Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GET WOKE!

#11
(06-17-2020, 07:37 PM)Buchanans Wrote:
(06-17-2020, 05:59 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: I personally couldnt care less. My point is its manufactured outrage and corporate pandering. Nothing will be accomplished. Blacks dont give a shit about the Aunt Jemima picture. Neither does anyone else.

Should Pemmican beef jerky remove the Indian off its logo? Where does it end? They will always find something to whine about.
I'm not aware of those other brands coming from negative stereotypes.

The original Aunt Jemima was a slave mammy and it was intended to look that way. And with it being around so long with that brand image it gets to the point somebody says Aunt Jemima becomes a term for a slave mammy. Back in 18 whatever when the brand idea was created they were not trying to hide these things. Yeah it wasn't quite on the level of something like Nigger Boy steel wool soap scubbies (because steel wool resembles an afro) but it was still intended to be demeaning.

Yea I suppose, but I just dont rate it as something to give a shit about. The fragility of blacks never fails to amaze me. If they want to put a check in the win column for getting a picture of a black broad off a bottle of syrup, God bless them. Because literally nobody gives a shit. 

I would never use that processed corn syrup anyway. Real maple syrup is so far superior to the fake shit its like comparing a 12 year old McClellan to Seagrams 7.
Reply

#12
I was watching a civil war documentary last week and one thing a guy said really struck with me

He mentioned how ever since the end of the war, the black community has seemed to harp and refuse to move on from the past and slavery whereas other groups of people that have been thru hardships seem to use it as a victory/rallying cry. Those people say "we overcame that, we came out from that" whereas the black community in large majorities simply cries about the past and wants people 200+ years later to still obsess over something they had zero part in.

Its honestly very true IMO
Reply

#13
(06-17-2020, 10:19 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(06-17-2020, 07:37 PM)Buchanans Wrote: I'm not aware of those other brands coming from negative stereotypes.

The original Aunt Jemima was a slave mammy and it was intended to look that way. And with it being around so long with that brand image it gets to the point somebody says Aunt Jemima becomes a term for a slave mammy. Back in 18 whatever when the brand idea was created they were not trying to hide these things. Yeah it wasn't quite on the level of something like Nigger Boy steel wool soap scubbies (because steel wool resembles an afro) but it was still intended to be demeaning.

Yea I suppose, but I just dont rate it as something to give a shit about. The fragility of blacks never fails to amaze me. If they want to put a check in the win column for getting a picture of a black broad off a bottle of syrup, God bless them. Because literally nobody gives a shit. 

I would never use that processed corn syrup anyway. Real maple syrup is so far superior to the fake shit its like comparing a 12 year old McClellan to Seagrams 7.
*Macallan

In all honesty, there is false outrage coming from all sides on this one. At the end of the day, who the hell cares that an obvious, blatantly racist and demeaning caricature gets removed and the name changed? (might not be considered that now, but it definitely has its roots in racism)

If you (generality) don't eat the syrup or pancake mix...if you have never in your entire life put 1 iota of thought into anything having to do with the syrup other than it tastes good, I like it...or the opposite, then who cares?

People are also concerned about the erasure of history, and rightfully so, but at the same time, this particular incident is not an erasure of history. Removing Confederate statues is not erasing history, considering that there are numbers of ways to learn about this history outside of looking at a statue, which weren't even erected until decades after and not as a way to commemorate anything positive.  IMO, the only 2 people that represented the Confederacy which should be honored are Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson because of their accomplishments before the Civil War, much n the same way Erwin Rommel is still honored today. They transcended the political motivations that guided their nations/states and fought because they were honorable men. Again, just my opinion. Personally, I do not have any skin in the game either way. If the statues stay up or go down, it's of no matter to me. However, let's not kid ourselves into believing many of those statues were placed for honorable reasons.

