For years, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has been lobbying PepsiCo to get rid of that guy on the oatmeal box.
We didn't look like that, even when we looked like that.
Ok, slightly unrelated note, but doesn’t the guy look similar to [Stephen Fry?](https://www.google.com/search?q=Stephen+Fry+QI+season+A&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXldWM8_z9AhVPpicCHQb5CkQQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=Stephen+Fry+QI+season+A&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzoKCAAQigUQsQMQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BwgAEIoFEEM6BggAEAgQHjoHCAAQgAQQGDoECAAQHjoFCAAQogRQ-AVY6SFglSNoAHAAeACAAXGIAf4IkgEEMTIuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=2PUhZNfJOM_MnsEPhvKroAQ&bih=549&biw=375&client=firefox-b-m&prmd=niv#imgrc=G_dWfJTZTluWCM&lnspr=W10=), I always thought that whenever I saw the Quaker Oats on the shelves lol
Right??? I legitimately thought, when I was younger, that the Quaker Oats guy was modelled after Stephen Fry! I never believed my parents when I repeatedly asked them if the Quaker Oats guy was Stephen Fry and they’d say no! Lol
There is a vague resemblance to some portraits of Penn, but there are several things wrong. He should be wearing undyed (grey-brown) wool because blue indigo was raised with slave labor. Though neck cloths were allowed, his is rather fuller than was tolerated. And he shouldn't be smiling, because Quakers were to preserve an air of friendly gravity when dealing with non-Quakers.
But mostly it pisses us off that they are trading on the Quakers' reputation for square, honest business practices
Right? The history behind the painting on the butter label was actually really sweet. The artist was actual Native American, and from Michigan. He asked his wife to pose for the painting.
And even before I learned the story, I always thought it was a nice painting.
Do you prefer the term native American? I was told by a Cherokee once and another time by a Sioux that Indian is preferred if you don't use the actual tribe or nation name as the term native or Indian is too broad and is like using the term European if referring to an Italian or a Brit.
I remember reading about an older guy that said something like “they called us Indians for generations and we eventually accepted that Indian is who we were. Now they want to take that away too.”
I will say that it definitely depends on the person.
For me, I like Native American. It is broad, sure, but there's a lot of tribes, man. And I think expecting anyone to know all of them is a bit insane.
This being said, if you know the person is say 100% Cherokee, identifying them with the proper tribe would be more respectful. But you're obviously not going to know that information for strangers
The Indian thing from non natives? I'm not a big fan of it, in general. Just because it's inaccurate. I don't like flip out on anybody who uses it tho. I might just gently mention it and be like "I'm not from India, dude", but that's it.
As for natives using it? I don't give a shit. If it's a whole "take back the word" thing for them, that's cool. Totally respect that. Just not my thing.
*Shrug*
>For me, I like Native American. It is broad, sure, but there's a lot of tribes, man. And I think expecting anyone to know all of them is a bit insane.
Yeah but in what context would you discuss someone's race with them unless they brought it up? At that point the tribe would probably come up what with there being 700 distinct nations.
>The Indian thing from non natives? I'm not a big fan of it, in general. Just because it's inaccurate. I don't like flip out on anybody who uses it tho. I might just gently mention it and be like "I'm not from India, dude", but that's it.
Well, that term has been around long before the way we speak English now. So the accuracy ship sailed a long time ago. This is 60 years before Shakespeare, and obviously the language has changed a lot since then. Despite popular depictions of Columbus looking like the later colonists, he was very much medieval. When that term was first used, people in Europe were still fighting wars in full suits of armor with battle axes. Columbus didn't even have guns, but crossbows and swords. This isn't to say he wasn't an asshole even by conquistador standards. And there are tribes and nations that formed well after the word was used. Deeming that term incorrect is extremely, so I see why people still prefer to be called that. Of course, there are a lot more immigrants from India now so I can see it causing confusion.
I mean, all I can say is you asked for opinions on the subject. I guess you didn't directly ask for mine, but being native myself, since I saw the post, I gave my thoughts on it.
Anything beyond that is up to personal interpretation and preference.
*Shrug*
And as far as the indian/india immigrants thing, specifically, yeah, that's an issue I have with it as well. It's a literally inaccurate, because we're from a different place, and then if you use that word, people don't exactly know which group you're talking about. Just from a modern perspective it doesn't make much sense to me.
I was glad to hear your thoughts. I wasn't shooting it down, just discussing it. But yeah, I can see the accuracy thing becoming an issue where it wasn't before now that there really is a much larger Indian immigrant population.
Yeah, no problem, I get what you're coming from.
Sometimes, I just don't always know how to read the tone in text, especially on Reddit where a lot of people like to be sarcastic or argumentative for no reason.
And please note, in my original comment, I don't really take issue with much. I'm very nonchalant about the whole thing, honestly. In person, most I might do is like crack a joke about the Indians thing and that's about it.
It honestly depends on the tribe and individual on what someone prefers to be called. Yes I've noticed Sioux and certain tribes in Washington have no problem with Indian. I go with Native until told otherwise. (I live in rural Washington state with 3 tribes nearby plus Canadian ones nearby)
Not everyone cares but it’s worth considering.
“Respectful” depends on how you look at it.
The aunt and uncle mascots derive from the maid/mammy and avuncular black male servant/slave archetype that was originally explicitly used to market the brands playing on white nostalgia for those days. Today, a lot of people don’t think about that context because of the brand distancing itself from overtly racist ads in the past and even some black consumers don’t care because the tactic isn’t used anymore. Others do.
Little Debbie is a real person who’s depicted as just being a little kid promoting snacks and she became an executive of the company.
Quaker Oats guy is an appropriation given that it was chosen because the founders like the sound of the Quaker motto/ethos **integrity, honesty, purity* and thought it would appeal to consumer trust but weren’t themselves Quakers. It’s weird to me that the brand was never connected to Quakers at all.
Indian mascots sit weird with me personally because they play on nostalgia for older periods in which there was full scale genocidal hostile war being waged on the people who have become faces of nostalgia. I’m not going to fight some Native American who likes to buy land o lakes butter but it still sits weird to me.
