https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pepsico-race-aunt-jemima-idUSKBN23O1V1
Wow! Though I am surprised it remained all these years considering the defunct Sambo's Restaurants were forced to stop using the iconic character that was created to be a young African American kid over 35 years ago.
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
Wow, that comment isn't going to earn you any... well normally I'd say brownie points, but in this case, maybe pancake points? :meh:
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:41:37 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
Wow, that comment isn't going to earn you any... well normally I'd say brownie points, but in this case, maybe pancake points? :meh:
I wouldn't pay it much attention. Given the reactions SG1 has had all over the forum the last couple days I doubt anything that doesn't conform to his narrow view on the world will make him happy.
Controversial branding or not, the reality is that the table syrup has been artificially-flavored corn syrup for several decades.
I think this is a reasonable thing to do - it may seem inconsequential to rebrand a maple syrup product, but I think this is a good example of something that lies below the surface on the racism iceberg (https://external-preview.redd.it/J2US5rRgqvS9YA5J-IoSHUYxlZ__P-s54zIH6fpALQA.jpg?auto=webp&s=ba674c298865c1a1e127fbba93d2843a0769ca84), falling under the "racist mascots" or "racial profiling" categories.
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Why do you make posts like this? What's the point? To increase your post count?
Quote from: csw on June 17, 2020, 11:18:00 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Why do you make posts like this? What's the point? To increase your post count?
"Make posts like this"? Do I have a habit of making posts just like this one, or something?
Sometimes, when I read a thread title and OP, I just decide on the spot that there's no way I should take it too seriously.
It was supposed to be humorous, but I'm sorry if you didn't think it was funny.
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 11:21:39 PM
Quote from: csw on June 17, 2020, 11:18:00 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Why do you make posts like this? What's the point? To increase your post count?
"Make posts like this"? Do I have a habit of making posts just like this one, or something?
Sometimes, when I read a thread title and OP, I just decide on the spot that there's no way I should take it too seriously.
It was supposed to be humorous, but I'm sorry if you didn't think it was funny.
You do have a habit of replying to literally every thread. Usually when I don't have anything to add, I don't reply.
I'm getting too hot and bothered over this. Do what you want.
I am very sorry if you feel I'm making contributions that aren't valuable. I posted to maybe 11 or 12 threads on 06/17, out of 75 or so threads that were active.
There are many users here who would have just posted the lame, tired, "In b4 lock!". At least I was creative about it.
All righty then ... In before lock to say that I am going to miss you, Aunt Jemima, and you too, Uncle Ben ... it's been so nice having you both in my kitchen.
Dang it. What would the Big Rig Travels road crew use now as running gag? However there Aunt Jemima is depicted as a obese frog instead.
What is the name being changed to?
Quote from: csw on June 17, 2020, 11:18:00 PM
I think this is a reasonable thing to do - it may seem inconsequential to rebrand a maple syrup product, but I think this is a good example of something that lies below the surface on the racism iceberg (https://external-preview.redd.it/J2US5rRgqvS9YA5J-IoSHUYxlZ__P-s54zIH6fpALQA.jpg?auto=webp&s=ba674c298865c1a1e127fbba93d2843a0769ca84), falling under the "racist mascots" or "racial profiling" categories.
The name of Washington, DC's NFL team is directly
above the dividing line between "Socially Unacceptable" and "Socially Acceptable." The team is
long overdue for a name change, don't you think?
Many other professional sports teams' mascots, branding, and fan-related activity* fall below that line but still need to stop if we're serious about ending racism.
*(I was horrified earlier this year when I saw large numbers of people doing the "Tomahawk Chop" when my metro area's NFL team was approaching the Superbowl. We learned back in the 90s that it's racist, but so many fans are obstinate enough to keep on doing it after all these
decades.)
Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 06:13:05 AM
What is the name being changed to?
From the article:
Quote
"We don't yet know what the exact changes or timing will be, but we are evaluating all possibilities," a spokeswoman said about the brand
Quote from: renegade on June 18, 2020, 12:35:36 AM
All righty then ... In before lock to say that I am going to miss you, Aunt Jemima, and you too, Uncle Ben ... it's been so nice having you both in my kitchen.
Funny because I really had no idea both were still around. And it boggles my mind that they were. In fact, I thought Aunt Jemima was the brand with the talking syrup bottle, but that was Mrs. Butterworth.
I really don't have brand loyalty to knock off syrup, pancake mix or rice.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2020, 09:43:08 AM
I really don't have brand loyalty to knock off syrup, pancake mix or rice.
