I honestly don’t know why “it’s bad to show”. Like, if the person on the packet isn’t a white man, it’s bad.
We had these growing up in Australia…
Like, that I get now, but it’s worth pointing out no kid in Australia obviously even knew what a “redskin” was. Hell, I thought Comanches and Apaches were snakes because of the Huey Cobra.
Wait a second… Oh my god, just realised a Blackhawk isn’t named after a hawk, this is also a native American peoples. Like the NHL team, duh. And that’s my wife’s second fav team because she thinks it’s a cool logo and “I’m glad they’re repping the native Americans.”
See?
Anyway, I strayed from my point. I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful. If there’s a dark history, no one’s researching that, they’re more interested in other things like buttering some toast and then deciding to put a documentary about native Americans on because of the cool image.
Maybe if your only reference to a culture is an insulting one, they’d rather you not have an impression at all. Though I dunno much about Australia. That bunch of bogans seem to like people to think bad about them.
I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful.
This would be true if what you were seeing was culturally representative. “Redskin” is a racial slur and the images on that package are racist caricatures. All of it was created by white men, using Native Americans as mascot for their product.
These images were not created by or for Native Americans, and they are racist and insulting.
The most disrespectful thing you could do is to keep using images like this. The most disingenuous thing you could do is argue that they earnestly represent the cultures they depict.
I don’t see how that’s racism. There’s no discrimination of traits, assertion of superiority or inferiority of races, and it’s actually being used to help sell a product and brand identity which requires.positivity.and.attraction from others.
Culturally inappropriate? Sure, could be. That’s up to that culture to determine and advise though. But we know the artist was also of the same group of indigenlus people.
The artist responsible for redesigning the Land O’Lakes logo in 1954 and creating the iconic image of the Native American woman was Patrick DesJarlait. DesJarlait was an Ojibwe artist from Red Lake, Minnesota, and his design has become closely associated with the Land O’Lakes brand.
Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.
I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.
As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.
An old motherly Southern Black woman. Reminds me of any number of real life people I’ve known. The whole “depicting Black people is racism” thing was cooked up by and for white people.
Well that’s kind of funny. You’re right that white people cooked up her image. And they did so specifically with the idea that she would fit that stereotype of the older slave woman who has always worked in the kitchen, and is happy to do so, and because of that she’s really good at cooking.
By the way, the word “aunt” was not used to be respectful, but rather specifically to be disrespectful. That particular nuance has faded over time, but the history is real, and once you learn it you can’t forget it.
The sad thing is, you could have inferred this without looking it up. You could have asked yourself why they didn’t use a cartoon character of a white woman, with a white sounding name. The fact that you didn’t, and that you didn’t bother doing a web search, shows how much you want to avoid seeing racism in the modern world. But just because you don’t want to look at it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is not that kind, my friend.
Finally, don’t take my word for it. Ask the company itself why they changed the name. They have documentation on the subject.
I honestly don’t know why “it’s bad to show”. Like, if the person on the packet isn’t a white man, it’s bad.
We had these growing up in Australia…
Like, that I get now, but it’s worth pointing out no kid in Australia obviously even knew what a “redskin” was. Hell, I thought Comanches and Apaches were snakes because of the Huey Cobra.
Wait a second… Oh my god, just realised a Blackhawk isn’t named after a hawk, this is also a native American peoples. Like the NHL team, duh. And that’s my wife’s second fav team because she thinks it’s a cool logo and “I’m glad they’re repping the native Americans.”
See?
Anyway, I strayed from my point. I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful. If there’s a dark history, no one’s researching that, they’re more interested in other things like buttering some toast and then deciding to put a documentary about native Americans on because of the cool image.
Maybe if your only reference to a culture is an insulting one, they’d rather you not have an impression at all. Though I dunno much about Australia. That bunch of bogans seem to like people to think bad about them.
Can’t tell if your comment is ironic or bait attempt…
This would be true if what you were seeing was culturally representative. “Redskin” is a racial slur and the images on that package are racist caricatures. All of it was created by white men, using Native Americans as mascot for their product.
These images were not created by or for Native Americans, and they are racist and insulting.
The most disrespectful thing you could do is to keep using images like this. The most disingenuous thing you could do is argue that they earnestly represent the cultures they depict.
I don’t see how that’s racism. There’s no discrimination of traits, assertion of superiority or inferiority of races, and it’s actually being used to help sell a product and brand identity which requires.positivity.and.attraction from others.
Culturally inappropriate? Sure, could be. That’s up to that culture to determine and advise though. But we know the artist was also of the same group of indigenlus people.
Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.
I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.
As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.
An old motherly Southern Black woman. Reminds me of any number of real life people I’ve known. The whole “depicting Black people is racism” thing was cooked up by and for white people.
Well that’s kind of funny. You’re right that white people cooked up her image. And they did so specifically with the idea that she would fit that stereotype of the older slave woman who has always worked in the kitchen, and is happy to do so, and because of that she’s really good at cooking.
By the way, the word “aunt” was not used to be respectful, but rather specifically to be disrespectful. That particular nuance has faded over time, but the history is real, and once you learn it you can’t forget it.
The sad thing is, you could have inferred this without looking it up. You could have asked yourself why they didn’t use a cartoon character of a white woman, with a white sounding name. The fact that you didn’t, and that you didn’t bother doing a web search, shows how much you want to avoid seeing racism in the modern world. But just because you don’t want to look at it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is not that kind, my friend.
Finally, don’t take my word for it. Ask the company itself why they changed the name. They have documentation on the subject.
This is pretty much how I feel about it. Heck my ancestry is French and I’m still salty as hell over Pepe LePew vanishing from existence.