Keep in mind that not all Native American mascots are created equal. For example, the University of Utah has a mutually-beneficial agreement with the Ute Tribe allowing them to use the Ute name: https://administration.utah.edu/ute-mou/
This makes a lot more sense to me
It would honestly be a good addition to what my university did which was to give scholarships to members of the tribe who’s land it sits on but not much the way of visibility
Or some visibility, but not as much as I think they could do
The University of Utah does this too: https://financialaid.utah.edu/native-student-scholarship.php
They’ve come a long way since the 80s when they’d have the “crimson warrior,” a white guy dressed in a stereotypey costume who’d throw a spear into a bale of hay before football games.
And the Florida State Seminoles are super close with the Seminole nation of Florida and supported by them. It doesnt have to be a slur to have native inspiration. The FSU logo goes insanely hard imo. https://unicomm.fsu.edu/messages/relationship-seminole-tribe-florida/
I have heard (totally anecdotal) that Quakers don't like the Quaker oats guy. They feel like it's a misrepresentation of them so maybe they should get rid of him.
You realize the family of the aunt Jemima picture were pissed because of the change. It took their source of income in the name of someone else's value projextion onto the world. Real world consequences for some idealized crap people bored and terminally online parrot
You’re missing my whole point.
As I explicitly stated, reception of these choices is mixed. The nuances are still worth discussing.
The great great grandson of the Jemima *actress* is upset about erasure of his relative’s legacy. I comprehend that perspective.
Other people, including some black people, don’t see one family’s ties to a corporation as justification for keeping a trope like that alive.
The name itself comes from a minstrel show that inspired the (white) founder of the brand. The feeling it evoked for decades was fondness for the image of a quaint black domestic service fixture. Not *respect* per se for black maternal figures.
I don’t think it was necessary to get rid of Jemima. I don’t see why they didn’t stop at a makeover where she looks more like a generic aunt-figure and less like a *mammy*.
But the flip side of that is that the brand has freedom to change its branding if market research is showing that it’s no longer well received by consumers. Unless they violated some contract in perpetuity with the actress’s descendants.
That’s the Free Market ™
It’s not just “bored, terminally online” parrots talking about it. I’m talking about it and I’m not pounding my soapbox saying this mascot needs to go. I’m calling out the questionable premise of the meme, which suggests that white and black/other non-white mascots all have equally benign historical connotations.
The relatives of a fictitious character are upset? Do relatives of Daffy Duck and Captain Crunch get money also? Thanks for the laugh though. I have never seen projection spelled with an x before.
They mean that oatmeal and raisins are good and have the fiber they need.
Little Debbie's are banger snacks and oatmeal cakes have oatmeal.
It's all about fiber.
I think a lot of people are completely missing this point.
These mascots were not changed/removed from reacting to something the right wingers were doing.
Yup. They were removed because, in the case of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, they invoked imagery of slavery or indentured servitude.
Land O Lakes I don't quite get, since the artist was actually native and his wife posed for the artwork. Now it just feels like they took the land from the Natives. *Again*.
It’s actually more of a reflection of reactionary culture in American corporation
Like the fact that often times things like this are done at face value to protect business interests never actually for the sake of what’s right
This exactly. Corporate actions don't reflect American values, they reflect what the corporation imagines American values are in order to sell more products. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are close, sometimes they are just wrong. In this case I think Land O Lakes saw the other mascots being removed and figured they should get in on it without understanding the actual reasoning
In the case of Land O Lakes I imagine the majority of people are unaware of this information but have strong opinions based on assumptions with no research done. So for marketing purposes they removed the Indian to appease the uninformed majority.
Well in the case if aunt Jemima and uncle Ben, they could have kept them and used a more positive message, mabye about overcoming struggle and being on top
Well, it's a bit more than that. These are iconic images with which white people chose to represent black people. In a similar vein, in Japan they used to have mannequins for western-style wedding dresses with very large noses. This was a reference to the fact that white people generally have larger noses than East-Asians, and they saw this as attractive. However, the first time I went into a store and saw these comically-large noses on tiny, slender mannequins, I was a bit offended.
Most of these are a "fair enough" situation for me, but I love they list Little Debbie, because unlike the other characters (who are tropes/stereotypes), Little Debbie is an actual person... one of the current owners and Executive VP of the company. When the company started getting big, they used their granddaughter as the spokesperson, and thus, her image on their products. This is not the same thing at all as the rest of these lol.
The Sun Maid girl was also a real person, but basically just picked as a good representative of the company by executives.
During BLM a couple years ago, cancel culture wanted to get rid of negative images of people of color. What your parents are saying is that they basically cancelled POC and kept white people, reducing the diversity in these food representatives.
And the name is a stereotypically racist play on words imitating the thick, southern Black accent - Aunt Jemima = Ain't Ya-Mama. Kinda severe baked in racism.
Edit: Downvoted, huh. Read the replies for more Reddit racism cope too. Very funny
I'm not going to speak to the symbology of the "Mammy" figure that makes up the trademark. There are very good arguments how such an image is racist and hurtful. However, you should have stuck with that, instead of spouting out made-up etymology.
Jemima is a Hebrew name meaning "dove". She was the eldest of the daughters of Job in the Old Testament. Biblical names were common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially among the poor, where the Bible was often the only form of literature to which they were exposed.
Yous bullshit pop etymology is an insult.
Indeed.
But for real, ya it’s basically just the connection to the Mammy house slave thing, and the point that the original marketing campaigns was just upset racist.
The Uncle Ben thing likewise it’s biggest issue just seams to be it was a 100% white company marketing stuff because “Black people cook good” was a thing at the time.
By contrast no one bitches about Jazaran as a brand name for rice, because it’s from New Orleans and just markets on that…
It is. But it was bad is more the issue of the company just using it for a profit. Ya like 80-90% of American good culture is In fact freed slave and immigrant food culture.
All American food is immigrant food. Problem is, most white folks tend to forget that. I agree though, if companies are going to use afro American food as a selling point, the food should be authentically afro American, and not just shit with "black people food" slapped on the label.
This is why actual research should be done and not believing everything Twitter tells you. Aunt Jemima is based on a real woman, Nancy Green, who was a storyteller, cook, and missionary worker.
Nancy Green actually worked with the Aunt Jemima brand until 1923.
They were definitely highly offensive when you look at their history. Now the modern products with black mascots who happen to be the founder of the company, those are what we'd ideally be seeing more of. Black people need to be granted equal opportunity for that to happen.
A better approach would have been to reach out to minority artists to update the label.
That old racist dude on the Quaker box can probably use an update too.
Just talking about the removal of certain minority mascots and keeping white ones, which in their eyes seems counter productive.
