Conservatives freaking out over the removal of Aunt Jemima

[ronburgundy]

Oh, and FYI, while most US conservatives are white and racist...

Can you provide a source for that? Over 50% of conservatives are racists?

Most of the conservatives I know are far more interested in the colors gold and green to care about the colors black and white.

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery. The confederacy existed for 4 years and thus has no "heritage" of it's own and is only tied to the heritage of centuries of slavery. Also, almost all blacks with as or greater "southern heritage" are in favor of removing those monuments, as are 45% of all people who live in former confederate states. In fact, the majority of those opposing their removal are conservatives who do not live in the South. This proves that "southern pride" and "heritage" has nothing to do with feelings about these monuments. Plus, there is a lack empathy for black people required to dismiss that most black Americans would clearly and rationally suffer psychological harm and marginalization by their government (and their taxes) continuing to support these monuments.

This leaves only two plausible psychological motives to oppose removal of those monuments. One is a level of ignorance of facts and history that would require near clinical levels of mental deficiency for any adult educated in America. That may account for around 10% of the people in any group. The other is an ideology similar to the white supremacist who erected the monuments 50-75 years after the war, in correspondence with the resurgence of the KKK and in reaction against desegregation efforts and blacks seeking civil rights.

 

[laughing dog]

This gol-durned PC bs has been around for a long time. Hell, it cause this restaurant chain ( Sambo's) into bankruptcy in 1981.

But the original restaurant in Santa Barbara, just changed its name in due to this PC bs.

I never understood the attack on Sambo's. Clever little kid not only outsmarted all those tigers but had pancakes out of the deal. I used to have a stuffed tiger in a chef's hat from Sambo's.

It was not the plot line, but the artwork and the term "Sambo"

While there was nothing particularly startling about Bannerman’s plot, it was the illustrations accompanying the narrative that garnered the attention of American civil rights activists in the 1930s and 1940s. In various editions of the book, Sambo is depicted as having very dark skin that is juxtaposed against the whites of his eyes and teeth, a broad nose, and a wide smile. While set in India and about an Indian protagonist, the illustrations matched what African-Americans such as Langston Hughes recognized immediately to be the “pickaninny.” In Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights (2011), Robin Bernstein writes, “The pickaninny was an imagined, subhuman black juvenile who was typically depicted outdoors, merrily accepting (or even inviting) violence” (34). In response to the suggestion that Bannerman’s book was nothing more than a simple children’s story, Hughes would cut to the quick of American race relations saying that Little Black Sambo was “amusing undoubtedly to the white child, but like an unkind word to one who has known too many hurts to enjoy the additional pain of being laughed at” (Qtd. in Pilgrim). Additionally, the term “Sambo” had already gained currency in America as a black archetype, particularly, a black servant who was “loyal and contented” (Pilgrim). This was by no means limited to the United States. In 1974, a West Indian factory worker in Britain charged with assaulting his co-worker for calling him “Sambo” was informed by the presiding judge that “Sambo” was nothing more than a playful term used between workmates and hardly justified assault (Dunkling 215).

(https://www.saada.org/tides/article/little-black-sambo)

Intruder in the Dust by William Faulkner makes use the term "Sambo" is frequently used by Gavin when he is describing the place of blacks in the South during the 1920s-40.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh, and FYI, while most US conservatives are white and racist...

Can you provide a source for that? Over 50% of conservatives are racists?

Most of the conservatives I know are far more interested in the colors gold and green to care about the colors black and white.

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery.

I define racism as judging people by skin color. You define it as resisting removal of statues. It would help if we define it the same way.

 

[Metaphor]

This leaves only two plausible psychological motives to oppose removal of those monuments. One is a level of ignorance of facts and history that would require near clinical levels of mental deficiency for any adult educated in America. That may account for around 10% of the people in any group. The other is an ideology similar to the white supremacist who erected the monuments 50-75 years after the war, in correspondence with the resurgence of the KKK and in reaction against desegregation efforts and blacks seeking civil rights.

