A Slave May Have Been Behind the Creation of Jack Daniel's Famous Whiskey - Polidicks

[URL="https://mic.com/articles/147216/a-slave-may-have-been-behind-the-creation-of-jack-daniel-s-famous-whiskey?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.lDpyjBPP6"]SOURCE 1[/URL] [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/dining/jack-daniels-whiskey-nearis-green-slave.html"]SOURCE 2[/URL] [QUOTE]The Jack Daniel's distillery tour in Lynchburg, Tennessee has now begun informing visitors its eponymous founder may have learned the arts of distilling not from a local preacher and grocer named Dan Call, but instead one of Call's slaves, Nearis Green, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/dining/jack-daniels-whiskey-nearis-green-slave.html"]the [I]New York Times[/I] reported[/URL].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]According to the paper, a variation of the whiskey label's founding myth in which Green was the one to instruct Daniel in distilling, not Call, has been around for decades, though it is only recently Jack Daniel's has begun telling it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]This version of the story was never a secret, but it is one that the distillery has only recently begun to embrace, tentatively, in some of its tours, and in a social media and marketing campaign this summer," the [I]Times wrote. "... For years, the prevailing history of American whiskey has been framed as a lily-white affair, centered on German and Scots-Irish settlers who distilled their surplus grains into whiskey and sent it to far-off markets, eventually creating a $2.9 billion industry and a product equally beloved by Kentucky colonels and Brooklyn hipsters."[/I][/QUOTE]

i loves me some leftist historical revisionism [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling / Shitposting AGAIN" - Swebonny))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling + ban history. Next ban is permanent." - postal))[/highlight]

at least it tastes good

"history" because they can say God told them how to make it for all they care, it's a brand not a historical artifact

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607113]i loves me some leftist historical revisionism[/QUOTE] what the fuck?

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607113]i loves me some leftist historical revisionism[/QUOTE] Leftist historical revisionism? More like somebody left-this bullshit in your mouth and it somehow found a way out.

[quote]Some also see the move as a savvy marketing tactic. “When you look at the history of Jack Daniel’s, it’s gotten glossier over the years,” said Peter Krass, the author of “Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.” “In the 1980s, they aimed at yuppies. I could see them taking it to the next level, to millennials, who dig social justice issues.”[/quote] Thats pretty much all it is, just pure marketing. You take a brand and reform with a tinge of social justice and "paying debts" to slaves and what not, and it will immediately get more popular. I honestly wouldn't doubt it if this slave they're saying taught Jack Daniels was completely fabricated to give the company a modern image. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=axelord157;50607184]Leftist historical revisionism? More like somebody left-this bullshit in your mouth and it somehow found a way out.[/QUOTE] Yea man, teach him a lesson for putting the black man down.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50607187]Thats pretty much all it is, just pure marketing. You take a brand and reform with a tinge of social justice and "paying debts" to slaves and what not, and it will immediately get more popular. I honestly wouldn't doubt it if this slave they're saying taught Jack Daniels was completely fabricated to give the company a modern image. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] Yea man, teach him a lesson for putting the black man down.[/QUOTE] I like how you guys practice the polar opposite of Hanlon's razor in the pursuit of uh something I guess. "There's no way this slave guy could've helped a man create some hootch, its all a conspiracy to get that social justice warrior dinero."

[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;50607199]Yes, the slave that was mentioned in a 1967 biography well before social justice movement became trendy was fabricated. Of course it was a marketing decision. Who cares? It was also correct.[/QUOTE] [quote]From the Author's Preface: "This book is a news story written by a newspaperman about an unusual American who becomes greater by the day. He is an absolutely "unique" character who produced a "unique whiskey" under circumstances unapproached by any other whiskey pioneer--and his successors have continued this distinctive achievement. This book tells how this happened, when it happened, why it happened and circumstances under which these events took place. It's just a news story--a real fact book. [b]The only imagination used in the book was to dream up a boy's life until he was about ten years old. From then on all facts are verified.[/quote] [/b] Never read the book, so I can't attest to this at all. Anyway I was saying I wouldn't be surprised if the man was a complete fabrication, not saying that he was. I was simply pointing out that this is done completely for marketing, not for any sort of emotional reparation for anybody. Honestly it makes more sense that Daniels was taught distilling by one of the Preachers slaves rather than the Preacher himself. It would be far easier that way especially since a handfull of slaves would have been running that distillery on their own without much input from the Preacher. I just don't like that this fact that has been known for decades is suddenly rising to the surface out of no where and is being abused for purely to try and draw in the millennial crowd. If Jack Daniels corporate gave 2 shits about the history and legacy of the company then this should have been big news decades ago. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=axelord157;50607227]I like how you guys practice the polar opposite of Hanlon's razor in the pursuit of uh something I guess. "There's no way this slave guy could've helped a man create some hootch, its all a conspiracy to get that social justice warrior dinero."[/QUOTE] Haha, yea man. Only thing I hate more than black people is historical revisionism for marketing purposes.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50607184]Leftist historical revisionism? More like somebody left-this bullshit in your mouth and it somehow found a way out.[/QUOTE] axelord i realize that living in your fantasy world is hard, especially when someone hits you with a dose of reality, but theres no need to be rude.

