Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Is the restaurant name "Cracker Barrel" a problem?

squistion

By squistion,
in The Politics Forum

 Share Followers 1

Recommended Posts

squistion

squistion 12,632

Posted
Posted

Some people think so and #CrackerBarrel is currently trending on Twitter: 

https://twitter.com/search?q="Cracker Barrel"&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

Do you think the name is a problem?

Quote

 

https://outsider.com/news/trending/cracker-barrel-trends-twitter-controversy-sparks-over-restaurant-name/

Cracker Barrel Trends on Twitter, Controversy Sparks Over Restaurant Name

Cracker Barrel is trending on Twitter because people are claiming that the origins of the name are racist. Are the claims true?

A photo is currently trending on Twitter. The photo is of a Cracker Barrel restaurant logo. The caption of the photo reads, “Cracker was a slang term for whip. That’s why blacks called whites crackers, from the crack of the whip. A Cracker Barrel is a barrel that held the whips for sale at the country store. You see the whip going from the R to the K? Racism in your face!”

Along with the photo, the tweet reads, “Did y’all know this?”

As of now, the post has been retweeted over 10,000 times and that number rises every few minutes. Additionally, more than 5,000 people have commented.

 

Snopes however has already labeled this claim Mostly False

Quote

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cracker-barrel-whips/

Claim

The phrase "cracker barrel" — as in the name of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain — refers to a barrel that was used to hold whips for sale in country stores.

Rating

Mostly False

About this rating

What's True

The origins of the pejorative term "cracker" can be traced in part back to the shortening of the term "whip-cracker."

What's False

However, the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain takes its name from the literal barrel of crackers — not whips — that were prevalent at storefronts in the late 1800s.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
squistion

squistion 12,632

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Gets huffy that anybody took that "Buccaneers" story in the Washington Post seriously.

Starts a thread about Cracker Barrel based on a random thread he stumbled across on Twitter.

Not a random tweet I stumbled across, it is trending hashtag at #8 on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/explore/tabs/trending

https://twitter.com/search?q="Cracker Barrel"&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
IvanKaramazov

IvanKaramazov 22,621

Posted
Posted (edited)

Okay, so the OP in this thread provides a good example of how Twitter amplifies asinine stories and gets people bent out of shape over pointless culture-war stuff.  That doesn't mean that social media is totally terrible, just that you need to curate who you follow and don't take guidance from whatever happens to be trending at the moment.  

For example, I follow Will Wilkinson, who until recently was at the Niskanen Center.  The fact that I follow somebody is by no means an endorsement of that person, and that's certainly true here.  Based on his Twitter persona, Wilkinson seems pretty insufferable.  But he's an interesting follow because he tends to highlight some things that I might not pay attention to on my own, and every once in a while he posts a gem like today's that everybody should drop what they're doing and read.  I agree with much of this essay and disagree with wide swaths of it -- I kind of semi-seriously think that Gen X irony has contributed to the relative mental health of my generation and other people should draw power from this mindset -- but this is a really good piece.  Tldr he's interrogating his own thought process to come to an understanding of how a right-of-center person can come to a balanced, nuanced understanding of US history.  

Quote

There’s plenty to argue with in some of the essays and articles that make up 1619 Project, especially Hannah Nikole-Jones’ admitted overstatement of the extent to which the American Revolution was motivated by the desire to protect American slavery. That said, the broader story told by the 1619 Project is pretty close to the consensus view of contemporary academic American historians. Conservatives can’t stand this story. It shows us that nearly every American institution and pattern of social, political or cultural life has been structured (or disfigured) by white supremacy, enslavement, racial apartheid, and systemic discrimination.

Politically, this implies that there’s a great deal of persistent injustice that remains to be rectified, which conservatives find aggravating and objectionable. But I think this is less important than the fact that the actual history of this country can be unpleasant to think about. It’s a story that makes it difficult to sustain unambiguously positive feelings about America’s past or present. But that’s genuinely hard to take when upbeat sentiments about America have been drilled into you since early childhood, your culture tells you that you’re right to feel proud of feeling nothing but proud of your country, and that it’s shameful and disloyal if you don’t.

