Major marketing product changing it's name after 130 years

[webny99]

There are many users here who would have just posted the lame, tired, "In b4 lock!". At least I was creative about it.

To be more creative than a simple .

Well, I guess that makes two of us that are now the subject of anti-creative 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.
[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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Ned Weasel]

Or is that offensive to rabbits?

Hasn't the Trix Rabbit suffered enough discrimination already?

[kphoger]

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?

[csw]

By the way, who said I'm not the target of microaggressions?

Well, I guess that makes two of us that are now the subject of anti-creative microaggressions.

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?

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[webny99]

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.

[kphoger]

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:

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

[csw]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[Brandon]

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".

[kphoger]

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".

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.

[formulanone]

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.

[Roadrunner75]

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.

[US71]

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.

[STLmapboy]

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.

[US71]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

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 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).

[kevinb1994]

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.

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 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.

[Tonytone]

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

[Brandon]

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.

[formulanone]

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.