TREND: Do you support or oppose removing Confederate statues from public spaces around the country? Sup Opp DK/NA

Jun 17, 2020 52 44 5
Aug 23, 2017 39 50 10



Tell me ronburgundy, are people significantly less racist in June 2020 versus August 2017? It seems to me if you are using support or opposition to Confederate statue removal as your basis, you would have to say "yes".

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery.

I define racism as judging people by skin color. You define it as resisting removal of statues. It would help if we define it the same way.

No, the difference is that I understand how evidence-based reasoning actually works and you don't. I understand that psychological states are reflected by and thus evidenced by actions and words that are logical consequences of those mental states.
Thus, I understand that a person who says they support efforts to protect government monuments built to honor and glorify efforts to preserve the enslavement of people of a particular race is strong evidence of an underlying attitude about race. Your "logic" means that if we know that a person puts a Hitler statue in his yard, gets a "Heil Hitler" tattoo and wears a KKK oufit and goes to Klan rallies, then we still have no evidence that they are a bigot, because we didn't hear them explicitly say "I believe people with black skin are inherently inferior."

Of course, we both know that you do use such behavioral evidence all the time to infer psychological states. All humans do and must. So what the problem really is that you're building a strawman conception of what implies racism b/c requiring that all racist directly publicly declare that they are racists is the only way you can pretend that most conservatives are not racists.

 

[ronburgundy]

This leaves only two plausible psychological motives to oppose removal of those monuments. One is a level of ignorance of facts and history that would require near clinical levels of mental deficiency for any adult educated in America. That may account for around 10% of the people in any group. The other is an ideology similar to the white supremacist who erected the monuments 50-75 years after the war, in correspondence with the resurgence of the KKK and in reaction against desegregation efforts and blacks seeking civil rights.

TREND: Do you support or oppose removing Confederate statues from public spaces around the country? Sup Opp DK/NA

Jun 17, 2020 52 44 5
Aug 23, 2017 39 50 10



Tell me ronburgundy, are people significantly less racist in June 2020 versus August 2017? It seems to me if you are using support or opposition to Confederate statue removal as your basis, you would have to say "yes".

No, people have become far more informed about the issue, thus their responses have becomes less a reflection of what they know about the issue, and thus a stronger reflection of what they feel about race. Prior to 3 years ago, many people had not thought much about the issue and so were responding to a question that hadn't formed a real opinion about. We've had 3 years of near non-stop national coverage about the issue, including white supremacists and others openly displaying Nazi symbols and salutes marching to support the monuments. The % of people who respond to such a question now without having previously given it any thought or formed an opinion has massively declined.

IOW, the question is a more valid measure of racist attitudes today than it was 3 years ago, b/c other influences like lack of awareness have declined. And mountains of research shows that people are generally biased toward inaction and the status quo, which would bias the uninformed toward not doing anything and leaving the monuments since they are already there. It's those people who have shifted their position, leaving the "Oppose removing the monuments position" to those people who over the last 3 years of highly coverage have though about it, seen the KKK and Neo-Nazis marching to preserve the statues, read about how the klan backed building many of these statues to oppose the civil rights efforts, have seen the public anguish caused to black people who rationally view these as threats and endorsements of slavery, and yet still decided, "Yep I'm with the klan and neo-Nazis on this one!"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery.

I define racism as judging people by skin color. You define it as resisting removal of statues. It would help if we define it the same way.

No, the difference is that I understand how evidence-based reasoning actually works and you don't.

You can't just say "they disagree with me, that is evidence that they are racist."

I suppose you think this guy is racist: Aunt Jemima's Great-Grandson Enraged Her Legacy Will Be Erased

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery.

I define racism as judging people by skin color. You define it as resisting removal of statues. It would help if we define it the same way.

Judging by color of skin is bigotry. Racism is systemic bigotry.

 

[Metaphor]

This leaves only two plausible psychological motives to oppose removal of those monuments. One is a level of ignorance of facts and history that would require near clinical levels of mental deficiency for any adult educated in America. That may account for around 10% of the people in any group. The other is an ideology similar to the white supremacist who erected the monuments 50-75 years after the war, in correspondence with the resurgence of the KKK and in reaction against desegregation efforts and blacks seeking civil rights.

