Maybe NOW we can stop fighting the Civil War?

[MajGenl.Meade]

What Scooter wrote. Except it's the War of the Rebellion - not the other two

[Bicycle Bill]

Except that, in this case of the Civil War (oh, my bad, I meant the War of Northern Aggression ).....

The "official records" of the American Civil War were first published in 1880 by the United States Department of War.  Comprising a total of 128 volumes (plus index), these serve as the most complete record ever brought together of the American Civil War and contains first-hand accounts, reports, orders, correspondence, maps, diagrams, and other material of the War and Navy Departments of both the Union and Confederacy.

The title of this collection?  Not "The War of Northern Aggression" (as Confederate sympathizers like to call it) or even "The American Civil War", but rather "The War of the Rebellion". Because, after all, that's what it was.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Scooter--

In that context, Confederate monuments are not simply memorials to a "glorious" past. They are propaganda in support of the Jim Crow version of that past established after the war. They are a message to every black person to "know their place", and what will happen if they don't. They form every bit a part of maintaining that regime as segregation, voter suppression and lynchings. And when the federal government participates in perpetuating that narrative and that regime, by naming its own institutions after men who fought to preserve it, what message does that send

Which is why I have gone on the record in saying I have no problem in removing the monuments from places of prominence, I just object to the assassination of the character of the persons depicted or cast in the bronze. I think the record shows many of those monuments were erected, at least in large part, for exactly the reasons you suggest and I can understand the calls to remove them for that reason. But that does not justify changing the persons depicted/cast in the statues to mere comic book villains.

BB--when I was in school we called it the "war between the states".

[MajGenl.Meade]

BB. Except I referred to the War of the Rebellion. You referred to the War of the Rebellion. But your sig line says "Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?". Oh dear!

Big RR. Indeed so. Sad to say "The War Between the States" was also a confederate/lost cause invention. The term Civil War was not acceptable to them since it implied they were still part of the U.S. while fighting it.

Lincoln would not endorse the idea that these states were somehow engaged in any legitimate struggle but rather that they never ceased to belong irrevocably in the Union and therefore were illegally led by illegitimate 'authority' in rebellion against their own country. IIRC he was ticked off at Meade(?) for reporting that he had driven the enemy from the country - it's all our country, says Lincoln.

The UK government squared the circle (or circled the square) by referring officially to the conflict as between the self-styled Confederate states and the United States.

For these reasons, I think "war between the states" gives aid and comfort to the enemy - or "those people" as R E Lee would have preferred to say.

[Big RR]

I don't know Meade, if NJ and NY resorted to military action between them, it could be referred to as a war between the states, regardless of legitimacy of the dispute, could it not? So a war between 10 states and the remaining union states is also a war between the states, whether one believes the secession was legitimate or not, or even how some used the term "states" to refer to nations (indeed, FWIW, most of the army units raised were raised by the states and referred to by that destination, from the army of northern Virginia of the confederacy to most of the Union regiments. We are a nation of states, not territories, provinces, colonies, or any other subdivision.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Perhaps so, Big RR. But if NJ and NY attacked each other, it wouldn't be dignified by a name devised by the Southern Confederacy and the Lost Cause movement now, would it? When it happens, maybe we'll find out. But it must last for four years to count - or for another 150 years perhaps.....

ETA and it is not worth much. The volunteer regiments were raised by the states and placed under Federal jurisdiction (in the case of the Union of course). Northern "State armies" did not attack anything; the National armies did. The Confederate government had a hell of a time persuading state governors that their troops should be under central control - that's what we're fighting about, was the rejoinder.

The war was not "between the states" but between the nation and certain states in rebellion. And in the case of Kentucky, it was the legitimate state sending troops to Federal armies while the illegitimate rump secession group raised troops for the south.

[Big RR]

Well, I went to school in NY and NJ, not any state previously in the confederacy or any border states, so there was little sympathy for the "lost cause", but, as I recall, "war between the states" was used pretty much as often as "civil war" to described the 1861 - 1865 conflict; it took a long time before I even thought "states" could have referred to independent nations as opposed to US states.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, because the lost causers succeeded in persuading northern folks to use the pussy-footing, bum-kissing term that THEY invented. That's no reason to continue kowtowing to Southern "we wuz right" mentality.

Your results may differ

[Big RR]

If people in the north use it to connote a war between two nations, then you may be right, but I think they see it more like a war between US states, as I stated. Just like a war where "brother fought brother" does not have to be a war between african americans, because that's the connotation some people have with that term.

[Crackpot]

What about the Toledo War?

Don't know who was the bigger loser in that war Wisconsin or Ohio.

[Bicycle Bill]

BB. Except I referred to the War of the Rebellion. You referred to the War of the Rebellion.

Meade, I posted after reading Scooter's comment and responded to that without going further down the thread first.

But your sig line says "Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?". Oh dear!

But in this case, YOU are agreeing with ME, so therefore we are both right.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Where are all the folks up in arms to defend Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Mrs. Butterworth?!

[dales]

Interesting that you should bring that one up, BSG.

Since I don't purchase these brands, I really don't care.

I suppose it's time to retire these old racist stereotypes.

I won't miss them.