I'm on a diet. My only food brand loyalty is Diet Dr. Pepper, and I'll happily accept a store-brand substitute.
Is Nabisco Cream of Wheat going to have to change their logo? I remember that the original Cream of Wheat features a chef on it, that in this troubled time could prove problematic.
In this troubled time everything can be viewed as problematic, even when it's not.
Nexus 5X
It should have been retired decades ago when certain-minded people started using it as a female version of "Uncle Tom".
Quote from: roadman65 on June 18, 2020, 10:43:44 AM
Is Nabisco Cream of Wheat going to have to change their logo? I remember that the original Cream of Wheat features a chef on it, that in this troubled time could prove problematic.
Judging by this article, I would say more than likely:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/business/cream-of-wheat-racist-brands/index.html
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 09:59:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2020, 09:43:08 AM
I really don't have brand loyalty to knock off syrup, pancake mix or rice.
I'm on a diet. My only food brand loyalty is Diet Dr. Pepper, and I'll happily accept a store-brand substitute.
I have a 24 pack of Diet Doctor Thunder within arm's reach right now.
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:41:37 PM
pancake points
This thread was worth it just for that phrase.
Quote from: mrsman on June 18, 2020, 12:01:43 PM
In this troubled time everything can be viewed as problematic, even when it's not.
This forum needs a "safe space". I feel oppressed by
mrsman's microaggressions.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:21:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 18, 2020, 12:01:43 PM
In this troubled time everything can be viewed as problematic, even when it's not.
This forum needs a "safe space". I feel oppressed by mrsman's microaggressions.
No you don't. Don't dismiss microaggressions as insignificant. Just because you aren't the target of microaggressions doesn't mean they don't exist. What were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 02:28:25 PM
What were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
To be more creative than a simple :thumbsup: .
By the way, who said I'm not the target of microaggressions?
I decided
not to launch a social media campaign against Burger King after receiving this a while ago. Because I'm not a snowflake.
(https://i.imgur.com/ml6a9Es.jpg)
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 12:26:01 AM
There are many users here who would have just posted the lame, tired, "In b4 lock!". At least I was creative about it.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
To be more creative than a simple :thumbsup: .
Well, I guess that makes two of us that are now the subject of anti-creative microaggressions.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
I decided not to launch a social media campaign against Burger King after receiving this a while ago. Because I'm not a snowflake.
[img snipped]
LOL, that's great.
Edit: I don't know how that compares, to, say, the n-word (in other words, I would have no prior on whether I
should be offended), but I would have thought it was funny and not been offended in the least.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
By the way, who said I'm not the target of microaggressions?
I decided not to launch a social media campaign against Burger King after receiving this a while ago. Because I'm not a snowflake.
Given that that clearly happened in an entirely different country with an entirely different culture than the United States, attempting to compare it to anything that happens in the United States is pretty intellectually dishonest.
If a "microaggression" is a minor thing (hence the prefix "micro") then what's the opposite? If microaggressions are so bad, what would a major aggression look like?
My opinion -- which should be expected -- is that anyone who gets offended by something so small that it's termed "micro" is just looking for something to get their panties in a wad over. As we used to say, they have their rabbit ears on. Or is that offensive to rabbits?
I'm going out this weekend and buying every Aunt Jemima product I can find on the shelves and going to store them carefully. Not because I have any affinity for the brand, but because those packages are going to be an investment. They'll bring a fortune on eBay in future months and years.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
If a "microaggression" is a minor thing (hence the prefix "micro") then what's the opposite? If microaggressions are so bad, what would a major aggression look like?
Violence would be an example, although it's not the only example.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
Or is that offensive to rabbits?
Hasn't the Trix Rabbit suffered enough discrimination already?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
By the way, who said I'm not the target of microaggressions?
I decided not to launch a social media campaign against Burger King after receiving this a while ago. Because I'm not a snowflake.
Given that that clearly happened in an entirely different country with an entirely different culture than the United States, attempting to compare it to anything that happens in the United States is pretty intellectually dishonest.
So microaggressions don't count if they happen outside the USA? How about the time I overheard a soldier dressed in riot gear, face mask, and assault rifle refer to my family as "Gringos...!" to another solider during a checkpoint stop?
Or, closer to home, how about the times I've been in rough neighborhoods of Chicago and people assumed I was interested in scoring drugs or sex because I was there?
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
By the way, who said I'm not the target of microaggressions?
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 03:35:39 PM
Well, I guess that makes two of us that are now the subject of anti-creative microaggressions.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
If a "microaggression" is a minor thing (hence the prefix "micro") then what's the opposite? If microaggressions are so bad, what would a major aggression look like?