No matter how you view this, too many people are taking things way too far. The media is clearly agendizing this entire landscape. We are at a crossroads in our society where we have a legitimate opportunity at bettering ourselves as a whole. Sadly, the loudest voices pressing for change are also some of the stupidest we will ever have the displeasure of hearing speak...
Reply

#14
its not about statues or brand names or any of that. its about not giving these pussies a inch, because they will take a mile.

it starts with renaming pancake brands and removing confederate statues. it will lead to them trying to rename washington state, washington DC, the washington and jefferson memorials and other asinine shit. these people crying about this sort of stuff are total losers who have no sense of reality or how the real world works.
Reply

#15
(06-18-2020, 09:04 AM)dizee Wrote: its not about statues or brand names or any of that. its about not giving these pussies a inch, because they will take a mile.

it starts with renaming pancake brands and removing confederate statues. it will lead to them trying to rename washington state, washington DC, the washington and jefferson memorials and other asinine shit. these people crying about this sort of stuff are total losers who have no sense of reality or how the real world works.

Yea the real question is where does it end?
Reply

#16
(06-18-2020, 09:04 AM)dizee Wrote: its not about statues or brand names or any of that. its about not giving these pussies a inch, because they will take a mile.

it starts with renaming pancake brands and removing confederate statues. it will lead to them trying to rename washington state, washington DC, the washington and jefferson memorials and other asinine shit. these people crying about this sort of stuff are total losers who have no sense of reality or how the real world works.

And on that I agree 100%, that's what I mean about the people that have a real chance at making a difference are not the ones that we hear about on the news. It's the unintelligent loud ones who would rather loot and riot and promote these actions instead of discuss things and try to find a common ground.

I'm perfectly fine with changing things, but not as a kneejerk reaction. Sometimes drastic actions are needed to force people to open their minds to a different POV, but then those actions need to bring people to the table, not just enacting blanket placating. Because then yeah, as mentioned, where does it end?

Sad that as a society, we can't see who's really behind the curtain tugging the strings...
Reply

#17
(06-18-2020, 09:41 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(06-18-2020, 09:04 AM)dizee Wrote: its not about statues or brand names or any of that. its about not giving these pussies a inch, because they will take a mile.

it starts with renaming pancake brands and removing confederate statues. it will lead to them trying to rename washington state, washington DC, the washington and jefferson memorials and other asinine shit. these people crying about this sort of stuff are total losers who have no sense of reality or how the real world works.

And on that I agree 100%, that's what I mean about the people that have a real chance at making a difference are not the ones that we hear about on the news. It's the unintelligent loud ones who would rather loot and riot and promote these actions instead of discuss things and try to find a common ground.

I'm perfectly fine with changing things, but not as a kneejerk reaction. Sometimes drastic actions are needed to force people to open their minds to a different POV, but then those actions need to bring people to the table, not just enacting blanket placating. Because then yeah, as mentioned, where does it end?

Sad that as a society, we can't see who's really behind the curtain tugging the strings...

You are aware that the Civil War had nothing at all do with slavery and the South wasnt fighting to "keep their slaves", right?


Im not trying to be snarky and I am fully aware of your knowledge and intelligence but the narrative about the Civil War has been so corrupted over the last 150 years that its become almost a fictional story.

Lincoln didnt "Free the slaves" for any noble reason and had every intention of shipping every one of them back to Africa prior to his assassination.
Reply

#18
(06-18-2020, 10:52 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(06-17-2020, 11:42 PM)dizee Wrote: I was watching a civil war documentary last week and one thing a guy said really struck with me

He mentioned how ever since the end of the war, the black community has seemed to harp and refuse to move on from the past and slavery whereas other groups of people that have been thru hardships seem to use it as a victory/rallying cry. Those people say "we overcame that, we came out from that" whereas the black community in large majorities simply cries about the past and wants people 200+ years later to still obsess over something they had zero part in.

Its honestly very true IMO

(06-18-2020, 08:43 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: *Macallan

In all honesty, there is false outrage coming from all sides on this one. At the end of the day, who the hell cares that an obvious, blatantly racist and demeaning caricature gets removed and the name changed? (might not be considered that now, but it definitely has its roots in racism)

If you (generality) don't eat the syrup or pancake mix...if you have never in your entire life put 1 iota of thought into anything having to do with the syrup other than it tastes good, I like it...or the opposite, then who cares?

People are also concerned about the erasure of history, and rightfully so, but at the same time, this particular incident is not an erasure of history. Removing Confederate statues is not erasing history, considering that there are numbers of ways to learn about this history outside of looking at a statue, which weren't even erected until decades after and not as a way to commemorate anything positive.  IMO, the only 2 people that represented the Confederacy which should be honored are Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson because of their accomplishments before the Civil War, much n the same way Erwin Rommel is still honored today. They transcended the political motivations that guided their nations/states and fought because they were honorable men. Again, just my opinion. Personally, I do not have any skin in the game either way. If the statues stay up or go down, it's of no matter to me. However, let's not kid ourselves into believing many of those statues were placed for honorable reasons.

