Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I question an individual's mental state if they let tearing down an inanimate object or removing a name on a building cause them pain.

I do too. I think the entire argument on both sides is dumb. Changing names and tearing down statues is just an example of poor leadership and pandering to a mob. It shows that the leaders really dont care about what the core issues the mob is upset about. Changing the name or tearing down the statue is just a means of placating them like they are a bunch of 2 year old children.  Arguments over names on buildings is just trivial and politicians who are looking to remove them are not looking to solve the root of the problem, they just want it to go away, and look, they can claim they got rid of Christopher Columbus's statue so they can keep their woke card and deserve your vote. The whole thing is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I do too. I think the entire argument on both sides is dumb. Changing names and tearing down statues is just an example of poor leadership and pandering to a mob. It shows that the leaders really dont care about what the core issues the mob is upset about. Changing the name or tearing down the statue is just a means of placating them like they are a bunch of 2 year old children.  Arguments over names on buildings is just trivial and politicians who are looking to remove them are not looking to solve the root of the problem, they just want it to go away, and look, they can claim they got rid of Christopher Columbus's statue so they can keep their woke card and deserve your vote. The whole thing is disingenuous.

 

You're, uh, the one posting about it here a ton.  If it's not "causing pain," it's certainly taking up quite a bit of your energy to be upset about it.

 

It sounds like you are completely missing the point of why folks are asking for statues to be removed or names changed.  It also sounds like you're not at all interested in the real reasons why and just want to rant in bad faith.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Good.

 

This can go somewhere with "Brushstrokes in Flight", the "Santa Maria" and the ideas for that hideous "Columbiad" thing and that 300 foot tall Christopher Columbus Statue that was going to be sitting on the hilltop overlooking the city.

 

*I don't trust the city to find any decent replacement for this though.*

 

Maybe another copper deer just giant sized?  The Arnold Statue? lol  I know I am just gonna hate whatever they come up with.

 

Jeez, "Brushtrokes in Flight" never had people's hands cut off for not finding enough gold though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

you might think that. Honestly, I think being upset about a statue or being upset about going to Thomas Jefferson High School is more an issue for the individual to deal with than a societal problem. It is the name on the building, that is all. The person's whose name is on the building may be recognized for certain achievements they made, but they also have flaws like everyone else. The statue is not an idol, it is just a piece of history that should be remembered and can be placed in whatever context the individual desires. It should not cause stress, pain or angst and IMO I question the individual's mental state if they let an inanimate object or name on a building cause them pain. 

 

I still think you don't understand the issue at hand.  Statues aren't erected without intent, and I think that intent should be taken into account of whether or not there is a legitimate reason for that statue to be there.  What was the intent of raising statues to Confederate traitors?  What was the message that was being sent, and to whom?  Do you think that the city or village that surrounds you raising a statue to someone who's main contribution was to fight against your most basic rights isn't a major stressor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I do too. I think the entire argument on both sides is dumb. Changing names and tearing down statues is just an example of poor leadership and pandering to a mob. It shows that the leaders really dont care about what the core issues the mob is upset about. Changing the name or tearing down the statue is just a means of placating them like they are a bunch of 2 year old children.  Arguments over names on buildings is just trivial and politicians who are looking to remove them are not looking to solve the root of the problem, they just want it to go away, and look, they can claim they got rid of Christopher Columbus's statue so they can keep their woke card and deserve your vote. The whole thing is disingenuous.

 

Yet you've taken the time to chime in repeatedly.  You obviously care, and have obviously taken a side, but are unwilling to own your convictions.  It's a theme with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Jeez, "Brushtrokes in Flight" never had people's hands cut off for not finding enough gold though

 

I actually LOL'd on that one.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Jeez, "Brushtrokes in Flight" never had people's hands cut off for not finding enough gold though


Well neither did the idea for "Columbiad" but like "Brushstrokes" it was an assault on our senses and caused severe mental trauma. I should sue. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, X said:

 

I still think you don't understand the issue at hand.  Statues aren't erected without intent, and I think that intent should be taken into account of whether or not there is a legitimate reason for that statue to be there.  What was the intent of raising statues to Confederate traitors?  What was the message that was being sent, and to whom?  Do you think that the city or village that surrounds you raising a statue to someone who's main contribution was to fight against your most basic rights isn't a major stressor?