My opinion -- which should be expected -- is that anyone who gets offended by something so small that it's termed "micro" is just looking for something to get their panties in a wad over. As we used to say, they have their rabbit ears on. Or is that offensive to rabbits?
Do any of you actually know what microaggressions are? Please reference this document to see if your understanding lines up with the proper definition. https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf
Me not thinking your jokes are funny is not a microaggression - to suggest that you're being discriminated against because I don't think you're funny is flat out ridiculous.
As far as microaggressions versus a "major aggression" goes...I'm going to point you to the iceberg analogy I posted upthread. Microaggressions are things said or done in an everyday interaction that may not initially come off as rude or disrespectful. It should be very obvious what constitutes a "major aggression"...overtly racist comments, slurs, acts of violence, etc.
I agree that anyone who gets offended over small things, say, someone telling you you have your "rabbit ears on", is best served by taking the high road and getting over it. DO NOT compare that to racist comments and slurs. It's a terrible minimalization of the problems minorities face every day. For example, calling someone a stupid idiot is not even in the same league as calling a German person "Kraut" or other similar term.
And as for stocking up on Aunt Jemima products? Good luck with that - who in their right mind would pay money for empty plastic bottles that were discontinued because they depicted a racist mascot?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
If a "microaggression" is a minor thing (hence the prefix "micro") then what's the opposite? If microaggressions are so bad, what would a major aggression look like?
My opinion -- which should be expected -- is that anyone who gets offended by something so small that it's termed "micro" is just looking for something to get their panties in a wad over. As we used to say, they have their rabbit ears on. Or is that offensive to rabbits?
I'm going out this weekend and buying every Aunt Jemima product I can find on the shelves and going to store them carefully. Not because I have any affinity for the brand, but because those packages are going to be an investment. They'll bring a fortune on eBay in future months and years.
Microaggressions are small no doubt. So while any one of them is no big deal or can be shrugged off, it is how they add up over time that is an issue.
They are real but per usual they are downplayed and/or ignored, usually by heterosexual, white males because, while they LOVE to call others snowflakes, they are usually the snowflakiest of the bunch.
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
I think there are more positive connotations associated with her than negative, and I can't say I ever spent time thinking about her race. But maybe I'm the exception.
For what it's worth, my snarky comment was merely implying that microaggressions are way overblown by some, and people need to learn how to get over them. Others obviously disagree, and that would be a worthwhile topic of civil conversation. But that's not what happened. What happened is that
csw said the following:
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 02:28:25 PM
you aren't the target of microaggressions
I take offense at the notion that, because I'm a straight white male, then microaggressions don't exist for me. They very much do exist for me when I go to places where I'm a minority. When I do, though, I get over it.
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 05:28:12 PM
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
I think there are more positive connotations associated with her than negative, and I can't say I ever spent time thinking about her race. But maybe I'm the exception.
I personally never made a connection between Aunt Jemima and slavery. It never once occurred to me. For me, Aunt Jemima was just a woman who loved to whip up some amazing pancakes. But I can only speak as a white man. It's possible that blacks are more likely to see the slavery connection.
Quote
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:55 PM
Given that that clearly happened in an entirely different country with an entirely different culture than the United States, attempting to compare it to anything that happens in the United States is pretty intellectually dishonest.
So microaggressions don't count if they happen outside the USA? How about the time I overheard a soldier dressed in riot gear, face mask, and assault rifle refer to my family as "Gringos...!" to another solider during a checkpoint stop?
It's an entirely different conversation, because Mexican history, leadership, and culture is wholly distinct and divorced from that of the United States.
The key point to keep in mind here is the power dynamic between races. Historically, white people in the United States have had far more power than black people, to the point that before the Civil War the vast majority of black people in this country had no freedom at all. This power dynamic was enforced by the laws and institutions of this country. This is why when a white person uses a racially charged term it is offensive (because a member of the historically more powerful class is using a word that invokes the less powerful class's lesser status), but when a black person calls a white person a "cracker" it's no big deal (because, if anything, it's punching up, rather than down).
I don't know Mexican culture and history well enough to know if white people and Mexicans have any sort of power dynamic that is comparable to that in the United States. If they do, it would have different causes and history, so much so that comparing it to a similar power dynamic in the United States is disingenuous.
