Hey, Joe...
March 26, 2007 3:50 PM Subscribe
Ukraine doesn't like Stalin in advertising. An energy company in Ukraine displayed billboard ads featuring Joey Bananas. For some reason a lot of people object to this.
The city of Donetsk* was named Stalino from 1924 to 1961.
*Where said billboard campaign took place.
posted by rob511 at 4:28 PM on March 26, 2007
*Where said billboard campaign took place.
posted by rob511 at 4:28 PM on March 26, 2007
I suspect they were put up by protesters, not one of the energy companies. Still, I don't know how people in Donetsk feel about Stalin, he may be like Abraham Lincoln to some of them.
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:39 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:39 PM on March 26, 2007
I suppose one American equivalent would be J.Danforth Quayle advertising the National Spelling Bee.
Or Monica Lewinsky for Febreze.
posted by Dizzy at 4:39 PM on March 26, 2007
Or Monica Lewinsky for Febreze.
posted by Dizzy at 4:39 PM on March 26, 2007
Ukraine not weak.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:48 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by Smedleyman at 4:48 PM on March 26, 2007
actually, the big mustache look is coming back in fashion
posted by matteo at 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by matteo at 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007
Uncle Joe is the perfect demonstration of the fact that great men are not necessarily good men.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:05 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:05 PM on March 26, 2007
Were they trying to be ironic or something? Like "Pay your bills or you're a communist"? The ad copy suggested they were not, but maybe the irony was lost in translation. Ukranians are a very sarcastic people, from what I understand.
Uncle Joe is the perfect demonstration of the fact that great men are not necessarily good men.
Um, Okay...
posted by delmoi at 5:13 PM on March 26, 2007
Uncle Joe is the perfect demonstration of the fact that great men are not necessarily good men.
Um, Okay...
posted by delmoi at 5:13 PM on March 26, 2007
Of course the one commie Den Beste admires is Old Joe, of fucking course.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:36 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:36 PM on March 26, 2007
Maybe it's like in the U.S., where Stalin has pretty much become the "puss-out Hitler."
In that, any time you hear him mentioned in a comedy context, you know they wanted to say/reference Hitler, but they pussed out. Stalin is the awful dictator it's ok to joke about.
(there's also at least two locations of a restaurant called "Mao's Kitchen" here in L.A. I want to stand next to it holding a sign reading, "not all us liberals are this fucking retarded."
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:56 PM on March 26, 2007
In that, any time you hear him mentioned in a comedy context, you know they wanted to say/reference Hitler, but they pussed out. Stalin is the awful dictator it's ok to joke about.
(there's also at least two locations of a restaurant called "Mao's Kitchen" here in L.A. I want to stand next to it holding a sign reading, "not all us liberals are this fucking retarded."
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:56 PM on March 26, 2007
Hold on just a minute, comrades. This is not a film. This is life.
posted by breezeway at 5:56 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by breezeway at 5:56 PM on March 26, 2007
anyone have of a pic of the ad?
posted by andythebean at 6:09 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by andythebean at 6:09 PM on March 26, 2007
It is time/for you to stop/all of your Stalin.
Well, he did have a winning smile.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:47 PM on March 26, 2007
Of course the one commie Den Beste admires is Old Joe, of fucking course.
Well, he did have a winning smile.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:47 PM on March 26, 2007
I never said I admired him.
Octavian was a great man. So was Genghis Khan, and Napoleon, and Bismarck. But none of them were good men; all were cruel and ruthless.
And that was the case for Stalin, too. I can recognize greatness in a man without admiring him or wanting to emulate him, and there are few men in history I'm less inclined to emulate than Uncle Joe. (Which title I was using sardonically, by the way. That was what he was called in American war propaganda during WWII.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:36 PM on March 26, 2007
Octavian was a great man. So was Genghis Khan, and Napoleon, and Bismarck. But none of them were good men; all were cruel and ruthless.
And that was the case for Stalin, too. I can recognize greatness in a man without admiring him or wanting to emulate him, and there are few men in history I'm less inclined to emulate than Uncle Joe. (Which title I was using sardonically, by the way. That was what he was called in American war propaganda during WWII.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:36 PM on March 26, 2007
Just winding ya up there Steve.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:48 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:48 PM on March 26, 2007
I must confess that there is an intellectual game I sometimes play, just as a way of keeping perspective. It's "What would Stalin do?"
For instance: The Americans and British in Iraq have been capturing Iranian agents who have been working with various insurgent groups and funneling money and supplies to them. At this point several hundred are being held.
A few days ago Iranian military forces crossed to the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arab and grabbed fifteen British sailors which they took back to Iranian territory. The sailors have "confessed" to being in Iranian waters and I don't really want to think about what was done to them to get those confessions. The Iranian government has threatened to put them on trial as spies. Then they offered to trade them for the Iranians we've captured.
What would Stalin do? He'd ask the Iranians which of their people they wanted back, and then he'd deliver all of them to the Iranians in coffins.
The reason for thinking about that is that it sets one extreme of response. The other extreme would be, "What would Gandhi do?"
