JBB

JBB

Goodbye Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  5 days ago  •  110 comments

Goodbye Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben
Why advertising images of black antebellum servants are offensive

The trusted black antebellum cooks and butlers that white southern families would so often affectionately refer to as, "Aunt Bess", or, "Uncle Joe", were nearly always secretly the actual aunts and uncles of those families except that they had been born as slaves and as the results of slave rapes by white southern slave owners. This fact is why products like, "Aunt Jemima", and, "Uncle Ben", are considered to be so offensive by so many Americans today. This information is provided just in case you were really still unaware...

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/PRINT/ababgwtw/u.peter.html

Tags

jrBlog - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  author  JBB    5 days ago

For those still claiming to not understand why Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are offensive advertising...

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JBB @1    5 days ago

Your opinion is that opinion while I have no problem with the change it is still your opinion.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  MUVA @1.1    5 days ago

Butt, what if someone called you an Uncle Tom?

Are you still unaware of the origin of the name?

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2  Freewill  replied to  JBB @1    4 days ago
For those still claiming to not understand why Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are offensive advertising

I think we can all agree that the origins of the brands are offensive to many today when looking back on how they came to be.  But it is interesting to note that today Aunt Jemima is a brand that is highly sought by the African-American consumer .  Even more so for Uncle Bens .   If those brands are so offensive on their face, how does one explain their appeal to those who should be offended by them?

I'm not bringing this up because I disagree with the corporate decisions to change course, nor do I dispute the shady origins of those brands.  I'm just wondering who is really offended by them in today's day and age?  And if so, why isn't that reflected in their purchasing decisions?  What are your thoughts on this?

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  author  JBB  replied to  Freewill @1.2    4 days ago

I think advertising that uses racial stereotypes to sell products is offensive and harmful to the image and reputation of any company using it.

And, that the American public agrees regardless of race and that is why it is being discontinued.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.2  Freewill  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    4 days ago
I think advertising that uses racial stereotypes to sell products is offensive and harmful to the image and reputation of any company using it.

I agree, yet the Aunt Jemima brand far outpaces its competitors in the market , and their most active consumers appear to be black folks.  So that begs the question as to whether people really find at least the modern day image/advertising to be offensive.

Having said that, I understand your point and agree that the history of the brands warrant the decision that was made by the Owners.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.3  cjcold  replied to  JBB @1    4 days ago

I want my picture on a box of processed foodstuff wearing a filthy Earth First T-shirt.

 
 
 
loki12
2  loki12    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3  Buzz of the Orient    5 days ago

Is it considered menial for a black person to be a servant in a home, such as a cook or (as in the White House) a butler?  Is it only because they have been depicted as such in movies or fiction?  But if a white person were a cook or a butler, it would NOT be considered menial or offensive, correct?  It is somewhat confusing.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    5 days ago

Whites being subservient are always acceptable in leftist la la land. Any other race- not so much.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    5 days ago

Butt, what if the whites had historically only been portrayed as servants and never as the masters? 

I think you are twisting to entirely miss the point.

 
 
 
JBB
3.2  author  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    5 days ago

You grew up in Canada. I grew up in the Jim Crow South prior to civil rights. It is/was a different world. Being a movie buff surely you have noted the way blacks were portrayed in early Hollywood as only either simpering idiots, criminals or as servants...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @3.2    4 days ago

Unfortunately that's true - you grew up where the Underground Railroad departed, I grew up where it arrived. 

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.2.1    4 days ago

Growing up where I did had never even met a black person until I was shipped off to reform school (I didn't do it). My "roommate" was very black. Learned more from him than he did from me. Still friends 50 years later.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  cjcold @3.2.2    3 days ago

Your comment reminds me of the movie American History X, wherein Ed Norton played a black-hating nazi-loving killer, but when he was imprisoned and spent a lot of time with a black inmate, he learned a lot, and it reversed his prejudices. 