Never assumed nor implied you were a racist, but hell, you can put it out there if you want. My feelings won't be hurt.

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607286]axelord i realize that living in your fantasy world is hard, especially when someone hits you with a dose of reality, but theres no need to be rude.[/QUOTE] it's literally not historical revisionism shockingly enough mentioning black people having an involvement in history that isn't them being slaves ISN'T the spooky scarey sjws trying to take away your white pride

[QUOTE=axelord157;50607294]Never assumed nor implied you were a racist, but hell, you can put it out there if you want. My feelings won't be hurt.[/QUOTE] He never accused you of calling him racist tho?? Not taking sides but you're kinda putting words in his mouth

they aren't changing anything they're just letting you know about a myth "According to the paper, a variation of the whiskey label's founding myth in which Green was the one to instruct Daniel in distilling, not Call, has been around for decades, though it is only recently Jack Daniel's has begun telling it."

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607286]axelord i realize that living in your fantasy world is hard, especially when someone hits you with a dose of reality, but theres no need to be rude.[/QUOTE] The dose of reality is that the slave probably helped the guy, something both the owner of Jackie D's and researchers aknowledge. So yessir, my dose is doing me mighty fine this wonderful Monday evening. Now are we going to elucidate your first post or are we going to watch you pitifully lick your burn wound?

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50607311]it's literally not historical revisionism shockingly enough mentioning black people having an involvement in history that isn't them being slaves ISN'T the spooky scarey sjws trying to take away your white pride[/QUOTE]you'd probably support sending death threats en masse to someone you disagree with

God damn it. First post into this thread and we're already in the mud flinging shit.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50607294]Never assumed nor implied you were a racist, but hell, you can put it out there if you want. My feelings won't be hurt.[/QUOTE] I can't have any minorities tainting the proud white history of alcoholism.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50607379]God damn it. First post into this thread and we're already in the mud flinging shit.[/QUOTE] It's the traditional facepunch way. Also you're wrong and so is everything you stand for.

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;50607350]you'd probably support sending death threats en masse to someone you disagree with[/QUOTE] This "us" and "them" mentality needs to stop, and you need to stop arguing with false ad hominems.

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;50607350]you'd probably support sending death threats en masse to someone you disagree with[/QUOTE] If you're trying to make a joke, it's not a very funny one. If it's not a joke, you're an asshole.

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;50607350]you'd probably support sending death threats en masse to someone you disagree with[/QUOTE] Supporting correct history = sending death threats like the spoopy skelletons

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50607408]I can't have any minorities tainting the proud white history of alcoholism.[/QUOTE] Not fair at all, alcoholics deserve diverse representation in the media.

[QUOTE=Hogie bear;50607410]It's the traditional facepunch way. Also you're wrong and so is everything you stand for.[/QUOTE] No! You and everything you stand for is wrong and I'll use and ad hominem to prove why!

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607113]i loves me some leftist historical revisionism [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling / Shitposting AGAIN" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] what possible agenda would this further?

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;50607350]you'd probably support sending death threats en masse to someone you disagree with[/QUOTE] ok!!

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;50607554]what possible agenda would this further?[/QUOTE] There's been people (BLM?) trying to claim Africans did a lot of things in history, like Shakespeare, Egyptians etc I assume he's talking about that. /pol/ criticizes it a lot and calls it "we wuz Kings" if you wanna see where he's probably coming from

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50607113]i loves me some leftist historical revisionism [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling / Shitposting AGAIN" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Slaves did a lot of shit we don't credit them for, and this is coming from a true-hearted, gray-wearing, flag-waving rebel boy who hates yankees more than anything.

As Facepunch begins to eat itself. Slavery is over with, the majority of people absolutely do not believe in slavery and I've concluded any discussion about 'leftism' in this regard is in response to those who ask for reparation, blame people for slavery / demand forgiveness over the fact and white guilt. That is why you see opposition to this and that guy who got hammered up top. Unless he's just shit kicking. :smile:

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;50607554]what possible agenda would this further?[/QUOTE] It acknowledges a minority, therefore it's filthy sjw revisionism according to /pol/