The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Just checked and I have both Aunt Jemima pancake mix and Uncle Ben's rice in my kitchen cupboard.

Regarding Aunt Jemima, ever since I was a kid she - especially her demeanour and smile - has always reminded me of my grandmothers. (Neither of which, to my knowledge, had any African ancestry.)

[kwoldtimer]

I don't know if I find it sad, unless of course capitalism is sad. To me it's just a pretty accurate measure of where mainstream society is heading.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Isn't that the way things work in our society? Surely you've noticed all the LGBT and mixed race couples appearing in print and TV advertising in recent years. Capitalism doesn't initiate the change, but it has a pretty certain sense of when society is ready for change to be exploited to make money.

There is something ironically funny about "LGBT Parade sponsored by ExxonMobil (or whoever)", as if ExxonMobil really cares about these groups.

Then again, a high-wealth untapped consumer group such as LGBT is a goldmine. Capitalism is certainly equal opportunity when it comes to selling stuff.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by wave46

There is something ironically funny about "LGBT Parade sponsored by ExxonMobil (or whoever)", as if ExxonMobil really cares about these groups.

Then again, a high-wealth untapped consumer group such as LGBT is a goldmine. Capitalism is certainly equal opportunity when it comes to selling stuff.

And since it coincides with a community desperate to "mainstream" itself, it's all win-win, no? It takes two to be co-opted, just as it does to tango.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't know if I find it sad, unless of course capitalism is sad. To me it's just a pretty accurate measure of where mainstream society is heading.

I certainly don't find capitalism "sad". It is the engine upon which western society is built, and how our governments are funded, and is the source of continual growth and innovation in our economy. As you are well aware, I am a "progressive" conservative.

I do however occasionally have problems with modern marketing techniques, and I think corporations should pay attention to honesty in how their products are presented to consumers. I don't like being pandered to.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

And since it coincides with a community desperate to "mainstream" itself, it's all win-win, no? It takes two to be co-opted, just as it does to tango.

Sure.

It's just funny to me in a sense. Kind of like: "Greenpeace, sponsored by Halliburton"

Ideologically it's funny as they've kind of been viewed as opposite ends of the spectrum. The conformity and heartlessness of large corporations versus the rebelliousness and individuality of the LGBT crowd unwilling to be corporatized.

But hey, strange bedfellows and all that.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

There is something ironically funny about "LGBT Parade sponsored by ExxonMobil (or whoever)", as if ExxonMobil really cares about these groups.

Then again, a high-wealth untapped consumer group such as LGBT is a goldmine. Capitalism is certainly equal opportunity when it comes to selling stuff.

People are sensitive to ads or whatever showing two men as a couple as a form of pandering, but really... we are marketed to all the time. When I go to a hockey game and I'm barraged with ads is it because whatever bank or car manufacturer is interested in me personally as a human being?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by wave46

Sure.

It's just funny to me in a sense. Kind of like: "Greenpeace, sponsored by Halliburton"

Ideologically it's funny as they've kind of been viewed as opposite ends of the spectrum. The conformity and heartlessness of large corporations versus the rebelliousness and individuality of the LGBT crowd unwilling to be corporatized.

But hey, strange bedfellows and all that.

Oh my. You must be older than I realized ...

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I certainly don't find capitalism "sad". It is the engine upon which western society is built, and how our governments are funded, and is the source of continual growth and innovation in our economy. As you are well aware, I am a "progressive" conservative.

I do however occasionally have problems with modern marketing techniques, and I think corporations should pay attention to honesty in how their products are presented to consumers. I don't like being pandered to.

That's mostly what marketing is, though?

Marketing makes very few testable claims about products, as that can be interpreted as making a promise. They sell you a feeling, mostly. The consumer good is almost irrelevant in a modern marketing.

It's just that they pander to what I like instead of what I don't, which doesn't make it pandering to me. Pickup truck sales 'pander' of men. Hybrid sales 'pander' to the upper-class people who try and project a green appearance despite their globe-trotting ways. And so forth.

Why should any crowd be different?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Oh my. You must be older than I realized ...

Not as old as you might think.

But yes, there's hardly any group that doesn't love the sweet, sweet nectar of consumerism, including myself.

Even if it means giving up the rebellious nature of being outside the norm.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

My main issue with those two brands is that the symbols being used are dated and less meaningful than they used to be. I agree that a refresh was likely necessary. The reason however should have been to update the brand and make it more relevant to modern consumers, rather than to eliminate the brand, while at the same time issuing a press release crowing about how "woke" your corporate culture is. The way this is being carried our smacks of corporate opportunism and hypocrisy.

