The News

You guys don't understand the history of these symbols. During the late 1800's and early 1900's there was an effort to define Black people as mentally childish and needing of white guidance. We see this in movies, printed papers, cartoons and minstrel shows. They characterized black as submissive, comical and stupid. Many of the product names and images sprung from these negative stereotypes and a few such as Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima syrup managed to survive. This is also where the infamous blackface scandals were born.

These images are both purposeful and damaging. In a segregated world where many whites never actually knew real black people, these images defined Blacks. Even today, we are hindered by these lingering characterizations as we move into positions of responsibility, like President.

Are these harmless jokes irritating people with decidedly weak senses of humor? Nope. These images are powerful and damaging. For example travel the USA and you will be amazed that nearly every state, road, and lake has a Native American Name. They saved white people in this country from sure starvation, taught them about crops that would flourish here and even inspired our founders with a representational form of government. However, when it was decided to consolidate all of the land in N. America from sea to shining sea, images of Natives changed from noble and proud peoples to savages. Changing public opinion of "Indians" was a necessary prequel to the genocide that followed. Now "Indians" are portrayed as a weak, poor and drunk people who couldn't cope with modern civilization - dirty deed done and hidden in history with the average American none the wiser.

Since there was a media, whites have tried to stereotype and define Black people in ways that justified the atrocities committed during slavery and the oppression that followed. A more recent example was Hilary Clinton defining Black Youths as "Super Predators". What then followed was a willing liberal America that approved of incarcerating an entire generation of Blacks for non-violent offenses.

So these symbols are serious, purposeful propaganda.
 
Name Origin: The term “Cracker-Barrel” was first used in 1916 and was inspired by the barrels of crackers that sat on the front porch of the old time general stores. Individuals would sit around those barrels talking, passing the time and talking about the news.

I knew it couldn't have been a racial slur, I was joking. Tell me that never crossed your mind when you went to Cracker Barrel.
 
You guys don't understand the history of these symbols. During the late 1800's and early 1900's there was an effort to define Black people as mentally childish and needing of white guidance. We see this in movies, printed papers, cartoons and minstrel shows. They characterized black as submissive, comical and stupid. Many of the product names and images sprung from these negative stereotypes and a few such as Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima syrup managed to survive. This is also where the infamous blackface scandals were born.

These images are both purposeful and damaging. In a segregated world where many whites never actually knew real black people, these images defined Blacks. Even today, we are hindered by these lingering characterizations as we move into positions of responsibility, like President.

Are these harmless jokes irritating people with decidedly weak senses of humor? Nope. These images are powerful and damaging. For example travel the USA and you will be amazed that nearly every state, road, and lake has a Native American Name. They saved white people in this country from sure starvation, taught them about crops that would flourish here and even inspired our founders with a representational form of government. However, when it was decided to consolidate all of the land in N. America from sea to shining sea, images of Natives changed from noble and proud peoples to savages. Changing public opinion of "Indians" was a necessary prequel to the genocide that followed. Now "Indians" are portrayed as a weak, poor and drunk people who couldn't cope with modern civilization - dirty deed done and hidden in history with the average American none the wiser.

Since there was a media, whites have tried to stereotype and define Black people in ways that justified the atrocities committed during slavery and the oppression that followed. A more recent example was Hilary Clinton defining Black Youths as "Super Predators". What then followed was a willing liberal America that approved of incarcerating an entire generation of Blacks for non-violent offenses.

So these symbols are serious, purposeful propaganda.
Hi. I see you point and I did not look at it that way. [I will probaly get killed for this too. I do not like calling a black person black also I do not like calling a white person white. My skin is not white your skin is not black, but we all have red blood inside. That is all that I see. A person, some good some bad. At some point in time we will all have the same skin color. Do you know when was the first interracial kiss on TV?
 
Another important point you all are missing is these companies are not changing their names because they now see the evil light of a racist past. They are changing it because there is a movement to spend dollars with companies that are more racially aware and responsible. That's capitalism at work. We (now most blacks and a lot of whites, Asians. and Brown people too) are starting to vote with our cash and companies are hearing that and adjusting their images accordingly. Isn't that the American way?
 
Another important point you all are missing is these companies are not changing their names because they now see the evil light of a racist past. They are changing it because there is a movement to spend dollars with companies that are more racially aware and responsible. That's capitalism at work. We (now most blacks and a lot of whites, Asians. and Brown people too) are starting to vote with our cash and companies are hearing that and adjusting their images accordingly. Isn't that the American way?
Hi. I guess I look at things through a person with a lighter skin color than you do.
 