 

Yes, that bolded part cannot be emphasized enough, along with what they were traitors for-the right to keep their "peculiar institution". They were willing to secede, and die-for slavery. And we have statues of their leaders and places named after them? 

 

Stone Mountain Georgia should have that hideous stuff blasted right off as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, X said:

 

I still think you don't understand the issue at hand.  Statues aren't erected without intent, and I think that intent should be taken into account of whether or not there is a legitimate reason for that statue to be there.  What was the intent of raising statues to Confederate traitors?  What was the message that was being sent, and to whom?  Do you think that the city or village that surrounds you raising a statue to someone who's main contribution was to fight against your most basic rights isn't a major stressor?

Let's look at the Christopher Columbus statue. Do you think the intent of having a statue of him in Columbus was to show hostile and racial aggression toward Native Americans? Do you really think that? Of course it was not. Now when it was erected, it was due to a number of things. The Italian heritage of Columbus likely being one of them. Now, obviously, Columbus has not aged well in history, but does that necessitate destroying the statue? Of course not. It was not put up with the ill intent. 

 

While I personally dont see a need for Confederate Statutes (why honor losers afterall) were statutes of Lee and Stonewall Jackson put up as some sort of white power move? I do not know for certain, but I would be willing to wager that the answer is likely no. They were erected after the Civil War, likely as a carrot to try and unify the Republic. Did those figures represent slavery? Yes, they did, but also remember that those figures were dead, they lost so again, not something people should feel angst about. If the town next to me put of a statue of Hitler, or Stalin would I have an issue if I had to walk by it? Would I play in a park with a statue of Mussolini there? I would have no qualms or issues about that. I would see these men as horrible humans, but if someone wants to erect a statue of them in a park, that is not my problem. For whatever reasons they choose to have the statue, that is their business. I recognize the inanimate object for what it is and do not feel any issues toward it. 

 

35 minutes ago, X said:

 

Yet you've taken the time to chime in repeatedly.  You obviously care, and have obviously taken a side, but are unwilling to own your convictions.  It's a theme with you.

 

My side is that the whole argument is stupid and the woke culture is nuts. Do I ultimately care about the statue of Columbus coming down or Harrison coming down in Cincinnati? Not really. I think it would be a shame to tear it down, but you will never see me at a protest for tearing down a statue or fighting to save said statue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's look at the Christopher Columbus statue. Do you think the intent of having a statue of him in Columbus was to show hostile and racial aggression toward Native Americans? Do you really think that? Of course it was not. Now when it was erected, it was due to a number of things. The Italian heritage of Columbus likely being one of them. Now, obviously, Columbus has not aged well in history, but does that necessitate destroying the statue? Of course not. It was not put up with the ill intent. 

 

While I personally dont see a need for Confederate Statutes (why honor losers afterall) were statutes of Lee and Stonewall Jackson put up as some sort of white power move? I do not know for certain, but I would be willing to wager that the answer is likely no. They were erected after the Civil War, likely as a carrot to try and unify the Republic. Did those figures represent slavery? Yes, they did, but also remember that those figures were dead, they lost so again, not something people should feel angst about. If the town next to me put of a statue of Hitler, or Stalin would I have an issue if I had to walk by it? Would I play in a park with a statue of Mussolini there? I would have no qualms or issues about that. I would see these men as horrible humans, but if someone wants to erect a statue of them in a park, that is not my problem. For whatever reasons they choose to have the statue, that is their business. I recognize the inanimate object for what it is and do not feel any issues toward it. 

 

My side is that the whole argument is stupid and the woke culture is nuts. Do I ultimately care about the statue of Columbus coming down or Harrison coming down in Cincinnati? Not really. I think it would be a shame to tear it down, but you will never see me at a protest for tearing down a statue or fighting to save said statue.  

 

A post truly representative of white men who are incapable of displaying empathy towards minorities.

 

Quote

The dedication of Confederate monuments and the use of Confederate names and other iconography began shortly after the Civil War ended in 1865. But two distinct periods saw significant spikes.

 

The first began around 1900 as Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise African Americans and re-segregate society after several decades of integration that followed Reconstruction. It lasted well into the 1920s, a period that also saw a strong revival of the Ku Klux Klan. Many of these monuments were sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The second period began in the mid-1950s and lasted until the late 1960s, the period encompassing the modern civil rights movement.

