Can’t be racist if you get rid of all the brown people taps forehead
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t remember the call to get rid of uncle Ben though. It feels like at best the company was trying to get out ahead of it, at worst they wanted to stop paying his family residuals and had an excuse.
Apparently the character was based on a black maître d’, so it wasn’t even particularly racist, since many white people also do this job, and it certainly isn’t slave labor (they tend to get very good tips, especially at fine dining restaurants, which the suit and tie he was wearing kinda implies he was working at). Therefore I’m inclined to believe the second reason might have been their actual motive, and the supposed racism was just a convenient excuse.
Remind me why we have tipping in the US?
To Insure Proper Service
Uncle Ben is literally a generic name given to house slaves. There were many Uncle Bens all across the south.
My Uncle Ben at yo momma’s house last night.
No. That was simply the man who originally posed for the picture. The brand was officially named after a sharecropper. However Uncle was also a common title for an older male house slave. Same with Aunt. Both the original rice farmer and pancake mix inventor were born into slavery and had their products lifted from them by white corporations.
I have no ides about this, being Australian. Are you saying that the people on the boxes represent real people who had their recipes stolen?
Fuckin chud thinking removing racist depictions is somehow bad.
If you flip around the capitalized letters in your username, it spells VikingHet, which is clearly a white supremacist and anti-LGBT dog whistle.
Reading to much into shit.
Aren’t we all…
Lol, your the one calling people white supremacists without knowing a damn thing about them.
Lol, and you got upset. I mean, why else would you think that my user name is anything other than a enjoyment of hiking?
You’re just lashing out, like a spoiled little brat because a company changed a label on their product.
And why would you assume my post is anything other than calling out corporate hypocrisy?
You seem more upset than him tbh
What does you being asexual have to do with you being called a white supremacist?
When you figure it out let me know, because I’m still wondering why someone would assume my ethnic background.
Depictions associated with slavery and servile minorities are different than a little girl in a sun hat. Who would have guessed?
I notice that a lot of people make sense of life using a series of rules. “if X then that means Y!” I think they’re bad at sussing out what’s right by reading the room, and they also can’t make sense of a complex world. They just default to thinking of the world as if we’re in a video game. It’s like they lack empathy or the ability to read humans or something.
Whom exactly is this directed at?
Probably written by ChatGPT.
Only people that are racist have no idea why the figures on the left are racist and not those on the right.
Only people that have no ability to think for themselves have a need to put others into categories of acceptability based on what the dominant culture around them thinks instead of judging them based on their individual merits.
No, they were right and you just proved it.
Source: trust me, bro.
You’re not doing yourself any favors.
What if someone’s judgement of your individual merits just happens to agree with the dominant culture around them? Or is that not possible? Does the ability to think for ones self necessarily lead to disagreement with whatever is commomly believed? I think that would just be dumbass contrarianism.
You need to fuckin go back to school with your “think for yourself” crap if you think anything on the left is justified.
And no, nothing on the right is racist, they’re not caricatures of enslaved people.
what’s wrong with uncle bens?
You’re genuinely saying that those on the right aren’t racist?
This feels like one of those right wing memes that could go either way, but let’s break it down like this Uncle Ben and Aunt Jamima are both domestic servants, do you think that’s an appropriate mascot for a company? Do you think black folks want them as some of their oldest icons?
Land of lakes also has a stereotypically dressed native woman who probably wouldn’t dress like that at all even back in the day.
I get that most people couldn’t give a shit either way but when you use your brain to think about how messed up presumably white owned companies are for using slaves and genocided people as their logos or mascots is pretty fucked.
But hey you’re not here for an insightful discussion, you’re here to get those hate clicks.
Yeah it’s hard to have a good faith debate about a post that wasn’t made in good faith. Anyone who’s being intellectually honest wouldn’t try to equate these company mascots.
Username checks out I guess.
You can’t just assume the post wasn’t made in good faith in order to prove intellectual dishonesty, that’s begging the question.
Learn yourself some debating skills.
