Conservatives freaking out over the removal of Aunt Jemima

[Toni]

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

The LC icon has stereotypical Irish trappings - shamrock, green color, ginger hair.
On the other hand, Uncle Ben as well as modern Aunt Jemima are stereotype-free.

So why this hypersensitivity toward the latter?

Uncle? Aunt?

Nope not at ALL modern or stereotype free.

 

[Politesse]

Umm, no, it isn't really.

You think I made up the stereotypical Irishman on the boxes of Lucky Charms?

No, I don't think racial stereotypes should be used to market goods, and I hope the practice dies away soon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

The LC icon has stereotypical Irish trappings - shamrock, green color, ginger hair.
On the other hand, Uncle Ben as well as modern Aunt Jemima are stereotype-free.

So why this hypersensitivity toward the latter?

Again... black people real, leprechauns are not real. Unless there is a group of leprechauns out there that are upset over the stereotyping that they are always lucky.

Leprechaun: Yeah, lucky... just like all Scots are cheap right, and all blacks have rhythm, and all Trump want to fuck their daughters? Gee I must be lucky because I'm a leprechaun. Haw! Any time I go to Vegas, I lose my horse shoes! No get out of here you stereotyping jackass!

 

[Toni]

It's not name calling. You think white people are bad because we are white. Since you are white yourself, self-flagellation is what you are doing.

Your mind reading skills really need so much improvement that I think you should consider going into some other line of argument.

I think racists should stop being racist.

What harm is done to anybody by keeping these non-racist brands?
And you are the one calling people who disagree with you names, specifically 'racists'.

What nonracist brands are you talking about? We're talking about Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Ben. Why would changing the names of these brands harm YOU?

And why are your hurt little feelings more important than the feelings of people who see these images and are reminded, yet again, that their ancestors were property and treated as slightly more intelligent livestock? And that plenty of white people want to keep it as close to that state as possible.

Again, bullshit. I still would like to see any polls about these names. I bet the only ones offended are the hyperwoke types of any race, such as yourself.

Why not ask some black people yourself?

And unlike you, I support people being treated the same regardless of race. What you don't understand, or perhaps don't care, is that hypersensitivity about everything to do with black people, even fictional black people on a rice package, prevents us from achieving that ideal.

You obviously do not support people being treated the same regardless of race. You are very much in favor of stereotypes which remind us all that black people used to be regarded as less than human, somewhere between livestock and pets.

Why do you think that you are entitled to evaluate and judge the validity of the feelings of people in whose shoes you have never taken even one step?


Calling someone "too sensitive” is what people say when they’ve said or done something unkind and want you to believe that they haven’t. Its an attempt at at gaslighting It's an attempt to convince people to disregard their own feelings and accept your personal perception of what you think they should--or should not feel.

Which reminds me: Exactly how are YOU harmed if brands change their names/logos/images?

Human images on a boxes of product should be treated the same regardless of whether they are white or black.

Really? So, can you find any brand names that use the terminology aunt or uncle accompanied by images of white people?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem conservatives have with the removal for Aunt Jemima from syrup bottles is it demonstrates how their influence in American society is shrinking. This is the same reaction we get when a big corporation puts a same sex couple in their advertising.

There was a time when conservatives felt big corporations represented them and their values. They realized this loss first with corporate media, which was the first target of their outrage. Now, their market place power is so small, no one in the boardroom worries about "conservative backlash."

This.
Derec doesn't actually WANT Aunt Jemima on his syrup as much as he thunks he and his ilk should have been asked for permission to make the change.

 

[bilby]

Yesterday we had a meeting for all drivers. This was so the company could inform us that our daily worksheets are changing; Instead of recording the fuel and ad blue at the top, they will now be recorded at the bottom of each page.

So, why the need for a meeting for such a trivial change? Well, it's necessary because many people HATE change. It makes them sad; And because we live in a society where people (particularly male truck drivers) are considered weak if they express sadness, the sad people instead exhibit anger. Which leads to accidents, disharmony, and possibly even malicious damage to company property.

Over a tiny and utterly inconsequential change in a standard form.

Change scares and saddens conservatives. That's practically the definition of conservatism. And fear and sadness are traditionally unacceptable, and get replaced by anger. "Why can't they just leave things the way they were??"

For more information on this typically human response to change, see any of Derec's posts in this thread.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yesterday we had a meeting for all drivers. This was so the company could inform us that our daily worksheets are changing; Instead of recording the fuel and ad blue at the top, they will now be recorded at the bottom of each page.

So, why the need for a meeting for such a trivial change? Well, it's necessary because many people HATE change. It makes them sad; And because we live in a society where people (particularly male truck drivers) are considered weak if they express sadness, the sad people instead exhibit anger. Which leads to accidents, disharmony, and possibly even malicious damage to company property.

Over a tiny and utterly inconsequential change in a standard form.

Change scares and saddens conservatives. That's practically the definition of conservatism. And fear and sadness are traditionally unacceptable, and get replaced by anger. "Why can't they just leave things the way they were??"

For more information on this typically human response to change, see any of Derec's posts in this thread.

Good point. Although, I bet if they had changed the brand to something even more racist, then most conservatives would support it. While conservatives generally fear change, they support racism and inequality even more. So, change that increases racial inequality overrides a general discomfort with change in general.

for example, Trump has violated countless traditions about how a president acts and operates. But he's done it all to promote racism, sexism, anti-science theocracy, and corporatism. Thus, conservatives are just giddy about those changes.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I wish these companies would just do the right thing and not issue a press release about how they are finally gonna stop doing the wrong thing. Those press releases ARE "virtue signaling". Whereas, the actual rebranding is simply "virtue". Thus, what's really upsetting the right wingers isn't "liberalism", it's commercialism and capitalism.