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 05:28:12 PM
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
The modern brand, taken in isolation? A simple image of a smiling black woman with the name Aunt Jemima? No, not really. But if you look into the history of the brand, you'll see that it was established and grown with far more racist imagery than the present day.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 05:28:12 PM
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
I think there are more positive connotations associated with her than negative, and I can't say I ever spent time thinking about her race. But maybe I'm the exception.
I personally never made a connection between Aunt Jemima and slavery. It never once occurred to me. For me, Aunt Jemima was just a woman who loved to whip up some amazing pancakes. But I can only speak as a white man. It's possible that blacks are more likely to see the slavery connection.
I never made the connection either. You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 05:28:12 PM
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
I think there are more positive connotations associated with her than negative, and I can't say I ever spent time thinking about her race. But maybe I'm the exception.
I personally never made a connection between Aunt Jemima and slavery. It never once occurred to me. For me, Aunt Jemima was just a woman who loved to whip up some amazing pancakes. But I can only speak as a white man. It's possible that blacks are more likely to see the slavery connection.
I never made the connection either. You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
And let's be honest, Quaker Oats is phasing it out because they feel that it's good for their bottom line. They must have made a determination that this is the right thing to do for a variety of reasons.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2020, 06:03:50 PM
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 18, 2020, 05:28:12 PM
Honest question: does anyone genuinely think that the presence of Aunt Jemima on the syrup bottle is/was problematic?
I think there are more positive connotations associated with her than negative, and I can't say I ever spent time thinking about her race. But maybe I'm the exception.
I personally never made a connection between Aunt Jemima and slavery. It never once occurred to me. For me, Aunt Jemima was just a woman who loved to whip up some amazing pancakes. But I can only speak as a white man. It's possible that blacks are more likely to see the slavery connection.
I never made the connection either. You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
And let's be honest, Quaker Oats is phasing it out because they feel that it's good for their bottom line. They must have made a determination that this is the right thing to do for a variety of reasons.
And at the end of the day, I really don't care much. It, and other similar brands, are just crappy syrups made from corn syrup instead of 100% maple syrup, which is far superior to "maple-flavored corn syrup".
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 05:50:02 PM
The key point to keep in mind here is the power dynamic between races. Historically, white people in the United States have had far more power than black people, to the point that before the Civil War the vast majority of black people in this country had no freedom at all. This power dynamic was enforced by the laws and institutions of this country. This is why when a white person uses a racially charged term it is offensive (because a member of the historically more powerful class is using a word that invokes the less powerful class's lesser status), but when a black person calls a white person a "cracker" it's no big deal (because, if anything, it's punching up, rather than down).
I don't know Mexican culture and history well enough to know if white people and Mexicans have any sort of power dynamic that is comparable to that in the United States. If they do, it would have different causes and history, so much so that comparing it to a similar power dynamic in the United States is disingenuous.
None of that means microaggressions don't exist there against white Americans. Similarly, microaggressions against white people in predominantly black neighborhoods.
When I'm in Mexico, people assume I'm wealthy just because I'm American. This means some of them attempt to charge me more money for things than they would otherwise charge. This means I'm more likely to have money stolen from my wallet if I leave it unattended. This means–from what I've heard from others–I'm more likely to be found at fault in the case of a car accident. As an example, my white American friends who live there had to have local Mexicans find a rental house for them, in order to get a decent price of rent quoted up front. Or, when that soldier I mentioned earlier called us "gringos" to her fellow soldier, I could hear the derision in her voice; I didn't know if that would bode poorly for us, but I'm glad it didn't. Is this not the "textbook definition" of microaggression? The Wikipedia article on microaggression specifically mentions "explicit racial derogation ... e.g. name-calling".
As I've already mentioned, too, I've been approached by people in black neighborhoods in Chicago. They ignored others nearby, went to me specifically, and asked if I wanted to buy drugs or sex. How is not a microaggression to assume that, because of the color of my skin, I must be seeking illicit drugs or prostitution? One such neighborhood is the same in which I've had rocks thrown at me while I was simply walking down the sidewalk.
Just because I'm a member of the US nationwide majority, that doesn't mean anyone should assume "I'm not the target of microaggressions".
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
There's another perfectly plausible answer: that blacks don't find Aunt Jemima offensive either. I can't answer for them, but it cannot be said that "our white privilege allows us to not" be offended by Aunt Jemima if blacks are also not offended. I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm saying it's quite possible they aren't.
I'd be curious to know how many black people are
actually offended by Aunt Jemima and, if so, why they hadn't said anything till now.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
Or is that offensive to rabbits?
Hasn't the Trix Rabbit suffered enough discrimination already?
