What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Aunt Jemima. Uncle Ben’s. Now Eskimo Pies. When will Redskins change their name? (1 Viewer)

I don't understand the problem with Eskimo Pies. Is eskimo a derogatory term? I honestly had no idea.

 
Ahh ok. Wow. Yeah it should go then. 
Rastus is also the name of the African-American character who first appeared on packages of Cream of Wheat cereal in 1893 and whose image remained the Cream of Wheat trademark until the 1920s, when it was replaced by a photograph of Frank L. White, a Chicago chef in chef's hat and jacket. His face has been featured on the box with only slight modifications until the present day.[12]

 
It’s when. Not if. Probably too late this year but my bet is they announce the name change TBD in the next few months to take effect next year. If Eskimo Pie is deemed offensive forcing a name change there is no way “Redskins” lasts. Zero chance. Thoughts? I know this is an old topic but new forces at work. Eskimo Pie change cements it for me. 
Redskins is a ridiculous name and its too bad most of the country doesnt care. As a business man, Snyder should realize how much money he would make with a name change. 

 
this stuff is basically all just corporate pandering to the mob that does nothing substantive for police reform or race relations.

 
I don't understand the problem with Eskimo Pies. Is eskimo a derogatory term? I honestly had no idea.
Eskimo is neither a slur or pejorative, but is more an old label - like Negro or Indian - given Arctic aboriginals by outsiders that the people themselves have moved on from, preferring to identify by tribe names. In Canada, it's been considered impolite for quite a while.

 
Redskins is a ridiculous name and its too bad most of the country doesnt care. As a business man, Snyder should realize how much money he would make with a name change. 
Agree with the first part disagree with the second. Snyder can’t afford to lose the brand loyalty of the Redskins fans. It’s the only thing that keeps him from losing money and he’s getting close to losing those people. Changing the name will offer way too many loyal Redskins fans an easy out to root for Baltimore or another franchise. 

 
Yale needs to burn all their buildings to the ground.  Check out Yale's namesake, Elihu Yale
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/activist-calls-cancel-yale-being-named-after-slave-trader

Also the rest of the IVY league schools.  


Hey, you keep my boy Ezra out of this.

Unlike Cornell’s much older Ivy League peers, our alma mater didn’t open its doors until 1868, after the Thirteenth Amendment and abolition of slavery in the United States. Ezra Cornell himself was vehemently anti-slavery. In letters, Ezra described the south as “cursed with human slavery.” When the Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists in the 1850s, Ezra was quick to identify with the new political party and was a delegate to the first national Republican convention. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and attended his 1861 inauguration.
https://cornellsun.com/2013/10/31/ezras-oracle-nov-1-2013/

 
Taking a racist character off of your product isn’t pandering. It’s human decency. 
I'm not disagreeing with that in the abstract, but like I said, none of this stuff does anything substantive for the actual issues people have been up in arms over. Nobody was protesting about Eskimo Pies or Aunt Jemima.

 
I'm not disagreeing with that in the abstract, but like I said, none of this stuff does anything substantive for the actual issues people have been up in arms over. Nobody was protesting about Eskimo Pies or Aunt Jemima.
I agree and I wonder if some of these companies are also making some donations with this or making some changes in their corporate structure. Still, it’s a good thing changing the names and it takes some courage because there’s obviously going to be some blowback. A company making maple syrup isn’t in too much of a position to making major societal changes. 

 
i'm sure a search of the etymology of contemporary reactions to racially insensitivity will find most hubbubs to have some root in corporate exposure and commercial McCarthyism, so to speak. around the time Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al had gained their race enough political capital to consider addressing grievances, ownership of hatespeech and reparations were the Big Two. shaming famous offenders on the racial insensitivity was simply more fun and media friendly at a time when the population was in a mood to dogpile any scandal and corporate America has tried desperately to limit exposure on that front. the brands in question now would not have any recognition if not for the ones their icons gave them, so were the last to fall.

 
My guess is companies will phase out putting people’s faces on products/logos so as not to offend any group.
That wouldn't be so bad. Leave people off and use only cartoon animals. That still leaves digital, video and print ads for companies to F up on if they want to. 😃

 
I think the context matters. Aunt Jemima was pretty clearly based on a racial stereotype originally, and a negative one at that. She wore a kerchief that said Mammy on it.