 
 
 
JaneDoe
4  JaneDoe    5 days ago

I have read that the family of the lady who represented Aunt Jemima is opposed to removing her image from the product.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/06/19/family-woman-who-portrayed-aunt-jemima-opposes-move-change-brand/

 
 
 
loki12
4.1  loki12  replied to  JaneDoe @4    5 days ago

And the left will call them uncle toms, and tell them to get back on the DNC plantation.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
4.1.1  JaneDoe  replied to  loki12 @4.1    5 days ago

IMO, It’s just a shame that their voices aren’t being listened to or heard.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.2  loki12  replied to  JaneDoe @4.1.1    5 days ago

Of course it’s a shame, but you have to understand, according to the democrats they aren’t smart enough to realize they are being oppressed by the white man, so they need to be protected for their own good, Joe Dementia doesn’t think people of color are smart enough to raise their own kids.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  loki12 @4.1.2    5 days ago

Would a "Sissy's Pancake Mix" depicting a gay man in drag be okay? What about "Butch's Biscuit Mix" depicting a masculine lesbian woman? Would that offend?

Is everyone going to dismiss the point made that whites families referring to their black house servants as their aunties and uncles evolved from slavery and from slave rape?

Uncle Peter in GWTW was actually Aunt Pitty Pat's brother and Scarlett's uncle. The imagery of trusted black servants as cooks and butlers serving in white homes is an homage to that legacy whose time passed long ago. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.4  loki12  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    5 days ago

The left doesn’t get to define what is offensive, the people effected do, we had dear friends who my kids called aunt and uncle, not out of racism but out of love because the were “family” by choice. But you should be outraged by this, it helps to defect from the fact that your candidate has dementia. Why doesn’t Joe think people of color can raise there own children without white peoples help?

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  loki12 @4.1.4    5 days ago

No, the offended get to define when and how they are offended. Quaker Oats heard the complaints and saw sales decline so their corporate governance, management and their board of directors, made the change. If you don't like it you can take it up with them.

All I did is explain where the advertising imagery originated and why that imagery was offensive to enough people that Ouaker Oats decided to scrap their branding. It was a corporate decision made for business reasons because the management agreed that it was time for a change. It was not some liberals forcing their opinions on an American public still enamored by outdated hundred years old antebellum advertising images. Nothing could be farther from the truth...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    5 days ago
aker Oats heard the complaints and saw sales decline so their corporate governance, management and their board of directors, made the change. If you don't like it you can take it up with them.

Imagine thinking that's true.   But by all means, provide proof that sales declined because of the label. 

The online mob sent some mean tweets.  They are afraid of the twitter mob. They caved. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.7    5 days ago

You understand you just my point with that link?

There's nothing in that link about declining sales.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.9  author  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.8    5 days ago

I took nothing from what was not said but I do understand that any such momentous corporate decisions are made for longterm financial reasons and not a few complaints.

 
 
 
Freewill
4.1.10  Freewill  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    4 days ago
Would a "Sissy's Pancake Mix" depicting a gay man in drag be okay?

Why would a gay man be in drag?

Otherwise, I agree that if the majority of black people today find the 130 year old Aunt Jemima image to be offensive, and the company who owns the brand agrees, then it goes away. Others can complain, but that will be the reality. 

But I think it is interesting to consider Lillian Richard's families' take on it.

Harris said her family feels that activism has gone too far.
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin,” Harris said.

Not everything about history is rosy or in keeping with today's moral direction or trending mindset.   Hindsight is 20-20 as they say.  Certainly in today's time nobody would start a new brand called Aunt Jemima or any of the other clever names you came up with above.  But does that mean that history needs to be erased, especially if it means something more to those who today we think should be victimized by it, or if perhaps it serves as a reminder of something we never want to repeat? 

What does the end zone look like in this game?  Shall we erase the name and image of every one of our founders? Shall we change the name of every state, county, city or street named after a person who was flawed in some way or lacked the morals that today we think he/she should have had 200-300 years ago?  Isn't it more important that we continue to improve than it is to erase our less than perfect history?  

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.11  author  JBB  replied to  Freewill @4.1.10    4 days ago

It will all be okay. Quaker Branded Pancake Mix will taste exactly the same and all corn syrup is corn syrup. If you don't or can't understand the article then read it again along with the link provided. If you still do not or cannot understand why Quaker Oats decided to end an outdated controversial 130 year old branding program which they themselves admit was originally based upon racist imagery and stereotypes then please do take it up with Quaker Oats. In any case all that hyperbolic nonsense you said about cancelling our heritage and erasing our founders is, well, hyperbolic nonsense which I refuse to take seriously. Just listen to yourself...

 
 
 
Freewill
4.1.12  Freewill  replied to  JBB @4.1.11    4 days ago
It will all be okay. Quaker Branded Pancake Mix will taste exactly the same and all corn syrup is corn syrup.

