How long after all caricatures of color are removed from product branding will there be renewed complaints of racism because companies all use white images to depict thei wholesomeness or whatever of their brands?
I understand true offensive depictions like chief wahoo, but some of these are a little extreme and just seem to be pandering to the extreme minority of monority people. I've had these conversations regarding native Americans with Native Americans I work with and have never heard one of them complain about the land o lakes maiden. Honestly the thing that troubles .most of them is the fear of losing their heritage or that heritage being ill represented, not so much about their likenesses being used respectfully because that keeps their heritage alive for millions that never would otherwise think about a native American.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
How long after all caricatures of color are removed from product branding will there be renewed complaints of racism because companies all use white images to depict thei wholesomeness or whatever of their brands?
I understand true offensive depictions like chief wahoo, but some of these are a little extreme and just seem to be pandering to the extreme minority of monority people. I've had these conversations regarding native Americans with Native Americans I work with and have never heard one of them complain about the land o lakes maiden. Honestly the thing that troubles .most of them is the fear of losing their heritage or that heritage being ill represented, not so much about their likenesses being used respectfully because that keeps their heritage alive for millions that never would otherwise think about a native American.
Oh for sure there will be pandering. But when hasn't there been? Especially in today's Social Justice Warrior/call out culture mentality. Yes, they are going to take this too far and that's too bad. But some of it had to go and it was long overdue. But the rational, lets not overreact thing isn't going to happen. Its either overreaction or under-reaction. The problem comes when you take stereotypical visuals like an Aunt Jemima or Washington Redskins: its just racist. But native Americans have zero power or leverage in this country and blacks have been a severe minority forever: no squeaky wheel is going to get any oil because nobody is forced to do it for money reasons. But today with social media, outrage can be quantified. Corporations react swiftly to save sales volume...actually overreaction saves them a lot of money. There is no indignation from corporations, only $$$$$. If Land O'Lakes marketing department told them a caricature picture of two donkeys having sex on the butter brands would increase sales 19% in Q1 and 33% in Q2, guess what's going to happen? Same conversely with getting rid of an image. They are just whores.
And honestly, who cares if they take away Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben?? Does it matter to your everyday life? Talk about something I couldn't give two shits about other than an opinion. I don't care. The outrage on Facebook by some is absolutely insane and hilarious.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uncle-bens-mrs-burtterworths-cream-of-wheat-package-review-aunt-jemima-racism/
I get Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's. As this article points out, "Many African Americans object to the term "Uncle" (or "Aunt") when used in this context, as it was a southern form of address first used with older enslaved peoples, since they were denied use of courtesy titles."
Struggling to find a problem with the Cream of Wheat branding though.
EDIT: from an article above: B&G Foods, owner of Cream of Wheat—which bears a smiling black chef on the box who is based on a racist caricature from minstrel shows—said, “We understand there are concerns regarding the Chef image, and we are committed to evaluating our packaging and will proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism.”
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Struggling to find a problem with the Cream of Wheat branding though.
Yep. Per normal, this will be taken a few steps too far.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
How long after all caricatures of color are removed from product branding will there be renewed complaints of racism because companies all use white images to depict thei wholesomeness or whatever of their brands?
I understand true offensive depictions like chief wahoo, but some of these are a little extreme and just seem to be pandering to the extreme minority of monority people. I've had these conversations regarding native Americans with Native Americans I work with and have never heard one of them complain about the land o lakes maiden. Honestly the thing that troubles .most of them is the fear of losing their heritage or that heritage being ill represented, not so much about their likenesses being used respectfully because that keeps their heritage alive for millions that never would otherwise think about a native American.
Oh for sure there will be pandering. But when hasn't there been? Especially in today's Social Justice Warrior/call out culture mentality. Yes, they are going to take this too far and that's too bad. But some of it had to go and it was long overdue. But the rational, lets not overreact thing isn't going to happen. Its either overreaction or under-reaction. The problem comes when you take stereotypical visuals like an Aunt Jemima or Washington Redskins: its just racist. But native Americans have zero power or leverage in this country and blacks have been a severe minority forever: no squeaky wheel is going to get any oil because nobody is forced to do it for money reasons. But today with social media, outrage can be quantified. Corporations react swiftly to save sales volume...actually overreaction saves them a lot of money. There is no indignation from corporations, only $$$$$. If Land O'Lakes marketing department told them a caricature picture of two donkeys having sex on the butter brands would increase sales 19% in Q1 and 33% in Q2, guess what's going to happen? Same conversely with getting rid of an image. They are just whores.
