the good old days

Do you know how to carve a turkey, or are you going to make a total fool of yourself on Thursday? Luckily, there’s a vintage educational film for almost every subject imaginable, including cutting up meat.

Martha Logan was a fictional creation (much like Betty Crocker) of Swift & Co, a meat processing company. Under her name, they published a number of cookbooks (presumably all encouraging meat consumption), and at least one educational short. Carving Magic is an exhaustive review of how to cut pretty much any piece of meat you could want. (They don’t cover calf head, though.)

This film ends up being an argument for providing both girls AND boys with home economics background. When Martha Logan, eminent Home Economist, is making a movie about carving instruction at Charlie’s studio, lots of the men at the studio are spellbound — apparently they’re all clueless about carving, and all eager to learn. When Charlie brags about his newfound turkey carving expertise, his friend Al begs for lessons as well. That’s how you know your education system is a little wonky… when somebody throws a dinner party specifically to celebrate Charlie learning how to cut up a turkey. I don’t doubt that high school kids would have a great time making jokes about cutting meat, but at least a bit of information might sink in about how to maximize edible portions after cooking something.

(And yes, that is Harvey Korman playing Al!)

If you really want to learn carving techniques, watch the full twenty-minute version (below); many of the repetitive and/or dull sections were removed for the YouTube clip above.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Dear racists,

Oh, you know who you are. Folks who despise John McCain but “can’t” vote for Barack Obama because there’s “just something about him”. Yes, you.

You’re probably all proud of yourself because, while you believe deep in your heart that the Democratic candidate is not anything like you, you haven’t actually told anybody (even yourself) that it’s because he’s black. You aren’t screaming for decapitation. You aren’t designing a lynching or torture graphic. You aren’t a racist. You’re just… uncomfortable.

News flash: by not decrying those frothing rabid bigots, you’re complicit with them. Shocked? Disagree? Let’s watch The Plantation System in Southern Life, an educational film by Centron from 1950.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Now, I realize that this film is a very low-level discussion of plantation and sharecropping economics. It’s intended for fairly young kids and therefore it is simplistic. But still — what the hell is up with:

Today if we visit a social gathering in the South, we’ll see some of those influences. The traditional Southern hospitality. The gentle manners and courtesy. The separation of society into distinct groups. And the relationship of that society to the land…

Separation of society into distinct groups? Um, wow. What a fascinating synonym for “segregation caused by festering racism.” The South might had Jim Crow, but The North sure wasn’t terribly motivated to change things. They blithely glossed over institutionalized discrimination as though it was completely acceptable.

And obviously pretending there’s no problem is working just SO well considering the level of dangerous bullshit that’s coming from raging lunatics — and the number of people who can’t come up with any stronger objection than, “oh my, well, that’s just a bit too far.” TOO FAR? That’s your best objection? There is no acceptable level of racism and letting supremacists run havoc is just a slightly less disgusting level of racism than what they’re screaming at the top of their lungs.

I just want to write my “ha ha isn’t history silly” blog in peace and you fuckers are instead bringing seriously vile history back to the forefront of my modern life. This shit isn’t funny.

Regards,
The Northern Aggression

flesh-colored Band-Aid (from 1952) [found on Found in Mom's Basement] and
flesh-colored Soul-Aid (from the 1980’s) [found on Found in Mom's Basement, originally from Retrocrush]

The modern clear Band-Aid is the best way to please absolutely every possible skin tone, even those of us with freckles — no point in having boxes of various shades when you can just go translucent!

Of course, the adhesive bandages my kids get with their various vaccinations are all covered with Sponge Bob Squarepants or Disney Princesses or (AAAAAAAHHHHH!) Elmo; since my children are NOT naturally patterned with the latest cartoon character craze, I’m quite happy that they don’t match their bandage.

Or so Skyy seems to think.

If you haven’t heard about the recent “alternative” map in an Absolut Vodka advertisement, you obviously don’t read enough blogs. Try Strange Maps for a good, succinct description.

This (in part) was Absolut’s response to angry US residents:

We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population. This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues.