Indeed.  Did I somehow leave you with the impression that it wouldn't?

In any case all that hyperbolic nonsense you said about cancelling our heritage and erasing our founders is, well, hyperbolic nonsense which I refuse to take seriously.

I asked a simple question.  Where in your mind does the cancelling of history or historical figures end?  Since some street, school and park names have already been changed, and we have seen folks more than just suggest but rather petition for some of the things I mentioned above (see HERE , HERE , HERE , HERE , HERE , and HERE ), how can it be hyperbole, at least on my part?  It is an honest question JBB.  What do you make of these petitions and where it will end?

Just listen to yourself...

Ah shit really?  I listen to myself every day....  I was hoping to listen to your answer on this one.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.13  author  JBB  replied to  Freewill @4.1.12    4 days ago

Aunt Jemima is not a historical figure. It was not my decision. If it really bothers you take your complaint to the Quaker Oats Company. They say they made the decision because they themselves see these characters as offensive racial stereotypes. In any case, this has nothing zero zip nada to do with preserving history! Nothing, except as a curiosity. Someday young people will be shocked we countenanced such racist imagery in our advertising up until 2020...

 
 
 
Freewill
4.1.14  Freewill  replied to  JBB @4.1.13    4 days ago
Aunt Jemima is not a historical figure. It was not my decision. If it really bothers you take your complaint to the Quaker Oats Company which says the made the decision because they themselves see these characters as offensive racial stereotypes.

I already said in 4.1.10 very clearly, "I agree that if the majority of black people today find the 130 year old Aunt Jemima image to be offensive, and the company who owns the brand agrees, then it goes away. Others can complain, but that will be the reality."  Why do you keep insisting that it bothers me or that I don't understand the basis for the decision?

Someday young people will be shocked we countenanced such racist imagery in our advertising up till 2020...

That may be so, I have no dispute with you on that.  But that is not what I was getting at in the remainder of both my comments now was it?  Why do you keep skirting my question?  Please see my links in 4.1.12.  This is going well beyond some offensive advertising, so what are your thoughts on that?  I am truly interested in what you think about that.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.15  author  JBB  replied to  Freewill @4.1.14    4 days ago

It is way off topic but since you keep pressing it, I would draw the line at racist advertising imagery and at statues or military bases honoring any Confederate traitors or slave traders. Slave owning founders get a pass for statues and other public honors but only on the provision that their failings are historically recognized along with their contributions. 

Now you must answer my questions. What in hell do your questions have to do with why advertising characters of Aunt Jessica and Uncle Ben are deemed offensive by many or why Quaker Oats is dropping them in their advertising? What does Aunt Jemima have to do with honoring history and how does Quaker Oat's decision cancel history? 

Huh?

 
 
 
Freewill
4.1.16  Freewill  replied to  JBB @4.1.15    4 days ago
I would draw the line at racist advertising imagery and at statues or military bases honoring any Confederate traitors or slave traders. Slave owning founders get a pass for statues and other public honors but only on the provision that their failings are historically recognized along with their contributions

OK thanks.  Sounds very reasonable.

Now you must answer my questions. What in hell do your questions have to do with why advertising characters of Aunt Jessica and Uncle Ben are deemed offensive by many or why Quaker Oats is dropping them in their advertising? What does Aunt Jemima have to do with honoring history and how does Quaker Oat's decision cancel history?  Huh?

Well I already indicated, twice, that I have no problem with the changing of the branding, especially if people are truly offended by them and the owners of the brands agree that it should be done.  I'll admit my question didn't necessarily have much to do with those brands and their advertising per se, although they are part of history and they changed over time as well.  And as I pointed out some black folks associated with the brand felt there was other history there they they preferred not to see erased.  I suppose I segued from that into a related line of thought.  My apologies.

Having said that, do you feel that the Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben's brand image and advertising today is the same as it was from the beginning?  I ask because the data indicates that both brands are highly sought by the African-American consumer (see my post at 1.2 above).  So it seems odd that if the brands were still so offensive, why would black consumers buy them in volumes much greater than other demographics?  Just curious, and realize that since I am not black I do not wish to speculate on the answer to that.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.17  author  JBB  replied to  Freewill @4.1.16    4 days ago

I think you are greatly, and I do mean greatly, overestimating the importance of Quaker's marketshare among the black buying public. The article explains why the advertising is offensive and that it was based upon stereotypes that originated from a legacy of slave rapes by southern slave owners. I cannot fathom what you cannot understand about that. Of course this was always something shameful. Do you think white southern slave owners raping their slaves and then owning and selling their own family was ever okay?