He's a thief, and we have decades of footage proving his attempts to steal food from the mouths of children.
Quote from: formulanone on June 18, 2020, 08:59:22 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
Or is that offensive to rabbits?
Hasn't the Trix Rabbit suffered enough discrimination already?
He's a thief, and we have decades of footage proving his attempts to steal food from the mouths of children.
Yes, but in his defense he's just a silly rabbit who had trouble understanding that Trix was for kids.
Quote from: mrsman on June 18, 2020, 12:01:43 PM
In this troubled time everything can be viewed as problematic, even when it's not.
Nexus 5X
Some people are looking to take offense. This goes for all sides of a particular issue.
White supremacists must be gleeful right about now. After all, they don't have to see a native woman on their butter, a black woman on their syrup, or a black man on their rice.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 18, 2020, 09:30:26 PM
White supremacists must be gleeful right about now. After all, they don't have to see a native woman on their butter, a black woman on their syrup, or a black man on their rice.
Or a black woman on their pancake mix.
Actually, they're upset about the change in status quo. It's not making America great again /sarc
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 05:50:02 PM
The key point to keep in mind here is the power dynamic between races. Historically, white people in the United States have had far more power than black people, to the point that before the Civil War the vast majority of black people in this country had no freedom at all. This power dynamic was enforced by the laws and institutions of this country. This is why when a white person uses a racially charged term it is offensive (because a member of the historically more powerful class is using a word that invokes the less powerful class's lesser status), but when a black person calls a white person a "cracker" it's no big deal (because, if anything, it's punching up, rather than down).
I don't know Mexican culture and history well enough to know if white people and Mexicans have any sort of power dynamic that is comparable to that in the United States. If they do, it would have different causes and history, so much so that comparing it to a similar power dynamic in the United States is disingenuous.
None of that means microaggressions don't exist there against white Americans. Similarly, microaggressions against white people in predominantly black neighborhoods.
When I'm in Mexico, people assume I'm wealthy just because I'm American. This means some of them attempt to charge me more money for things than they would otherwise charge. This means I'm more likely to have money stolen from my wallet if I leave it unattended. This means–from what I've heard from others–I'm more likely to be found at fault in the case of a car accident. As an example, my white American friends who live there had to have local Mexicans find a rental house for them, in order to get a decent price of rent quoted up front. Or, when that soldier I mentioned earlier called us "gringos" to her fellow soldier, I could hear the derision in her voice; I didn't know if that would bode poorly for us, but I'm glad it didn't. Is this not the "textbook definition" of microaggression? The Wikipedia article on microaggression specifically mentions "explicit racial derogation ... e.g. name-calling".
But, again...that is in Mexico. The underlying causes and solutions to them are going to be very different than those needed to fix similar problems in the United States. So it doesn't make sense to include your experience in Mexico in a discussion of a US-based company changing their product to address a US-based problem.
Quote
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
There's another perfectly plausible answer: that blacks don't find Aunt Jemima offensive either. I can't answer for them, but it cannot be said that "our white privilege allows us to not" be offended by Aunt Jemima if blacks are also not offended. I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm saying it's quite possible they aren't.
I'd be curious to know how many black people are actually offended by Aunt Jemima and, if so, why they hadn't said anything till now.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/@neiltyson/status/1273262636793237505) seems to find it pretty offensive. Obviously, he's one person, but that tweet includes an example of some old, pretty clearly racist Aunt Jemima advertising (which is why I didn't embed the tweet, so those who don't want to view it don't have to).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 11:27:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 05:50:02 PM
The key point to keep in mind here is the power dynamic between races. Historically, white people in the United States have had far more power than black people, to the point that before the Civil War the vast majority of black people in this country had no freedom at all. This power dynamic was enforced by the laws and institutions of this country. This is why when a white person uses a racially charged term it is offensive (because a member of the historically more powerful class is using a word that invokes the less powerful class's lesser status), but when a black person calls a white person a "cracker" it's no big deal (because, if anything, it's punching up, rather than down).
I don't know Mexican culture and history well enough to know if white people and Mexicans have any sort of power dynamic that is comparable to that in the United States. If they do, it would have different causes and history, so much so that comparing it to a similar power dynamic in the United States is disingenuous.
None of that means microaggressions don't exist there against white Americans. Similarly, microaggressions against white people in predominantly black neighborhoods.