Well, the Sun-Maid girl is clearly working a job that’s mostly done by immigrants from the south these days, so using a white woman instead of a brown one denies them representation. But using a brown woman would also be racist because it would perpetuate harmful stereotypes… hm, what to do?
Little Debbie is clearly a child. Do you want children to be exploited for marketing purposes?
At least a Quakers are historically against war and slavery, so I guess he can stay.
Quakers are also who gave us the “puritanical work ethic” that plagues our society as we try to adapt to a more convenient era of work.
Quakers may have perpetuated this concept as well, I’m not sure, but this is literally named after the Puritans, not Quakers
Alright, guess he guess to go as well, then.
As a European (we had slavery, made more wars than you can imagine and have probably the worst history you can’t even imagine) nice try locking people up in “black” vs “white”.
Literally every culture on earth has practiced slavery at one time or another. Europeans were actually the first to abolish it.
so what do you want, a fucking cookie?
like you were involved with the effort and take such pride in your works?
this is such a bullshit post by someone who’s obviously racebaiting and loving every second of it. ignore the chuds people.
No, I’m just pointing out that “they practiced slavery” isn’t an argument you can just throw at any race or nationality in particular without inflicting massive self-damage. Literally everyone is guilty of it.
Literally everyone is guilty of it.
haha no. such a huge claim requires substantial evidence - and you left yourself an easy out. Many cultures practiced slavery, true. Most cultures? Maybe an argument could be made. All?
ALL?
That requires substantial evidence there’s absolutely nothing supporting it.
Now I get it, the easiest way to debase your enemy’s righteousness is to drag them down to your level. But you don’t get this one shitbag. Slavery isn’t universal. You just want it to be so it makes you feel better about your premise.
Good thing others already did the work for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
Since you’re the one making the claim that not all cultures have a history of it, I’ll leave it to you to find me a single counterexample of a culture that never practiced it. But even if that should exist, I think there’s certainly overwhelming evidence that it was extremely widespread and common practice on every single continent at some point in history.
Let’s stop making “racial” (there is only one human race) stereotypes then.
So we get rid of the people on the right as well? Because those are also stereotypes.
I hope you’re willing to learn because that is historically incorrect. The first nation to abolish slavery was Hati around a decade before the first European country (Denmark). That is if we are talking abolish and keep abolished in all territories controlled. Persia is possibly the first country recorded to have used slaves but they would have periods of “abolishment” which were probably good for causing slave revolts in new areas they were thinking of conquering. Arguably the first country to have and to abolish slavery.
That is if we are talking abolish and keep abolished in all territories controlled.
Ah yes, if we pick and choose our definitions, we can get pretty much any outcome we want, can’t we.
Haiti didn’t abolish slavery as much as revolt against it (by killing all the slave owners), and they didn’t even manage to keep it abolished for very long, as it’s currently one of the worst countries on earth with regards to child slavery.
Is that really the hero you want to choose?
I didn’t say they were hero’s but by your definition here no one had ever abolished slavery.
I suppose that once again depends on definitions. There’s likely a reason people often use the term “wage slavery” these days even though on paper, salaried workers are by no means slaves, since they can quit whenever they want to, but that doesn’t mean that in practice, people don’t end up in situations that feel like slavery anyways.
Debt slavery is another one that gets thrown around, even though the possibility of declaring bankruptcy and thus getting off the hook for only a fraction of what you owe is technically available. It almost seems as if slavery is part of the human condition, and if not externally imposed, people will find a way to self-impose it in one way or another.
Either way, it seems silly to suggest that only the slavery imposed by one particular group of people on one particular group of other people is morally objectionable, and I’m also not entirely convinced that erasing any reminders of it does anything at all to right that wrong. At some point, it must be possible to look back at the past and say “well, that was awful, but at least we’re over it now”, but that isn’t possible if you erase any and all traces of it, is it?
Always thought the Sun-Maid mascot was Hispanic, but so am I.
Well if she’s hispanic, that’s clearly racist because it associates brown people with low-paid manual labor. (semi /s)
Uncle Ben is supposedly based upon a southern maitre d. Aunt Jemima though, undoubtedly problematic.