The black servants antebellum white families kept as butlers and maids whom they referred to as Aunt Bess or Uncle Joe were the children produced when white slave owners raped slave women and who were then trained to be house servants. That is where the stereotype originated. How can that not be reprehensible and shameful to modern Americans?

 
 
 
Freewill
4.1.18  Freewill  replied to  JBB @4.1.17    4 days ago
The article explains why the advertising is offensive and that it was based upon stereotypes that originated from a legacy of slave rapes by southern slave owners.  

Forgive me JBB, but what article are you talking about?  This article is an opinion piece by you with a link to a fictional scene and portrayal of Uncle Peter in the story Gone with the Wind, adapted from a 1936 novel by Margaret Mitchell.  What does it have to do at all with the original branding and advertising for Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben's specifically over the last 130 years?  Now I have read OTHER articles about the origin's of these brands and the original intent of the advertising back in that time and I agree with you completely that there was racist motivation and terrible stereotyping involved.  Originally it was aimed at romanticizing the old slave owning south and appealing to the southern white consumer in that way.  And of course that was as appalling then as it would be today.

I cannot fathom what you cannot understand about that. Of course this was always something shameful. Do you think white southern slave owners raping their slaves and then owning and selling their own family was ever okay?.

Why do you keep saying things like this when I have been very clear that I understand the history every bit as well as you do, as another old white guy.  If you are going to keep suggesting that I agree with any of the horrible things that white slave owners did, then we are done here.

Since you keep insisting that the current intent of the brands and motivations behind their advertising are the same today as they were originally, and that everyone is as incensed by it as we are, then how do you explain the high market share and the fact that these brands sell better among black consumers than the rest of the country?  How is that not a rational or reasonable question to ask?   I am making no claim about the importance of this observation, I am just asking how that could be if the American public fully agrees with your opinion on this?  I am assuming that you would NEVER buy those products, and as it happens, neither would I.

 
 
 
Suz
4.2  Suz  replied to  JaneDoe @4    5 days ago

I can tell you now that the people (B&W) who want her image removed do not care what the family thinks. 

The BLM movement won't ever admit they're acting more and more like the White overseers of a plantation.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.1  author  JBB  replied to  Suz @4.2    5 days ago

You are the very last person to speak for blacks!

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @4.2    5 days ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JaneDoe
4.2.3  JaneDoe  replied to  Suz @4.2    5 days ago
I can tell you now that the people (B&W) who want her image removed do not care what the family thinks. 

I agree. It’s pretty obvious her family’s opinion wasn’t considered important.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.4  author  JBB  replied to  JaneDoe @4.2.3    5 days ago

It wasn't their decision. Aunt Jemima is owned by Quaker Oats. There have been multiple models used over time and there is no way to determine how their families feel. 

The fact still remains that many do find the imagery offensive and Quaker Oats agreed.

What some individuals think is immaterial...

 
 
 
MUVA
4.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.2    4 days ago

You call blacks uncle Tom all the time are you going to stop?

 
 
 
devangelical
4.2.6  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @4.2.5    4 days ago

... right after you tell us your first name...

 
 
 
PJ
5  PJ    5 days ago

We are going to need a catalog to keep up with what is offensive, why it's offensive, who is offended, and an alternative to replace the offensive (fill in the blank).

 
 
 
JBB
5.1  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @5    5 days ago

Would a "Sissy's Pancake Mix" depicting a gay man in drag offend you? What about "Butch's Biscuit Mix" depicting a large masculine lesbian woman? Would that offend anyone?

Is everyone going to entirely dismiss the point made that whites families referring to their black house servants as their aunties and uncles evolved from slavery and from slave rape?

Uncle Peter in GWTW was actually Aunt Pitty Pat's brother and Scarlett's uncle. The imagery of trusted black servants as cooks and butlers serving in white homes is an homage to that legacy whose time passed long ago. It isn't up to white people to tell black people they shouldn't be offended. Butt, these companies heard them and they made long overdue changes.

Why? Because it is in all their stockholder's interests to do so. 

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.1  PJ  replied to  JBB @5.1    5 days ago

No, I'm not one to tie everything to race, sex or gender.  People are spending way too much time overthinking things and trying to go back and rewrite history.  I'm tired of re-litigating everything that happened in the past and demanding that the current generation pay for and explain why past generations did what they did.