When I'm in Mexico, people assume I'm wealthy just because I'm American. This means some of them attempt to charge me more money for things than they would otherwise charge. This means I'm more likely to have money stolen from my wallet if I leave it unattended. This means–from what I've heard from others–I'm more likely to be found at fault in the case of a car accident. As an example, my white American friends who live there had to have local Mexicans find a rental house for them, in order to get a decent price of rent quoted up front. Or, when that soldier I mentioned earlier called us "gringos" to her fellow soldier, I could hear the derision in her voice; I didn't know if that would bode poorly for us, but I'm glad it didn't. Is this not the "textbook definition" of microaggression? The Wikipedia article on microaggression specifically mentions "explicit racial derogation ... e.g. name-calling".
But, again...that is in Mexico. The underlying causes and solutions to them are going to be very different than those needed to fix similar problems in the United States. So it doesn't make sense to include your experience in Mexico in a discussion of a US-based company changing their product to address a US-based problem.
Quote
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
You and I never made the connection because our white privilege allows us to not make it. You and I never made the connection because we're not black. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why it's offensive because I'm not a part of the minority that it offends. But I at least recognize that I don't understand, and never will. Don't minimize problems just because they're not yours.
There's another perfectly plausible answer: that blacks don't find Aunt Jemima offensive either. I can't answer for them, but it cannot be said that "our white privilege allows us to not" be offended by Aunt Jemima if blacks are also not offended. I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm saying it's quite possible they aren't.
I'd be curious to know how many black people are actually offended by Aunt Jemima and, if so, why they hadn't said anything till now.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/@neiltyson/status/1273262636793237505) seems to find it pretty offensive. Obviously, he's one person, but that tweet includes an example of some old, pretty clearly racist Aunt Jemima advertising (which is why I didn't embed the tweet, so those who don't want to view it don't have to).
I guess DeGrasse is always greener on De Other Side. ;)
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
+1
iPhone
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 18, 2020, 09:30:26 PM
White supremacists must be gleeful right about now. After all, they don't have to see a native Ojibwe woman on their butter, a black woman on their syrup, or a black man on their rice.
She was drawn by an Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa) artist.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 18, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 18, 2020, 08:59:22 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
Or is that offensive to rabbits?
Hasn't the Trix Rabbit suffered enough discrimination already?
He's a thief, and we have decades of footage proving his attempts to steal food from the mouths of children.
Yes, but in his defense he's just a silly rabbit who had trouble understanding that Trix was for kids.
I recall a lot of breakfast items invoke casual theft and misappropriation; other times, legal confusion or chaos. Captain Crunch brought maritime order to cereal, Cookie Crisp provided the argument with its "cookies for breakfast" manifesto, and the Sugar Crisp bear policed the mean streets of Puffed Oats. Meanwhile, households all over our great nation still fight over eminent domain of toasted waffles called "Eggos". Breakfast in America is a lawless time. When crimes go unchecked and unpunished, they move on to illicit lunchroom trading and the unchecked corporate greed of pilfering from the lunchroom refrigerator (except on Friday afternoons, when it all gets thrown out). We hear chants of "winner-winner chicken dinner", but we secretly fear the Hamburglar.
So one could only assume that kit named Trix was torn away from the mother's teat of Kix too soon, and psychologically, the Trix Rabbit has just been endlessly searching for its mother, playing out these fantasies by stealing from children.
Quote from: formulanone on June 19, 2020, 07:14:19 AM
I recall a lot of breakfast items invoke casual theft and misappropriation; other times, legal confusion or chaos. Captain Crunch brought maritime order to cereal, Cookie Crisp provided the argument with its "cookies for breakfast" manifesto, and the Sugar Crisp bear policed the mean streets of Puffed Oats. Meanwhile, households all over our great nation still fight over eminent domain of toasted waffles called "Eggos". Breakfast in America is a lawless time. When crimes go unchecked and unpunished, they move on to illicit lunchroom trading and the unchecked corporate greed of pilfering from the lunchroom refrigerator (except on Friday afternoons, when it all gets thrown out). We hear chants of "winner-winner chicken dinner", but we secretly fear the Hamburglar.
So one could only assume that kit named Trix was torn away from the mother's teat of Kix too soon, and psychologically, the Trix Rabbit has just been endlessly searching for its mother, playing out these fantasies by stealing from children.
LOL, that was definitely one of the best rabbit holes I've ever been down!
This topic is a great example of why progress is so hard...
**microaggressions aren't important
**people are too sensitive
**hyperbole and absurdism
Because of course it is easy to ridicule and ignore. But hard to learn and understand. So, so fragile.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 11:27:59 PM
But, again...that is in Mexico. The underlying causes and solutions to them are going to be very different than those needed to fix similar problems in the United States. So it doesn't make sense to include your experience in Mexico in a discussion of a US-based company changing their product to address a US-based problem.