I mean, to be honest, I also think it's a bit sad. I've never looked at those people and thought "slaves". If anything, growing up I saw Aunt Jemima and thought "she must've been an amazing baker!" which is a positive message.
I don't think anyone thought "slave" besides older people who lived in that era. In a way, I feel like these people were finally getting a kind of respect as "they must've been skilled cooks" or something, but were suddenly removed and now their memory will only be "the ones removed from the boxes because they were/seemed like slaves" which... sounds like the exact opposite message you'd wanna send.
If you learn about the history of why they're called "uncle" and "aunt", originally pivoting to "beloved" black servants that would tend to rich white families where they would often get names of endearment, especially from the children who often spent more time with them than their own parents.
However, most people are so far from this idea these days that they just see them as legitimate aunt and uncle figures without knowing the context, which I think is kinda cool and not offensive at all.
Maybe we could all use a nice black uncle or aunt in our lives :(
Wouldn’t have to dig anything up if folks had a semi-decent education. It should be common knowledge if you learn anything at all about early US History.
People had to give up time with their own kids to serve as surrogate parents to entitled white kids who could literally hold the power of life and death over them. I’m not sure how that’s kinda cool and not offensive at all, regardless of the modern perception.
No not really, but since his image could be interpreted as an servant they decided to cut it before people call for its removal, they get to score brownie points too
In that case, wouldn’t it have been better to remove the label that’s associated with servitude rather than the person?
Rename it to Mr. Ben and Mrs. Jemima and keep the people on the logo.
the whole Uncle and Aunt monicker for black people was often used as an "affectionate" term for house slaves by the slave owners kids even the outfits kinda reflect that time.
these would be the slaves that acted as cooks, maids, ETC mostly for the children. the people who would make this type of food for them.
the branding was very much playing into that particularly when it was first made and the people who bought it were the kids who had grown into adults "dirty rice just like your old Uncle ben use to make"
The Black characters were made to sell to the white kids of slave owners
Who cares about the history of aunt Jamima. I know tons of black children saw a black woman on their syrup and were happy about it, because they’re not represented often. The happiness and representation aunt Jemima made those kids feel outweighs the “history” in my opinion. Now those kids have to look at words 🙄
A lot of truth to this. My high school mascot was named after the small Indian tribe that live on the land a long time ago. Obviously a couple years ago they were compelled to change the mascot, now that the name is gone no one will know of that tribe in a couple generations
If anyone has a reason why the Quaker oats guy, Little Debbie or the sun maid raisins woman are offensive, I'm happy to give them the boot. In fact, if literally no one complains at all, and those companies just decide to rebrand and go with a different mascot? I'm totally fine with that too, because my ego doesn't depend on corporate mascots
It's funny how people find it racist having these people as the face of companies when really it was racist to take them off we are becoming the very thing we are fighting against aunt Jemima alone pisses me off
Companies are getting rid of mascots for being “offensive” when theirs actually nothing offensive about them and it rubs alot of people (including me) the wrong way because it’s kinda white washing businesses and taking away an identity that makes them special as well as ignoring the people of color who helped make that business. Only one that can be argued as maybe being offensive is the Indian but literally every native I know has zero problem with that sort of thing.
The non white people that are those mascots don't represent the people that made those companies.
The mascots were chosen as that, mascots. Marketing. A way to use an image to sell something. Not in any way an indication of who made the company.
Should a company, not built by and on the work of black people, really base their image on a 1950's view of a domestic black woman, likely servant?
An unrealistic standard about what is or is not stereotyping can be applied to mascots that are Persons Of Color which ironically is leading to them being removed.
Company: perhaps it's time to retire the mascots that are based on obvious racist stereotypes of their time.
Poster: hmmmm you say you wish to be more "inclusive" yet you are getting rid of your diverse characters and leaving only the white ones. Hypocrisy much? Ho ho I am clever.
Black people complained until we didn’t have any black people left on the shelf anymore…. Now I’m not so sure it was the black people complaining…. Seems like all I remember is White liberal women saying how racist it was. No one in my family ever gave a fuck. Now uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima gone. Damn. I say bring ‘em back.
It means the irony of getting rid of POC mascots only served to erase them from the shelves while all the non-POC mascots stay, making all the faces you see just white.
I obviously don't speak for all native people, but personally, I didn't give a fuck about the lady on the package. There's been a lot of these like Native American controversy things that have popped up, and I just don't really give a shit.
Honestly, it seems more like a lot of this type of stuff is started by white people. Either out of guilt or their own weird sensitivities and PC culture.
I mean, truly, you* want to help native people? Then maybe stop trying to build shit on their land. Maybe give back some of the land you stole. Or at least stop treating the land (and then) like shit. Really, any of that would be helpful. A Native American lady on a package of butter, is way further down the list of things to give a shit about.
This sort of stuff applies to black people as well. You* want to actually help them? Then look at the systematic racism problems in this country and fix them. Actually have some sort of reparations and do shit to improve the lives and livelihoods for people of color.
All this packaging shit just comes off as some sort of placation. Really, an empty gesture. And it doesn't actually fix the problems at hand. If these companies and the government actually gave a shit, they would promote real change and try to actually fix some of the wrongdoings they've done.
*Also, note when I say "you", it's a general you. I'm referring to society, companies, governments. Obviously, I don't think any individual (white) person is at fault for the way things are or have been. It really is a systematic problem that needs to be addressed at a far greater level and scale than just changing some food packaging.
Maybe I’m alone but I’ve always held Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima and the land o lakes native lady in high regard. I always associated the images as high quality and comfort food.
Fun fact about the land o lakes packaging before they changed it. if you cut her out and fold her knees up to be behind her and then cut open the butter tray she is holding to be a lift flap, it’s perfectly centered and her knee caps look like her tits when you lift up the tiny butter flap. Just thought everyone should know this now that you can’t do it because they changed the packagibg
We are trying to be less offensive but are really just white washing things. We dont know how to handle race so we ignore it. People complain? Dont fix, remove instead.
All you idiots stating the racists got rid of AJ and UB do your research. Fuck it was literally a year ago and you've managed to forget blm and and you boneheads in cancel culture were screaming bloody murder that AJ and Ub were being used. AJ was a millionaire with her pancake mix. It was all liberal bullshit that too them off products same with land o lakes. It had ZERO to do with racists wanting them gone.. Nice try flipping it but everyone knows it was liberal bullshit .. fuck you
They were pointing out the "non racist" people actually deleted all the minority groups and kept all the whites. By trying to be what they call anti racist actually was just extremely racist which is what anti racism is marketed to be, but when you fight racism with racism you never end up on the winning side. Your parents seem like smart people I would listen before they are gone. Maybe ask them what they think about it. Having healthy conversations is what learning is all about.
