Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StrictlyLogical

In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Social media, mainstream media, and the concentration of power in big data are creating a crazy left-wing suppression of anything ... well sane.

 

"Aunt Jemima" is no more.  The syrup itself will not change and will be just as delicious, but it will be sold under a new logo and name. (By the way, if sales TANK, this might turn out to be a perfect example of how brand name recognition actually... duh...  IS important)

 

Now buying Aunt Jemima in the past never meant I endorsed the so-called racial stereo type... if anything I liked the idea of a friendly smiling person providing me with trusted delicious syrup... and that was that.  I certainly don't care about the color, religion or occupation of The Quaker guy on my oatmeal box, the cream of wheat fellow, or Uncle Ben (these also may change... with the exception of possibly the white guy in the funny hat)... they do NOT represent to me or any consumer ANYTHING about politics, religion, or socioeconomics... they stand for what they appear to be... a familiar friendly face identifying a product I know, trust, and love... beckoning me to purchase or consume.  If anything these faces (with one exception) increased visibility of smiling benevolent people of color in the pantries and tables of the homes of mainstream suburban white families.  And now, they will disappear... to be replaced by what?  (white smiling faces? or better yet the mug of a strong white woman who wouldn't stoop to "serve" you your syrup but is nonetheless humble enough to agree to glare at you from the bottle?)

In any case, the products will not change, the syrup, the oatmeal, the cream of wheat, and the rice, will all be just as yummy, and the quality (assuming the "progressives" have not infiltrated the processing plants) should be just as good,  but the absence of the friendly face I knew will be all too apparent... as will the knowledge that the "producers" are pandering to imagined problems screeched about in the Twitverse of clown world.

The wallet is a very powerful tool, you trade for what is a higher value, but you also support individual players or actions within a complex interrelated economy, and affect, as with each purchase being a vote, the way the world is shaped on transaction at a time.

 

So is it in your interest to taste the same quality of foodstuff you know and once were comforted by... or do you give a different producer a try.. one who has not become part of the circus?  I think there are good arguments for both, but in the end it has to take into account the long term... and having a meal that tastes 5% better tomorrow, might not be worth losing your chance to vote with your wallet to live in a better world long range...

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

So is it in your interest to taste the same quality of foodstuff you know and once were comforted by... or do you give a different producer a try.. one who has not become part of the circus?

Give a different, less spineless, producer a try. If you trade with cowards you'll get more cowards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disingenuous corporate activism to change the logo now? Probably. I don't think anyone would disagree with you. 

But to argue that point by way of Aunt Jemima being a "familiar friendly face" doesn't make sense. I know generally you don't trust anything I say and will argue against something I never wrote, so the reason I'm writing is just because I always respond to ignorance of racial issues wherever I am.

I'm not even joking, this sounds like a bit from the Colbert Report. 

Nation, the progressive America haters are once again taking away a symbol of America: the beloved Aunt Jemima! As we all know, she pulled herself up by her own lady-bootstraps to sell us the American staple, deliciously fake syrup. Some people say I'm being racist, but I don't even see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them, because I say that she is a familiar face, like all the other good black people that I've never seen. Also because I spent three paragraphs explaining why Aunt Jemima isn't a racial stereotype.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Maple syrup, myself, as well as butter over the many substitutes available. Buying more or less Quaker Oats 'Raisin, Date and Walnut' instant oatmeal does not target the controversial product.
The Nancy Green story has many iterations. Here is one that is succinct.
Spoiler
When a person uses their notoriety for good, I say YES! The world knew her as "Aunt Jemima," but her given name was Nancy Green and she was a true American success story. She was born a slave in 1834 Montgomery County, KY... and became a wealthy superstar in the advertising world, as its first living trademark.

Green was 56-yrs old when she was selected as spokesperson for a new ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour and made her debut in 1893 at a fair and exposition in Chicago. She demonstrated the pancake mix and served thousands of pancakes... and became an immediate star. She was a good storyteller, her personality was warm and appealing, and her showmanship was exceptional. Her exhibition booth drew so many people that special security personnel were assigned to keep the crowds moving.

Nancy Green was signed to a lifetime contract, traveled on promotional tours all over the country, and was extremely well paid. Her financial freedom and stature as a national spokesperson enabled her to become a leading advocate against poverty and in favor of equal rights for folks in Chicago.