And honestly, who cares if they take away Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben?? Does it matter to your everyday life? Talk about something I couldn't give two shits about other than an opinion. I don't care. The outrage on Facebook by some is absolutely insane and hilarious. I had a mini-celebration when they announced the Aunt Jemima change. I held a little-protest as a kid in order to stop my mother from buying that brand. At the time, the logo had a black woman with a scarf and apron who was fully representing the mammy figure. It was like Gone With the Wind where the black character didn't even have a name. She was just mammy.
I used to ask my mother 'Who do we know that looks like that? or Who do we know named Jemima'. I hated it as a kid and never bought a single Aunt Jemima anything as an adult. I signed plenty of petitions to change it though.
Does stuff like that matter to me? Yes. And people talking about history being erased? You're not learning anything from a pancake box so screw that. Everyone will still have pancakes and syrup. Everyone will be okay.
So before this who ever heard of Kirby Lauryen? And who is taking advantage of what.
Also the Mayor of Duluth wants to remove the title of Chief. UUMMM look it up in the dictionary lady. Here is the etymology of the term.
chief (adj.) c. 1300, "highest in rank or power; most important or prominent; supreme, best, placed above the rest," from Old French chief "chief, principal, first" (10c., Modern French chef), from Vulgar Latin *capum (also source of Spanish and Portuguese cabo, Italian capo, Provençal cap), from Latin caput "head," also "leader, guide, chief person; summit; capital city" (from PIE root *kaput- "head").
chief (n.)
c. 1300, "head, leader, captain; the principal or most important part of anything;" from Old French chief "leader, ruler, head" of something, "capital city" (10c., Modern French chef), from Vulgar Latin *capum, from Latin caput "head," also "leader, chief person; summit; capital city" (from PIE root *kaput- "head"). Meaning "head of a clan" is from 1570s; later extended to headmen of American Indian tribes (by 1713; William Penn, 1680s, called them kings). Commander-in-chief attested from 1660s.
Quote: @Nichelle said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
How long after all caricatures of color are removed from product branding will there be renewed complaints of racism because companies all use white images to depict thei wholesomeness or whatever of their brands?
I understand true offensive depictions like chief wahoo, but some of these are a little extreme and just seem to be pandering to the extreme minority of monority people. I've had these conversations regarding native Americans with Native Americans I work with and have never heard one of them complain about the land o lakes maiden. Honestly the thing that troubles .most of them is the fear of losing their heritage or that heritage being ill represented, not so much about their likenesses being used respectfully because that keeps their heritage alive for millions that never would otherwise think about a native American.
Oh for sure there will be pandering. But when hasn't there been? Especially in today's Social Justice Warrior/call out culture mentality. Yes, they are going to take this too far and that's too bad. But some of it had to go and it was long overdue. But the rational, lets not overreact thing isn't going to happen. Its either overreaction or under-reaction. The problem comes when you take stereotypical visuals like an Aunt Jemima or Washington Redskins: its just racist. But native Americans have zero power or leverage in this country and blacks have been a severe minority forever: no squeaky wheel is going to get any oil because nobody is forced to do it for money reasons. But today with social media, outrage can be quantified. Corporations react swiftly to save sales volume...actually overreaction saves them a lot of money. There is no indignation from corporations, only $$$$$. If Land O'Lakes marketing department told them a caricature picture of two donkeys having sex on the butter brands would increase sales 19% in Q1 and 33% in Q2, guess what's going to happen? Same conversely with getting rid of an image. They are just whores.
And honestly, who cares if they take away Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben?? Does it matter to your everyday life? Talk about something I couldn't give two shits about other than an opinion. I don't care. The outrage on Facebook by some is absolutely insane and hilarious. I had a mini-celebration when they announced the Aunt Jemima change. I held a little-protest as a kid in order to stop my mother from buying that brand. At the time, the logo had a black woman with a scarf and apron who was fully representing the mammy figure. It was like Gone With the Wind where the black character didn't even have a name. She was just mammy.
I used to ask my mother 'Who do we know that looks like that? or Who do we know named Jemima'. I hated it as a kid and never bought a single Aunt Jemima anything as an adult. I signed plenty of petitions to change it though.
Does stuff like that matter to me? Yes. And people talking about history being erased? You're not learning anything from a pancake box so screw that. Everyone will still have pancakes and syrup. Everyone will be okay.
all the syrup talk is making me hungry for some pancakes. is Mrs Butterworths ok? I dont know what her skin color is supposed to be, but she sounded a lot like my white Irish Grandma when I was a kid growing up.
(and by the way, if Aunt Jemima truly bothered you, then I am sincerely happy for you  )
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Nichelle said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
How long after all caricatures of color are removed from product branding will there be renewed complaints of racism because companies all use white images to depict thei wholesomeness or whatever of their brands?