I think it’s easy to underestimate the power of these sorts of feeling. Let me use myself as an inglorious example.

  There's a ton of really high-quality material out there if you can either ignore the click-bait or just chuckle and move on.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay

Maurile Tremblay 22,721

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Based on his Twitter persona, Wilkinson seems pretty insufferable.

Yeah, on a side note, what's that about? I've liked Wilkinson's writing for a long time. I don't remember him being so annoying on Twitter until very recently. But, man, it seems he's become very determined to become outraged over trivial things lately. (Granted, I haven't walked a mile in his shoes, and being on the wrong side of outrage over trivial things has become personal for him.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
squistion

squistion 12,632

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, MTskibum said:

People that retweet or repost these stories are part of the problem and in today's example that is joe and squistion.

As are those who post in these threads, it could also be argued...

Link to post
Share on other sites
beer 30

beer 30 3,477

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kodycutter said:

When does this nonsense end?   

When history is finally re-written to appease the minority screaming for the rewrite OR when the majority have finally had enough of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug B

Doug B 7,106

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Cracker Barrel doesn't exist. - Tim

I have this mental image ... I'm enjoying an Uncle Herschel's breakfast (with free biscuits and jelly!) at a Cracker Barrel somewhere out in the sticks.

I'm reading this thread. Oh, look at those crazies, harping on the "Cracker Barrel" name! So funny -- har har!

Then I read Norville's post. My breakfast food disappears in front of my eyes. Then the plates, coffee cup, and utensils. The table fades out as I suddenly hit the floor when my chair disintegrates.

The other tables. The wait staff. The tacky wall accoutrements. The hearth. The general store. The rocking chairs and giant checkers games out front. Gone. Just gone.

Just left with me and my car in an empty dirt plot. And an empty belly. How did this happen? Why, Norville, why! :cry:

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak

Peak 1,346

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Okay, so the OP in this thread provides a good example of how Twitter amplifies asinine stories and gets people bent out of shape over pointless culture-war stuff.  That doesn't mean that social media is totally terrible, just that you need to curate who you follow and don't take guidance from whatever happens to be trending at the moment.  

For example, I follow Will Wilkinson, who until recently was at the Niskanen Center.  The fact that I follow somebody is by no means an endorsement of that person, and that's certainly true here.  Based on his Twitter persona, Wilkinson seems pretty insufferable.  But he's an interesting follow because he tends to highlight some things that I might not pay attention to on my own, and every once in a while he posts a gem like today's that everybody should drop what they're doing and read.  I agree with much of this essay and disagree with wide swaths of it -- I kind of semi-seriously think that Gen X irony has contributed to the relative mental health of my generation and other people should draw power from this mindset -- but this is a really good piece.  Tldr he's interrogating his own thought process to come to an understanding of how a right-of-center person can come to a balanced, nuanced understanding of US history.  

  There's a ton of really high-quality material out there if you can either ignore the click-bait or just chuckle and move on.

I feel like I just stumbled into the Sourcing thread...

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
rockaction

rockaction 26,306

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yeah, on a side note, what's that about? I've liked Wilkinson's writing for a long time. I don't remember him being so annoying on Twitter until very recently. But, man, it seems he's become very determined to become outraged over trivial things lately. (Granted, I haven't walked a mile in his shoes, and being on the wrong side of outrage over trivial things has become personal for him.)