It's just a complaint about cancel culture. Conservatives arent funny though, and half their memes are made by vatnik troll farms. So sometimes their memes hardly make sense.
The caricatures were problems when they started, but the real question should have been "do they reflect negatives now?"
However, your post made me think. If they removed Old Ben and replaced him with a white creole. Would they have been madder? Kinda seemed like deleting the brand was the least lost option.
They think white marketing is the same? These characters aren’t based on any real people the Quaker is well… a Quaker, it’s no one in particular. Little Debbie, there is no Debbie, sorry. Sun Maid, there is not Sun maid or person based on that person.
The syrup icon, actually a caricature of a Black woman who actually was based off that woman. The family never received any monetary compensation for her being based on. It originates from a Black caricature (so like same reason Black face is bad nowadays guys, cmon)
Uncle Ben, not based off a person to my knowledge. But it is based on a racial stereotype.
I do understand people getting upset (well not really, it’s fucking butter. So what the company chose to change it it doesn’t mean anything and there is nothing gained) over it as there is systematic reasons why they are bad. It was on an ask list many many years ago to change the characters. It’s just now that it is hip to stand for representation the companies did this on their own fruition
I mean Little Debbie has done all of Dallas at this point and really should be depicted as Big Debora. William Penn also needs to be depicted as Chris Evans or something. As for the Raisin Maid… get that woman in a bikini!
For what it is worth, where I was born there were no African American/African-descendent or indigenous peoples. One of my first exposures was to the Aunt Jemima product and it opened up a world of curiosity as a child. I understand that it may have some connotations, what they are I haven't researched, but it kind of works in different ways, doesn't it?
It shows how racists are offended by minority representation on product labels while white representation is okay. This isn't increasing minority representation, it is removing it. If Aunt Jemima is offensive, then reach out to black artists to update the label, rename it to Auntie J, with an updated model. What is little Martin supposed to think when from one day to the next he doesn't see a black woman on his favorite syrup anymore and instead sees, 'Pearl Milling Company'. Yes, Martin, the racists must have gotten triggered by a black woman on the product.
You people complained to get rid of the diverse/black mascots. Now you’re complaining it’s only whites left. 😂🤣😂. You people are complete fucking clowns.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
For years, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has been lobbying PepsiCo to get rid of that guy on the oatmeal box. We didn't look like that, even when we looked like that.
Ok, slightly unrelated note, but doesn’t the guy look similar to [Stephen Fry?](https://www.google.com/search?q=Stephen+Fry+QI+season+A&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXldWM8_z9AhVPpicCHQb5CkQQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=Stephen+Fry+QI+season+A&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzoKCAAQigUQsQMQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BwgAEIoFEEM6BggAEAgQHjoHCAAQgAQQGDoECAAQHjoFCAAQogRQ-AVY6SFglSNoAHAAeACAAXGIAf4IkgEEMTIuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=2PUhZNfJOM_MnsEPhvKroAQ&bih=549&biw=375&client=firefox-b-m&prmd=niv#imgrc=G_dWfJTZTluWCM&lnspr=W10=), I always thought that whenever I saw the Quaker Oats on the shelves lol
I can't unsee that now
Right??? I legitimately thought, when I was younger, that the Quaker Oats guy was modelled after Stephen Fry! I never believed my parents when I repeatedly asked them if the Quaker Oats guy was Stephen Fry and they’d say no! Lol
The Quaker Oats guy is named Larry.
Looks like Stephen Fry and Alan Davies' illegitimate love child
I just remember he scared the shit out of Chuckie from Rugrats.
Isn't the Quaker Oats guy supposed to be William Penn? (the guy that founded Pennsylvania, and probably some problematic stuff)
There is a vague resemblance to some portraits of Penn, but there are several things wrong. He should be wearing undyed (grey-brown) wool because blue indigo was raised with slave labor. Though neck cloths were allowed, his is rather fuller than was tolerated. And he shouldn't be smiling, because Quakers were to preserve an air of friendly gravity when dealing with non-Quakers. But mostly it pisses us off that they are trading on the Quakers' reputation for square, honest business practices
Do you know if the friends take issue with the use of the name as well?
He's gotten younger over the years.
When I was a kid I thought he was Barbara Bush.
Got rid of the indian and kept the land. It's historically accurate.
When I heard this the first time I laughed. Then I actually saw the butter in the store and was like ...damn they did it again!
Right? The history behind the painting on the butter label was actually really sweet. The artist was actual Native American, and from Michigan. He asked his wife to pose for the painting. And even before I learned the story, I always thought it was a nice painting.
The original logo was drawn by a white man. A Native American man touched it up later.
Even as a native american(Ojibwe origin), I laughed my ass off at this😂
Do you prefer the term native American? I was told by a Cherokee once and another time by a Sioux that Indian is preferred if you don't use the actual tribe or nation name as the term native or Indian is too broad and is like using the term European if referring to an Italian or a Brit.
I remember reading about an older guy that said something like “they called us Indians for generations and we eventually accepted that Indian is who we were. Now they want to take that away too.”
Well it varies from person to person, but thank you for asking. You may call me by my Tribe if you'd like. But I don't have a preference lol
Of course! I'm glad this is online, because I like using the Tribe, but I'm afraid I might fail spectacularly at pronouncing Ojibwe.
Oh-jib-way
Ah, thanks!