She maintained her job until her death in 1923, at age 89.

Nancy Green was a remarkable woman... and has just been ERASED by politically correct bedwetters. Know your history this woman should be celebrated and not deleted!

* Copied

104207119_1430074467177410_6018549783110

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a bit of searching, here is the song that purportedly popularized the name 'Aunt Jemima' written by Billy Kersands in 1875, and had acquired three different sets of lyrics by 1889. 

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

But to argue that point by way of Aunt Jemima being a "familiar friendly face" doesn't make sense. I know generally you don't trust anything I say and will argue against something I never wrote, so the reason I'm writing is just because I always respond to ignorance of racial issues wherever I am.

I'm not even joking, this sounds like a bit from the Colbert Report. 

I'm being absolutely serious and honest.  I get the same feeling when I look at a box of lucky charms.  It's not overwhelming but its there.

Ya know, people in advertising have done studies... and there are reasons why smiling faces are put on labels... and they've probably known about that for like... decades if not over a century.

Just my humble opinion.

 

And I thought we'd be on the same page on this one.  LOL

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to admit, it's a bit confusing. It wasn't that long ago that critics of modern advertising hurled complaints about the overexposure of wafer-thin Caucasian women, usually blondes, as the ideal feminine image for the purpose of marketing consumer goods and services. They insisted that more African-American women with more "realistic" proportions and deeper skin-tones need to be represented in advertising. What ever happened to that? 

I'm 6' 6", and I've been called "Jolly Green Giant" on more than one occasion. Maybe I'll initiate a movement to remove that guy from the shelves. While I'm not unsympathetic to folks who want to make changes, removing the image of an underappreciated success, such as Aunt Jemima, is a mistake and lowers the dignity of the more serious discussion. Success stories are hard to come by; wouldn't it be better to learn more from her biography, instead of air-brushing her out of history and continue the rhetoric that there is no such thing as "the American Dream"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Repairman said:

wouldn't it be better to learn more from her biography

Aunt Jemima is not a real person.

I mean, isn't this kind of the point? Not knowing that Aunt Jemima is not a real person, while thinking that she is some real portrayal of a black person historically, reflects a lack of awareness of racial inaccuracies, and lack of awareness about why it is offensive. It's fine if you didn't know that, but it is a good reason to support creating better logos. 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Ya know, people in advertising have done studies... and there are reasons why smiling faces are put on labels... and they've probably known about that for like... decades if not over a century.

This is correct. The next step of reasoning would be that it is not at all in your self-interest to get a sense of comfort and happiness from racial stereotypes. It is in fact also harmful to society if people find comfort and happiness in racial stereotypes. So, it is best to minimize or eliminate the things that promote racial stereotypes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Aunt Jemima is not a real person.

Am I missing the 'thrust' of the conversation here?

Or is the "Jolly Green Giant" not a real person either? (in the context of either metaphor: Aunt Jemima Syrup, or the metaphor; Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This is correct. The next step of reasoning would be that it is not at all in your self-interest to get a sense of comfort and happiness from racial stereotypes. It is in fact also harmful to society if people find comfort and happiness in racial stereotypes. So, it is best to minimize or eliminate the things that promote racial stereotypes. 

If racial stereo-types don't exist, then what could minimize or eliminate the things that promote such? Things that exist provide evidence. Things which do not exist, do not provide evidence. Per the thread, thus far, any leanings per evidence provided by moderation  need be considered as such. Outside of such context need be partitioned and considered under it's own merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Aunt Jemima qualify as a racial stereotype? One could just as easily say Redd Foxx was a racial stereotype. What is so offensive about Aunt Jemima, that is, objectively, what proof have you?

27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This is correct. The next step of reasoning would be that it is not at all in your self-interest to get a sense of comfort and happiness from racial stereotypes. It is in fact also harmful to society if people find comfort and happiness in racial stereotypes. So, it is best to minimize or eliminate the things that promote racial stereotypes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

One could just as easily say Redd Foxx was a racial stereotype.

You couldn't say that because he is a real person. Stereotypes are over generalizations, so by their very nature, they aren't things that will refer to something concrete. At best they refer to something you imagine. To be sure, it's a positive stereotype, but positive stereotypes give false impressions and make people more inclined to misinterpret or misunderstand history. 