I can only control my actions and how I address things.  

One could argue that we are promoting racism and the rise of racism by constantly telling our younger generation that they're racists because they're white and they bought Aunt Jemima syrup.

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @5.1.1    5 days ago

Take it up with Quaker Oats. I explained it...

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.3  PJ  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    5 days ago

I understand the concept of making money.  I'm just aggravated over the constant campaign to make all white people depicted as racists.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @5.1.3    5 days ago
I'm just aggravated over the constant campaign to make all white people depicted as racists.

If they couldn't claim all CAUCASIANS are racist, they would have no argument to make at all.   There's money and power to be made in the constant drum beat of racism and continual claims of "white privilege".

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.5  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.4    5 days ago

My argument isn't that white privilege doesn't exist, it does.  It's just that not everything can be racism.  

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @5.1.5    5 days ago

Everything? No. I'll take the word of those who made the corporate decision to change.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/quaker-oats-to-change-aunt-jemima-name-image-over-racial-stereotype-2020-06-17

 
 
 
MonsterMash
5.1.7  MonsterMash  replied to  JBB @5.1    5 days ago
Would a "Sissy's Pancake Mix" depicting a gay man in drag offend you?

I think it would sell like hotcakes in San Frangayso

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.8  author  JBB  replied to  MonsterMash @5.1.7    4 days ago

Butt, would it sale like pancakes in DeMoine?

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    5 days ago

The thing for me in all of this is I could care less about some name.

A bag of rice is a bag of rice.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1  author  JBB  replied to  Ender @6    5 days ago

The only ones who do care are racist cranks who know that the imagery is racist and thus want to preserve it. If it was still effective the companies wouldn't be dumping it. Probably more people will buy a Quaker Pancake Mix as Aunt Jemima. They are the same products from the same companies. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  JBB @6.1    5 days ago

I wonder if after they announced, if sales went up.

People running out to buy a package that will be no more.

To me, things like pancake mix, rice, oatmeal, it is all the same.

Price matters more than packaging.

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.2  PJ  replied to  JBB @6.1    5 days ago

For me, Aunt Jemima syrup represents a trusted product.  It doesn't represent oppression or slavery.  Why not complain that it stereotypes women? 

I'm trying to figure out how these efforts to make everything about racism or bigotry will actually tackle the problem?  I guarantee the younger generation doesn't even think twice about how to tie racism into breakfast syrup

How can demands for equality happen if there is a simultaneous demand for concessions? 

We already know the meaning of a brand can change, e.g. the confederate flag.  Why is it that it can only change one way? 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.3  Ender  replied to  PJ @6.1.2    5 days ago

I have never bought that syrup. Now that is a product that can be different, unlike rice or oatmeal.

Thick, thin etc.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @6.1.2    5 days ago

Aunt Jemima is a Quacker Oats Co product.

They received complaints about it for years.

The change was made for business reasons.

If you really liked Aunt Jemima products then you will probably buy them labeled under the Quaker label. The point you may be missing is that so will many who were offended and thus would not. My black friends all tell me they always thought it was racist advertising.

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.5  PJ  replied to  JBB @6.1.4    5 days ago

My black friends had more important things to do then think about breakfast syrup.  They were in Washington DC writing civil rights laws.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    5 days ago
Price matters more than packaging.

And that I think will end up being the bottom line , each name brand has an equivilant store named brand of the same product , usually priced lower , and usually contracted out to the same companies that make said name brands , about the only thing as has been pointed out is the name brand usually comes with a certain amount of  product trust related to quality, when in fact there is actually no difference.

perfect example I can think of , one of my kids when younger would not use ANYTHING other than mrs butterworth on pancakes and waffles , and would use an amount that would drown a goldfish. trick the ex and I came up with was to simply refill the Mrs butterworth container with the stores knock off brand of the same variety. Kid finally caught on but not before the realization was made that there was actually no difference.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.7  loki12  replied to  PJ @6.1.5    5 days ago

Your black friends probably had jobs and didn’t make their living as race hustlers like Sharpton. They were probably worried about the same things as everyone else who doesn’t  make their living off victim hood and being offended, putting food on the table, their families safety and welfare. You know, the things that really matter.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.8  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.7    5 days ago
 make their living off victim hood and being offended

Sounds like every politician in DC.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.9  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.6    5 days ago

When I was a kid the only name brands I wanted were cereal.