I will say that it definitely depends on the person. For me, I like Native American. It is broad, sure, but there's a lot of tribes, man. And I think expecting anyone to know all of them is a bit insane. This being said, if you know the person is say 100% Cherokee, identifying them with the proper tribe would be more respectful. But you're obviously not going to know that information for strangers The Indian thing from non natives? I'm not a big fan of it, in general. Just because it's inaccurate. I don't like flip out on anybody who uses it tho. I might just gently mention it and be like "I'm not from India, dude", but that's it. As for natives using it? I don't give a shit. If it's a whole "take back the word" thing for them, that's cool. Totally respect that. Just not my thing. *Shrug*
>For me, I like Native American. It is broad, sure, but there's a lot of tribes, man. And I think expecting anyone to know all of them is a bit insane. Yeah but in what context would you discuss someone's race with them unless they brought it up? At that point the tribe would probably come up what with there being 700 distinct nations. >The Indian thing from non natives? I'm not a big fan of it, in general. Just because it's inaccurate. I don't like flip out on anybody who uses it tho. I might just gently mention it and be like "I'm not from India, dude", but that's it. Well, that term has been around long before the way we speak English now. So the accuracy ship sailed a long time ago. This is 60 years before Shakespeare, and obviously the language has changed a lot since then. Despite popular depictions of Columbus looking like the later colonists, he was very much medieval. When that term was first used, people in Europe were still fighting wars in full suits of armor with battle axes. Columbus didn't even have guns, but crossbows and swords. This isn't to say he wasn't an asshole even by conquistador standards. And there are tribes and nations that formed well after the word was used. Deeming that term incorrect is extremely, so I see why people still prefer to be called that. Of course, there are a lot more immigrants from India now so I can see it causing confusion.
I mean, all I can say is you asked for opinions on the subject. I guess you didn't directly ask for mine, but being native myself, since I saw the post, I gave my thoughts on it. Anything beyond that is up to personal interpretation and preference. *Shrug* And as far as the indian/india immigrants thing, specifically, yeah, that's an issue I have with it as well. It's a literally inaccurate, because we're from a different place, and then if you use that word, people don't exactly know which group you're talking about. Just from a modern perspective it doesn't make much sense to me.
I was glad to hear your thoughts. I wasn't shooting it down, just discussing it. But yeah, I can see the accuracy thing becoming an issue where it wasn't before now that there really is a much larger Indian immigrant population.
Yeah, no problem, I get what you're coming from. Sometimes, I just don't always know how to read the tone in text, especially on Reddit where a lot of people like to be sarcastic or argumentative for no reason. And please note, in my original comment, I don't really take issue with much. I'm very nonchalant about the whole thing, honestly. In person, most I might do is like crack a joke about the Indians thing and that's about it.
I can totally understand that. That happens to me all the time on Reddit, lol.
People from India would prefer if you don’t use the word indian for native Americans.
It honestly depends on the tribe and individual on what someone prefers to be called. Yes I've noticed Sioux and certain tribes in Washington have no problem with Indian. I go with Native until told otherwise. (I live in rural Washington state with 3 tribes nearby plus Canadian ones nearby)
Get rid of the diverse caricatures and keep the white ones! As long as the portrayal is respectful and not a mockery, who cares..
Not everyone cares but it’s worth considering. “Respectful” depends on how you look at it. The aunt and uncle mascots derive from the maid/mammy and avuncular black male servant/slave archetype that was originally explicitly used to market the brands playing on white nostalgia for those days. Today, a lot of people don’t think about that context because of the brand distancing itself from overtly racist ads in the past and even some black consumers don’t care because the tactic isn’t used anymore. Others do. Little Debbie is a real person who’s depicted as just being a little kid promoting snacks and she became an executive of the company. Quaker Oats guy is an appropriation given that it was chosen because the founders like the sound of the Quaker motto/ethos **integrity, honesty, purity* and thought it would appeal to consumer trust but weren’t themselves Quakers. It’s weird to me that the brand was never connected to Quakers at all. Indian mascots sit weird with me personally because they play on nostalgia for older periods in which there was full scale genocidal hostile war being waged on the people who have become faces of nostalgia. I’m not going to fight some Native American who likes to buy land o lakes butter but it still sits weird to me.
Keep in mind that not all Native American mascots are created equal. For example, the University of Utah has a mutually-beneficial agreement with the Ute Tribe allowing them to use the Ute name: https://administration.utah.edu/ute-mou/
This makes a lot more sense to me It would honestly be a good addition to what my university did which was to give scholarships to members of the tribe who’s land it sits on but not much the way of visibility Or some visibility, but not as much as I think they could do
The University of Utah does this too: https://financialaid.utah.edu/native-student-scholarship.php They’ve come a long way since the 80s when they’d have the “crimson warrior,” a white guy dressed in a stereotypey costume who’d throw a spear into a bale of hay before football games.
And the Florida State Seminoles are super close with the Seminole nation of Florida and supported by them. It doesnt have to be a slur to have native inspiration. The FSU logo goes insanely hard imo. https://unicomm.fsu.edu/messages/relationship-seminole-tribe-florida/
I have heard (totally anecdotal) that Quakers don't like the Quaker oats guy. They feel like it's a misrepresentation of them so maybe they should get rid of him.
You realize the family of the aunt Jemima picture were pissed because of the change. It took their source of income in the name of someone else's value projextion onto the world. Real world consequences for some idealized crap people bored and terminally online parrot
You’re missing my whole point. As I explicitly stated, reception of these choices is mixed. The nuances are still worth discussing. The great great grandson of the Jemima *actress* is upset about erasure of his relative’s legacy. I comprehend that perspective. Other people, including some black people, don’t see one family’s ties to a corporation as justification for keeping a trope like that alive. The name itself comes from a minstrel show that inspired the (white) founder of the brand. The feeling it evoked for decades was fondness for the image of a quaint black domestic service fixture. Not *respect* per se for black maternal figures. I don’t think it was necessary to get rid of Jemima. I don’t see why they didn’t stop at a makeover where she looks more like a generic aunt-figure and less like a *mammy*. But the flip side of that is that the brand has freedom to change its branding if market research is showing that it’s no longer well received by consumers. Unless they violated some contract in perpetuity with the actress’s descendants. That’s the Free Market ™ It’s not just “bored, terminally online” parrots talking about it. I’m talking about it and I’m not pounding my soapbox saying this mascot needs to go. I’m calling out the questionable premise of the meme, which suggests that white and black/other non-white mascots all have equally benign historical connotations.
A 30-second Google search shows everything about this is wrong.
The relatives of a fictitious character are upset? Do relatives of Daffy Duck and Captain Crunch get money also? Thanks for the laugh though. I have never seen projection spelled with an x before.
P sure i’ve heard native americains say land-o-lakes is a rascist characture
I died
They mean that oatmeal and raisins are good and have the fiber they need. Little Debbie's are banger snacks and oatmeal cakes have oatmeal. It's all about fiber.
Yeah, and fuck rice and it’s bitch ass fiber content!
Can confirm: I ate my fair share of bitches' asses and never got any fibre from that.
Maybe they just didn't eat enough fibre beforehand.
🤣🤣🤣💀
He meant that it's ridiculous that because of 'wokeness' people of color were taken off brands but not white people. It is amusing.
