The Aunt Jemima brand and logo will be retired

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How is it that the Washington Redskins team name has endured, despite controversy about it a number of years ago?
 
Last edited:
I’m sure someone in marketing can condense the name without losing the idea 🙂.
 
Theo520 said:
I seriously doubt any of us were of age in the ‘Jim Crow’ south
Click to expand...
I won’t make the claim of being “of age during Jim Crow”, but I distinctly remember when the elementary school I attended was first integrated.

ETA: To be clear, it was integrated during the time I was attending it.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
I’ve never heard this as being race-specific. I live in the South. There is a lot of mutual respect down here. Terms such as “boss”, “chief”, and “sir” are exchanged pleasantly, lightly, and congenially from men of all races to men of all races. Where I live (very diverse suburban area, roughly 45/45 white/black with 10% Hispanic or other races), there are no racial tensions I’ve experienced, or if they are there, evidently I’m too obtuse to pick up on them. Aside from a wave of gun crime a few years back (young black males from the ghetto coming out here to rob, mostly places of business), there have never been any problems, and I’ve lived here 22 years.
Click to expand...
That’s my impression as well, the South has moved well past overt racism.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
How is it that the Washington Redskins team name has endured, despite controversy about it a number of years ago?
Click to expand...
Well, people did not take the opportunity to dismiss the trademark when it came up for renewal. Then SCOTUS said you can use any nasty name you want for a trademark …
 
Theo520 said:
I don’t have issues with strong and successful black women being used to market products.
Click to expand...
But Parks’ Sausages did not use a black mammy to sell meat products. And Ebony Fashion Fair did not have black caricatures. Those are two black owned efforts. If they could use respectful images, what does that tell you?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Always wondered if Chicago-based Murray’s Pomade caught any flak from this?!
BTW it’s used to process by people from all races, countries, and nationalities…
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
That’s the image I had of Jemima. I never knew her to be anything but. I am almost sorry that certain people have decided to chronicle and preserve her “racist history” so that we can feel bad about liking her now.
Click to expand...
The Aunt Jemima picture is based on a happy slave serving up food to white folks; the ‘Mammy’ stereotype. That’s a fact. A person should understand this if it is the image he or she is trying to preserve in his or her mind.
 
Theo520 said:
I don’t see AJ as being disrespectful. As I said she’s portrayed as a strong and successful black women. Here’s another strong successful black woman selling the syrup
Click to expand...
If it’s going to cause this much trouble, and disturb so many people (I would be interested to see how sales of AJ break out among various demographics), I say all right, go ahead and change the branding. But I’d be interested as well to see what these same people think of something like the Gladys Knight commercial.

In a lot of this that is going on lately, it seems like the media, and certain entities and interest groups, are telling everybody else what they are offended by. There is such a thing as “agitators”.

Saul Alinsky, call your office.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
If it’s going to cause this much trouble, and disturb so many people (I would be interested to see how sales of AJ break out among various demographics), I say all right, go ahead and change the branding. But I’d be interested as well to see what these same people think of something like the Gladys Knight commercial.

In a lot of this that is going on lately, it seems like the media, and certain entities and interest groups, are telling everybody else what they are offended by. There is such a thing as “agitators”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m confident a small group of focused (paid) activists are behind this. Very few people alive have even seen the stereotype they are deriding. The complaint is not based on modern reality.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
If it’s going to cause this much trouble, and disturb so many people (I would be interested to see how sales of AJ break out among various demographics), I say all right, go ahead and change the branding. But I’d be interested as well to see what these same people think of something like the Gladys Knight commercial.
In a lot of this that is going on lately, it seems like the media, and certain entities and interest groups, are telling everybody else what they are offended by. There is such a thing as “agitators”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m confident a small group of focused (paid) activists are behind this. Very few people alive have even seen the stereotype they are deriding. The complaint is not based on modern reality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But in their defense — I would give the evil one himself justice — perhaps they see people accepting the present AJ incarnation as benign, and see the need to remind people of where this came from and how grotesque and humiliating, to contemporary eyes, it really was. “Counter-cultural” cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
Yes, I’m confident a small group of focused (paid) activists are behind this. Very few people alive have even seen the stereotype they are deriding. The complaint is not based on modern reality.
Click to expand...
The AJ picture is the continuance of the stereotype of a smiling black mammy, happy to be cooking for white folks. Few people alive have seen this? I have. ‘Amos and Andy’ was a TV show when I was in Catholic grammar school. In the Netherlands, they just retired ‘Schwarze Piet’, the black servant who helps Sinterklass deliver presents. No longer are police squadrols referred to as ‘paddy wagons’.

Why must we continue stereotypes?
 
Yes, God forbid any slave anywhere should be happy and well-adjusted. We know for a fact that they are all miserable all of the time. If they seem happy then they need to be educated on how miserable they actually are.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
Yes, God forbid any slave anywhere should be happy and well-adjusted. We know for a fact that they are all miserable all of the time. If they seem happy then they need to be educated on how miserable they actually are.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Thank you for educating me on how miserable slaves are always and everywhere, with one image of one person.

I’ll grant that chattel slavery is a cruel institution that creates an undesirable power dynamic between master and slave. And I’ll grant that that power dynamic is often, frequently abused by the master to abuse and demean and harm the slave, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

But there are also many documented instances of Black American slaves being well-treated by their masters, and there are instances of slaves being content with their lot in life, and slaves appreciating their masters for providing for them. Because masters did provide shelter, clothing, food, etc. because they had to.

Life in Africa was extra hard. It was a primitive subsistence that slaves were wrenched from to come to the USA. I would say that having their basic needs met in exchange for hard labor was a sweet deal for many who would’ve had a harder time had they stayed in Africa and stayed “free”.

It’s a convenient modern fiction that slaves are 100% miserable and 100% oppressed. It flies in the face of the historical record, but it’s easily believed because of the civil rights movement, and before that, the cruel reactionary Jim Crow laws of the South.

And I am very un-PC for writing this, and will probably get flagged into the ground, but it’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
And I am very un-PC for writing this, and will probably get flagged into the ground, but it’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
No, it is more a myth used by apologists of slavery and whites who wanted to re-write history from the abolition period all the way up through GWTW. ‘If there are happy slaves then it stands to reason that slavery ain’t so bad. Moreover, those black folks need the guidance of masters to get any work done. They get fed and housed so they are better off.’

You know what I was taught about Russia in the fifties? ‘If folks are happy there under communism its because they just don’t know.’
 
Anesti33 said:
Life in Africa was extra hard. It was a primitive subsistence that slaves were wrenched from to come to the USA.
Click to expand...
I think you need to do more research on the African slave trade. It is documented that some slaves arrived in the Americas literate. Most slaves were captured from West Africa villages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top