TIL
From 1946 to 2020, Uncle Ben’s products carried the image of an elderly African-American man dressed in a bow tie, which is said to have been based on a Chicago maître d’hôtel named Frank Brown with the name “Ben” being a possible reference to a shrewd rice farmer from Houston. In 2020, Mars told Ad Age, “We don’t know if a real ‘Ben’ ever existed.” According to Mars, Uncle Ben was an African-American rice grower known for the quality of his rice. Gordon L. Harwell, an entrepreneur who had supplied rice to the armed forces in World War II, chose the name “Uncle Ben’s” as a means to expand his marketing efforts to the general public.
Uncle Ben helps one grow the most excellent Golden Teachers.
Based
You are in a shitposting community friend.
I’m not making a statement about the post, but “it’s just shit posting” is a reeeeaaal good way to turn this place into a nazi bar. Not calling OP a nazi, just saying that this argument right here is chum in the water for them
Mia, the Land o Lakes butter maiden, is actually rather interesting, at least the modern version they got rid of. The artist was a member of the Red Lake Chippewa and the design included traditional Ojibwe floral motifs. Yeah, it needed to go, but it wasn’t the worst by a long shot.
I just love the idea of a native american being iconfied for… butter.
like, wow, that’s so very, very native and authentic - butter.
I get it, it’s the land-o-lakes, minnesota, and they take butter fucking serious folks, they make it, they eat it, they sculpt it, so yeah, they’re REALLY into butter… but why the stolen iconography? why associate the native americans, who didn’t domesticate cows, with butter of all things?
like what the actual fuck was the line of thought?
Your thoughts are interesting, but I always presumed it was just a simple tribute of sorts. Like you said, Land-O-Lakes, beautiful, natural scenery of America…accompanied by a beautiful Native American woman.
Now take the product itself, like you said, make it make sense. Ehh. Maybe you just can’t. They wanted a mascot & instead of a smiling cow or potato, they chose a woman. Sex sells!
cultural appropriation sells. it’s not just any woman kneeling serving up the dairy products, nah… keep telling yourself it didn’t mean anything, maybe one day you’ll believe yourself, but make no mistake, they wouldn’t have put a white woman kneeling there.
so figure it out.
cultural appropriation sells. It’s not just any sexy lady. recognize it for what it actually was and everyone moves on.
The native cultural influence is pretty strongly interwoven in the fabric of Minnesota. It’s very possible the thought process was just that the locals associated that image with their state, just like the brand name.
The Anishinaabe and Dakota have had major influence on the state and that’s been recognized more in recent history with the renaming of certain places back to their native name, like Bde Maka Ska.
Most of the naming in the metro(and the state name) comes from the Dakota peoples. The Anishinaabe were located more in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin so you’ll see the influence there. For example the town of Biwabik in the iron range which is the Anishinaabe word for iron.
The native cultural influence
so is cultural appropriation of iconography that doesn’t belong to white people. and to have the person ‘serving’ up the butter, kneeling?
think they would have done that with a white woman?
What’s the Anishinaabe word for racism?
The Anishinaabe and Dakota
The Anishinaabe and Dakota were the lost butter tribes?
No? No, no they weren’t. Make it make sense lol
Hell yeah, get rid of ALL the people while we’re at it!
Uncle ben is a brontosaurus
Aunt Jemima is now a giraffe
Little debbie is little ducky
Quaker oats has a giant sentient, “THE Quaker oat”
Sunmaid is the literal sun in a french maid outfit
And of course land o lakes should be the lochness monster or some similar native american cryptid.
I would be okay with this.
Quick, someone fire up the AI to make it happen.
I love the land o’ lakes mothsquitoman!
Found the nightmare enjoyer.
Every time you hear a buzzing in your ear, or see an eerie glow emanating from the woods, it would help you remember that you need to pick up butter at the store! That’s marketing.
Can you do a second one with Land O’Lakes but use the prompt ‘Duluth dogman’
This is the best version I got. Probably far cuter than the actual Dogman.
Appreciate you doing that! Not even remotely what I thought was going to come back, lol. But instead of creepy we got wholesome. 👍
I’m not complaining. Certainly beats whatever the fuck that other thing was.