I am just kinda bummed kids won't grow up with the Land O Lakes lady on the package.

Will not know the joy of cutting off her knees and making them boobs.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.10  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @6.1.5    5 days ago

Have you actually asked you black friends?

I did and they all said they always hated it...

If Loki was in agreement with me I'd...think!

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.11  PJ  replied to  loki12 @6.1.7    5 days ago

There is definitely racism in America but I think we need to have a honest discussion on the roles that people play in keeping racism going and who benefits from the argument of racism.

I also think that the term racism gets confused with culture too many times.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.12  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1    5 days ago
The only ones who do care are racist cranks

Aint dat de troof

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.13  PJ  replied to  JBB @6.1.10    5 days ago

No, I have not asked my black friends what their opinion are about Aunt Jemima syrup and Ms. Butterworth syrup.  We are focused on more important and larger efforts to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

But, for the sake of this argument I will text one of my friends right now and ask her what her opinion is and whether this is a subject that she and her husband who is a prominent civil rights lawyer in DC think is holding back black people.  

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.14  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.12    5 days ago

Does it upset you the Quaker Oats Companies finally changed their antiquated branding on some pancake mixes and flavored corn syrup products for purely business reasons in response to decades of complaints? Why? 

As explained above, the reason white slave owners trusted the servants they referred to as "Aunt Pat" or "Uncle Joe" to live and work in their home was because they were actually family members...and also their slaves.

It was believed they would not poison them or slit their sleeping throats nearly as quickly as their unrelated slaves would. And, this is exactly where those antebellum advertising images originallty evolved from.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.15  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ender @6.1.9    5 days ago
When I was a kid the only name brands I wanted were cereal.

LOL with 3 kids and 4 grandkids , been there did that , and even the stores carry the same generic brands of the same product , made in the same place , for less price by bulk.

 I remember cheerios and Wheaties would make one STRONG from being a kid.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.16  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @6.1.13    5 days ago

Who are you and whatever became of PJ?

Are all your black friends civil rights lawyers living in DC? I live in The Bronx and have many black friends right on my floor. Mostly they are not privileged blacks so maybe they see things differently than your elite black friend.

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.17  PJ  replied to  PJ @6.1.13    5 days ago

Okay, my friend texted back, no, but they have acquaintances that have discussed it and understand they're point of view but they themselves hadn't put too much consideration into it.  It didn't make their top 10 to do list.

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.18  PJ  replied to  JBB @6.1.16    5 days ago

Hahahahahaha - you could have a point about the elitism.  They are very well connected. 

Only one is a civil rights lawyer and he is the husband of my friend.  The others are women and they are heavily into women and minority public health issues. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.19  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1.14    5 days ago
Does it upset you the Quaker Oats Companies finally changed their antiquated branding on some pancake mixes and flavored corn syrup products for purely business reasons in response to decades of complaints? Why? 

Not in the slightest, what will matter is the pricing in the end . Even you pointed out that branding is marketing , and for the most part its all made by the same companies , some are just less expensive .

I actually went and read the link you posted about "uncle pete"  in the main body and I had a different take away from it than you likely intended . 

And I recognize that the entire article is simply a matter of opinion, one to be taken or left  by the wayside.

 the comments are interesting though.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.20  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1.14    5 days ago
It was believed they would not poison them or slit their sleeping throats nearly as quickly as their unrelated slaves would. And, this is exactly where those antebellum advertising images originallty evolved from.

last I knew , those adverts origionated  during the depression era , circa 1930s, not during the antebellum era of the 1850s , and during the depression era , about the only jobs open to people of color , other than hard physical labor would have been in the food service areas or housekeepers , IF they could find someone that could afford to pay for such services, usually as cooks or servers  like on trains . very much removed from the era of being afraid of being poisoned  by a servant.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.21  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @6.1.18    5 days ago

I get it. The olden imagery of trusted black servants is comforting. Now you know why.

Does it never occur to you that you probably culturally find these advertising images trustworthy and wholesome for exactly the reasons I have explained? Or, that black Americans would be offended when they were still used? This is not even considering that Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima are depicted as servants. When originally created this kind of advertising imagery and the familial names used were chosen to convey trust. The trust that white slave owners and later employers would only feel towards their black slaves who were actually related by blood. If you do not get that yet then I give up. I grew up in the south and remember well segregation and Jim Crow. My father had a Mammy. My Aunt owned a segregated restaurant. Blacks could not enter the banks or the dry goods stores in my town till I was ten years old. I did not make it all up.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.22  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.20    5 days ago

Yes, Wyoming is known for its diversity /s...