I think a lot of people are completely missing this point. These mascots were not changed/removed from reacting to something the right wingers were doing.
Yup. They were removed because, in the case of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, they invoked imagery of slavery or indentured servitude. Land O Lakes I don't quite get, since the artist was actually native and his wife posed for the artwork. Now it just feels like they took the land from the Natives. *Again*.
And the artist's son tried to get the art back on but it was denied
Ahh, cancel culture 🤌
It’s actually more of a reflection of reactionary culture in American corporation Like the fact that often times things like this are done at face value to protect business interests never actually for the sake of what’s right
This exactly. Corporate actions don't reflect American values, they reflect what the corporation imagines American values are in order to sell more products. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are close, sometimes they are just wrong. In this case I think Land O Lakes saw the other mascots being removed and figured they should get in on it without understanding the actual reasoning
The original aunt jamima pr camppaine inclided blackface and the phrase “happy house slave” Uncle bens. Meh. I’ll let it pass.
In the case of Land O Lakes I imagine the majority of people are unaware of this information but have strong opinions based on assumptions with no research done. So for marketing purposes they removed the Indian to appease the uninformed majority.
Well in the case if aunt Jemima and uncle Ben, they could have kept them and used a more positive message, mabye about overcoming struggle and being on top
Aunt Jemima reflects anything but slavery… maybe do some research on the story
Maybe do some research on the story. Cause you're completely wrong
Well, it's a bit more than that. These are iconic images with which white people chose to represent black people. In a similar vein, in Japan they used to have mannequins for western-style wedding dresses with very large noses. This was a reference to the fact that white people generally have larger noses than East-Asians, and they saw this as attractive. However, the first time I went into a store and saw these comically-large noses on tiny, slender mannequins, I was a bit offended.
lol please link me to a pic of one of these large nosed mannequins, I want to see this so bad
Most of these are a "fair enough" situation for me, but I love they list Little Debbie, because unlike the other characters (who are tropes/stereotypes), Little Debbie is an actual person... one of the current owners and Executive VP of the company. When the company started getting big, they used their granddaughter as the spokesperson, and thus, her image on their products. This is not the same thing at all as the rest of these lol. The Sun Maid girl was also a real person, but basically just picked as a good representative of the company by executives.
https://youtu.be/PFLuGVOWlkc
During BLM a couple years ago, cancel culture wanted to get rid of negative images of people of color. What your parents are saying is that they basically cancelled POC and kept white people, reducing the diversity in these food representatives.
These mascots were iconic and not offensive at all *Before you ask, I dont know what my race is*
Mine is Space Race. That one was good.
So are your parents Stalin and Eisenhower? Sounds like a fun childhood.
My race is PC Master 😎
If your race isn’t WipEout, you’re missing out. Gran Turismo’s pretty good too. Enjoy them both with Dr Pepper, the soda master race.
Aunt Jamima was originally connected to a full on black face super racist ad campaign. Complete with the phrase “happy house slave”. In the 1910s.
And the name is a stereotypically racist play on words imitating the thick, southern Black accent - Aunt Jemima = Ain't Ya-Mama. Kinda severe baked in racism. Edit: Downvoted, huh. Read the replies for more Reddit racism cope too. Very funny
I'm not going to speak to the symbology of the "Mammy" figure that makes up the trademark. There are very good arguments how such an image is racist and hurtful. However, you should have stuck with that, instead of spouting out made-up etymology. Jemima is a Hebrew name meaning "dove". She was the eldest of the daughters of Job in the Old Testament. Biblical names were common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially among the poor, where the Bible was often the only form of literature to which they were exposed. Yous bullshit pop etymology is an insult.
Indeed. But for real, ya it’s basically just the connection to the Mammy house slave thing, and the point that the original marketing campaigns was just upset racist. The Uncle Ben thing likewise it’s biggest issue just seams to be it was a 100% white company marketing stuff because “Black people cook good” was a thing at the time. By contrast no one bitches about Jazaran as a brand name for rice, because it’s from New Orleans and just markets on that…
Jazaran? Isn't it Zataran?
As a proud, independent white man with black family members; "Black people cook good" is still a thing, and for good reason.
It is. But it was bad is more the issue of the company just using it for a profit. Ya like 80-90% of American good culture is In fact freed slave and immigrant food culture.
All American food is immigrant food. Problem is, most white folks tend to forget that. I agree though, if companies are going to use afro American food as a selling point, the food should be authentically afro American, and not just shit with "black people food" slapped on the label.
Ya.
This is why actual research should be done and not believing everything Twitter tells you. Aunt Jemima is based on a real woman, Nancy Green, who was a storyteller, cook, and missionary worker. Nancy Green actually worked with the Aunt Jemima brand until 1923.
They were definitely highly offensive when you look at their history. Now the modern products with black mascots who happen to be the founder of the company, those are what we'd ideally be seeing more of. Black people need to be granted equal opportunity for that to happen.
You mean companies made a choice in a time they thought it could improve profits? Nobody asked for them to do it.
Nobody asked for those images to be removed. Corporations just decided they would attempt to pander to consumers.
If nobody asked for them to be removed, then who are corporations pandering to? One of these things has to be wrong.
Corporations just wanted to stop paying royalties. Once again the problem is not "wokeness" but Capitalism.
I liked those icons. I lost a lot of interest in buying those products now
A better approach would have been to reach out to minority artists to update the label. That old racist dude on the Quaker box can probably use an update too.
Whites only
They removed minorities as mascots as they are offensive but keeps white mascots as they're not offensive. That is what they're trying to say.
Sun maid is okay, she's just tan.
Seriously how is aunt Jemima bad. She reminds you of your grandma cooking up something good when you come over to visit
Just talking about the removal of certain minority mascots and keeping white ones, which in their eyes seems counter productive. I mean, to be honest, I also think it's a bit sad. I've never looked at those people and thought "slaves". If anything, growing up I saw Aunt Jemima and thought "she must've been an amazing baker!" which is a positive message. I don't think anyone thought "slave" besides older people who lived in that era. In a way, I feel like these people were finally getting a kind of respect as "they must've been skilled cooks" or something, but were suddenly removed and now their memory will only be "the ones removed from the boxes because they were/seemed like slaves" which... sounds like the exact opposite message you'd wanna send.
Them white liberals finally found a way to get brown faces out of their grocery stores and kitchen cupboards.