Our response should probably be somewhere in between, of course, but it's helpful to begin evaluating responses by considering the extreme cases.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:14 PM on March 26, 2007
For instance: The Americans and British in Iraq have been capturing Iranian agents who have been working with various insurgent groups and funneling money and supplies to them. At this point several hundred are being held.
A few days ago Iranian military forces crossed to the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arab and grabbed fifteen British sailors which they took back to Iranian territory. The sailors have "confessed" to being in Iranian waters and I don't really want to think about what was done to them to get those confessions. The Iranian government has threatened to put them on trial as spies. Then they offered to trade them for the Iranians we've captured.
What would Stalin do? He'd ask the Iranians which of their people they wanted back, and then he'd deliver all of them to the Iranians in coffins.
The reason for thinking about that is that it sets one extreme of response. The other extreme would be, "What would Gandhi do?"
Our response should probably be somewhere in between, of course, but it's helpful to begin evaluating responses by considering the extreme cases.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:14 PM on March 26, 2007
"A few days ago Iranian military forces crossed to the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arab and grabbed fifteen British sailors which they took back to Iranian territory."
SCDB, to me the first lesson in "WWSD?" is realism: never buy into anybody's propaganda, not even your own side's. So you just failed: you accept on faith the British/U.S./"Coalition" allegation that the Brits were "grabbed" in non-Iranian waters, yet you were not there nor do you have any informants of your own on the spot. Not that Stalin would have said anything different if those were Soviet sailors "grabbed", but that I doubt he would have cared what the actual facts were so long as he could gain something from some version of something like the story. (Of course were he ruling Iran he'd've said they were "invaders" even if they were grabbed 300 miles away.)
Furthermore, what makes you think the "Coalition" has NOT been continually testing Iranian defenses, including using real live "forces"? Do you really think your own Bush+Blair team is stupid enough to make bellicose noises against a country they know nothing about?
(And lest anybody accuse me of "aiding and comforting an enemy of my country," my Metafilter record has even more "Islam-bashing" than "anti-semitism." Q.E.D.)
And delmoi, I don't think it's a matter of "Pay your bills or you're a communist", but "Pay your bills or else you'll die a sick, starving slave-laboring convict!"
posted by davy at 10:20 PM on March 26, 2007
SCDB, to me the first lesson in "WWSD?" is realism: never buy into anybody's propaganda, not even your own side's. So you just failed: you accept on faith the British/U.S./"Coalition" allegation that the Brits were "grabbed" in non-Iranian waters, yet you were not there nor do you have any informants of your own on the spot. Not that Stalin would have said anything different if those were Soviet sailors "grabbed", but that I doubt he would have cared what the actual facts were so long as he could gain something from some version of something like the story. (Of course were he ruling Iran he'd've said they were "invaders" even if they were grabbed 300 miles away.)
Furthermore, what makes you think the "Coalition" has NOT been continually testing Iranian defenses, including using real live "forces"? Do you really think your own Bush+Blair team is stupid enough to make bellicose noises against a country they know nothing about?
(And lest anybody accuse me of "aiding and comforting an enemy of my country," my Metafilter record has even more "Islam-bashing" than "anti-semitism." Q.E.D.)
And delmoi, I don't think it's a matter of "Pay your bills or you're a communist", but "Pay your bills or else you'll die a sick, starving slave-laboring convict!"
posted by davy at 10:20 PM on March 26, 2007
Stalin is a just a symbol of the old south.
posted by srboisvert at 2:14 AM on March 27, 2007
posted by srboisvert at 2:14 AM on March 27, 2007
What would Stalin do?
wait for fdr to drop the soap
posted by pyramid termite at 5:25 AM on March 27, 2007
wait for fdr to drop the soap
posted by pyramid termite at 5:25 AM on March 27, 2007
I wonder what Stalin--Time's Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942--would do about the Saudis that are supporting the Sunni insurgents, who are "by far the biggest threat to American troops in Iraq."
posted by kirkaracha at 6:46 AM on March 27, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 6:46 AM on March 27, 2007
I must confess that there is an intellectual game I sometimes play, just as a way of keeping perspective. It's "What would Stalin do?"
As an English teacher it sometimes gives me a chuckle to imagine opening the Joseph Stalin School of English. Each day at lunch break any students who didn't do their homework would be publicly executed in the courtyard. Imagine the productivity gains!
posted by Meatbomb at 7:19 AM on March 27, 2007
As an English teacher it sometimes gives me a chuckle to imagine opening the Joseph Stalin School of English. Each day at lunch break any students who didn't do their homework would be publicly executed in the courtyard. Imagine the productivity gains!
posted by Meatbomb at 7:19 AM on March 27, 2007
I'm definitely going to refer to Stalin as "Joey Bananas" sometime in the next 10 to 12 days. Thank you, Mayor Curley.
posted by sklero at 11:03 AM on March 27, 2007
posted by sklero at 11:03 AM on March 27, 2007
« Older Isotopically delicious! | Bill's Top Secret Autumn Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pyramid termite at 4:14 PM on March 26, 2007 [4 favorites]