 

While new monument activity has died down, since the 1980s the Sons of Confederate Veterans has continued to erect new monuments.

 

You could do a simple Google search before posting lunacy like "I do not think Confederate statues were erected a power move.  They were erected after the Civil War, likely as a carrot to try and unify the Republic."  

 

Because statues don't personally offend you is not really the bar for what a society decides to do collectively.  Sorry.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

A post truly representative of white men who are incapable of displaying empathy towards minorities.

 

 

You could do a simple Google search before posting lunacy like "I do not think Confederate statues were erected a power move.  They were erected after the Civil War, likely as a carrot to try and unify the Republic."  

 

Because statues don't personally offend you is not really the bar for what a society decides to do collectively.  Sorry.

Which is why i do not shed a tear if they are torn down. Which is why I also don't support those who want to tear them down. Being part of the woke mob does not make you smart, it just makes you a crowd follower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Which is why i do not shed a tear if they are torn down. Which is why I also don't support those who want to tear them down. Being part of the woke mob does not make you smart, it just makes you a crowd follower.

Most people are not talking about destroying these statues, but instead relocating them to an appropriate area so they can be viewed in historical context, like maybe moving the Columbus statue to a  museum or something instead of having it sit proudly in front of our city hall. They are planning to put it in storage, not "tear it down". It will be relocated to storage until an appropriate place can be found for it.

 

*I doubt all will be saved-some are doomed-they can only relocate so many. Given the significance of this one I think it should be removed and relocated.

 

*I am not talking about the offensive Confederate stuff-we know why that stuff was erected and most of it should be scrapped or go to a museum of slavery/oppression sort of like how they kept the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign and all in Poland.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The idiot woke scold crowd has the answer to everyone's problems. All you have to do is change the name of a product and poof, problem solved, everyone can relax and feel much better now. They say Christopher Columbus was not a nice person so we can't have a statue to him, now that people are removing the statues, everyone's problems are solved. The founder of a university way back in 1795 owned slaves, so we must remove his name. Once that is gone, all the problems will be solved, and we can live in harmony. 

 

If people feel threatened walking past a statue of a dead guy because the dead guy once owned slaves, etc. I think the problem lies with the person feeling concerned about the statue of a dead guy coming to get him. 

 

... 


No one is saying any of these things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's look at the Christopher Columbus statue. Do you think the intent of having a statue of him in Columbus was to show hostile and racial aggression toward Native Americans? Do you really think that? Of course it was not. Now when it was erected, it was due to a number of things. The Italian heritage of Columbus likely being one of them. Now, obviously, Columbus has not aged well in history, but does that necessitate destroying the statue? Of course not. It was not put up with the ill intent. 

 

It doesn't matter what the ignorance was of those who put up the statue.  It matters that it's honoring a genocidal POS.  There are tons of Italians who didn't murder thousands that can be honored.  It's actually an insult to Italy to suggest they have no one else worthy of remembering.

 

39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

While I personally dont see a need for Confederate Statutes (why honor losers afterall) were statutes of Lee and Stonewall Jackson put up as some sort of white power move?

I do not know for certain, but I would be willing to wager that the answer is likely no. They were erected after the Civil War, likely as a carrot to try and unify the Republic. Did those figures represent slavery? Yes, they did, but also remember that those figures were dead, they lost so again, not something people should feel angst about. If the town next to me put of a statue of Hitler, or Stalin would I have an issue if I had to walk by it? Would I play in a park with a statue of Mussolini there? I would have no qualms or issues about that. I would see these men as horrible humans, but if someone wants to erect a statue of them in a park, that is not my problem. For whatever reasons they choose to have the statue, that is their business. I recognize the inanimate object for what it is and do not feel any issues toward it. 

 

YES.  Those statues went up predominantly between 1900-1930 and during the 1960s.   Those periods had at least one thing in common that I'm sure even you can guess.  It would take you a few seconds to look up the history of these.

 

There's a reason why there are no Hitler statues in Germany, but museums made from his death camps.  If you really can't figure out why that is, there's no one that can help you.   

 

What would you be telling Jews erecting Hitler statues in a public park?  What are you telling black people celebrating statues of people who fought to keep their ancestors in slavery?  What kind of person "has no qualms" with that?  

