Vikings' committee...

@"1VikesFan" said: So should the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be abolished because of who wrote them?  I would vote no, but that's just me.

Is anyone saying it should? I mean, at some point, making silly comparisons like this does what exactly? Flawed men wrote the Constitution but also brilliant. Doesn't mean we can't discuss those flaws. And what does that have to do with a restaurant chain called Sambos, an obvious racist term, changing its name? That's the slippery slope some are so concerned about? 

I've mentioned that some people take this shit WAY too far and parts of the media will run with it like every kid under 25 believes exactly that. That's not true. But many want to make positive changes in the world and do so peacefully but visibly. Isn't that what we want our children to be, empathetic and determined? Wanting to be heard? Not all do it for altruistic reasons, that's for sure which I've mentioned before. But regardless, I think its obvious that some things were long overdue for change. Some people are uncomfortable with that and others are being manipulated into fearing what that might look like. 

They are talking about removing the statues of some of these same brilliant but flawed men.  Even thought I don't agree with it, I don't think the comparison is really that silly based on what's happening in the country right.

@"1VikesFan" said: They are talking about removing the statues of some of these same brilliant but flawed men.  Even thought I don't agree with it, I don't think the comparison is really that silly based on what's happening in the country right.

But that wasn't the question you asked. The question you asked was silly.

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"savannahskol" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:  There is a big difference between remembering and honoring.

This is a profound statement.  And I agree.  
But can there be either (remembering & honoring), if all vestiges (statues, etc)  are gone?  

And yet, you left out LEARNING (from historical markers), from the remembering and honoring options. 

Who really wants to remember Auschwitz? (no one)
Who really  wants to honor Auschwitz? (no one)
Q?: Why the hell would the Smithsonian want to protect Auschwitz?  
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/can-auschwitz-be-saved-4650863/
A?:  Of course, so we can witness and LEARN from man's most inhumane moment(s) in recent modern history. 

You don't wipe history because it's 'uncomfortable'.  You LEARN from it.  
Choosing to be willfully (politically correct) ignorant, is not an option.  (For me)

Oh there are plenty of conversations, you're just not participating. 

...

@"StickyBun" said:

@"1VikesFan" said: They are talking about removing the statues of some of these same brilliant but flawed men.  Even thought I don't agree with it, I don't think the comparison is really that silly based on what's happening in the country right.

But that wasn't the question you asked. The question you asked was silly.

@"1VikesFan" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"1VikesFan" said: They are talking about removing the statues of some of these same brilliant but flawed men.  Even thought I don't agree with it, I don't think the comparison is really that silly based on what's happening in the country right.

But that wasn't the question you asked. The question you asked was silly.

Was it?  I would have said talking about removing statues of Jefferson was silly too but that's been put out there.  Either way I'm glad you find me silly.

How did a thread about the good work a star player and the praise worthy owners of this team turn into this?  Both putting up their own time and or money in the hope  it creates change. 
Proud of Eric, proud of the Wilfs. Keep up the good work. Sure beats the all business attitude of Red the cheap and heartless.

@"StickyBun" said:

@"1VikesFan" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"1VikesFan" said: They are talking about removing the statues of some of these same brilliant but flawed men.  Even thought I don't agree with it, I don't think the comparison is really that silly based on what's happening in the country right.

But that wasn't the question you asked. The question you asked was silly.

Was it?  I would have said talking about removing statues of Jefferson was silly too but that's been put out there.  Either way I'm glad you find me silly.

Abolishing the Constitution and taking down a statue of Jefferson in Portland, Oregon....yeah, same level stuff.  :/

Quaker Oats, owned by PepsiCo (PEP) since 2001, will say goodbye to Aunt Jemima, the face of its 130-year-old syrup brand. The company will change the name and logo of the brand after social media outcry, driven by singer Kirby Lauryen’s viral TikTok video on “How to make a non-racist breakfast,” in which she told the origin story of Aunt Jemima, then poured out the batter. “We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,” said Quaker Foods North America CMO Kristin Kroepfl in a statement on Wednesday. “As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers' expectations." It only took a few hours for Uncle Ben’s Rice parent company Mars Inc to follow suit. The brand on Wednesday said it will retire the Uncle Ben character, long criticized as racist since “uncle” was a common derogatory term white people would use for black men in the Jim Crow era. Conagra Brands (CAG), owner of Mrs. Butterworth’s, said on Wednesday it is initiating a “complete brand and packaging review on Mrs. Butterworth's.” 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.”

On Thursday, Colgate-Palmolive joined the discussion. The company jointly owns Darlie, one of the leading toothpaste brands in China, and now says it is “working with our partner to review and further evolve all aspects of the brand, including the brand name.” Darlie was called Darkie until 1989 and featured on its package a grinning black caricature in a top hat.
Land O’Lakes, member-owned and based in Minnesota, made its move in April. The company removed the kneeling Native American woman, long seen as an offensive stereotype, from all its butter packaging.