Anyone who was on the side of Reason's Hit & Run post where they talked about Santorum, his dead child, and used the phrase "salty ham tears" and defended it are all insufferable. Howley, Wilkinson, Sanchez and the lot are all temperamentally at least, #######s. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about it, nor should this be a surprise. Before anyone defends them with actual context or facts about the "ham tears" incident, just let it be shown that the insufferable Hit and Run journalists all wound up this way, and there was never any doubt in my mind that they would. This is the crew that thought it radical to go silent dance at the Jefferson Memorial and claim of course they could because it was a publicly funded land and then detail their problems with Capitol police like it was a major injustice. Sanchez, Howley, Wilkinson, et al, are jerks. They're about four years younger than me. Full disclosure: Sanchez interned for my former boss after I'd moved on. He was aloof then. I never got a good vibe from him. They were all: 

  1. Too young to determine their own real political leanings
  2. Internet culture-laden to a fault
  3. Not nice or humane in ways you'd expect people to be
  4. Upwardly mobile in the political commentator/think tank non-profit world for sure, and have never worked a day in the real world in their lives
  5. Liberaltarians who were outspoken about their left-leanings

Whatever you thought of the liberaltarian movement from 2006-on, they were always an insufferable group of people, at least to this right-leaning fusionist. How much of that is political or politically necessary? I don't know. I do know that in reading them I got an insufferable smugness and activism that usually brands people as being jerks.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
rockaction

rockaction 26,306

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Okay, so the OP in this thread provides a good example of how Twitter amplifies asinine stories and gets people bent out of shape over pointless culture-war stuff.  That doesn't mean that social media is totally terrible, just that you need to curate who you follow and don't take guidance from whatever happens to be trending at the moment.  

For example, I follow Will Wilkinson, who until recently was at the Niskanen Center.  The fact that I follow somebody is by no means an endorsement of that person, and that's certainly true here.  Based on his Twitter persona, Wilkinson seems pretty insufferable.  But he's an interesting follow because he tends to highlight some things that I might not pay attention to on my own, and every once in a while he posts a gem like today's that everybody should drop what they're doing and read.  I agree with much of this essay and disagree with wide swaths of it -- I kind of semi-seriously think that Gen X irony has contributed to the relative mental health of my generation and other people should draw power from this mindset -- but this is a really good piece.  Tldr he's interrogating his own thought process to come to an understanding of how a right-of-center person can come to a balanced, nuanced understanding of US history.  

 There's a ton of really high-quality material out there if you can either ignore the click-bait or just chuckle and move on.

Yeah, see the above post of mine. This is not a surprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rockaction

rockaction 26,306

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another fine example of the Howley crew was her tweet this year that all Johns are convinced that their sex workers love them. To which she laughed at the poor fellows and denied the possibility of that.

Contrast that with award-winning novelist National Book of The Year award-winner William T. Vollmann, who has actually lived among sex workers and has written Whores For Gloria and The Royal Family, one a short novel, the other a novel of 1,000 pages worth of detailed fancy about a ghetto pimp and her subjects in San Francisco. And has written numerous short stories and one-offs about the sex trade in Asia, unlike Howley who talks about this stuff at cocktail parties and might have met an American porn star or two.

He once said something to the effect that to deny hookers and strippers the capacity to fall in love with their clients was to deny them their humanity.

Well said. And much more thorough and edifying than Howley's meanness about the subject. It's almost like a great mind went up against a sheltered, activist midget's squalid political outlook. Oh, wait, it did.

Man, I don't like these people, apparently. I remember when Sanchez publicly posted his resignation about the Koch brothers's takeover about CATO. Long before the Board Of Directors at CATO even voted on it. Like, "I'll resign if this happens." Hey, Julian, nobody cares. The Kochs? They're the only reason you have funding at your job. Things like misspelling and mispronouncing the leader of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement in a speech that purported to nod to American history at the Mall. Just all sorts of hubristic know-nothing #### like that. They're smart people, their worldview is inevitably ####ed.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Desert_Power

Desert_Power 1,064

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
8 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Based on his Twitter persona, Wilkinson seems pretty insufferable.

Yeah, on a side note, what's that about? I've liked Wilkinson's writing for a long time. I don't remember him being so annoying on Twitter until very recently. But, man, it seems he's become very determined to become outraged over trivial things lately. (Granted, I haven't walked a mile in his shoes, and being on the wrong side of outrage over trivial things has become personal for him.)

According to wiki, he's been let go from his job at Niskanen Center. That may contribute to increased take density to find a new job. He was always a very bright thinker on libertarian economic views IMO.

I miss Google Reader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Followers 1
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...