Okay, not completely, they're upset b/c they're racists who don't like that humanity is leaving them behind in the 17th century.

In the real world, that's not virtue signaling, it's PR. That's just what businesses do.

 

[ronburgundy]

I wish these companies would just do the right thing and not issue a press release about how they are finally gonna stop doing the wrong thing. Those press releases ARE "virtue signaling". Whereas, the actual rebranding is simply "virtue". Thus, what's really upsetting the right wingers isn't "liberalism", it's commercialism and capitalism.

Okay, not completely, they're upset b/c they're racists who don't like that humanity is leaving them behind in the 17th century.

In the real world, that's not virtue signaling, it's PR. That's just what businesses do

Virtue signaling is a sub-type of PR. In fact, when done by corporations it's typically the most clear-cut examples of virtue signalling rather than the honest promotion of virtues that individuals do that are called "virtue signalling" by right-wingers without virtues.

Businesses also engage in lying, obfuscation, and emotional manipulation. Just b/c those are typical PR tools doesn't negate that they are also lying, obfuscation, and emotional manipulation.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

This level of outrage from some white folks is what I would expect if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man were put out to pasture.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Pudgy white guys have been smoldering for decades over the Pillsbury You-Know-Who.

 

[J842P]

Umm, no, it isn't really.

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

Probably, the better argument would involve Notre Dame's Fighting Irish mascot... Not only is it a mascot of an ethnic group, but it highlights the negative stereotype of that ethnic group.

 

[Toni]

Umm, no, it isn't really.

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

Probably, the better argument would involve Notre Dame's Fighting Irish mascot... Not only is it a mascot of an ethnic group, but it highlights the negative stereotype of that ethnic group.

And I would have no problem with them dispensing with that mascot and all the negative stereotypes it invokes.

I would like to point out that while the Irish were not necessarily treated well when they first immigrated, they were not stolen from their families and sold into slavery nor were they regarded as (that much) less than human or treated like livestock. While many were indentured servants, their term of indenture was finite, even if the circumstances were cruel. They became completely free people and were not forbidden by law from learning to read and write or to marry non-Irish white people. For starters.

 

[Politesse]

Probably, the better argument would involve Notre Dame's Fighting Irish mascot... Not only is it a mascot of an ethnic group, but it highlights the negative stereotype of that ethnic group.

And I would have no problem with them dispensing with that mascot and all the negative stereotypes it invokes.

I would like to point out that while the Irish were not necessarily treated well when they first immigrated, they were not stolen from their families and sold into slavery nor were they regarded as (that much) less than human or treated like livestock. While many were indentured servants, their term of indenture was finite, even if the circumstances were cruel. They became completely free people and were not forbidden by law from learning to read and write or to marry non-Irish white people. For starters.

True though that is, I'd consider the loss of a few Irish stereotypes a small price to pay if it was what it took to eliminate more harmful racialized mascotizations. Consistency is not an unreasonable request.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But Fighting Irish is a typical thing. Ragin’ Cajuns, Demon Deacons. The school has Irish roots.

The trouble to me would be the Fightin Illini. Who were they fighting?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I dislike this because it feels like jumping on the virtue bandwagon rather than a thought-out change.

 

[laughing dog]

I dislike this because it feels like jumping on the virtue bandwagon rather than a thought-out change.

Does anyone else see the irony in that feeling?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The native woman on the Land 'O Lakes butter has an interesting story.

The painting was by a native painter of a native woman on native land. Yes, the background is actually native land. A descendant of the painter, upon the woman being removed, remarked that once again white people are removing native people from their lands.

 

[laughing dog]

According to this report (https://minnesotareformer.com/2020/04/15/land-olakes-quietly-gets-rid-of-iconic-indian-maiden/),

For nearly a century, the Land O’Lakes Indian maiden has kneeled by the side of a blue lake holding out an offering of a 4-stick box of butter.

No more. The Minnesota-based farmer cooperative has redesigned its packaging to focus on celebrating farmers ahead of its 100th anniversary next year.

“We need packaging that reflects the foundation and heart of our company culture — and nothing does that better than our farmer-owners whose milk is used to produce Land O’Lakes’ dairy products,” President and CEO Beth Ford said in a statement in February.......
Arthur C. Hanson, an illustrator for the ad firm Brown and Bigelow, came up with the original design evoking rural Minnesota with a blue lake, green pine trees and a Native woman center stage in a buckskin dress and feather headdress.....
The packaging was redesigned in the 1950s by Patrick DesJarlait, a highly-successful Ojibwe artist from Red Lake. He said he was interested in “fostering a sense of Indian pride” across the Midwest.....
Robert DesJarlait, the artist’s son, says he’s glad Land O’Lakes removed the Indian maiden his father helped create but also continues to be proud of his father’s legacy, which includes creating the Hamm’s Beer bear and being one of the first Native modernist painters.

“It was a source of pride for people to have a Native artist doing that kind of work,” said DesJarlait, who’s also an artist. “He was breaking a lot of barriers . . .Back in the 50s, nobody even thought about stereotypical imagery. Today it’s a stereotype, but it’s also a source of cultural pride. It’s a paradox in that way.”.....

Then there’s the “boob trick” in which you can make the packaging even more disrespectful by turning Mia’s knees into her boobs. “Something lots of dads teach their kids,” one YouTuber noted...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I dislike this because it feels like jumping on the virtue bandwagon rather than a thought-out change.

Right now, angry mobs are ripping down statues of oppressors and statues near oppressors. Exactly how much thinking is required for a for-profit company to decide they don't want none of that anger pointed at them?

Doesn't even have to be a statue anywhere. They're, like, four tweets away from being the next Papa John's.
Two tweets, if Trump weighs in.