As such, there is a touch of the disingenuous in these rebrands, since they prompt the question: Why did it take so long? And, would these brands have taken these actions without the social media backlash forcing their hand? The moves tend to look reactive rather than proactive.
The popular Grammy-winning country band Lady Antebellum announced this month that the band will change its name to Lady A, dropping the “Antebellum.” The band said in a statement, in part, “We named our band after the Southern ‘antebellum’ style home where we took our first photos.... We did not take into account the associations that weigh down this word referring to the period of history before the Civil War, which includes slavery. We are deeply sorry for the hurt this has caused.”
The band’s statement also addressed the “why now” and “why not sooner” questions that can arise from many of these new rebrands: “We understand that many of you may ask the question ‘Why have you not made this change until now?’ The answer is that we can make no excuse for our lateness to this realization. What we can do is acknowledge it, turn from it, and take action.”

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.

@"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.”

@"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. 

@"savannahskol" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: In the case of Abe Lincoln, its pretty easy for me to honor. 

Ol Abe going down in Boston, if the Mayor/comrades have their way.  
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/12/metro/tear-down-lincoln-statue-petition-says/

Scumbag Jefferson got his just reward, also. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/portland-protesters-tear-down-racist-statue-of-thomas-jefferson/ar-BB15vYtY

@"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. 

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.

@"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.

@"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 :)  )

@"JimmyinSD" said: so what about the Washington Monument?  George had slaves, should that get toppled as well?  The Jefferson Memorial?  maybe we need to rub their faces off of Mt Rushmore as well?  Lots and lots of public reminders of historically questionable people.

some of this shit is getting way out of hand in terms of historical monuments and shit, if a persons sole reason for being memorialized was racist or biased based.. sure,  take em down,  but symbols getting trashed simply because they are loosely associated historically with dark periods or bad shit... thats just stupid IMO.

What about Calvin Griffith??

By the time the Twins reached out this week to several of their prominent former players, the decision already had been made.The statue of former owner Calvin Griffith, the man who brought Major League Baseball to Minnesota in 1961, was being removed.
In the early hours of Friday morning, just that occurred. The statue of the first team owner, standing in front of Target Field since the ballpark opened in 2010, was hauled away by a construction crew. A sheet of plywood covered the location, with a handmade “BLM” (Black Lives Matter) sign attached, was all that remained by mid-morning.
https://www.startribune.com/twins-remove-calvin-griffith-statue-citing-racist-statements/571365382/
=======================================

Recalling Calvin Griffith's bigoted outburst in southern MinnesotaIn 1978, former Twins owner Calvin Griffith was invited to speak to the Lions Club in Waseca, a small city in southern Minnesota. Among those in the audience was Nick Coleman, a former Star Tribune reporter and columnist who is currently executive editor of The UpTake, a Twin Cities-based non-profit news organization.
Taking questions from the audience, Griffith was asked why he brought the Twins to Minnesota from Washington, D.C., in 1961. Coleman wrote that Griffith answered the question with a criticism of Twin Cities sports reporters -- and then he changed direction, moving on to the subject that would dominate local headlines for days to come::
Coleman wrote "At that point Griffith interrupted himself, lowered his voice and asked if there were any blacks around. After he looked around the room and assured himself that his audience was white, Griffith resumed his answer. 'I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota,' he said. 'It was when I found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ball games, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. It's unbelievable. We came here because you've got good, hardworking, white people here.' "
His comments have been recalled by Coleman and others in the aftermath of the NBA's ban of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for his remarks about African-Americans.
Griffith went on to call Twins superstar and Hall of Famer Rod Carew  "a damn fool" for agreeing to a three-year contract that paid him $170,000 per year: "He only gets $170,000 and we all know damn well that he's worth a lot more than that, but that's what his agent asked for, so that's what he gets. Last year, I thought I was generous and gave him an extra 100 grand, but this year I'm not making any money so he gets 170 -- that's it."
(Griffith went on to an assortment of other topics. At one point, someone asked about whether Jerry Terrell, a former Twins infielder, had a chance of rejoining the team. The questioner noted that Terrell was a "favorite son" and was born in Waseca. Coleman reported Griffith's response: "Terrell came into my office in spring training and said he wanted a multiyear contract, I told him to turn your ass around and get out of there if that's what he wanted. It's a disgrace to major league baseball that Jerry Terrell is on a ball club.")
The Twins were playing in Kansas City at the time, and Star Tribune sports editor Gary Libman reported that "a short time after Carew was informed of Griffith's remarks, he ran up the tunnel, tossed off his clothes in front of his locker, took a shower and prepared to leave the stadium. But he changed his mind and played. He refused to comment on the remarks."
Later, Carew told Libman: "I will not ever sign another contract with this organization. I don't care how much money or how many options Calvin Griffith offers me. I definitely will not be back next year."
Carew also said in a voice that Libman described as soft but angry: "I will not come back and play for a bigot. I'm not going to be another nigger on his plantation."
Libman concluded his story: "He respects nobody and expects nobody to respect him," Carew said, spitting on the carpeted locker room floor. "Spit on Calvin Griffith."
Carew, who won his seventh American League batting title that season, was traded to the California Angels for four players before the 1979 season. He played for the Angels until retiring in 1985.
Reached by telephone while on a hunting trip after his Waseca speech, Griffith denied there was any racism intended in his remarks: "What the hell, racism is a thing of the past. Why do we have colored ballplayers on our club? They are the best ones. If you don't have them, you're not going to win."
Griffith, who died in 1999, owned the Twins until selling to Carl Pohlad during the 1984 season. There were no repercussions from Major League Baseball for his remarks.
https://www.startribune.com/recalling-ex-twins-owner-griffith-s-bigoted-outburst/257189521/