Another stupid promotion

If you’re going to the Atlanta Braves game on July 2, bring your glove and your hoop skirt.

The Braves, the Atlanta History Center and the Margaret Mitchell House are teaming up for “Gone with the Wind Night” to celebrate the novel’s 75th anniversary. Fans who show their July 2 Braves ticket stub at the Atlanta History Center or Margaret Mitchell House afterward will receive $5 off admission to either venue.

So should black fans dress as Mammy? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Would someone with a clue please buy this team.

About these ads

22 Comments on Another stupid promotion

  1. jgraham // June 24, 2011 at 1:24 pm //

    I think a lot of this would go away if they just got rid of Derek Schiller.

  2. I’m beginning to wonder if Hal Phellis is in charge of promotions.

  3. “I don’t know nothing about saving bullpen arms” – Fredi

  4. “So should black fans dress as Mammy?” Not everything is about slavery.

  5. Well, that’s one game I’ll be skipping. I have no field hand’s clothes and I’m not planning on buying any. Would I be surprised to see a few Confederate battle flags? Not necessarily…

  6. No, Dave, but the Civil War was all about slavery. Why celebrate an embarrassment?

  7. The civil war wasn’t about slavery. Thankfully it ended it, but that wasn’t what it was about. Probably think the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves, don’t you? It didn’t free a single one. It is a very common misconception.

  8. Dave, you are either naive or willfully ignorant. Or both

  9. PepeFreeUs // June 26, 2011 at 6:47 pm //

    Haven’t had a chance to do this for a while: Fuck you, Dave.

  10. cleteboyerfan “Dave, you are either naive or willfully ignorant. Or both”

    Before you start commenting on my knowledge, why don’t you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation? I’ll give you a hint of what to look for. The EM had no power to free slaves in the south and it didn’t free a single one in the north. The civil war wasn’t about slavery.

    Oh, pepe? Right back atcha buddy. lol.

  11. PepeFreeUs // June 27, 2011 at 3:42 am //

    ^ This is what happens when you learn history from Stuckey’s placemats.

  12. clete boyer fan // June 27, 2011 at 10:13 am //

    Dave, I’ve read the Emancipation Proclamation quite a few times. And the proclamation applied to the states which had seceded from the Union. Many slaves in southern states occupied by the Union army were freed immediately by the proclamation. Among those freed on January 1, 1863 was my great great great grandmother, who was freed along with many other slaves in North and South Carolina.

    And as far as your imbecilic belief that the civil war wasn’t about slavery? The politics of the 1850′s was dominated by the battle of slavery expansion into the new states, Abolitionists in congress were pitted against the “state’s rights” southern contingency. The election of Lincoln, and his hope of stopping slavery expansion in the hope that the practice would make itself extinct triggered the response of the southern states to secede. And you say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War?!? As I said before, you are either naive or willfully ignorant.

  13. clete boyer “Dave, I’ve read the Emancipation Proclamation quite a few times. And the proclamation applied to the states which had seceded from the Union. Many slaves in southern states occupied by the Union army were freed immediately by the proclamation. Among those freed on January 1, 1863 was my great great great grandmother, who was freed along with many other slaves in North and South Carolina.”

    Read it again. The Emancipation Proclamation had absolutely no legal standing in the succeeded states because they were no longer part of the Union. On the Union side, the Emancipation Proclamation purposefully did not free the slaves in the north. Like I said, it had no power to free the slaves in the south and it expressly didn’t free a single one in the north and northern held territories in the south. If the civil war was about slavery, don’t you think that Lincoln would have ended slavery in the north?

    I said the civil war wasn’t about slavery not that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war.

  14. PepeFreeUs “This is what happens when you learn history from Stuckey’s placemats.”

    This is what happens when someone blindly takes someone else’s word on something and refuses to commit the time to read and educate one’s self.

  15. “The succeeded states”

    Dave,

    First learn spelling and written English. Then you can lecture us about your bullshit American history theories.

  16. rankin' rob // June 27, 2011 at 11:41 am //

    I thought Curt Flood freed the slaves…

  17. clete boyer fan // June 27, 2011 at 11:55 am //

    And yet many slaves in the Union occupied South WERE freed explicitly as a result of the Proclamation. Those in the states outside of the seceded states had to wait until the 13th Amendment.

    Dave “I said the civil war wasn’t about slavery not that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war.”

    Then what, pray tell, are you talking about? You say “the civil war wasn’t about slavery”. What was it about then? State’s rights? Northern Industrialism vs Southern Agrarian economies? Tariffs? Every reason for the war had direct or indirect links to the issue of slavery. It was elephant in the room.

  18. I think Dave has demonstrated why “Gone With the Wind Night” is such a terrible idea.

  19. PepeFreeUs // June 27, 2011 at 4:53 pm //

    I’m going to let CBF have the last word in this argument. He’s consistently the best and wisest poster here and he’s just proven it, again.

  20. clete boyer fan “And yet many slaves in the Union occupied South WERE freed explicitly as a result of the Proclamation.”

    Of course they weren’t. If Mexico passes a law tomorrow that states all citizens must wear a sombrero, does that mean Jim in Maine is legally obligated to wear a sombrero? Of course not. The states had seceded. Union law did not matter and could not be enforced.

    clete boyer fan “Those in the states outside of the seceded states had to wait until the 13th Amendment.”

    Nice dodge. Lincoln, as I stated, purposefully did not free any slaves in the Union; north and south territories. If the civil war was all about slavery then why didn’t Lincoln immediately free all of the slaves? Why would he allow any returning states to keep their slaves? And why didn’t he free slaves in the states he actually controlled?

    I stand by my statement “The EM had no power to free slaves in the south and it didn’t free a single one in the north.”

    This isn’t really the forum for such discussions and while we are still here, I wanted to praise you for your behavior. I mean this sincerely. When discussing such things many people go for the quick insults and cheap slavery comments. You’ve done nothing of the sort and I do appreciate it.

  21. clete boyer fan // June 28, 2011 at 11:51 am //

    Dave: “If the civil war was all about slavery then why didn’t Lincoln immediately free all of the slaves? Why would he allow any returning states to keep their slaves? And why didn’t he free slaves in the states he actually controlled?”

    Because it was a Constitutional matter. As Commander in Chief, Lincoln had the power to suspend civil law in states that were in rebellion (i.e. the states which had seceded). He did not have that power over the slaveholding states which had not seceded. Slaves in those states were freed by the passage of the 13th Amendment.

    Dave: “The states had seceded. Union law did not matter and could not be enforced.”
    Of course Union law mattered. And it was enforced in the Union occupied territories in the South. This is how the Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed slaves in parts of almost every Confederate state except Texas and Tennessee. As the Union Army continued to advance throughout the South, slaves were continually emancipated.
    Was the Emancipation Proclamation considered a war act? Absolutely.It bolstered voices for abolition, It encouraged many slaves to escape to Union lines. Freed slaves were allowed to enroll into the Union Army, increasing their manpower. And the proclamation took away prospective support for the Confederacy in Europe.

    So what was the war about then? You’ve never given an answer. The fight to keep the Union intact? Well, there were reasons for the dissolution of the Union. And practically all of these reasons had direct and indirect links to the slavery issue. As I said before, it was the elephant in the room.

    Let’s try to end this matter here. In fact, I’ll try to tie this topic into baseball with this statement: Abner Doubleday did not invent or start the sport of baseball. In lieu of his defense of Fort Sumter, the only thing he helped to start was the Civil War…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 280 other followers

%d bloggers like this: