The Aunt Jemima brand and logo will be retired

[Lea101]

You can kindly keep the “what’s not clicking” condesceding phrase to yourself, as if there is something wrong with what I said

Because there is.

Furthermore, I am not fixating on some strawman

You are. What’s the point on your fixation with the bandana? We aren’t saying it’s racist because wearing bandanas is racist.

Again, if they community was against this, it would have been out as quick as the Frito Bandido, apparently Quaker is deciding to make the change but I have seen no evidence it was because of consumers.

I’ve shown you. The fact that you initially said you never heard about it before 2019 already shows that you know very little about this topic. So with all due respect, it’s time for you to research and then say your opinion on it first. You have seen no evidence, because I assume you didn’t bother finding it in the first place as opposed to evidence not being there.

There has been nothing provided that there was something wrong with the modern day image.

And I’ve already told you that the black community was not happy with the Aunt Jemima branding. Not because Aunt Jemima doesn’t look nice enough for them. They dislike the history of it and the fact that a company is profiting off it.

And back in the past, there were maids, not even necessarily slaves. People had a maid looking after the house, I had a relative who had both a white and black woman come in and look after the place

Irrelevant

 

[Genesis315]

I get why some people in principle want to see this done, and why a corporation might do it, but I do think the effect of human-based corporate logos being 100% white (and almost 100% male) is a somewhat ironic consequence. I can’t think of a single one that isn’t…

It will be interesting to see if that changes too going forward.

 

[TK421]

@Victoria33

The brand has a racist past. It’s not a matter of somebody looking at a picture of Aunt Gemima on the shelf and not liking it. There are substantiated reasons behind it.

Dating back to slavery through the Jim Crow era, white Southerners, in an effort to justify having slaves, designed propaganda which displayed black women in particular as happy and filled with laughter ‘as evidence of the supposed humanity of the institution of slavery.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/with-aunt-jemima-and-uncle-ben-poised-to-disappear-from-american-kitchens-a-look-back-at-their-racist-origins-2020-06-17

It’s a small matter to change the brand for the sake of dignity and respect.

 

[Victoria33]

The brand has a racist past, simple as that. It’s not a matter of somebody looking at a picture of Aunt Gemima on the shelf and not liking it. There are substantiated reasons behind it.

Dating back to slavery through the Jim Crow era, white Southerners, in an effort to justify having slaves, designed propaganda which displayed black women in particular as happy and filled with laughter ‘as evidence of the supposed humanity of the institution of slavery.’

Again, thanks for your opinion. All information I see says it was based on a “racial profile”, not racist.

 

[TheBomb.Com]

Anyone who has a problem with this must not know the darker history of “Aunt Jemima” and the way it effects the black community.

 

[Victoria33]

Anyone who has a problem with this must not know the darker history of “Aunt Jemima” and the way it effects the black community.

Well, let’s hope “anyone” will illuminate us on this instead of just alluding to such.

Yeah, 130 years ago.

 

[TK421]

Again, thanks for your opinion. All information I see says it was based on a “racial profile”, not racist.

Hypothetically, what would it take for you to consider a brand’s past racist? What would need to be portrayed?

 

[Victoria33]

Hypothetically, what would it take for you to consider a brand’s past racist? What would need to be portrayed?

I do not see why we are going back 100 years to judge a brand. I don’t buy Cracker Jack or Jiff’s peanut butter or Silk road soymilk or raisin bran based on what they were 100 years ago. Especially if nothing is on the box that even belies racism.

There was some department store magnate or some brand in the last year and apparently, it had connections to the Nazis during World War II. I forget the exact case now. I believe some common German brand. I didn’t buy the product in the first place, so it’s hard for me to judge.

 

[whatistrue]

For example, if there was a historical major league sports team called The Fighting Whitties

As an aside, and only intended as a reply to this specific comment, there was a minor league baseball team called the Atlanta Crackers that played from 1901 to 1965 (when the Braves moved to Atlanta). Although not definitively the source of the team name, “cracker” was commonly used in that era to refer to poor southern whites (more or less in the same way as “white trash” is used). Again, this is simply a note of possible historical interest and in no way is intended to excuse or diminish the very real racism that existed and to a (hopefully somewhat lesser) extent still exists in the United States as a whole.

 

[Lea101]

Well, let’s hope “anyone” will illuminate us on this instead of just alluding to such.

You could actually read the comments here, or Google it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ind-the-perpetuation-of-the-mammy-stereotype/ if you read through, you’d see a paragraph addressing the modern depiction of Aunt Jemima, and black women in general.

People are quick to cite Candace Owens and her counterparts, but somehow refuse to read up on various other black academics.

I do not see why we are going back 100 years to judge a brand.

Also because the mammy stereotypes didn’t end a 100 years ago. It evolves and the black community has been studying and writing about it for years. Unfortunately, the world has to see a black man be killed slowly and the black community have to scream on the streets in order to have these feelings heard…and when it does people just reduce it to some leftist ploy anyway.

 

[TK421]

TK421:

Hypothetically, what would it take for you to consider a brand’s past racist? What would need to be portrayed?

I do not see why we are going back 100 years to judge a brand. I don’t buy Cracker Jack or Jiff’s peanut butter or Silk road soymilk or raisin bran based on what they were 100 years ago. Especially if nothing is on the box that even belies racism.

Okay, but you are viewing this through the perspective of the mainstream part of society (I’m guessing). A person whose actual flesh-and-blood grandmother was portrayed in a degrading fashion would probably look at it very differently and wonder how hard it could be to simply change the brand for the sake of dignity. They’re not going to stop producing and distributing syrup.

 

[Lea101]

effect of human-based corporate logos being 100% white (and almost 100% male) is a somewhat ironic consequence

People are upset about these brands because of their racist history, so if we end up with 100% white logos, it just means that the non white logos were byproducts of racism…so we can’t complain there. I get your point, but that result only amplifies the point I think.

 

[Victoria33]

Okay, but you are viewing this through the perspective of the mainstream part of society (I’m guessing). A person whose actual flesh-and-blood grandmother was portrayed in a degrading fashion would probably look at it very differently and wonder how hard it could be to simply change the brand for the sake of dignity. They’re not going to stop producing and distributing syrup.

Ok, those are good points. Again, the stereotype that was used for Aunt Jemima has not been seen for many years, decades.

I’m not sure if a modern day black person would look at the current model and find some offense with her.

Yes, a lot of this is just plain history.

We went through some of the history yesterday, 2 males from Missouri concocted these instant pancakes and a song on Jemima was popular and they went with it. That’s one version at least, nothing about this being a character in vaudeville who they used. They just invented instant pancakes or something.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“if you go back far enough”, yes, there one is on to something. So, for all products we buy at the grocery store, we should be concerned with how the product was, 130 years ago, before it was purchased by Quaker Oats around 1937. And by the way, I see that kerchief or bandana worn even in the present day to assign it necessarily a nefarious meaning.

Let’s see, the Vikings pillaged and vandalized and I guess, killed people 850 years ago, the Norsemen, so per this same logic, the Minnesota Vikings need to change their team name.

And truly, Denmark in the last 30 years or so, has apologized to the UK for a raid sonducted some centuries ago, maybe 900 years, so no, this is not an idle irrelevant example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6947005.stm

Danes sorry for Viking invasion

The kerchief or bandana is neutral in and of itself. My son likes bandanas. I wear a terrycloth towel soaked in cool water, over my head, with a ball cap on top of it, in hot weather. I got this idea from black males I saw wearing something similar. (My head is clean-shaven, so there is no question of wet or messy hair.)

Britons do not have one-tenth the personal wealth of Danes, nor is there an endemic street crime problem among white British males. The Viking invasion 900 years ago hasn’t left an indelible psychological mark upon Britons. In retrospect, it was an absolutely horrible idea, to bring chattel slaves forcibly to American shores, but what’s done is done, and we have to find a way to live with the legacy of everything that came with this decision. Quite frankly, I don’t know how black Americans can even stand to be around white people — there’s just too much “water under the bridge”, too much hurt, too much stolen labor and value-added that never got compensated. If I were black, I would seriously consider moving to one of the Caribbean islands that are almost totally black, or even Africa itself — maybe Ghana or a similarly advanced African country. But maybe that’s just me.

All of these renaming and re-branding initiatives are just marketing decisions. I would be very interested to see whether black people actually refuse to buy Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben products because of perceived connotations, or go ahead and buy them even though it’s a sore point — they are both brands of high quality (aside from the high fructose corn syrup factor) and are well-regarded by the consumer.

 

[StJosephPrayForUs]

No study, but I know of one born in the late 50s who didn’t like to buy it, but wouldn’t really care when it was bought. It had to do with 1) Aunt Jemima being a name used to insult people, especially each other’s mothers back then (said like “Aint YaMama on the pancake box?” ) 2) the symbol itself 3) company refusal to compensate Nancy Greens family. Wasn’t a real protest or anything, just how they felt about it

 

[MikeInVA]

Unfortunately, the world has to see a black man be killed slowly and the black community have to scream on the streets in order to have these feelings heard

I think there was pretty much universal condemnation of the act before the looting and rioting began.

 

[KyPerson]

Uncle Ben’s rice will go too. I suspect Mrs. Butterworth will have a makeover as well. What about Mr. Clean and the Quaker Oats guy? They already took the Indian woman off Land O’ Lakes butter. Ironic because the graphic artist who designed the logo for it was an Ojibwe.

 

[OddBird]

Please, read @catholiclala’s post 86 upthread:

The Aunt Jemima brand and logo will be retired Social Justice

This thread, I can’t even. Anytime anything is done to lessen historic pain and some people, who should be totally not be bothered have to raise a stink. So much lack of empathy and charity towards issues in which you have no idea how affected others are. Maybe some of you don’t get why some words and images cause a bad reaction in others and you don’t have to but just because it doesn’t bother you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed. Nobody here is going to be hurt if they don’t see Aunt Jem…

 

[Lea101]

I think there was pretty much universal condemnation of the act before the looting and rioting began.

I’m talking about racism, not the killing of George. People aren’t screaming for George, but other people whose lives are lost, as well as the general treatment of black people.

There are people condemning the death but are denying racism has anything to do with it. George was a catalyst to these conversations (his death brought up the topic of racism in general).

 

[Pattylt]

I did not know that! So, not just southern…

I always preferred ahnt to ant…we aren’t ants!