Leaderboard

In his book to issue this spring, James G. Lennox "argues that Aristotle has a richly normative view of scientific inquiry, and that those norms are of two kinds: a general, question-guided framework applicable to all scientific inquiries, and domain-specific norms reflecting differences in the target of inquiry and in the means of observation available to researchers. To see these norms of inquiry in action, the second half of this book examines Aristotle's investigations of animals, the soul, material compounds, the motions of heavenly bodies, and respiration." That book is Aristotle on Inquiry (Cambridge).

Might seem off topic, at first. I was reminded last night catching a glimpse of the film I'd seen before, The Pursuit of HappYness. I don't know how it slipped through the movie moguls' attention, but here's a rare movie that encapsulates America. I.e. A black man who is not a victim. In this fortuitous passage I watched, the character played by Will Smith, despondently muses to himself after a particularly trying day coping with his little boy (heroic, too) and two jobs: WHY did Thomas Jefferson come up with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Did he know that it was only to be "a pursuit", never achieved? (Roughly). He by dint of energy, values and application eventually realizes his ambitions (based on true life story of a man who built up his own insurance company). I first considered, now here's a man who could never tolerate a Jefferson statue be torn down. And, "freedom"? that's what you make for yourself. Wherever there is no "systemic" restriction put upon you, in a free nation. Irrespective of past injustices. Very smart topic, this, and extremely incisive responses made; beginning from an innocuous product it touches all bases of present 'Social Metaphysics' experienced in every country.

"The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]" This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet. This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others. I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square. And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.

There is a lot to unpack here. First we have to acknowledge that an image is subject to interpretation. The meaning of something viewed in the form of a communication has context... in what it is affixed to, by whom it is presented, and to whom it is presented, all play a role in what it represents. The star of David is NOT a hate symbol when displayed proudly by a Jewish person, but it is when applied to a Jewish person's clothing by a Nazi. The image itself is not objectively anything other than simply what it looks like... what it represents is contextual. A stereotype, to be recognized AS SUCH, requires the viewer to understand at least on some level that the representation is more than merely the concrete. A logo of a black man committing a criminal act is NOT a stereo type... (unless you are a white supremacist) it is a depiction of an individual committing a crime. Now in a specific context, perhaps on a pamphlet by a white supremacist organization, such a logo represents a vile stereotype. Here it is not merely a depiction of a criminal who has what is in reality an irrelevant characteristic for judgment but it centrally depicts a characteristic which is intended to be the irrational and tribal basis upon which to judge the person... namely race. A TV show with a student who excels at school is NOT depicting a stereo type if that student happens to be Asian. IT's a fact some people excel at school, and a fact that some people are Asian, and sometimes these overlap. It would be racist, or thinking through the racist lens, to AVOID portraying an Asian kid who excels at school. Something about the context has to be more than mere depiction of a concrete, it has to indicate... somehow, usually contextually, "and this normal for a person such as X", or "and this is to be expected". There needs to be something about the context to illustrate that the message to be communicated involves a sense of characterizing "the other" and that this typifies "them". [slight aside In a rare spark of genius, the importance of context is demonstrated well here: ] A stereotype, good or bad, must involve more than the image AS SUCH presented. As for whether positive racial stereotypes are bad... I do not think it can be said to be true as a blanket pronouncement. Self-believed traditional Western European stereotypes of white persons being civilized, intelligent, virtuous, etc. was not inimical to the flourishing of a white person striving to be the best he or she could be. The lack of such a positive stereotype applying to persons of ALL races .. is bad of course. When it comes to historical stereotypes, it is clear that in history certain people felt or thought certain things about people based in erroneous generalizations. These erroneous generalizations were exploited in communications, and yes some advertising. But what we need to remember is that people's thoughts about others and their generalizations change. Images lose their original meanings when what was communicated is no longer operative in the present day communicator nor in its recipient. Mammy stereotypes were racial, and would be racial today if used as communication between persons who are consciously aware of it.. but a so called image of a "Mammy" is not always in and of itself a stereotype... an image of a overweight woman of color does not always imply a slave/servant/nanny of history. An overweight woman of color should not give up her dream of becoming a chef just because of some old stereotype, and she should have no bones about plastering her image, AS a cook on her products. Slavery being abolished, Mammy's are just are not a thing, and to the extent than anyone in the vast majority of the population is actually AWARE of what Mammies were, they would know that honest images of them would in no way be a negative reflection on who they were or how they lived their lives nor any negative reflection on the population of persons who happen to have the same skin color. OF course such depiction would bring up the specter of slavery if the context were a strong enough indicator. SEEING Aunt Jemima today, however, does not communicate "Mammy" to the vast majority of the population, nor is it intended to invoke any nostalgia surrounding historical slavery. Aunt Jemima may have started out as a Mammy, but the modern brand was not communicated as such nor received as such by the vast majority of the population, both the brand and the public had evolved. It had become a brand in its own right, a symbol unto itself, not an instance of another symbol. My position is that as a brand Aunt Jemima may have started out as a Mammy but it had evolved into a friendly domestic face, that stood on its own, that was actually GOOD for race relations in the vast majority of the population.