I feel they would be making just as much of "a statement" if they chose to modernize the brand than by eliminating it. The company's sole purpose is to make money, nothing else, so if they feel those brands are a net negative to their profit margin it is their duty to remove them. Opportunism? Sure, a business that isn't opportunistic is not a successful one. Hypocritical, of course, but aren't we all? While I will happily get enraged by our politicians'' hypocrisy, I am less so when it comes to business as I am perfectly able to not buy their stuff.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I feel they would be making just as much of "a statement" if they chose to modernize the brand than by eliminating it. The company's sole purpose is to make money, nothing else, so if they feel those brands are a net negative to their profit margin it is their duty to remove them. Opportunism? Sure, a business that isn't opportunistic is not a successful one. Hypocritical, of course, but aren't we all? While I will happily get enraged by our politicians'' hypocrisy, I am less so when it comes to business as I am perfectly able to not buy their stuff.

Iinm, both Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have been given style updates over the years but, really, how does a U.S. company modernize the image of the black help in today's reality?

[milomilo]

I agree. Easier just to shelve the brands and bring out some fresh ones scientifically designed to appeal to more people. I'm sure a handful of people are going to be so offended by this they never buy their goods again, but also I'm also sure they've accounted for that.

[MolsonExport]

The cream of wheat dude (Rastus) is quite a bit more of a racist stereotype (black man as a minstrel), even after dropping the text, than the current iterations of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.



shopify, historyapolis

Four years earlier– a group of North Dakota millers devised a way to turn wheat middlings–a byproduct of wheat milling–into a lavishly packaged “breakfast cereal” they called Cream of Wheat. Short on capital, miller Emery Mapes designed the packages for the “breakfast porridge” himself, emblazoning the cartons with an image of a jolly African-American chef he called “Rastus” after the cheerful simpletons depicted by Joel Chandler Harris in his Uncle Remus books. The image was offensive; like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, this figure solidified white stereotypes of happy black servants. But the product was an enormous success, despite the desperate economic conditions of the country in 1893.

http://historyapolis.com/blog/2013/12/17...e-packaged-food-industry-in-minneapolis/


musely

Even as a young kid, growing up in the 1970s in a place where there were few black people, it was apparent to me that the caricature was quite racist. Maybe it appeared so to my young eyes after watching the original airing of "Roots" (1977).

Was a real guy, too.

Frank L. White (c. 1867 – February 15, 1938) was a professional chef best known as the model for the fictional breakfast chef (often identified as "Rastus") still featured on the boxes of, and advertising for, Cream of Wheat breakfast cereal. A native of Barbados, he immigrated to the U.S. in 1875, where he became a citizen in 1890. He was working as a master chef at a Chicago restaurant at the time he was photographed for the cereal box in 1900.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_L._White


wmbmwr

Time to retire this offensive mascot:

amazon


cdn.mos

[MonctonRad]

Yes, Chief Wahoo definitely needs to go.

And, since he is only a mascot of a form, it should be easy to dispose of him. Certainly a lot easier than changing the name of a sports team.

Another thing that needs to go is the "tomahawk chop" of the Kansas City Chiefs. That's pretty offensive too.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Yes, Chief Wahoo definitely needs to go.

For all intents and purposes CW is already gone. Has been removed from Cleveland's jerseys and Cooperstown since 2018.

[Acajack]

Maybe I was just naïve but I never really saw any of that stuff as racist as a kid. Not until as a young adult people started saying "that's racist!" and I reacted with a "Oh, OK."

Aunt Jemima was just a nice lady who enjoyed cooking (for her family or her employer, or whomever), not at all unlike a whole bunch of similar women I had in my entourage. Even if they weren't black.

I also never found sports team names or logos racist or even objectionable. As I have said many times before I saw them as compliments. Even today I think the Chicago Blackhawks' logo is one of the most beautiful in all of sports.

If they name a sports team for your people it's that you're strong, not weak.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe I was just naïve but I never really saw any of that stuff as racist as a kid. Not until as a young adult people started saying "that's racist!" and I reacted with a "Oh, OK."

Aunt Jemima was just a nice lady who enjoyed cooking (for her family or her employer, or whomever), not at all unlike a whole bunch of similar women I had in my entourage. Even if they weren't black.

I also never found sports team names or logos racist or even objectionable. As I have said many times before I saw them as compliments. Even today I think the Chicago Blackhawks' logo is one of the most beautiful in all of sports.

If they name a sports team for your people it's that you're strong, not weak.

The North Dakota Fighting Sioux sounded like an homage to me... a beet red Chief Wahoo less so. Same with a team literally called "Redskins".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The North Dakota Fighting Sioux sounded like an homage to me... a beet red Chief Wahoo less so. Same with a team literally called "Redskins".

I guess. But I also grew up with tons of movies and TV shows where indigenous people referred to Euro-Americans as "pale face" (translated to "visage pâle" in French versions).

[esquire]

No one says it anymore, though...