I think this is enough to explain why Aunt Jemima in particular is offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_archetype_in_the_United_States

Look at this article from The Onion. I find it funny because it points out that is completely plausible that they are ultimately doing this because it's just "good marketing" and not doing it out of principle.

https://www.theonion.com/quaker-oats-replaces-historically-racist-aunt-jemima-ma-1844015205

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redd Foxx, may have been a real person, but what about Fred G. Sanford? (Interesting to note, Redd Foxx's christian name was John Elroy Sanford.)

The only thing offensive about the quarter box of pancake mix in my cupboard is the expiration date: Oct 23 09

Somehow, even boycotting the pancake mix would seem an exercise in futility on that note. Goodreads has a ready made replacement for it as of 1998:

Eioul, for an individual that overturned my take on the mantra I learned as a child, your position on this issue comes across as tilting at a windmill. Turns out the words to that song aren't as I remember them though. "Red and yellow, black and white" is what I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Look at this article from The Onion. I find it funny because it points out that is completely plausible that they are ultimately doing this because it's just "good marketing" and not doing it out of principle.

https://www.theonion.com/quaker-oats-replaces-historically-racist-aunt-jemima-ma-1844015205

The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repairman said:

The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.

Indeed it does.

What a seriously funny and alarming fake piece of news... it points out a complete implausibility... it is satire of the highest order.

 

The last person who'd persuade me, consciously or unconsciously, to buy or eat a condiment is a lawyer...LOL.  And really, I'd be drawn to rice because of an engineering graduate student endorsement?

It would be patently ABSURD and using black people in this context would be INCREDIBLY racist.

 

Absurd: There is a reason why we do not see a cook or a baker's picture on plumbing or cleaning products... or a cleaner or a plumber's picture on cooking or baking products... there is sufficient relevant connection consciously and subconsciously to "trust" an endorsement from someone who is in the field of the product.

Racist: There is no relevant connection whatever between the foods sold and lawyering or engineering, no tie in between syrup or rice and the character or aspirations of these fictional characters.  Where the people matter, the content of their character, what they do, who they are, has no relevance no relation to the product whatever.  Aunt Jemima was primarily a cook, and Uncle Ben was primarily a farmer, neither were primarily (for advertising purposes) black... 

The ONLY tie between these new mascots and the old products is the fact that they are black.  Who these people are is being swept aside in irrelevancy.

For all the waxing poetic about who these mascots are... their use to replace the old ones would be wholly race focused and racist.

 

Satire of the highest order...

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all part of the cleaning up of past history as if it never existed. A statue offends one or only a minority of individuals in one group, tear it down. An innocent image on a box by another, the same. This has a little to do with people not wanting to offend some others too delicate to handle reality, but mostly to do with mind control for political power. You can hardly blame a company's flip-flop marketing strategy, their profits are at the mercy of activists' mass action. On the broad front, all capitalist enterprise can end up 'owned' by the people. Marxism wins without a shot fired. We, the people, deserve what we get when we perceive symbols as reality and substitute feelings for free minds. How far men sink into apologism for their very existence is yet to be seen.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

This is all part of the cleaning up of past history as if it never existed. A statue offends one or only a minority of individuals in one group, tear it down.

After 3200 years, perhaps a clue or two will be discovered apart from what is captured in writing:

First evidence of life-sized divine statues found in biblical ...

In fact, though life sized divine statues were described time and again in ancient records, and there is even a Neo-Assyrian relief from Nineveh depicting soldiers looting such a statue from a temple, no intact ones have ever been found in the Levant. Nor has one now, but this remarkable sceptre could have been held by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting with my wallet and refusing to buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream until they stop producing the pro-white flavor Americone Dream, which features a white celebrity on the package. This sends a terrible message to POCs. It suggests that the American Dream is for white people. To make matters worse, Ben & Jerry's started a new campaign to "Dismantle White Supremacy." Talk about being tone deaf! They don't even recognize the literal implicit racial bias on their own products. Peace and love!

1781980271_vanillasupremeicecream.jpg.c030064d648b0c12d6619584a68933f0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Repairman said:

The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.