I understand true offensive depictions like chief wahoo, but some of these are a little extreme and just seem to be pandering to the extreme minority of monority people. I've had these conversations regarding native Americans with Native Americans I work with and have never heard one of them complain about the land o lakes maiden. Honestly the thing that troubles .most of them is the fear of losing their heritage or that heritage being ill represented, not so much about their likenesses being used respectfully because that keeps their heritage alive for millions that never would otherwise think about a native American.
Oh for sure there will be pandering. But when hasn't there been? Especially in today's Social Justice Warrior/call out culture mentality. Yes, they are going to take this too far and that's too bad. But some of it had to go and it was long overdue. But the rational, lets not overreact thing isn't going to happen. Its either overreaction or under-reaction. The problem comes when you take stereotypical visuals like an Aunt Jemima or Washington Redskins: its just racist. But native Americans have zero power or leverage in this country and blacks have been a severe minority forever: no squeaky wheel is going to get any oil because nobody is forced to do it for money reasons. But today with social media, outrage can be quantified. Corporations react swiftly to save sales volume...actually overreaction saves them a lot of money. There is no indignation from corporations, only $$$$$. If Land O'Lakes marketing department told them a caricature picture of two donkeys having sex on the butter brands would increase sales 19% in Q1 and 33% in Q2, guess what's going to happen? Same conversely with getting rid of an image. They are just whores.
And honestly, who cares if they take away Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben?? Does it matter to your everyday life? Talk about something I couldn't give two shits about other than an opinion. I don't care. The outrage on Facebook by some is absolutely insane and hilarious. I had a mini-celebration when they announced the Aunt Jemima change. I held a little-protest as a kid in order to stop my mother from buying that brand. At the time, the logo had a black woman with a scarf and apron who was fully representing the mammy figure. It was like Gone With the Wind where the black character didn't even have a name. She was just mammy.
I used to ask my mother 'Who do we know that looks like that? or Who do we know named Jemima'. I hated it as a kid and never bought a single Aunt Jemima anything as an adult. I signed plenty of petitions to change it though.
Does stuff like that matter to me? Yes. And people talking about history being erased? You're not learning anything from a pancake box so screw that. Everyone will still have pancakes and syrup. Everyone will be okay.
all the syrup talk is making me hungry for some pancakes. is Mrs Butterworths ok? I dont know what her skin color is supposed to be, but she sounded a lot like my white Irish Grandma when I was a kid growing up.
(and by the way, if Aunt Jemima truly bothered you, then I am sincerely happy for you ) =) Yes, it's no wonder I've wanted to go to IHOP the last couple of days. The Mrs Butterworth's one is more ambiguous to me so I don't have any strong feelings on it. As opposed to Aunt Jemima that literally marketed itself this way:
![[Image: 440px-New-York_tribune.%2C_November_07%2...Jemima.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/New-York_tribune.%2C_November_07%2C_1909%2C_Page_20%2C_Image_44_Aunt_Jemima.jpg/440px-New-York_tribune.%2C_November_07%2C_1909%2C_Page_20%2C_Image_44_Aunt_Jemima.jpg)
The images and marketing we see really do matter. For a while I collected some of the artifacts and remnants as reminders of what should not be. If you walked into my kitchen a few years ago you might have asked me why I had a mammy toothpick holder and mammy salt and pepper shakers. We then would have had a deep dive into history while you uncomfortably glanced around for an exit ☺
From then, I remembered McDonald's commercials that drove me nuts. The first was a commercial advertising 2 for 1 hamburgers. One commercial featured a wholesome white family who were all (mom, dad, daughter and son) able to go out for a family meal while saving money. The commercial was filled with blonde hair and pearly whites. The other version of the commercial featured a young black man buying the burgers and attempting to entertain two dates at once with the 2 for 1deal, neither of them suspecting the other was in the restaurant.
The second McDonald's commercials advertised a free Coke glass with the purchase of a meal. The white version of the commercial showed a group of friends all enjoying their meals and drinking from the glasses. Then there was a black version in which they took the glasses, turned them upside down and beat them like drums.
Might someone say that I read too much into the imagery then? Sure. But when the collective imagery, woven together, promoted a theme that white people were wholesome, family-oriented and innocent while the black people portrayed were two-timing, drum beating cheaters, I had an issue with it. People believe what they see, even if it does not consciously register. Thank goodness those things have improved.
But, when a group says that this matters I wish people would listen to the reason why instead of pledging some unhealthy attachment to 'things'.
Oh and thanks.. the Aunt Jemima rebrand really does make me happy
|
![[Image: 440px-New-York_tribune.%2C_November_07%2...Jemima.jpg]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New-York_tribune.,_November_07,_1909,_Page_20,_Image_44_Aunt_Jemima.jpg)