 

39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

 

My side is that the whole argument is stupid and the woke culture is nuts. Do I ultimately care about the statue of Columbus coming down or Harrison coming down in Cincinnati? Not really. I think it would be a shame to tear it down, but you will never see me at a protest for tearing down a statue or fighting to save said statue.  

 

All you are doing is illustrating in perfect form the absolute oblivious privilege so many white people have about so many issues.  It's people like yourself that support the racist system that the rest of us are trying to break down at long last.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading the Facebook comments about the Black Lives Matter road mural that is currently being painted next to City Hall in Downtown Cincinnati...some of these comments just make me want to cry. 

 

How does Cincinnati have so many damn racists? The comments are cruel and I don't understand how the white race can be so obsessed with their superiority. It's a mental disorder if I've ever seen one that society has seemingly accepted. 

 

We really need to get over the concept of skin color. It's really dumb when internally we are exactly the same. We need to grow up from this stone age mentality and stop the spread of people who were raised by racists, who are now raising their kids to be racists. We need to cut this sh*t now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

All you are doing is illustrating in perfect form the absolute oblivious privilege so many white people have about so many issues.  It's people like yourself that support the racist system that the rest of us are trying to break down at long last.  

Such responses like this are from people who cant seem to see nuances in the argument and that whenever something disagrees with their worldview, they reflexively go to the old tried and true code words to stop the dialogue. Really it is a sad reflection on their own attitudes and inability to truly dissect and critically examine things on an individual level.  The ironic thing is that if you dont agree with it, you reflexively call it systemic racism when in many cases, that is far from the case. 

 

14 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It doesn't matter what the ignorance was of those who put up the statue.  It matters that it's honoring a genocidal POS.  There are tons of Italians who didn't murder thousands that can be honored.  It's actually an insult to Italy to suggest they have no one else worthy of remembering.

 

 WIth Columbus, history has shown that he was not a saint. Would things have been much different if someone else had stumbled across the new world at during that era? We dont know. I agree, Columbus was a POS, but ironically through a happy accident, he had an achievement for which he is recognized, right or wrong. Again, it is less about the man more about the achievement people recognize. Reasonable discerning people can separate the two.

 

You also flippantly suggest that Italians can choose someone else to honor if they want to honor someone?  If you read your words, that is a rather privileged statement on your end, from a white guy too, stating that you, a non Italian, knows better about whom they need to be honoring or what achievements Italian Americans feel are important? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:


No one is saying any of these things. 

that is a lot of what people are saying. They say how will it make a person feel to have to go to Columbus City Hall and walk past the statue of Columbus on the grounds, or how will the person feel walking through the doors of Woodrow Wilson High School and how uncomfortable it must be for them to learn in such an environment.  Personally, I find the feelings argument a bunch of garbage and does not do any favors to the name change proponents. 

Now, there may be other reasons to justify changing names and such, but personal feelings should not be one of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure are posting a lot (in favor of statues/monuments/etc) for someone who doesn't care about them one way or the other.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, troeros said:

We really need to get over the concept of skin color. It's really dumb when internally we are exactly the same. We need to grow up from this stone age mentality and stop the spread of people who were raised by racists, who are now raising their kids to be racists. 

I've always thought to myself it would be best for all government entities to remove Race, Gender and Religion from every document, application, etc.  It's not much, but would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The idiot woke scold crowd has the answer to everyone's problems. All you have to do is change the name of a product and poof, problem solved, everyone can relax and feel much better now. They say Christopher Columbus was not a nice person so we can't have a statue to him, now that people are removing the statues, everyone's problems are solved. The founder of a university way back in 1795 owned slaves, so we must remove his name. Once that is gone, all the problems will be solved, and we can live in harmony. 

 

If people feel threatened walking past a statue of a dead guy because the dead guy once owned slaves, etc. I think the problem lies with the person feeling concerned about the statue of a dead guy coming to get him. 

 

17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Honestly, I think being upset about a statue or being upset about going to Thomas Jefferson High School is more an issue for the individual to deal with than a societal problem. It is the name on the building, that is all. The person's whose name is on the building may be recognized for certain achievements they made, but they also have flaws like everyone else. The statue is not an idol, it is just a piece of history that should be remembered and can be placed in whatever context the individual desires. It should not cause stress, pain or angst and IMO I question the individual's mental state if they let an inanimate object or name on a building cause them pain. 