But, again, I brought it up in response to a claim that I'm not "the target of microaggressions"–not in direct response to Quaker changing the name of their syrup. I never claimed the causes or solutions were the same. The fact is that the same people who
exhibit microaggressions is one social setting can very well be the
target of microaggressions in another social setting. And I haven't only given examples from outside the country in support of such, but also examples from minority-dominant places within the US. Claims like "blacks can't be racists" really get to me, and I saw
csw's assertion as basically a micro version of that.
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/@neiltyson/status/1273262636793237505) seems to find it pretty offensive. Obviously, he's one person, but that tweet includes an example of some old, pretty clearly racist Aunt Jemima advertising (which is why I didn't embed the tweet, so those who don't want to view it don't have to).
Well yes, it's easy to find individuals who have taken offense to Aunt Jemima. But I have a couple of questions:
1. Are those tweets and Facebook posts representative of a sizable percentage of the black population?
2. Where were all these people decrying Aunt Jemima
before this year? Are people only taking offense because it's the popular thing to do right now?
3. If this is just a racism bandwagon that everyone's jumping on, but four months ago nobody had a problem with these product names and such, then is it really reasonable to expect corporations to change their branding just to cater to the bandwagon?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 19, 2020, 09:00:42 AM
This topic is a great example of why progress is so hard...
**microaggressions aren't important
**people are too sensitive
**hyperbole and absurdism
Because of course it is easy to ridicule and ignore. But hard to learn and understand. So, so fragile.
I get it, but just don't care if they change it. Loads of things get changed for a variety of reasons, and there's no fuss. However, anyone who's ever argued that I-99 needs a new number but takes umbrage to the corporate decision-making of renaming of syrup needs to back up a few spaces.
I mean, I don't know I'd take in a hypothetical "Uncle Mosher's Krafty Kosher Breakfast Bagel Blitzkreig", but I'd probably think it was respectable if I was younger (see, we're famous and cool!) and a bit troubled by it once I was an adult (as in, what kinds of awful stereotypes are that?) because then people associate cultures with food.
"So schmeerable!" (sorry, had to get a fake slogan in)
And that's the funny thing about America...we're really wrapped up with cultural association and food is the way to hearts and stomachs. I think we ignore a lot of that stuff because hunger is more primordial than others' feelings, and we unconsciously associate a lot of different foods with other cultures; this isn't really a bad thing. Negative stereotypes are the bad thing - that somehow you only consume one type of food based on others' ignorance is really a minor slight in the whole scheme of things.
But I struggle to understand what the archetypal "mammie" has to do with syrup, so scrapping it is a start. I just liked to think that it was okay that we really had an aunt of African descent, after all...it's true (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/humans-evolution-neanderthals-denisovans).
Quote from: formulanone on June 19, 2020, 09:54:25 AM
But I struggle to understand what the archetypal "mammie" has to do with syrup
It's because that "mammie" was the household slave cooking your breakfast in the morning.
Quote from: formulanone on June 19, 2020, 09:54:25 AM
I just liked to think that it was okay that we really had an aunt of African descent
This. I don't see how it's a "win" to remove a black woman from a product label. Now my children won't see that smiling black "aunt" when they walk down the cereal aisle.
This appears, rightly or wrongly, to be political correctness.
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
+1
iPhone
Not only is the thread still alive, he even posted on it to continue the conversation. Wow. :wow:
Quote from: formulanone on June 19, 2020, 07:14:19 AM
I recall a lot of breakfast items invoke casual theft and misappropriation; other times, legal confusion or chaos. Captain Crunch brought maritime order to cereal, Cookie Crisp provided the argument with its "cookies for breakfast" manifesto, and the Sugar Crisp bear policed the mean streets of Puffed Oats. Meanwhile, households all over our great nation still fight over eminent domain of toasted waffles called "Eggos".
You left out:
- Barney Rubble constantly scheming to abscond with Fred Flintstone's Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles
- A vampire and a robotic ogre duking it out with a ghost over whose monster cereal is better
- A heroic boy who saves his girl from giants, gorillas, etc. after downing some Cheerios (https://youtu.be/bhJAGRQ1q5I)
- Two WWI-era fighter pilots battling over their cereal's superiority (Sir Grapefellow and Baron von Redberry (https://youtu.be/cutRNspwLtY))
- Then there were the Quake vs. Quisp skirmishes
Quote from: mrsman on June 19, 2020, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
+1
Not only is the thread still alive, he even posted on it to continue the conversation. Wow. :wow:
I wonder if the mods draw straws to see who has to moderate the Off-Topic board. Not an enviable position.