I knew it couldn't have been a racial slur, I was joking. Tell me that never crossed your mind when you went to Cracker Barrel.
I knew you were joking but it brings up the source of a lot of conflict. You (general you, not specifically you) can't judge symbols by today's reality. You have to dig a little to understand what they really mean and why people might object to them. Confederate statues are a good example. Most were erected well after the end of the civil war and were intended as avatars for the KKK and WS. When I debate this issue many argue that the statues are history and heritage when they never meant that even to the people who erected them.

PS: Ha ha yeah it crossed my mind...
 
Last edited:
Hi. I see you point and I did not look at it that way. [I will probaly get killed for this too. I do not like calling a black person black also I do not like calling a white person white. My skin is not white your skin is not black, but we all have red blood inside. That is all that I see. A person, some good some bad. At some point in time we will all have the same skin color. Do you know when was the first interracial kiss on TV?

I think it was Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura on Star Trek.

Edit: Googled it, apparently it happened long before Trek but being a trekkie myself, I'm sticking with my choice. ;)

1621359
 
Another important point you all are missing is these companies are not changing their names because they now see the evil light of a racist past. They are changing it because there is a movement to spend dollars with companies that are more racially aware and responsible. That's capitalism at work. We (now most blacks and a lot of whites, Asians. and Brown people too) are starting to vote with our cash and companies are hearing that and adjusting their images accordingly. Isn't that the American way?
The longer a brand keeps it's original iconography, the better it is recognized which is better for sales. Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and such would never change their package design because of sensitivity to racial issues. They do it to avoid loosing customers. When the iconography ends up discouraging customers from buying, then they change it. It's marketing 101.
 
That's the hypocrisy of big business.... they only align with your message if they think that it will increase profit, or if not aligning with it would lead to decreased profit.

Same with government. Think they give a flying fook about BLM? No, they only care about votes in the next election.

Maybe it is time for Western culture to collapse on itself.
 
That's the hypocrisy of big business.... they only align with your message if they think that it will increase profit, or if not aligning with it would lead to decreased profit.

Same with government. Think they give a flying fook about BLM? No, they only care about votes in the next election.

Maybe it is time for Western culture to collapse on itself.

Many cultures which were "high tech" in their day disappeared, nothing says others won't as well.

I know in Canada, we have a very diverse population, while travelling around Toronto for instance, I've seen many different cultures making their mark with different languages on street signs and store fronts.
 
You guys don't understand the history of these symbols. During the late 1800's and early 1900's there was an effort to define Black people as mentally childish and needing of white guidance. We see this in movies, printed papers, cartoons and minstrel shows. They characterized black as submissive, comical and stupid. Many of the product names and images sprung from these negative stereotypes and a few such as Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima syrup managed to survive. This is also where the infamous blackface scandals were born.

These images are both purposeful and damaging. In a segregated world where many whites never actually knew real black people, these images defined Blacks. Even today, we are hindered by these lingering characterizations as we move into positions of responsibility, like President.

Are these harmless jokes irritating people with decidedly weak senses of humor? Nope. These images are powerful and damaging. For example travel the USA and you will be amazed that nearly every state, road, and lake has a Native American Name. They saved white people in this country from sure starvation, taught them about crops that would flourish here and even inspired our founders with a representational form of government. However, when it was decided to consolidate all of the land in N. America from sea to shining sea, images of Natives changed from noble and proud peoples to savages. Changing public opinion of "Indians" was a necessary prequel to the genocide that followed. Now "Indians" are portrayed as a weak, poor and drunk people who couldn't cope with modern civilization - dirty deed done and hidden in history with the average American none the wiser.

Since there was a media, whites have tried to stereotype and define Black people in ways that justified the atrocities committed during slavery and the oppression that followed. A more recent example was Hilary Clinton defining Black Youths as "Super Predators". What then followed was a willing liberal America that approved of incarcerating an entire generation of Blacks for non-violent offenses.

So these symbols are serious, purposeful propaganda.

I honestly never looked at these product symbols in that way...in light of this, there will be quite a few product symbol changes coming I wager.

As for statues, there really need not be any statues of anyone erected (past, present or future)...as you stated in other posts, some statues give a rallying point for groups who really should no longer exist in the 21st century.
 