 

Quote

Such responses like this are from people who cant seem to see nuances in the argument and that whenever something disagrees with their worldview, they reflexively go to the old tried and true code words to stop the dialogue. Really it is a sad reflection on their own attitudes and inability to truly dissect and critically examine things on an individual level.

 

The ciiiiiiiircle of life.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, X said:

Yet you've taken the time to chime in repeatedly.  You obviously care, and have obviously taken a side, but are unwilling to own your convictions.  It's a theme with you.

 

"I want to be racist, just not overtly racist" - a lot of "concerned" Republican voters.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

I've always thought to myself it would be best for all government entities to remove Race, Gender and Religion from every document, application, etc.  It's not much, but would be a start.

 

France does that, FYI.  Well, race I believe.  Dunno about gender or religion. 


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

that is a lot of what people are saying. They say how will it make a person feel to have to go to Columbus City Hall and walk past the statue of Columbus on the grounds, or how will the person feel walking through the doors of Woodrow Wilson High School and how uncomfortable it must be for them to learn in such an environment.  Personally, I find the feelings argument a bunch of garbage and does not do any favors to the name change proponents. 

Now, there may be other reasons to justify changing names and such, but personal feelings should not be one of them. 

 

"Many people are saying..."

 

When are personal feelings ever discarded on anything?

Pro-life/anti-abortion = personal feelings on when life begins. 

"We should cut taxes because trickle down economics..." = your feelings or beliefs on how an economy should work and what role the government should play.

"Government should play a more limited role in people's lives" = your personal feelings on the matter of how government should be structured.

"I'm still going to vote for Trump because I think another SCOTUS judge who is anti-abortion is important" - personal feelings of what is most important in the next four years.

"The government should provide healthcare to every citizen" - personal feelings about how people should be covered in the healthcare system and what role the government should play.

 

Most probably have some data or other reasoning in support of the decision, but the decision ultimately comes down to feelings.

 

Like...literally everything comes back to personal feelings.  Hit me up the next time a decision is made when personal feelings are discarded.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The idiot woke scold crowd has the answer to everyone's problems. All you have to do is change the name of a product and poof, problem solved, everyone can relax and feel much better now. They say Christopher Columbus was not a nice person so we can't have a statue to him, now that people are removing the statues, everyone's problems are solved. The founder of a university way back in 1795 owned slaves, so we must remove his name. Once that is gone, all the problems will be solved, and we can live in harmony. 

 

If people feel threatened walking past a statue of a dead guy because the dead guy once owned slaves, etc. I think the problem lies with the person feeling concerned about the statue of a dead guy coming to get him. 

 

...

 

20 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:


No one is saying any of these things. 

 

6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

that is a lot of what people are saying. They say how will it make a person feel to have to go to Columbus City Hall and walk past the statue of Columbus on the grounds, or how will the person feel walking through the doors of Woodrow Wilson High School and how uncomfortable it must be for them to learn in such an environment.  Personally, I find the feelings argument a bunch of garbage and does not do any favors to the name change proponents. 

Now, there may be other reasons to justify changing names and such, but personal feelings should not be one of them. 


Your reply is presenting a completely different argument than the points I originally responded to.   There is no one suggesting that removing the statues will make “everyone’s problems solved” as your previous post stated. 

To address your broader argument: statues and monuments celebrate people. It is reasonable to ask if we should still be celebrating these people. In some cases, their achievements and contributions to society will outweigh personal and political negatives. Of course it is reasonable to take into account cultural norms of the times, but they shouldn’t be overstated. @DEPACincy has succinctly presented the case against WHH. 
 

And the Civil War monuments are far more egregious (than WHH), as they were installed as part of the efforts to intimidate Blacks in the Jim Crow era post Reconstruction. (Along with resurgent use of the Confederate Battle Flag.)  These are historical facts that take minimal effort to learn about, even though most classroom education in the US completely whitewashes them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 3:01 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 


Your reply is presenting a completely different argument than the points I originally responded to.   There is no one suggesting that removing the statues will make “everyone’s problems solved” as your previous post stated. 

