Short answer. Woke.
-
Longer answer. There's a societal shift in what people find morally justifiable. With rampant comsumerism the corporations at the top of the market are willing to capitalize on the social changes, . I.E. pride month and now minority representation in consumer goods. Anything a large enough group people deem as racist or prejudiced is enough to have the company completely change course on whatever it was doing because if they don't they could lose money in the long run.
-
For this specific case idk how they've justified this or if they even care to. It's their brand and they can do with it what they like. If no native americans were involved in either the making of the butter or involved in anyway other than being the maskot I can see why people would take issue. Again though it's entirely up to the company to change it's logo and practices if they so choose.
In exceedingly missleading and over simplified terms yes.
-In reality no. It all comes down to context of the times in which the character was originiated. In things such as the Aunt Jemima character it was originated in a time of whitewashing history. The perptuation of the happy house slave mythos that spread accross the south post civil war.
-Uncle Ben is a reference to a time when in order to keep from calling a black man sir or black woman ma'am white children would call them aunt and uncle to signify that yes they were older but that they didn't respect them.
-Again LoL here is beyond me for why they've removed the native american icon but again that's entirely up to them.
-Lastly this isn't me saying I fully support or denounce any of these companies' actions. Rather I'm giving the perspective used by companies and people behind these changes for why they are making them. At the end of the day these companies could come up with a modern variant that better reflects the times
I get what you mean, these are synonymous american brands made famous by the mascots involved but unfortunately these depictions had racially insensitive undertones in several instances. At this point in time the racial caricature used by these corporations isn't normally associated with the original racial undertones of the time they originated. That being said the argument tends to be that if something was created in a racial way that negatively affected POC of yesteryear then it is still just as racist today even if it has lost the overarching racial conotations.
What really sucks about this is that I’m not going to get to show my son how you could cut and fold the cardboard land o lakes box to make it look like the Native lady had naked boobies.
@scatmandingo- that first comment... you made my day. I don’t know if I’ll chuckle harder at anything on the Internet today. @metalman- thank you for sharing a thoughtful and eloquent take on the issue.
Now- to the reply- yeah. We get used to these things. People in the south who grew up in decades past (well.. I. Some parts of the south in present day...) for example were used to n*g*er being a common word. Many didn’t see it is racist- anymore than many people don’t see “retard” as an offensive term.
To reply to some of the comments like famousone- one key in determining what is it isn’t offensive is to ask people. Native tribes for example have tried to get the Cleveland Indians mascot changed for decades. Do all natives find it offensive? No. But- not all non natives don’t find it offensive either. There’s ambiguity in these things. Obviously someone will find almost anything offensive. History can be a helpful guide- and there is a nuance.
Plenty of mascots appear to be “white.” So what’s the difference between having a white mascot and say- a black one? Well... we have to look at it. Is the entire point of the mascot their race odor culture? What does that group have to do with the company or product? Is the mascot a “person” or a caricature of a person? What is the HISTORY of the mascot? Who and what were they created to represent? A mascot doesn’t just represent a product- it’s intended to represent ideas and values and evoke feelings and connections.
So a “black” mascot may be found out of date or offensive because it is an exaggeration based on racial stereotypes. It may be that it represents a slave or subservient view of a person- or the company may have little or nothing to do with that community specifically- not owned by or operated to the benefit of- and where a history of exploitation of a people exists- it’s insensitive to profit from that group or its image while not actively being part of that group.
As for reasons- one of the oldest mascots in America- Mr. Peanut- was eliminated simply because the company thought it was time for a change. Ronald McDonald- the face and image of the brand- was cut so McDonald’s could appear “more adult” and partially over panics concerning “murder clowns” in the news.
Jack- of Jack in the Box- was eliminated as mascot and removed from marketing so jack in the box could seem “more adult” and then... brought back to capitalize on nostalgia and revive the sagging brand. So as far as reasons for mascot changes go- “offends a large group of people” seems about as valid- especially when we look at it purely from money. Most people don’t buy butter based on the Indian on the box. So as public sentiment changes- profit driven corporations will change their mascots to whatever the current mood says is highest reward lowest risk.
But at the end of the day- asides “tradition” which in itself is a pretty stupid reason to do anything- we maybe could ask instead of what is wrong with a sassy house mammy on our syrup or an Indian on a helmet- let’s ask- why should it be there? Why- if we are going to use a black woman as the face of syrup- can’t we make her perhaps less inline with outdated concepts of women and blacks- and update her- create a version of her not rooted in a time where Auntie couldn’t walk in and buy her own syrup like the people bottling it could?
The idea isn’t to erase history. Preserve it. Let’s not forget. The idea is to stop profiting off and normalizing the less aspirational parts of history. To not bring the negative aspects f that history into the present and future. If we don’t change things- history isn’t history because it is still part of the present and we are a part of it.
Tl:dr- Germans generally don’t like being portrayed as Nazis. Most people know better than to slap a Nazi on some over cleaner and call it “Uncle Karls.” No one (sane)- especially Germany as a nation- is trying to forget history or erase it. They want it to BE history. The deaths and negativity and gravity of that time and the iconography is not well suited shilling product.
If you don’t like the Nazi example fine. Slap a concentration camp prisoner on some over cleaner and call it “Yentils helper” and HOPEFULLY we’d all agree that is not ok. A German man with a Jewish housekeeper in 2020? Some might feel uncomfortable- but... it’s not the same as showing an idealized portrayal of the “good old days” set in 1940 with a German man with his Jewish housekeeper. The CONTEXT becomes very different.
-
Longer answer. There's a societal shift in what people find morally justifiable. With rampant comsumerism the corporations at the top of the market are willing to capitalize on the social changes, . I.E. pride month and now minority representation in consumer goods. Anything a large enough group people deem as racist or prejudiced is enough to have the company completely change course on whatever it was doing because if they don't they could lose money in the long run.
-
For this specific case idk how they've justified this or if they even care to. It's their brand and they can do with it what they like. If no native americans were involved in either the making of the butter or involved in anyway other than being the maskot I can see why people would take issue. Again though it's entirely up to the company to change it's logo and practices if they so choose.
-In reality no. It all comes down to context of the times in which the character was originiated. In things such as the Aunt Jemima character it was originated in a time of whitewashing history. The perptuation of the happy house slave mythos that spread accross the south post civil war.
-Uncle Ben is a reference to a time when in order to keep from calling a black man sir or black woman ma'am white children would call them aunt and uncle to signify that yes they were older but that they didn't respect them.
-Again LoL here is beyond me for why they've removed the native american icon but again that's entirely up to them.
-Lastly this isn't me saying I fully support or denounce any of these companies' actions. Rather I'm giving the perspective used by companies and people behind these changes for why they are making them. At the end of the day these companies could come up with a modern variant that better reflects the times