Quote from: mrsman on June 19, 2020, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
+1
Not only is the thread still alive, he even posted on it to continue the conversation. Wow. :wow:
That's called tact. Locking it would have played right in to the criticism.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2020, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 19, 2020, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 17, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 17, 2020, 10:35:15 PM
I think the shelf life of this thread is shorter than that of Aunt Jemima's syrup.
Dictator Scott will be around in a second.
+1
Not only is the thread still alive, he even posted on it to continue the conversation. Wow. :wow:
That's called tact. Locking it would have played right in to the criticism.
I have no issue with any mods on here, we need mods in order to keep things working & from getting to crazy.... However Ive noticed certain people are kinda harsh on how they talk to people. A simple PM or saying something in a better way creates better results & relationships.
Hence why SG1 said what he said.
iPhone
Quote from: renegade on June 18, 2020, 12:35:36 AM
and you too, Uncle Ben ...
At least I understand getting rid of Aunt Jemima. I'm not sure it's the right decision, but at least I understand it.
Uncle Ben's rice, on the other hand... It's named after a real-life black farmer who was famous for his rice. Getting rid of
that I just don't get.
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 04:01:39 PM
However Ive noticed certain people are kinda harsh on how they talk to people. A simple PM or saying something in a better way creates better results & relationships.
Who's harsh, the mods? I don't see how you could say this, and yet agree with SG1's name calling.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2020, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 04:01:39 PM
However Ive noticed certain people are kinda harsh on how they talk to people. A simple PM or saying something in a better way creates better results & relationships.
Who's harsh, the mods? I don't see how you could say this, and yet agree with SG1's name calling.
The convo is dead web. Dont worry about it to much.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 05:48:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2020, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 19, 2020, 04:01:39 PM
However Ive noticed certain people are kinda harsh on how they talk to people. A simple PM or saying something in a better way creates better results & relationships.
Who's harsh, the mods? I don't see how you could say this, and yet agree with SG1's name calling.
The convo is dead web. Dont worry about it to much.
Alrighty. I'm not worried at all, just wanted to be clear about who you were addressing.
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 04:53:55 PM
And as for stocking up on Aunt Jemima products? Good luck with that - who in their right mind would pay money for empty plastic bottles that were discontinued because they depicted a racist mascot?
Collectors of old and discontinued packaging. You'd be surprised at what there's a market for. Like road maps issued by defunct gasoline brands. Many map collectors don't do it because they're roadgeeks. They do it because they're collectors of what's called "petroliana."
Why do you think people were buying up Twinkies when it appeared Hostess was going to go bankrupt and the brand might not be revived? It's not because they are delicious and nutritious. It was for the future collector value.
As for "Aunt Jemima" herself, she was a Kentucky native named Nancy Green, born about an hour from where I live in Montgomery County. (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/17/aunt-jemima-pancake-mix-logo-based-kentucky-native-nancy-green/3208151001/) The current packaging no longer features her likeness, but she played a key role in the creation of the brand and made quite a bit of money for serving as the original model.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 19, 2020, 06:14:47 PM
Quote from: csw on June 18, 2020, 04:53:55 PM
And as for stocking up on Aunt Jemima products? Good luck with that - who in their right mind would pay money for empty plastic bottles that were discontinued because they depicted a racist mascot?
Collectors of old and discontinued packaging. You'd be surprised at what there's a market for. Like road maps issued by defunct gasoline brands. Many map collectors don't do it because they're roadgeeks. They do it because they're collectors of what's called "petroliana."
Why do you think people were buying up Twinkies when it appeared Hostess was going to go bankrupt and the brand might not be revived? It's not because they are delicious and nutritious. It was for the future collector value.
As for "Aunt Jemima" herself, she was a Kentucky native named Nancy Green, born about an hour from where I live in Montgomery County. (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/17/aunt-jemima-pancake-mix-logo-based-kentucky-native-nancy-green/3208151001/) The current packaging no longer features her likeness, but she played a key role in the creation of the brand and made quite a bit of money for serving as the original model.
Aunt Jemima was (according to what I have read)
originally a white woman in Blackface doing minstrel shows. The name "Aunt Jemima" was used for the product. There is conflicting info whether the lady who was the original model made a s#itload of money or not.
As an aside, Aunt Jemima led to some of the current marketing/advertising laws. Other companies attempted to cash in on the name until the owner sued.