[Bicycle Bill]

Cream of Wheat, too.  OTOH, I never considered Mrs. Butterworth to be black.  Is it because the bottle is darkly colored?  Or maybe it's because the TV commercial featured a young black girl talking to the bottle?

And it should be apparent that the days are short for the pacifist Quaker's image on the oatmeal package as well.  That must be offending someone somewhere too, right?

I imagine the day is coming, and it's not that far off, when one will walk into a grocery store and find themselves facing row upon row of uniform white boxes labeled in black in a single generic font stating the contents.  No logos, no images, no colors, no trademarks, no nuthin'.  But at least we'll have gotten rid of those racist, ageist, ethnic-bashing sterotypes!!

Sheesh!

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

... I imagine the day is coming, and it's not that far off, when one will walk into a grocery store and find themselves facing row upon row of uniform white boxes labeled in black in a single generic font stating the contents.  No logos, no images, no colors, no trademarks, no nuthin'.  But at least we'll have gotten rid of those racist, ageist, ethnic-bashing sterotypes!!... Sheesh!

If that's what it takes -- I'd go along with that.

I usually buy products for what's inside the package, not for how eye-catching the brand logos are. All that stuff would be much cheaper, too.

A win/win for everybody.

[Econoline]

Did you ever see the film Repo Man? This was a low-key running gag...



...topped off when the protagonist goes to his parents' home to ask for some money, opens a kitchen cabinet, takes down a can of generically labelled "FOOD", opens the can, and starts scarfing it down.

[Bicycle Bill]

No I didn't, E-line.  I just remember back in the late 1970s-early 1980s when some stores experimented with "generic packaging" for specific items instead of a store-owned 'private label' like A&P's old "Ann Page" products, WalMart's "Sam's Choice" and "Great Value" brands, and the plethora of various 'off-brands' one finds at an ALDI store for their soups and canned goods instead of recognized brands like Campbell's, Del Monte, Green Giant, and Hormel.

Like the "noble experiment" that was Prohibition, the "generic labeling" experiment didn't last long either.

-"BB"-

[dales]

Following Wednesday’s announcements that Quaker Oats would discontinue the Aunt Jemima brand and Mars would “evolve” its Uncle Ben image, B&G Foods, the parent company of Cream of Wheat, said it will launch an “immediate review of the Cream of Wheat brand packaging.”

The breakfast food — first manufactured in 1893 — has long been criticized for its use of Rastus, a smiling African-American chef whose name has been shorthand for a derogatory slur against African-American men and whose visage has been criticized for being stereotypically subservient. The character of Rastus has appeared in numerous minstrel shows dating back to the 1800s. Rastus was removed from the packaging in 1925, but the company replaced it with a similar image that remains today. Calls to remove the character altogether have grown louder as brands have reconsidered their packaging and marketing in recent weeks.

“B&G Foods, Inc. today announced that we are initiating an immediate review of the Cream of Wheat brand packaging. We understand there are concerns regarding the chef image, and we are committed to evaluating our packaging and will proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism,” a rep for B&G said in a statement to Rolling Stone. “B&G Foods unequivocally stands against prejudice and injustice of any kind.”

In a statement Wednesday, Quaker Oats — who purchased the Aunt Jemima brand of syrup and pancake mixes in 1926 — admitted the racial history of the brand, which was named after the minstrel song “Old Aunt Jemima” and has drawn controversy for its racial insensitivity and stereotyping.

“We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,” a Quaker Oats rep said in a statement. “As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations.”

Quaker Oats also announced a $5 million donation over the next five years in order “to create meaningful, ongoing support and engagement in the Black community.”

Soon after Aunt Jemima’s announcement, Uncle Ben’s Rice — another food brand built off a racial stereotype — also revealed plans to change their image. “As we listen to the voices of consumers, especially in the Black community, and to the voices of our Associates worldwide, we recognize that one way we can do this is by evolving the Uncle Ben’s brand, including its visual brand identity,” the Mars Incorporated-owned rice brand said in a statement.

Conagra Brands, Inc., the purveyors of Mrs. Butterworth’s brand, have also announced a review of its packaging, which it said was originally “intended to evoke the images of a loving grandmother,” in a statement. “We understand that our actions help play an important role in eliminating racial bias and as a result, we have begun a complete brand and packaging review on Mrs. Butterworth’s,” the statement continued. “It’s heartbreaking and unacceptable that racism and racial injustices exist around the world. We will be part of the solution. Let’s work together to progress toward change.

[Scooter]

I just remember back in the late 1970s-early 1980s when some stores experimented with "generic packaging" for specific items instead of a store-owned 'private label' like A&P's old "Ann Page" products, WalMart's "Sam's Choice" and "Great Value" brands, and the plethora of various 'off-brands' one finds at an ALDI store for their soups and canned goods instead of recognized brands like Campbell's, Del Monte, Green Giant, and Hormel.

Like the "noble experiment" that was Prohibition, the "generic labeling" experiment didn't last long either.

Canada's largest grocery conglomerate has had a No Name brand since the 70s, and it has been wildly successful. The original 16 items have grown to almost 3,000 products, and No Name is Canada's best selling grocery "brand".

Perhaps we just did it better.

[dales]

We have what are known as "store brands" here.

Same as name-brands but slightly less expensive.

The "generic-labeling" never caught on.

I suppose we Americans have more money to piss away than you poor canuks.