The Aunt Jemima brand and logo will be retired

[Nepperhan]

Sold, not captured.

Where do you think they came from? Sold and captured.

" The transatlantic slave trade can be understood through the experiences of a single enslaved person who endured a series of catastrophic events that, by design, severed him or her from home, family, and nearly all things familiar. Capture in the African interior, transport to the coast, sale to slave traders, passage in a slave ship, and sale and enslavement in the Americas tested the spirit and will of resilient men, women, and children who struggled to find meaning and happiness in a New World dependent upon their labor and coercion.

The transatlantic slave trade can also be understood through its sheer magnitude: for 366 years, European slavers loaded approximately 12.5 million Africans onto Atlantic slave ships. About 11 million survived the Middle Passage to landfall and life in the Americas.

The transatlantic slave trade was an oceanic trade in African men, women, and children which lasted from the mid-sixteenth century until the 1860s. European traders loaded African captives at dozens of points on the African coast, from Senegambia to Angola and round the Cape to Mozambique. The great majority of captives were collected from West and Central Africa and from Angola."

http://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0002

 

[WingedHussar]

Captured by other blacks, sold to whites.

 

[Nepperhan]

Captured by other blacks, sold to whites.

Berbers ain’t black.

"By the fifteenth century, Africa was home to hundreds of vibrant, dynamic cultures populating all parts of the vast continent. Within those regions we today call West or Central Africa, for example, diverse groups distinguished themselves from one another through a complex range and combination of languages, religions, arts, technologies, and evolving worldviews…

For centuries, caravans of Arab and Berber traders transported African captives from sub-Saharan Africa, trekking along a series of arduous stages to the slave markets of North Africa, the Mediterranean, Asia, and Europe. From the eighth century, demand for African slaves was accentuated by the spread of Islam. The vast networks of trade routes controlled by muslims were used to capture people and transport African captives far from their homelands."

 

[WingedHussar]

They ain’t white either. That also does not prove that only Berbers sold black people.

 

[JulianN]

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

Please. Just no.
I’d encourage reading the book, “Stamped from the Beginning, the Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America,” by Ibrim Kendi.

 

[Nepperhan]

They ain’t white either.

Berbers are not Arabs but they are Muslims and Caucasian.

“The Berber people call themselves Amazigh: Berber is a name that has been given them by others and which they themselves do not use. They are ethnologically and genetically White.”

 

[WingedHussar]

They were not the only ones who sold slaves. So that wass an irrelevant tangent. Slavery was not unique to the West, but leading the charge on ending it was.

 

[Nepperhan]

Slavery was not unique to the West, but leading the charge on ending it was.

Leading the charge? After 200 years? The Atlantic slave trade by far was the largest in the world. Where else were 12 million souls sent into bondage?

 

[phil19034]

I can’t recall any kind of political cleansing quite like this.

I can. 1917. In Russia.

 

[phil19034]

What about Mrs Buttersworth?

I thought Mrs Butters worth’s was a British nanny???

 

[phil19034]

I’m only going to make one more comment In this thread.

If the companies want to remove these brand for legit reasons, I totally respect them for it, and give them a standing ovation.

However, if they are doing it sold out of virtue signaling (which we see far too much of in corporate America today), I’m not a fan.

However, the biggest thing that concerns me in these discussions are not the individual brands being removed or statues being taken down, but rather the growing power of mob-mentality.

This is what concerns me. Constantly bending to angry protestors (even if they are justified) is concerning.

We need more calm, rash thinking.

Again, if these brands were removed after calm & logical discussions by the company’s leadership deciding that this was in the best interest of everyone - AWESOME!

But if this was just a way to get “woke points” or done out of fear of the mob, then I have concerns.

God Bless and may The Lord grant all people wisdom and patience to understand everyone’s point of view. Additional, may The Lord grant our leaders an abundance of Wisdom at this time. Amen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But if this was just a way to get “woke points” or done out of fear of the mob, then I have concerns.

I think you need to have concerns.