Many cultures which were "high tech" in their day disappeared, nothing says others won't as well.

I know in Canada, we have a very diverse population, while travelling around Toronto for instance, I've seen many different cultures making their mark with different languages on street signs and store fronts.

Vancouver as well. The only thing with systemic racism here in Canada is our habitually lying, frequently blackfaced Liberal Prime Minster. But of course he's all-in on BLM, taking a knee in protest because he needs your votes! All style, no substance. :redface:
 
The longer a brand keeps it's original iconography, the better it is recognized which is better for sales. Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and such would never change their package design because of sensitivity to racial issues. They do it to avoid loosing customers. When the iconography ends up discouraging customers from buying, then they change it. It's marketing 101.
That's the hypocrisy of big business.... they only align with your message if they think that it will increase profit, or if not aligning with it would lead to decreased profit.

Same with government. Think they give a flying fook about BLM? No, they only care about votes in the next election.

Maybe it is time for Western culture to collapse on itself.
Pic #1. Questionable marketing ? Or just cute kids in photo ops?
Pic #2. Should people with brown skin be offended?
Pic #3. "Choose your side"
Pic #4 Unreal. Who would put there kids in that krap?
Marketing....
1621371


1621373
1621370


1621374
 
Another important point you all are missing is these companies are not changing their names because they now see the evil light of a racist past. They are changing it because there is a movement to spend dollars with companies that are more racially aware and responsible. That's capitalism at work. We (now most blacks and a lot of whites, Asians. and Brown people too) are starting to vote with our cash and companies are hearing that and adjusting their images accordingly. Isn't that the American way?
So if we have someone current like say Damon John who started a black clothing line FUBU (which stands for For Us By Us) and has made fortunes doing so, should the black community shun him? How about the White Community?

Now let's go with a name like Quaker Oats. About as white as you can get. If they said Made by Quakers for Quakers, they'd be run out of business for racial capitalism.

If a brand appears to cater to whites, they are shunned, if a brand caters to blacks let's do more.

Why do you suppose this is?

There was a coffeeshop/diner that was named Koffee Kup Kafe. The reason for that was there was a place called the Coffee Cup that was also in the same general area. People confused the two all the time. And one has better food/service etc. While the other not so much.

The K establishment got blacklisted by the NAACP. Even though they welcomed all. When that didn't shut them down and in fact that gave them free publicity, the NAACP threatened a lawsuit against the city for allowing of that spelling. Despite being told and shown the reasons why.

So again it accomplishes what. They grew in popularity. This "perceived" racism isn't doing a thing to quell racism. All it does is fan the flames. Nobody knew about the K establishment except the locals. But when somebody decides to say it's associated with the Klan, the trouble begins. We can't even feed, clothe, or gather now because OMFG someone who I've never met, never hurt, and never considered to be a problem, calls me out because I like butter with an Indian on it, syrup with a black woman on it, rice with a black man on it and an ice cream treat with the word Eskimo on it. But holy Jesus as a white man I better not buy anything that might seem like I'm insensitive to someone else.
 
I honestly never looked at these product symbols in that way...in light of this, there will be quite a few product symbol changes coming I wager.

As for statues, there really need not be any statues of anyone erected (past, present or future)...as you stated in other posts, some statues give a rallying point for groups who really should no longer exist in the 21st century.
There are already many tasteful memorials around for Civil war dead (both sides). Go to the cemeteries and battle fields. That's where they belong and I have never heard a word in protest about them. I've visited many of them.
 
As an interesting sidenote, many of the Native American names of cities and so forth are actually Muslim words.

Native Americans are generalized as drunk, criminal and impoverished because sadly, many of them are. The ones I know are productive and successsful but they don't deny there is a huge problem on the rez. No one would think of portraying them that way through the marketing of a product, I hope. I think the average American is acutely aware of what happened to Native American culture. Some do not care, that is true.

It may seem subtle to some but the original image of Aunt Jemima did fit the stereotype that fallenarch described above. Today however, I can't think of a single African American image that is used in marketting that has any negative connotation at all. Look at all of the African American images used to market products specifically to black people! Are these different somehow than the modernized images of Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? Is it the history of these images that offends some people?

In re: “I think the average American is acutely aware of what happened to Native American culture.“

Why do you think this is true? Average Americans acutely aware?
 
Back
Top