Upvote for good doggo!
Upvote for upvoting good doggo
Since Land O’Lakes is a Minnesota company it should be a Minnesota crypted. Minnesota shares mini cryptids with many other locations mothman, Bigfoot, etc.
But if you want to really place it, brand and cryptid… Then Duluth Dogman is perhaps your best option that I am aware of.
BRING ME BUTTER AND SOME MILK
I’ll be honest, this comment section is confusing. I’m not sure which comment is agreeing with which. Personally I think it’s bad to put slaves on your products but why am I supposed to feel bad about the white people?
It’s bad faith concern. They’re accusing those brands of erasing minorities under the aegis of anti racism. When the original intent of those mascots was appropriation and playing on the black house slave theme.
So they literally cannot do anything that’s not racist.
Keep: racist appropriation Remove: racist minority erasure
I’m just gonna say… I don’t really think this was the kind of media representation were looking for. Or needed. Or found helpful in any way.
From that article:
“The character of Aunt Jemima is an invitation to white people to indulge in a fantasy of enslaved people — and by extension, all of Black America — as submissive, self-effacing, loyal, pacified and pacifying,” Twitty wrote in a recent NBC Think essay. “It positions Black people as boxed in, prepackaged and ready to satisfy; it’s the problem of all consumption, only laced with racial overtones.”
This piece is interesting but even the relatives understand the imagery to be racist.
Except Twitty isn’t a relative, as the previous paragraph to the one you quoted will tell you. He’s just a “culinary historian” with an opinion.
Yes. I’m referring to the family’s quote at the end of the piece.
Then why didn’t you quote that?
I wanted to highlight that quote
Well, why didn’t you?
And yet the Santitas chips girl is still going strong like a boss.
Depictions associated with slavery and servile minorities are different than a little girl in a sun hat. Who would have guessed?
Man, if you looked at a bottle of Aunt Jemima syrup and thought that was racist, you’ve got some issues. (The butter one, sure, got a point there
It’s literally based on a stereotype of black people being food preppers for rich white folks but sure buddy.
This might shock you, but some black people work in kitchens even today.
Ironically, the butter one was actually designed by Patrick DesJarlait, an Ojibwe man, specifically meant to accurately reflect his culture. Here’s an article written by his son about the whole thing:
Wasn’t the butter one just… A human shaped bottle? Looking at the logo from the beginning until the end it doesn’t look like it’s ever been a thing other than simply a depiction of a black woman. Not even a caricature of such, just like a painting of a person who could totally be real. But maybe what I’m referencing doesn’t have the off-shoot flavors. 🤷🏻♂️
I too enjoy the white privilege of being able to look at something and judge it without thinking about context. It’s fantastic to be able to simplify things to just face value and not think about the racial history behind it. It’s one of my favorite privileges.
Unfortunately, I somehow never got that middle-aged white man’s confidence of instantly knowing what other people should be feeling, better than they do. I must be defective. But it means I tend to defer to the people that are hurt by something to judge if they’ve been hurt or not.
Stfu. It’s not I ain’t heard this, it’s that I don’t accept it, in this limited case. And for someone don’t even know my race to instantly go with the white privilege line is fucking telling.
You seem rather sensitive on the topic. Have you had issues with race a lot?
No, idiots just aggravate me.
The Sun-Maid girl is depicted performing a job that’s traditionally associated with slavery. Is depicting white people performing slave labor also problematic or is slavery only bad when it involves people of color?
Also, the job she’s doing is predominantly done by immigrants nowadays. Is depicting her as white not disenfranchising these people by denying them representation?
“I’m just asking questions bro”
Not an argument. Do better.
Trump can suck Putin’s dick in hell. Triggered yet, snowflake?
I’m literally shaking.
Depictions associated with slavery and servile minorities are different than a little girl in a sun hat. Who would have guessed?
Better not get rid of my sunmaid waifu.
Uh-oh, sexualizing an attractive woman because she’s doing subservient field work, are we?
That’s highly problematic. BRB, gonna start a special interest group to get her removed because it’s sexist.