 
 
 
PJ
6.1.23  PJ  replied to  JBB @6.1.21    5 days ago

I'm totally not surprised that you consider me a racist because I don't buy into your definition of what these products mean.

It's clear that if white people don't toll the line then black people will keep pushing this narrative that all whites are bad.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.24  author  JBB  replied to  PJ @6.1.23    5 days ago

I don't get that at all. And, i don't think you are racist though we all suffer vestiges of it...

I took pains to explain why many find the advertising images of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben offensive and why Quaker Oats made their corporate decision to change. If these facts offended you then I surely cannot answer why...

It is not up to white people to tell black Americans what vestiges of institutional racism they find offensive today and it was not up to me what Quaker Oats did regarding the branding of their products. I merely explained why many found the imagery offensive and why Quaker Oats decided to nix a 130 year old branding strategy. Why you personally feel threatened and offended by this decision is entirely beyond my understanding. All I can surmise is that you were either unaware or are insensitive. Neither relates to me. Maybe you should reconsider your own feelings. I explained the corporate decision made by Quaker Oats. If Quaket Oats offended you and you personally feel attacked by Quaker Oat's corporate decision then you are free to demand that Quaker Oats reinstate what Quaker Oats determined to be Quaker Oat's racist corporate branding and advertising imagery.

SHEESH! It is not about you...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.25  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1.21    5 days ago
If you do not get that yet then I give up.

I doubt you will.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.26  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.25    5 days ago

What don't you understand? It seems you are reduce to taking personal potshots now...

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @6.1.26    5 days ago

That's what he always resorts to.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.28  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1.21    5 days ago
I grew up in the south and remember well segregation and Jim Crow

Well I grew up after desegregation , in the boston area , and saw far MORE racism there than the times I visited relatives in the southern tier states .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.29  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @6.1.26    5 days ago

I haven't begun to get "personal" and wont lower myself to that level you already have . 6.1.22 

And yes i do understand , i just happen to disagree with your opinion based on personal experiences

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.29    5 days ago

Your 'personal' experiences are that and only that and not representative of anything but your 'personal' experiences.  

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.31  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.28    5 days ago

So? Quaker Oats originated with Quakers.

Do you think The Quaker Churchs owns it?

Quaker made a decision for their reasons.

It is not about me. Quit making it personal...

You said you didn't care then showed you do.

Why care Quaker nixed all its racist branding?

Either you care or you don't. If you do...WHY?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.32  loki12  replied to  PJ @6.1.11    5 days ago

Sorry, didn’t see this earlier, You are 100% correct, there is absolutely racism in this country, there are 2 predominant kinds, the hateful ignorant white supremest types, who can hurt you physically but have no real power, and only hate, thankfully their numbers are dwindling every year.

The other kind is the woke white people and black race baiters who practice institutionalized racism, your not smart enough, so we have to help you type. You went to the same schools as the other kids, but you need our help because you weren’t as capable as them, or Biden’s latest, it’s not like minorities are bad, they just don’t know any better, so we have to send social workers in to their homes to help them. I’m not sure I have heard anything more insulting in my life.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1    4 days ago
The only ones who do care are racist cranks who know that the imagery is racist and thus want to preserve it.

That is false. If it were true, the name would be the same. It was changed in response to complaints made by people who actually cared about Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's using the images and names which they didn't like.

If it was still effective the companies wouldn't be dumping it. Probably more people will buy a Quaker Pancake Mix as Aunt Jemima. They are the same products from the same companies. 

I suppose we will soon find out.  If more people will buy it, we will see sales increase. If sales stay the same or decline, I guess the company went through a lot of expense to change the names without seeing a return on that money.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.34  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.33    4 days ago

The market for premade pancake mixes and flavored corn syrup is pretty constant and dominated by just a few giant international agribusinesses. In a year Quaker Oats will have about the same market share they do now without most people knowing any difference. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.34    4 days ago
 In a year Quaker Oats will have about the same market share they do now without most people knowing any difference. 

So sales will not increase because they changed the names, they will go down.