What absurdity of my case? I really don't know what you are talking about. The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is historically racist? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is a stereotype? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is offensive? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is not a real person? I really don't know what you think is absurd. Which part do you disagree with? 

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Aunt Jemima was primarily a cook,

No, she was primarily the mammy stereotype. That stereotype is always an overweight black woman. She is an offensive stereotype. If you want to argue if she is not actually offensive, then at least read the Wikipedia article before saying anything more. 

No one is complaining about Uncle Ben, so I'm not sure what that matters. Uncle Ben is based on a real person. He is not a stereotype, offensive or otherwise. The "absurdity" of my case has nothing to do with Uncle Ben, and I will tell you right now I have no problem with that logo. If anything, the reason replacing Uncle Ben was mentioned in that article is because it refers to an ever present desire to seek "diversity". 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No, she was primarily the mammy stereotype. That stereotype is always an overweight black woman. She is an offensive stereotype. If you want to argue if she is not actually offensive, then at least read the Wikipedia article before saying anything more

I read the article.

People will see what they want.

 

To give the context this is what I said:

 

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Aunt Jemima was primarily a cook, and Uncle Ben was primarily a farmer, neither were primarily (for advertising purposes) black... 

 

She was a cook for advertising purposes, as I have said, not a black person.

The conceptual and subconscious content of the brand which is effective, is not about race, unless you want to imagine the general modern population as literally being white supremacist (consciously, subconsciously, whether they know it or not) getting a kick out of the fantasy of having a black-slave cook.  This simply is NOT true, and I would suggest you stay away from the leftist identity politics Kool-aid for a while.

The brand IS effective, from a sales and marketing point of view because she is identifiable as a cook, with a recognizable face, which is friendly to boot.  Her race is irrelevant to the brand as it functions with regard to sales in the general public.  Race is not an OPERATIVE part of the brand, it's merely a part of who the mascot is, like the fact that she has a mouth and two eyes..

Her race does NOT function to ridicule, degrade, reduce, her character as regards to her "esteem" in the minds of the overwhelming majority of those who buy products with her on the label.  Moreover, she does not operate as a force to ridicule, degrade, reduce, black people in the world.  If my son sees that bottle of syrup, while our family is having brunch with one of our black friends, there is ZERO, I mean literally ZERO negativity being caused by that label towards our friend in my son's mind.

Were my son to grow up with Aunt Jemima, (which now he wont) the only result caused by it in his mind in adulthood towards black people, overweight people, and women... would be positive, nostalgic... and maybe a little bit sweet.  A bottle of syrup does not and cannot serve to DEFINE all of the overweight population, all people of color, nor all women, and insofar as it does instill any preconceived notions... they are positive and friendly.

Of course there are some white supremacists and some people of color who see the historical context more keenly, to the point that how they see it (or how people may have seen it many decades ago) becomes a reality for them:  and they cannot see that the brand simply IS not operative, as racist, in the vast majority of the population.  It is operative only in terms of trust and recognition. 

 

But people will see what they want... and that is the root of all the crazy out there now.  We would do well to try to attenuate rather than amplify the crazy.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

read the Wikipedia article before saying anything more. 

We disagree.  Avoid the arrogance of assuming I have not informed myself just because I disagree with you.

 

The measure of someone else's being informed, is not to be gauged simply by the level with which you agree with them.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What absurdity of my case? I really don't know what you are talking about. The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is historically racist? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is a stereotype? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is offensive? The absurdity that Aunt Jemima is not a real person? I really don't know what you think is absurd. Which part do you disagree with?

The best I can describe your argument is that it is weak. I asked for proof, i.e., evidence that Aunt Jemima is a negative stereotype, and you respond with a satirical magazine article, the cover of a book of someone else's opinion, and your own subjective reiterations of the superiority of your claims. Weak, at best.

Will you not at least concede that Nancy Green, the bases of the Aunt Jemima character, actually was once a living human being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

She was a cook for advertising purposes, as I have said, not a black person.

Yes, you said that, but this is incorrect. Yes, she is a cook. But she is not primarily a cook. She is primarily the mammy stereotype. There is no such person, she is not an aspect of black culture, she is not representative of black culture. She is a slave. I don't see how you can claim it is not about race if the entire stereotype is about race. 