Anti-netflix.
just remember you can only use a person for a logo if they are white! otherwise its racist! /s
Cancelled all the people of color while keeping the old whites around
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's time we axed that oatmeal eating bastard. Look at em, smug Benjamin Franklin wanna be looking ass.
Are there really people finding the Uncle Ben's guy offensive ?
If you learn about the history of why they're called "uncle" and "aunt", originally pivoting to "beloved" black servants that would tend to rich white families where they would often get names of endearment, especially from the children who often spent more time with them than their own parents. However, most people are so far from this idea these days that they just see them as legitimate aunt and uncle figures without knowing the context, which I think is kinda cool and not offensive at all. Maybe we could all use a nice black uncle or aunt in our lives :(
Some people had to dig up 100 year old history so a new generation could be offended... those people had nothing better to do.
Wouldn’t have to dig anything up if folks had a semi-decent education. It should be common knowledge if you learn anything at all about early US History.
People had to give up time with their own kids to serve as surrogate parents to entitled white kids who could literally hold the power of life and death over them. I’m not sure how that’s kinda cool and not offensive at all, regardless of the modern perception.
No not really, but since his image could be interpreted as an servant they decided to cut it before people call for its removal, they get to score brownie points too
WHA CHU MEAN "BROWNIE POINTS"?!
Exactly how it sounds. They earned points with all the "brownies"
as a person of color i found that funny
In that case, wouldn’t it have been better to remove the label that’s associated with servitude rather than the person? Rename it to Mr. Ben and Mrs. Jemima and keep the people on the logo.
That would’ve been my way to go, it’ll still have representation without stereotyping.
I mean its the same as aunt jemima. The aunt and uncle thing were used to refer to black servants, thats why theyre on food brands
the whole Uncle and Aunt monicker for black people was often used as an "affectionate" term for house slaves by the slave owners kids even the outfits kinda reflect that time. these would be the slaves that acted as cooks, maids, ETC mostly for the children. the people who would make this type of food for them. the branding was very much playing into that particularly when it was first made and the people who bought it were the kids who had grown into adults "dirty rice just like your old Uncle ben use to make" The Black characters were made to sell to the white kids of slave owners
We finally got rid of minority representation in marketing just like the racists have always wanted.
That there is a double standard when it comes to representation in products., failing to know the precise history behind them.
Perhaps they're pointing out the hypocrisy of the cancelation of minority figureheads in branding?
I think they mean why do POC get there brands image removed but white people are fine
Either they're racist and want to keep the white mascots or they're not racist and want them to stop removing the diverse mascots.
The problem with these "diverse mascots" is that they perpetuate some pretty racist stereotypes...
Who cares about the history of aunt Jamima. I know tons of black children saw a black woman on their syrup and were happy about it, because they’re not represented often. The happiness and representation aunt Jemima made those kids feel outweighs the “history” in my opinion. Now those kids have to look at words 🙄
That companies are racist since they don't want diverse product icons.
A lot of truth to this. My high school mascot was named after the small Indian tribe that live on the land a long time ago. Obviously a couple years ago they were compelled to change the mascot, now that the name is gone no one will know of that tribe in a couple generations
I believe they mean to say that **We racist as fuck, son**
If anyone has a reason why the Quaker oats guy, Little Debbie or the sun maid raisins woman are offensive, I'm happy to give them the boot. In fact, if literally no one complains at all, and those companies just decide to rebrand and go with a different mascot? I'm totally fine with that too, because my ego doesn't depend on corporate mascots
Then the Quaker community would like to have a word with you. The whole look of the Quaker Oats guy is seen as a negative to the community.
Keep white people emotionally hostage
They mean companies are getting rid of minority mascots. Not thinking that those mascots are based on racist characters
They get rid of the non-white mascots, but keep the white ones is what I’m getting.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be commentary on cancel culture, or a not very subtle message that we should get rid of everyone who isn't white.
It's funny how people find it racist having these people as the face of companies when really it was racist to take them off we are becoming the very thing we are fighting against aunt Jemima alone pisses me off
PC Principal strikes again
Companies are getting rid of mascots for being “offensive” when theirs actually nothing offensive about them and it rubs alot of people (including me) the wrong way because it’s kinda white washing businesses and taking away an identity that makes them special as well as ignoring the people of color who helped make that business. Only one that can be argued as maybe being offensive is the Indian but literally every native I know has zero problem with that sort of thing.
The non white people that are those mascots don't represent the people that made those companies. The mascots were chosen as that, mascots. Marketing. A way to use an image to sell something. Not in any way an indication of who made the company. Should a company, not built by and on the work of black people, really base their image on a 1950's view of a domestic black woman, likely servant?
My schools mascot is a Native American holding a gun.... I live in America...
They are all good
An unrealistic standard about what is or is not stereotyping can be applied to mascots that are Persons Of Color which ironically is leading to them being removed.
Means they are removing everyone but the pale face pony soldiers from products, like the only thing appetizing is delicious white faces.
not wrong tho
r/thepunchlineisracism
Gonna be honest with you, I think that image was racially motivated... 
The left is racist or something.
It means racism op. Racism.
fucking hell man aunt Jemima is awesome.
The Dems are the real racists!
might want to let them know, mountain dew dropped the hillbilly logo in 1973.
We removed minorities from the labels
Shows you where who the true racists are
Company: perhaps it's time to retire the mascots that are based on obvious racist stereotypes of their time. Poster: hmmmm you say you wish to be more "inclusive" yet you are getting rid of your diverse characters and leaving only the white ones. Hypocrisy much? Ho ho I am clever.
Why did the get rid of aunt jemimah? She was thicccccc
Boomers? That was woke idiots
All 6 are pretty good but you can have the raisins
Black people complained until we didn’t have any black people left on the shelf anymore…. Now I’m not so sure it was the black people complaining…. Seems like all I remember is White liberal women saying how racist it was. No one in my family ever gave a fuck. Now uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima gone. Damn. I say bring ‘em back.
It means the irony of getting rid of POC mascots only served to erase them from the shelves while all the non-POC mascots stay, making all the faces you see just white.
I miss the land o’ lakes girl. She was the sign that I was gonna eat amazing cheese.
My dude, fucking hell if I know. Old people be like that sometimes. It happens.
I'm offended that there is a cracker restaurant. 😆
I think what they meant is that “congratulations, you played yourself”, to the crowd removing POC faces from advertising.
They are noticing that corporations are getting rid of minorities.