TREND: Do you support or oppose removing Confederate statues from public spaces around the country? Sup Opp DK/NA

Jun 17, 2020 52 44 5
Aug 23, 2017 39 50 10



Tell me ronburgundy, are people significantly less racist in June 2020 versus August 2017? It seems to me if you are using support or opposition to Confederate statue removal as your basis, you would have to say "yes".

No, people have become far more informed about the issue, thus their responses have becomes less a reflection of what they know about the issue, and thus a stronger reflection of what they feel about race. Prior to 3 years ago, many people had not thought much about the issue and so were responding to a question that hadn't formed a real opinion about. We've had 3 years of near non-stop national coverage about the issue, including white supremacists and others openly displaying Nazi symbols and salutes marching to support the monuments. The % of people who respond to such a question now without having previously given it any thought or formed an opinion has massively declined.

IOW, the question is a more valid measure of racist attitudes today than it was 3 years ago, b/c other influences like lack of awareness have declined. And mountains of research shows that people are generally biased toward inaction and the status quo, which would bias the uninformed toward not doing anything and leaving the monuments since they are already there. It's those people who have shifted their position, leaving the "Oppose removing the monuments position" to those people who over the last 3 years of highly coverage have though about it, seen the KKK and Neo-Nazis marching to preserve the statues, read about how the klan backed building many of these statues to oppose the civil rights efforts, have seen the public anguish caused to black people who rationally view these as threats and endorsements of slavery, and yet still decided, "Yep I'm with the klan and neo-Nazis on this one!"

So, 44 per cent of people in the United States are racist, and probably irredeemably so, given that they've had "3 years of near non-stop national coverage" to get informed and have not been so informed?

 

[blastula]

Owner of Eskimo Pie to change its 'derogatory' name - Times Union

Not my sweet Eskimo Pie? That's it, I'm voting for Trump.

 

[Arctish]

Owner of Eskimo Pie to change its 'derogatory' name - Times Union

Not my sweet Eskimo Pie? That's it, I'm voting for Trump.

They should see if the Yupik, Iñupiat, Chukchi, Taġiuġmiut, Nunamiut, or any of the other 'Eskimo' peoples want to license their tribe's name for commercial use and rebrand it that way. .

 

[Politesse]

Owner of Eskimo Pie to change its 'derogatory' name - Times Union

Not my sweet Eskimo Pie? That's it, I'm voting for Trump.

They should see if the Yupik, Iñupiat, Chukchi, Taġiuġmiut, Nunamiut, or any of the other 'Eskimo' peoples want to license their tribe's name for commercial use and rebrand it that way. .

It isn't a name, it's a racial pejorative. You can't collect trademark income for something other people call you, against your will and clear preference. I've been called a faggot many times in my life, but that doesn't mean I can corner the trademark for "Fag Pies" on that basis.

 

[thebeave]

Well, so far, it looks like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Cream of Wheat guy, Eskimo Pie guy, and Land O'Lakes Indian lady are on their way out. I probably missed some (e.g. not sure if Mrs. Butterworth is gone or not yet), and more are likely to fall soon. I'm not sure we're really going to make much of a dent in racism with all of this, but it does seem pretty clear that we are steadily decreasing diversity in our advertising icons. Are there now even any minority ad icons left? I can't even really think of any now off the top of my head. Meanwhile, Mr. Clean, Little Debbie, Betty Crocker and Chef Boy R Dee live on. Supposedly, some of these banished ones are going to be "rebranded", but what will that entail? For example, will Aunt Jemima become something low risk like "Acme Syrup"? Or will they come up with an all new hip 2020 black female to promote their syrup products? If so, I pity the poor marketing sap that has the job to come up with a new name, look and caricature that's not going to trigger people across the spectrum. "Why does she have corn rows?" or "Why does she have straight hair, like white people!?" "Why is she talking street slang? That's an offensive stereotype!" or "Why is she talking like she's white? That's offensive!". Talk about having to thread a needle!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Owner of Eskimo Pie to change its 'derogatory' name - Times Union

Not my sweet Eskimo Pie? That's it, I'm voting for Trump.