Apparently seeing a chance to continue the, uh, discussion, Skyy Vodka put out its own press release:

… Today, SKYY(R) Vodka… spoke out against suggestions by Absolut(R) Vodka to disregard [the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo], as well as the joining of Texas to the Union in 1845, as depicted in Absolut’s recent advertising.

“Like SKYY Vodka, the residents of states like California, Texas and Arizona are exceptionally proud of the fact that they are from the United States of America,” said Dave Karraker, SKYY Vodka. “To imply that they might be interested in changing their mailing addresses, as our competitor seems to be suggesting in their advertising, is a bit presumptuous….”

“Don’t get me started on the Gadsden Purchase,” continues Karraker….

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had a number of far-reaching implications beyond simply “changing the mailing addresses” of Mexican residents. It also meant:

• Native Americans living in that region, who had been Mexican citizens, would have to wait a while to be recognized as citizens of any country.
• The slavery debate would be heated up as both sides of the issue wrangled over whether it would be legal to own people in the new territories. (It is odd to see the Civil War portrayed as a consequence of many changed mailing addresses.)
• The formerly Mexican citizens allegedly became American citizens, but quickly found their citizenship (and their land claims) did not have as much weight as those of white Americans.

It seems Karraker hasn’t read much of the history behind the map, or the history of the States he cites; nor is he interested in any consequences beyond the positive ones for the winning side. He also doesn’t want any Mexicans to buy Skyy (which plays neatly into Absolut’s advertising strategy).

Manifest Destiny isn’t a principle that Americans should be incredibly proud of. The issues it stirred up at Guadalupe Hidalgo 160 years ago are still simmering today. It happened, and we live with the consequences. It’s not likely that half the country will be given back to Mexico to right old wrongs, so it is petty to suggest that an advertising campaign could cause that, and farcical to suggest that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo worked out well for everybody. I am proud of my country. But that doesn’t mean that my country has always been right.

So, my point in a nutshell: vodka PR reps are not historians, and definitely are not diplomats.

I’ve been wanting to start a weekly look back at societal norms of days gone by, because (especially when you read books giving suggestions and guidance) they can be even funnier than mental hygiene films. However, Racialicious had a great guest article yesterday about the tendency, particularly of old people, to make incredibly rude and racist comments — and the tendency of everyone else to consider them acceptable because, “Grandpa grew up in a different time when that was considered acceptable,” or some similar excuse. I’ve used it in my own head whenever my grandparents would say something shockingly racist; how else can one reconcile the crazy bigot with the beloved elder?

So, I instead begin my etiquette series with a look at why the “different time” excuse is complete and utter bullshit. There’s never been a time when it’s considered socially acceptable to be rude. Even if you are willing to grant older generations the privilege to think a different race or religion is somehow “lower” — and that’s a big exemption which they should not get, in my opinion — there’s no reason they should be allowed to treat anyone as sub-human.

For a modern definition, we will turn to Wikipedia:

Etiquette codes prescribe and restrict the ways in which people interact with each other, based on respect for other people and the accepted customs of a society.

Once again, the fundamental point is to respect other people. ALL other people. Not just the ones you happen to like.

But: is this a new feature of modern society (which the excuse for old folks completely disregarding manners)? Excerpt from the introduction to Etiquette (emphasis mine):

Etiquette requires that we shall treat all people with equal courtesy, given the same conditions. It has a tendency to ignore the individuality of people. We may not slight one man simply because we do not like him, nor may we publicly exhibit extreme preference for the one whom we do like. In both cases the rebel against the restraints of social mice shouts the charge of “insincerity.” Well, perhaps some of the impulses of sincerity are better held in check; they are too closely allied to the humoring of our cherished prejudices. If “tact consists in knowing what not to say,” etiquette consists in knowing what not to do in the direction of manifesting our impulsive likes and dislikes.

That’s from 1919, around when most of the current generation of “grandparents” was born; being polite was not a revolutionary concept. The author isn’t ignorant enough to pretend that prejudice doesn’t exist — we all know prejudice exists — but insists the key is to ignore your prejudices when making a decision how to treat a person.