsies).

This setting is really the magnum opus of getting it fucking wrong, even when (tragically? ironically? fortunately?) its core concept gets it so right.

RPGPundit

Hang on, there's an incongruity here.

What is it...

Hmmm....

Pundit GIVES A SHIT about people being OFFENDED by something!?

Quote from: danbuter;425662Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

I don't know, it may not have been the main motivation for generals and politicians, but for many of the abolitionist that signed up and, you know, died and shit, that's exactly what it was about.

Edit: that is not to say that the average rank and file Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery, they were not, to the best of my knowledge. They were fighting to protect their land, and their right to control the destiny of their nation, as admirable a set of goals as any, in my opinion. As always, though,  the men on the ground, on both side of the conflict, were manipulated by elites with their own aggrandizement in mind; however, I believe that the majority of the guys who actually bled on both sides had their hearts in the right place.

I have played deadlands and there is nothing that bothers me about it.  Its a fun game

So what it revises history, its an rpg not a text book.

I think its the pundit is taking things way too seriously

Quote from: Aos;425696I don't know, it may not have been the main motivation for generals and politicians, but for many of the abolitionist that signed up and, you know, died and shit, that's exactly what it was about.

Edit: that is not to say that the average rank and file Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery, they were not, to the best of my knowledge. They were fighting to protect their land, and their right to control the destiny of their nation, as admirable a set of goals as any, in my opinion. As always, though,  the men on the ground, on both side of the conflict, were manipulated by elites with their own aggrandizement in mind; however, I believe that the majority of the guys who actually bled on both sides had their hearts in the right place.

Even the poor Southern whites weren't secretly pals of the blacks. The same wacky belief that you can become a billionaire today despite vast social inequity contributed to a culture of even poor whites going "One day I'm gonna own me some niggers". While yes, they were manipulated into fighting a war over it, they didn't have to be manipulated hard - the Civil War was a mass popular movement as much as anything else.

For my part, if I played Deadlands, I'd play a time-traveling black guy from an alternate timeline more similar to our own who's come back to finish the job on the Confederacy.

Quote from: Ian Warner;425657I put the racism and sexism right back in.

As did I.

Quote from: danbuter;425662Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

This is a really stupid statement.  I live in Oklahoma now, and have spent a good deal of time in Kansas and Missouri as I was growing up. I have studied war for half my life, with American wars being an object of study (as opposed to wars in the ancient world).

If you think the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'd like to know what the hell you think it was about.

Before you answer, you should do some research.

Or better yet, don't even fucking answer.

Quote from: danbuter;425662And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

It was all about slavery, it is specifically protected in their constitution for crying out loud. And if for some reason if they had the numbers to do so they would imposed slavery on the rest of the nation in the name of property rights (think Fugitive Slave Law written larger) and it would be the north singing the praises of state's rights.

Slavery distorted everything in southern society from the lynch laws, the plantation system, and so on.  

There were all sorts of unintended consequences like the fact that southern land boundaries was drawn in the meets and bounds instead of the north's quarter sections. This was partially a consequence of geography particularly in Louisiana but also because of the demands of the plantation system. The results was that land boundaries were unclear and subject to numerous lawsuits and made hard for lower income citizen to buy land free and clear. This directly contributed to the highly stratified society of the antebellum south.

Without the slavery the difference between North and South would not been enough to drive the nation into Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't kidding when he said

A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

And neither side was going to become like the other because of slavery.

Quote from: Blackhand;425716This is a really stupid statement.  I live in Oklahoma now, and have spent a good deal of time in Kansas and Missouri as I was growing up. I have studied war for half my life, with American wars being an object of study (as opposed to wars in the ancient world).

If you think the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'd like to know what the hell you think it was about.

Before you answer, you should do some research.

Or better yet, don't even fucking answer.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery was not the major issue. And there weren't that many abolitionists signing up to fight. A couple thousand people, at most, in a war with a million troops on each side. The massacres in Kansas didn't mean crap in the war. They were just some cool headlines. Militarily, they were wingnuts fighting each other.

Folks at the time said it was about money. Sure, some folks were fighting for slavery, but others were fighting to defend their land, and others to become citizens.

Slavery is a common scapegoat, but every other country on the planet resolved their slavery issues without going to war over it, doing so peacefully. On the other hand, money's been the source of many wars.

A reasonable investigation of the issues shows that while slavery was a bone of contention (as were a thousand other things), money in the form of unfair taxation, was key.

Quote from: danbuter;425731Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery was not the major issue. And there weren't that many abolitionists signing up to fight. A couple thousand people, at most, in a war with a million troops on each side. The massacres in Kansas didn't mean crap in the war. They were just some cool headlines. Militarily, they were wingnuts fighting each other.

You don't get to say anything else about this subject.  This is obviously a blatant trolling.

I feel terrible that some of you aren't quite sure about it.

The top five causes of the American Civil war, just in case you are stupid.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Top nine events leading up to the war, also just in case.

1. The Mexican War Ended - 1848
2. Fugitive Slave Act - 1850
3. Uncle Tom's Cabin Was Released
4. Bleeding Kansas shocked Northerners
5. Charles Sumner is Attacked by Preston on the Floor of the Senate
6. Dred Scott Decision - 1857
7. Lecompton Constitution Rejected
8. John Brown Raided Harper's Ferry
9. Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President

Every single one of the listed causes / events are directly related to slavery.  I dare you to refute even one of these that didn't involve the issue of free or slave states.  Everything you can think of points to slavery.

I would also like to know who fought the war if it weren't the abolitionists (including freed slaves).

You are in charted territory sir.  Remember that when you tell someone your uninformed opinion and set it forth as truth.