 

[TK421]

This is an example of not giving somebody the benefit of the doubt. Common sense suggests that the name change would be a simple matter of respect and dignity, but instead we wade into the area of thought crime where people are supposed to prove a negative; that they aren’t doing something to virtue signal. It is an impossible accusation to answer because anytime anybody ever does something decent you can always suspect them of virtue signalling and it doesn’t matter what it is. They could be leading a rosary group… but then they might be virtue signalling. They could be scrubbing pans in the kitchen… but then they might be virtue signalling. They could be mowing an elderly couple’s lawn… but then they might be virtue signalling. It is a cycle of endless suspicion and paranoia that accomplishes nothing.

 

[Theo520]

you can always suspect them of virtue signalling

There is zero doubt they are virtue signalling.

Aunt Jemima is by far the most popular brand of syrup & pancake mix. There is no sound business reason to kill-off the most popular segment brand in the USA, a brand they’ve been building for 130 years.

I guarantee sales of their replacement brand will tank. Virtue signalling is the only explanation of this irrational business decision.

U.S.: most used brands of pancake / table syrup 2020 | Statista

 

[TK421]

@Theo520

I guess we’ll wait and see if their sales tank, but whether they do or don’t, there’s another explanation besides virtue signalling: because they believe it is the right thing to do.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

People used to say "Don’t walk around with a “chip on your shoulder” attitude."

Translation: That meant don’t adopt a mentality of “putting a wood chip on your shoulder,” where the least little breeze, or remark will knock it off, causing you hurt and offense.

Well, there is truly a “wood chip on the shoulder” epidemic among our university grads and social justice warriors today! EVERYTHING HAS BECOME AN OFFENSE TO THEM! They are eager to be offended and outraged by anything! They even demand “SAFE SPACES” on university campuses, where (whine) free speech "won’t hurt their little feelings."

This is the opposite of the phrase spoken by Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer:

…and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us…(GRACE)

Graciousness toward one another is a necessity for a more tolerant society.

Regarding Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup, Quaker Oats is free to do whatever they like as far as rebranding and repackaging go…BUT, IRONICALLY:

Aunt Jemima products enjoy a 94% purchase and approval rating among Black Americans. They are the largest consumer group of Aunt Jemima products.

Aunt Jemima products enjoy a 38% purchase and approval rating among White Americans

Aunt Jemima products enjoy only a 14% purchase and approval rating among Asian Americans

BUT, NO END IN SIGHT FOR THE “CHIP ON THE SHOULDER ATTITUDE” EPIDEMIC.

 

[Theo520]

because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Please explain this, why is it the right thing to do?

Nothing in their recent or current branding/advertising plays off on the stereotypes that were in play 130 years ago.

 

[TK421]

@Theo520

There’s over 350 posts in the thread going back and forth about that. I think we’re good.

The point is that even if you don’t agree with them, it seems very unlikely that every person out there is trying to virtue signal. Is that why you think I support it? What about the other Catholics here?

 

[Theo520]

The point is that even if you don’t agree with them, it seems very unlikely that every person out there is trying to virtue signal. Is that why you think I support it? What about the other Catholics here?

You seem to be deflecting, the question was specific to whether Pepsi the corporate entity was virtue signaling, not about what individuals are doing.

I don’t support their virtue signalling because the brand hasn’t played off of the very old racial stereotype in a very long time, well over 60 years. Aunt Jemima has been portrayed as a successful and confident black women for my whole long life.

 

[TK421]

The decision was made by human beings. They’re either virtue signalling or they aren’t. I’m not a telepath and I don’t know what their intentions are and it’s not terribly important to me, but I do give them the benefit of the doubt because that is what charity demands from us.

Your perspective of Aunt Gemima isn’t necessarily the same as a black person’s perspective. Not necessarily all black people’s perspective, but some black people’s perspective.

People have different experiences. There is a steaming cup of tea on a table. One person thinks “hot”. Another person thinks “cup”. Another person thinks “drink”. Another person thinks “yuck”. Another person thinks “yum”. I never saw Aunt Gemima as anything other than a picture of a black woman on a bottle of syrup, but that’s only my own subjective experience. I’m not an impartial and omniscient observer of everybody and everything. I’m some guy that has been around for >1% of human history. Maybe I’m pointing this out because I’m virtue signalling. Maybe I’m trying to demonstrate a point.

If the company decided to change the branding on behalf of some people’s reactions, then they have the right to do this and it can be a charitable act to do so. Everybody does this everyday of their life in any polite society. They consider other people. It’s a decent thing to do.