The money spent on name changes would appear to be financially imprudent.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.36  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.35    4 days ago

You do not know that, butt it is a done deal...

Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are going away!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.36    4 days ago
You do not know that, butt it is a done deal...

You stated that "In a year Quaker Oats will have about the same market share they do now without most people knowing any difference."

Which would mean no sales increase. Or very little. If I am wrong, then so are you.

Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are going away!

Yes, that would be obvious to anyone reading the article or following the news regularly. Did you think I didn't know that? If so, why?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.38  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.37    4 days ago

It is already a done decision. Racist culture will survive this too. Racists are like rats and cockroaches. And, they both are known to feast upon cheap manufactured pancake mixes and imitation maple flavored corn syrup. If the survival of your culture is dependent on racist advertising imagery then it is not a culture worth extending any further now anyway...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.38    4 days ago

Not a thing in your post is in the least responsive to mine.

In fact, it looks as if you were trying to be insulting.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.40  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.39    4 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @6    4 days ago

I bought a bottle of AJ's syrup and a bottle of Mrs Butterworth.  They will become collector's items some day.  If not, I will just make a shitload of pancakes and pig out.

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.1  author  JBB  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2    4 days ago

That's cool but don't plan you retirement on it...

My purpose was to explain why the characters were chosen by advertisers and why many people now find them dated, offensive and even racist. Quaker Oats did not make this decision lightly. As you can tell people both left and right are angry about it. Some are refusing to even consider why Quaker Oats did what they did...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @6.2.1    4 days ago

You did a great job on the seed.  Kudos.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7  Mark in Wyoming    5 days ago

The only ones who do care are racist cranks

You sure do seem to care.. alot

Does it upset you the Quaker Oats Companies finally changed their antiquated branding on some pancake mixes and flavored corn syrup products for purely business reasons in response to decades of complaints? Why? 

Not in the slightest, what will matter is the pricing in the end .

Nuff said  as stan lee said .

 
 
 
JBB
7.1  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7    5 days ago

Nobody is coming for white bread or crackers, yet...

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    5 days ago

May want to keep the boxes. They may be worth something one day.  

 
 
 
JBB
8.1  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @8    4 days ago

That is only true of things that are very rare, unique and timeless. If you saved a moldy box of pancake mix for 50 years it still won't be worth much. Maybe in a few thousand years a archeologist might find it interesting but it won't be worth $5 in 50 years.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @8.1    4 days ago

You never know, people collect all kinds of weird things.

Anyway, as long as it tastes good, I don’t give a shit what’s on the damn box. I have never heard any of the black people I talked to complain about it anyway.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.1    4 days ago

It belongs in a time capsule maybe, not as a 'collectible'

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.2    4 days ago

That’s just your opinion. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 days ago

Meanwhile at Wal-Mart this afternoon:

256

And imagine that this is in a predominantly black area and NOBODY WAS FREAKING OUT.  This is why I like where I live.  Most of the people have common sense and don't get worked up over stupid, trivial shit.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1  author  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9    4 days ago

Once those are gone they're gone!

Quaker Oats is rebranding all that...

 
 
 
JBB
10  author  JBB    4 days ago

What absolutely nobody above has acknowledged or deemed wise to dospute is just how all of those antebellum southern white families came to have all those black aunts and uncles still serving them in their homes in 1890. So many then that it was synonymous with trusted servants and safe wholesome foods. Why did advertisers then used that imagery to sell pancake mixes and imitation maple syrup?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @10    4 days ago
Once those are gone they're gone! Quaker Oats is rebranding all that...

which is their right ,  but if that "rebranding " doesn't include something to make the product competitive  price wise  or there be any real incentive to purchase, the "generic " mixes will still be a better bargain. 

 personally I go for the generics , haven't bought a face on a box in a long long time , and if I buy corn syrup for baking I use Karo  or its generic equivalent ., other wise its real maple syrup or blackstrap molasses I do like molasses tits when I make candies .

as for the rest of it all , I dont think anyone really gives a rip, I know I dont .

 
 
 
JBB
10.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1    4 days ago

Quaker Premium Pancake Mix will still probably sell for a premium over generic. Probably half what people paid for Aunt Jemima products goes to packaging and advertising. That is why generic products cost so much less...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @10.1.1    4 days ago

will have to wait and see what the marketing plan is ,  but then again the quaker  brand , has had its problems in the past. but most have so that's not a thing..