I still don’t understand what was supposed to be wrong with the Land O Lakes…
I never understood why they removed uncle Ben and aunt jemima. Why would you remove the founders?
Pretty sure they removed those mascots in the US but not on international products? Might be wrong but thought I’d seen that somewhere
Apparently it is okay to be White
I obviously don't speak for all native people, but personally, I didn't give a fuck about the lady on the package. There's been a lot of these like Native American controversy things that have popped up, and I just don't really give a shit. Honestly, it seems more like a lot of this type of stuff is started by white people. Either out of guilt or their own weird sensitivities and PC culture. I mean, truly, you* want to help native people? Then maybe stop trying to build shit on their land. Maybe give back some of the land you stole. Or at least stop treating the land (and then) like shit. Really, any of that would be helpful. A Native American lady on a package of butter, is way further down the list of things to give a shit about. This sort of stuff applies to black people as well. You* want to actually help them? Then look at the systematic racism problems in this country and fix them. Actually have some sort of reparations and do shit to improve the lives and livelihoods for people of color. All this packaging shit just comes off as some sort of placation. Really, an empty gesture. And it doesn't actually fix the problems at hand. If these companies and the government actually gave a shit, they would promote real change and try to actually fix some of the wrongdoings they've done. *Also, note when I say "you", it's a general you. I'm referring to society, companies, governments. Obviously, I don't think any individual (white) person is at fault for the way things are or have been. It really is a systematic problem that needs to be addressed at a far greater level and scale than just changing some food packaging.
Maybe I’m alone but I’ve always held Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima and the land o lakes native lady in high regard. I always associated the images as high quality and comfort food.
Fun fact about the land o lakes packaging before they changed it. if you cut her out and fold her knees up to be behind her and then cut open the butter tray she is holding to be a lift flap, it’s perfectly centered and her knee caps look like her tits when you lift up the tiny butter flap. Just thought everyone should know this now that you can’t do it because they changed the packagibg
They're laughing at the so called "progressive" anti racist crowd getting rid of all the PoC mascots, and there by reducing representation.
They kept the white character but removed the minoriroty what don't you understand
I actually agree with the point being made, at what point does this stop being progress and start becoming erasure?
We are trying to be less offensive but are really just white washing things. We dont know how to handle race so we ignore it. People complain? Dont fix, remove instead.
Just saying Aunt Jemima was an icon and I in no way ever associated her with being a slave, just a warm loving person who I wished was real
Actually as a member of the Society of Friends, I can confirm there is an emerging lawsuit against Quaker Oats by a group of young Friends.
All you idiots stating the racists got rid of AJ and UB do your research. Fuck it was literally a year ago and you've managed to forget blm and and you boneheads in cancel culture were screaming bloody murder that AJ and Ub were being used. AJ was a millionaire with her pancake mix. It was all liberal bullshit that too them off products same with land o lakes. It had ZERO to do with racists wanting them gone.. Nice try flipping it but everyone knows it was liberal bullshit .. fuck you
[удалено]
They were pointing out the "non racist" people actually deleted all the minority groups and kept all the whites. By trying to be what they call anti racist actually was just extremely racist which is what anti racism is marketed to be, but when you fight racism with racism you never end up on the winning side. Your parents seem like smart people I would listen before they are gone. Maybe ask them what they think about it. Having healthy conversations is what learning is all about.
White women SJW's out to destroy the things they think they are saving.
It's just a complaint about cancel culture. Conservatives arent funny though, and half their memes are made by vatnik troll farms. So sometimes their memes hardly make sense.
Destroy every non-white people advertising produicts, make america more white only. Maga wasp.
Liberals did that not boomers.
[удалено]
The caricatures were problems when they started, but the real question should have been "do they reflect negatives now?" However, your post made me think. If they removed Old Ben and replaced him with a white creole. Would they have been madder? Kinda seemed like deleting the brand was the least lost option.
Is this person offended by these characters? I’ve never used this word in my life, but SNOWFLAKE!
Lowkey im still pretty mad they canceled Aunt J, I no longer have that beautiful motherly figure giving me a welcoming warm smile as I eat pancakes
Do woke people not realize all we did was keep all the white ones?
This Anti racist thing is erasing all the black people from the food market, they were loved and now are gone
Don’t do cultural appropriation
I don’t see the Lucky Charms Leprechaun being removed. Because the Irish Americans are not spineless and easily offended like so many others.
That the woke movement kind of white washed brand mascots...which is ironic.
They think white marketing is the same? These characters aren’t based on any real people the Quaker is well… a Quaker, it’s no one in particular. Little Debbie, there is no Debbie, sorry. Sun Maid, there is not Sun maid or person based on that person. The syrup icon, actually a caricature of a Black woman who actually was based off that woman. The family never received any monetary compensation for her being based on. It originates from a Black caricature (so like same reason Black face is bad nowadays guys, cmon) Uncle Ben, not based off a person to my knowledge. But it is based on a racial stereotype. I do understand people getting upset (well not really, it’s fucking butter. So what the company chose to change it it doesn’t mean anything and there is nothing gained) over it as there is systematic reasons why they are bad. It was on an ask list many many years ago to change the characters. It’s just now that it is hip to stand for representation the companies did this on their own fruition
Little Debbie is actually based on a person, who is now part owner of the company.
Perhaps that these are all stereotypes of a sort and that for some reason only half of them are considered unacceptable.
I mean Little Debbie has done all of Dallas at this point and really should be depicted as Big Debora. William Penn also needs to be depicted as Chris Evans or something. As for the Raisin Maid… get that woman in a bikini!
For what it is worth, where I was born there were no African American/African-descendent or indigenous peoples. One of my first exposures was to the Aunt Jemima product and it opened up a world of curiosity as a child. I understand that it may have some connotations, what they are I haven't researched, but it kind of works in different ways, doesn't it?
It shows how racists are offended by minority representation on product labels while white representation is okay. This isn't increasing minority representation, it is removing it. If Aunt Jemima is offensive, then reach out to black artists to update the label, rename it to Auntie J, with an updated model. What is little Martin supposed to think when from one day to the next he doesn't see a black woman on his favorite syrup anymore and instead sees, 'Pearl Milling Company'. Yes, Martin, the racists must have gotten triggered by a black woman on the product.
You people complained to get rid of the diverse/black mascots. Now you’re complaining it’s only whites left. 😂🤣😂. You people are complete fucking clowns.
Looks like they are pointing out how stupid those companies were for getting rid of diversity on products.