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
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?
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.
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.
I want my picture on a box of processed foodstuff wearing a filthy Earth First T-shirt.
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.
Whites being subservient are always acceptable in leftist la la land. Any other race- not so much.
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.
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...
Unfortunately that's true - you grew up where the Underground Railroad departed, I grew up where it arrived.
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.
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.
I have read that the family of the lady who represented Aunt Jemima is opposed to removing her image from the product.
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).
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.
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.
Take it up with Quaker Oats. I explained it...
I understand the concept of making money. I'm just aggravated over the constant campaign to make all white people depicted as racists.
My argument isn't that white privilege doesn't exist, it does. It's just that not everything can be racism.
Everything? No. I'll take the word of those who made the corporate decision to change.
I think it would sell like hotcakes in San Frangayso
Butt, would it sale like pancakes in DeMoine?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I have never bought that syrup. Now that is a product that can be different, unlike rice or oatmeal.
Thick, thin etc.
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.
My black friends had more important things to do then think about breakfast syrup. They were in Washington DC writing civil rights laws.
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.
Sounds like every politician in DC.
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.
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!
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.
Aint dat de troof
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, Wyoming is known for its diversity /s...
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.
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...
I doubt you will.
What don't you understand? It seems you are reduce to taking personal potshots now...
That's what he always resorts to.
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 .
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
Your 'personal' experiences are that and only that and not representative of anything but your 'personal' experiences.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You do not know that, butt it is a done deal...
Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are going away!
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.
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?
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...
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.
[deleted]
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.
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...
You did a great job on the seed. Kudos.
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 .
Nobody is coming for white bread or crackers, yet...
Meanwhile at Wal-Mart this afternoon:
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.
Once those are gone they're gone!
Quaker Oats is rebranding all that...
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?
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 .
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...
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..