No matter how you view this, too many people are taking things way too far. The media is clearly agendizing this entire landscape. We are at a crossroads in our society where we have a legitimate opportunity at bettering ourselves as a whole. Sadly, the loudest voices pressing for change are also some of the stupidest we will ever have the displeasure of hearing speak...

You are aware that the Civil War had nothing at all do with slavery and the South wasnt fighting to "keep their slaves", right?

Im not trying to be snarky and I am fully aware of your knowledge and intelligence but the narrative about the Civil War has been so corrupted over the last 150 years that its become almost a fictional story.

Lincoln didnt "Free the slaves" for any noble reason and had every intention of shipping every one of them back to Africa prior to his assassination.

Of course I do. It was about money and a need for the South's agricultural resources, it was about State's rights trumping Federal government. It was meant as a way to silence speaking out against the government, who wanted to have near total control over how things were run. The Southern states just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves as they wanted to, slaves or not. The North v. South not only split lines geographically, but ideologically going back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. The north was always predominantly Federalist where the South wanted State's rights. That very basic belief created the first superstar politicians; Hamilton v Jefferson.

Lincoln was more or less a status quo type. He just wanted to keep the country together and never had any intention of emancipation until the middle of the war. Neither him nor Gen. McClellan had any love for the slaves. McClellan was a glory hunter, and Lincoln, while a good president, was more or less forced to make the decision as he saw it as yet another way to castrate the South, otherwise, had he been able to win decisively and early, slavery would have not been a topic until sometime later down the road.
Reply

#19
(06-18-2020, 11:11 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(06-18-2020, 10:52 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: You are aware that the Civil War had nothing at all do with slavery and the South wasnt fighting to "keep their slaves", right?

Im not trying to be snarky and I am fully aware of your knowledge and intelligence but the narrative about the Civil War has been so corrupted over the last 150 years that its become almost a fictional story.

Lincoln didnt "Free the slaves" for any noble reason and had every intention of shipping every one of them back to Africa prior to his assassination.

Of course I do. It was about money and a need for the South's agricultural resources, it was about State's rights trumping Federal government. It was meant as a way to silence speaking out against the government, who wanted to have near total control over how things were run. The Southern states just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves as they wanted to, slaves or not. The North v. South not only split lines geographically, but ideologically going back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. The north was always predominantly Federalist where the South wanted State's rights. That very basic belief created the first superstar politicians; Hamilton v Jefferson.

Lincoln was more or less a status quo type. He just wanted to keep the country together and never had any intention of emancipation until the middle of the war. Neither him nor Gen. McClellan had any love for the slaves. McClellan was a glory hunter, and Lincoln, while a good president, was more or less forced to make the decision as he saw it as yet another way to castrate the South, otherwise, had he been able to win decisively and early, slavery would have not been a topic until sometime later down the road.

Well......no need to show off........lol.

Thats why I wrote McClellan instead of Macallan btw. I had him on the brain.
Reply

#20
(06-18-2020, 11:13 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(06-18-2020, 11:11 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: Of course I do. It was about money and a need for the South's agricultural resources, it was about State's rights trumping Federal government. It was meant as a way to silence speaking out against the government, who wanted to have near total control over how things were run. The Southern states just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves as they wanted to, slaves or not. The North v. South not only split lines geographically, but ideologically going back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. The north was always predominantly Federalist where the South wanted State's rights. That very basic belief created the first superstar politicians; Hamilton v Jefferson.

Lincoln was more or less a status quo type. He just wanted to keep the country together and never had any intention of emancipation until the middle of the war. Neither him nor Gen. McClellan had any love for the slaves. McClellan was a glory hunter, and Lincoln, while a good president, was more or less forced to make the decision as he saw it as yet another way to castrate the South, otherwise, had he been able to win decisively and early, slavery would have not been a topic until sometime later down the road.

Well......no need to show off........lol.

Thats why I wrote McClellan instead of Macallan btw. I had him on the brain.

Lol...just clearing out the cobwebs...
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB Theme © iAndrew 2016