Which is why it is a waste of time to remove them. Fight for something worth fighting for. Seek true change. Fighting to remove a statue changes nothing. Dont waste energy on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Which is why it is a waste of time to remove them. Fight for something worth fighting for. Seek true change. Fighting to remove a statue changes nothing. Dont waste energy on it.

It absolutely changes how people feel in a space. Imagine someone who abused your family and your people relentlessly and then was celebrated with a statue in the center of the city. You'd never feel right entering that space. Just because you don't have that experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't important. People and organizations have been going through proper channels to get these statues taken down for years, to little effect until recently. This has been a longstanding issue, the pressure is now too great to ignore. It sure does seem to bother you, though. 

Edited by westerninterloper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what was offensive with this image.   Or was it the name that was offensive?  

AuntJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, skiwest said:

I'm not quite sure what was offensive with this image.   Or was it the name that was offensive? 

 

The descendants of a woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima are quite upset about it, too. They were proud of her job and always considered it an honor, she was apparently local hero of sorts. Now she's been cancelled:

 

Family of woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima opposes move to change brand

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/06/19/family-woman-who-portrayed-aunt-jemima-opposes-move-change-brand/

 

Vera Harris said the family takes pride in Quaker Oats scouting her second cousin Lillian Richard to become a brand representative in 1925, news station KLTV reported.

 

“She was considered a hero in [her hometown of] Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, skiwest said:

I'm not quite sure what was offensive with this image.   Or was it the name that was offensive?  

AuntJ.jpg

It's the entire history of the brand name and the image. The name comes from a minstrel show and the original image was of a woman who looked like a slave. The current image is a "cleaned up" image but with the same history of the brand name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The descendants of a woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima are quite upset about it, too. They were proud of her job and always considered it an honor, she was apparently local hero of sorts. Now she's been cancelled:

 

Family of woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima opposes move to change brand

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/06/19/family-woman-who-portrayed-aunt-jemima-opposes-move-change-brand/

 

Vera Harris said the family takes pride in Quaker Oats scouting her second cousin Lillian Richard to become a brand representative in 1925, news station KLTV reported.

 

“She was considered a hero in [her hometown of] Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris said.

Lillian Richard was not the original woman on the bottle. That woman was Nancy Green. Other women were hired to play her regionally. Nancy Green's family sued Quaker because she was exploited and not fairly compensated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really believe that brands were using images of black people for their products back in the 1920s and earlier because of a far progressive view on race? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

More fighting racism with love and joy....

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

image.png.330ee9ecb8282af4220cc1d62dd460c6.png

 

Dying alone and unloved to own the libs

This dummy might actually luck out. A family get together with COVID-19 rampant might not be the best thing right now. 

 

I wish people would get that BLM is (generally speaking) about excessive police brutality towards blacks and is not saying that other things do not matter, just that this thing is of paramount importance because of the way systemic white privilege and racism has a particularly hard impact on blacks when it comes to police interactions. Even one of the main things BLM has pushed for-body cameras for cops-has not really done much. I thought that would really make a difference and apparently I was very naive.

 

Why even say ALM? If someone doesn't want to say BLM then why say anything...just shut up.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was family I would have dropped for removing her surname. The all lives matter comment would have just been confirmation at that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

image.png.330ee9ecb8282af4220cc1d62dd460c6.png

 

Dying alone and unloved to own the libs

 

The family should pull a...

 

tenor.gif


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

image.png.330ee9ecb8282af4220cc1d62dd460c6.png

 

Dying alone and unloved to own the libs

 

Clearly she is the real victim here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

 

This one, like most of these stories, turned out to be Fake News. As is par for the course, the retraction update will be on page 37 and reach about 10% of the people who read the original story:

 

https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2020/06/23/nascar-statement-on-fbi-investigation-at-talladega-superspeedway/

 

“The FBI has completed its investigation at Talladega Superspeedway and determined that Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime. The FBI report concludes, and photographic evidence confirms, that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall. This was obviously well before the 43 team’s arrival and garage assignment. We appreciate the FBI’s quick and thorough investigation and are thankful to learn that this was not an intentional, racist act against Bubba. We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all who love racing.”