For the logo to be about race doesn't have to mean that anyone who finds something pleasant about the logo is a white supremacist. To say it is about race is to say that it doesn't represent something good, and in fact symbolizes something very bad. If all you see is that she is a cook, or if all you see is that she is a smiling woman, fine, but it is important to remember that she is the mammy stereotype whether or not it matters to you what her race is.

Indeed the brand isn't about the logo, it's a part of the mascot, so you're right, her race is not operative to the brand. All the more reason to remove the logo where race is operative. The argument isn't that only racists like the logo, the argument is that logos where race is operative is not appropriate and represents far too many negative values. 

You are right, I don't think the logo serves a function to ridicule or degrade anyone. As I said, it's a positive stereotype. But I also said positive stereotypes are bad. You know the stereotype that Asian people are good at math? Kind of like that: it's great if someone is good at math, but despite all the positivity, it reflects ignorance about race. It's not that a mammy stereotype pushes you to hate black people, it's that it pushes you to overlook or even be unaware of race issues that have existed in very recent history. I'm saying there is good reason to find the stereotype offensive (as in nothing at all representative of the culture it is meant to portray and not representative of rational values) if we learn all about what the mammy stereotype is, so there is good reason to find the logo offensive. 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

We disagree.  Avoid the arrogance of assuming I have not informed myself just because I disagree with you.

Sorry, it really sounded like you didn't read it yet. Since my claim is only that the logo is of a positive racial stereotype and therefore should be changed, are you disagreeing that positive racial stereotypes are a bad thing? Disagreeing that the mammy stereotype is racial? Or are you disagreeing that therefore the logo should be changed?

26 minutes ago, Repairman said:

I asked for proof, i.e., evidence that Aunt Jemima is a negative stereotype, and you respond with a satirical magazine article, the cover of a book of someone else's opinion, and your own subjective reiterations of the superiority of your claims.

The satirical article was somewhat of a tangent just to get some agreement about something (agreement about disingenuous corporate activism). The proof I offered was the Wikipedia article, so I don't know what you mean by the cover of a book of someone else's opinion. It seems like you might have mixed up my link with another tab you had opened. 

27 minutes ago, Repairman said:

Will you not at least concede that Nancy Green, the bases of the Aunt Jemima character, actually was once a living human being?

She wasn't the basis for the Aunt Jemima character. She was hired to represent Aunt Jemima after she was already created.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Since my claim is only that the logo is of a positive racial stereotype and therefore should be changed, are you disagreeing that positive racial stereotypes are a bad thing? Disagreeing that the mammy stereotype is racial? Or are you disagreeing that therefore the logo should be changed?

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.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

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.

This wouldn't be enough to say that it is a stereotype in either case. I don't think simply portraying one action is enough to conclude something is a stereotype. Exactly like you are acknowledging, the context matters, what are the other characteristics? Is the guy stealing a watermelon, for example? Is he speaking in exaggerated ebonics? What is he wearing? When it comes to Aunt Jemima, she is not merely a cook who happens to be black. In fact, we can verify that the mascot had racial intent behind it. But in your example the white supremacist organization, they would be simply depicting a thing that happens. They wouldn't be relying on a stereotype (an overgeneralization), they would be relying on manipulation of facts (pushing someone towards misleading interpretation). What counts if something is a stereotype is whether it consists of incorrect generalizations. 

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

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.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that positive stereotypes would be good if all the races got equally as good positive stereotypes? That the problem is that there isn't enough of them? 

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Images lose their original meanings when what was communicated is no longer operative in the present day communicator nor in its recipient.

Do they, though? Take a look at my next paragraph:

Do you think a piece of art can communicate a message regardless of artist intent? Do you think a logo can communicate a message regardless of designer intent? If you do think a logo can communicate a message regardless of designer intent, couldn't we say that the mammy stereotype communicates a racial message if all the characteristics about the stereotype are present? I'm pretty sure I know how you would answer the first two questions, so really I'm just wondering how you would take that into account.

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

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. 

But how could they be honest images if what they depict is the mammy stereotype? It doesn't have to promote black people as something bad to be a bad stereotype. I'm saying that all stereotypes are bad. Because it is a stereotype, I don't know how you could call it an honest image. If by honest you mean a real black person, or real people, or positive values, it still doesn't ultimately promote those things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...