They should see if the Yupik, Iñupiat, Chukchi, Taġiuġmiut, Nunamiut, or any of the other 'Eskimo' peoples want to license their tribe's name for commercial use and rebrand it that way. .

It isn't a name, it's a racial pejorative. You can't collect trademark income for something other people call you, against your will and clear preference. I've been called a faggot many times in my life, but that doesn't mean I can corner the trademark for "Fag Pies" on that basis.

So are we just a couple slippery slope steps away from Taco Bell not mentioning "south of the border" in their advertising?

 

[Politesse]

It isn't a name, it's a racial pejorative. You can't collect trademark income for something other people call you, against your will and clear preference. I've been called a faggot many times in my life, but that doesn't mean I can corner the trademark for "Fag Pies" on that basis.

So are we just a couple slippery slope steps away from Taco Bell not mentioning "south of the border" in their advertising?

Taco Bell has definitely published some racist-ass ad copy over the years, though I don't see the problem anyone might have with "south of the border" particularly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, recent polls show 80% of Republicans are still opposed the removal of monuments erected by white supremacists as a reaction against civil rights efforts and to honor traitors who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, and of specific individuals known to history solely b/c of those efforts to preserve slavery.

I define racism as judging people by skin color. You define it as resisting removal of statues. It would help if we define it the same way.

Judging by color of skin is bigotry. Racism is systemic bigotry.

That is a bullshit definition. It seems every time I turn around another qualifier is added to the word "racism" to either say "see these people can't be racist even though they fit the basic definition" or "see these people must be racist since they don't fit the basic definition."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Judging by color of skin is bigotry. Racism is systemic bigotry.

That is a bullshit definition. It seems every time I turn around another qualifier is added to the word "racism" to either say "see these people can't be racist even though they fit the basic definition" or "see these people must be racist since they don't fit the basic definition."

You have my thoughts and prayers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't a name, it's a racial pejorative. You can't collect trademark income for something other people call you, against your will and clear preference. I've been called a faggot many times in my life, but that doesn't mean I can corner the trademark for "Fag Pies" on that basis.

So are we just a couple slippery slope steps away from Taco Bell not mentioning "south of the border" in their advertising?

Taco Bell has definitely published some racist-ass ad copy over the years, though I don't see the problem anyone might have with "south of the border" particularly.

Taco Bell is no more Mexican cuisine than Eskimo Pies are nordic treats.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, so far, it looks like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Cream of Wheat guy, Eskimo Pie guy, and Land O'Lakes Indian lady are on their way out. I probably missed some (e.g. not sure if Mrs. Butterworth is gone or not yet), and more are likely to fall soon. I'm not sure we're really going to make much of a dent in racism with all of this, but it does seem pretty clear that we are steadily decreasing diversity in our advertising icons. Are there now even any minority ad icons left? I can't even really think of any now off the top of my head. Meanwhile, Mr. Clean, Little Debbie, Betty Crocker and Chef Boy R Dee live on. Supposedly, some of these banished ones are going to be "rebranded", but what will that entail? For example, will Aunt Jemima become something low risk like "Acme Syrup"? Or will they come up with an all new hip 2020 black female to promote their syrup products? If so, I pity the poor marketing sap that has the job to come up with a new name, look and caricature that's not going to trigger people across the spectrum. "Why does she have corn rows?" or "Why does she have straight hair, like white people!?" "Why is she talking street slang? That's an offensive stereotype!" or "Why is she talking like she's white? That's offensive!". Talk about having to thread a needle!

They don’t need to “caricature” anyone. I’m quite sure they are creative enough to brand their products without affronting anyone’s dignity. Log Cabin Syrup and Minute Rice are already taken but Im sure they’ll manage.
Now about those Bomb Pops.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait, decreasing the number of stereotypes is decreasing 'diversity' in advertising?

You think 'diversity' is just about skin color?

Wow.