 

I'm willing to bet that, when someone first made this claim about a noose, almost everyone looked at it and knew it was just the rope used to pull the garage door closed. Looking at the pictures of it - how could you not?  But, because of the cancel culture that pervades our society, no one wanted to speak up. They had to bring the FBI in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

This one, like most of these stories, turned out to be Fake News. As is par for the course, the retraction update will be on page 37 and reach about 10% of the people who read the original story:

 

https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2020/06/23/nascar-statement-on-fbi-investigation-at-talladega-superspeedway/

 

“The FBI has completed its investigation at Talladega Superspeedway and determined that Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime. The FBI report concludes, and photographic evidence confirms, that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall. This was obviously well before the 43 team’s arrival and garage assignment. We appreciate the FBI’s quick and thorough investigation and are thankful to learn that this was not an intentional, racist act against Bubba. We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all who love racing.”

 

I'm willing to bet that, when someone first made this claim about a noose, almost everyone looked at it and knew it was just the rope used to pull the garage door closed. Looking at the pictures of it - how could you not?  But, because of the cancel culture that pervades our society, no one wanted to speak up. They had to bring the FBI in.

There was a rope that looked like a noose. This stall was new to Wallace. NASCAR investigated it and publicized it. I guess in your conspiracy theory, NASCAR wants their sport to look bad.  

 

But speaking of retractions that only receive 10% of the news. How about those cops that said they got poisoned and the union publicized. Turns out they weren't even sick. You don't seem at all concerned with armed agents of the state making fraudulent claims against private businesses. But here you are clutching your pearls over someone with no police powers feeling intimidated by something that turned out to be something else. Oh yeah, it's because you are intend on always taking the side against black people and with law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fall race at Talladega took place Oct. 13-14 of 2019 rather than in November. This information is very easy to look up. People need to get those kinds of details right or it casts doubt on their case. That was indeed the paint scheme of the 21 car at Talladega last October, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 2:26 PM, freefourur said:

It's the entire history of the brand name and the image. The name comes from a minstrel show and the original image was of a woman who looked like a slave.

 

I had no idea what a minstrel show was as a kid and probably didn't hear the term until I was in high school.  Where were all of these depictions of minstrel shows on TV and in movies?  How would a kid in the second half of the twentieth century have even heard of them if they weren't depicted on TV?  Was there even an entry in the encyclopedia that we might have scanned past while looking for something else? To whatever extent I ever thought about Aunt Jemima, I suppose that I thought she invented the product like how Betty Crocker was on the front of her book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ram23 said:

This one, like most of these stories, turned out to be Fake News. As is par for the course, the retraction update will be on page 37 and reach about 10% of the people who read the original story:

 

https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2020/06/23/nascar-statement-on-fbi-investigation-at-talladega-superspeedway/

 

“The FBI has completed its investigation at Talladega Superspeedway and determined that Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime. The FBI report concludes, and photographic evidence confirms, that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall. This was obviously well before the 43 team’s arrival and garage assignment. We appreciate the FBI’s quick and thorough investigation and are thankful to learn that this was not an intentional, racist act against Bubba. We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all who love racing.”

 

I'm willing to bet that, when someone first made this claim about a noose, almost everyone looked at it and knew it was just the rope used to pull the garage door closed. Looking at the pictures of it - how could you not?  But, because of the cancel culture that pervades our society, no one wanted to speak up. They had to bring the FBI in.

 

a) it's still trending on Twitter and was last night and is a top headline on ESPN.com, but go off.

b) Since "most of these stories" turn out to be "Fake News" (taking a capitalization class from POTUS?) please name another one that isn't Jussie Smollett.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the responsible party here is NASCAR for releasing a press release before they all the facts. They could have looked into it , had the FBI do their investigation and then come out with a statement that showed what was found, it was all about nothing, and that it was not a racial incident.  It would have saved 3 days of peoples anger and allowed people to react based on the facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

This one, like most of these stories, turned out to be Fake News. As is par for the course, the retraction update will be on page 37 and reach about 10% of the people who read the original story:

 

 

The updated story was front and center on NPR. Many outlets had the outcome after the FBI investigation. This isn't some lib-snowflake lunacy. There WAS a noose. Bubba has been outspoken about removing the flags. So it's not really that far fetched to think what might have happened. NASCAR released the information, so nobody including the boogieman media, made  "Fake News". 

The real story was the outpouring of support and a massive display of shared humanity. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...