Having said that, the family of the model who most recently portrayed Aunt Jemima has come out against the rebrand. It’s almost like these issues are super nuanced and complicated. 
Am I the only one who gets Aunt Jemima and Mrs. Butterworth confused?

 
A year from now, once all of the potentially offensive images have been removed from packaging, the complaint will be that there are no people of color on any of the packaging.

 
Mjolnirs said:
A year from now, once all of the potentially offensive images have been removed from packaging, the complaint will be that there are no people of color on any of the packaging.
I will be surprised if there becomes a big movement to put black cartoon caricatures on food products but yes people of color want to be generally represented in society. 

 
Mjolnirs said:
A year from now, once all of the potentially offensive images have been removed from packaging, the complaint will be that there are no people of color on any of the packaging.
On this topic what ever happened to Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill?  I thought we were supposed to have that by now.  Was it axed for something like this?

 
This is why I say, if I were Black, I want to see Blacks to have more representation, and not to remove the very few that we actually have.

In other words, use the “Look at me” schtick a lot more.
Over-simplifying.  I am Jewish.  There's not a ton of Jewish folks on product packaging.  I don't think that means if some packaging had a character that originated from something like this on it that I would be going out of my way to say they need to keep that thing around.

 
Scoresman said:
Serious question about these. Is it racist just to have a person of color on product packaging? Is there some sort of dark history behind all of these?
Regarding Aunt Jemima...

According to the Jim Crow museum of racist memorabilia, Aunt Jemima is “the most well known and enduring racial caricature of African American women” and is based on the “mammy” stereotype.
“From slavery through the Jim Crow era, the mammy image served the political, social, and economic interests of mainstream white America.
“During slavery, the mammy caricature was posited as proof that blacks – in this case, black women – were contented, even happy, as slaves. Her wide grin, hearty laughter and loyal servitude were offered as evidence of the supposed humanity of the institution of slavery.”

 
Judge Smails said:
It’s when. Not if. Probably too late this year but my bet is they announce the name change TBD in the next few months to take effect next year. If Eskimo Pie is deemed offensive forcing a name change there is no way “Redskins” lasts. Zero chance. Thoughts? I know this is an old topic but new forces at work. Eskimo Pie change cements it for me. 
Redskins won`t change this season but i would say it would be 50-50 for next year.  

If anything is deemed offensive to anyone rebranding is easy enough.  Just make Uncle Ben a old white dude on the box, make Aunt Jemima`s syrup,  Aunt Jenny`s syrup and put a fat white woman in an apron. Eskimo Pie could be Edmonton Pie or Alaskan Pie. Keep the same color scheme on the boxes and move on.

Someone on a radio show today wants ND to get rid of the leprechaun Irish person as he said is was demeaning and change to the ND Shamrocks. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most teams could go without names anyway.  Today Washington is playing Dallas.  Tomorrow New England plays Miami.  On Saturday Yale played Harvard.   Who the F needs a name?  All I care about is the Ws and Ls.

 
Most teams could go without names anyway.  Today Washington is playing Dallas.  Tomorrow New England plays Miami.  On Saturday Yale played Harvard.   Who the F needs a name?  All I care about is the Ws and Ls.
Nicknames do give a little bit of shorthand. In the Washington-Dallas example — Skins-Cowboys, Wizards-Mavs, or Caps-Stars? It avoids some explanation and confusion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jobarules said:
FF 5 years from now when liberals will complain there's not enough people of color on our name brand products. 


Mjolnirs said:
A year from now, once all of the potentially offensive images have been removed from packaging, the complaint will be that there are no people of color on any of the packaging.
Yep

 
bradyfan said:
My guess is companies will phase out putting people’s faces on products/logos so as not to offend any group.

People are dealing with race the same way they dealt with religion. Instead of celebrating all religions openly, there is a trend to remove all religious references from public places.
Some truth to this. Our marketing dept has gone to such an extreme. First it was ensuring you had graphics with diversity with race, gender etc which I thought was the right track and now everything is instead cartoon type images. Going back to stick figures almost so you don’t offend anyone 

 
Nicknames do give a little bit of shorthand. In the Washington-Dallas example — Skins-Cowboys, Wizards-Mavs, or Caps-Stars? It avoids some explanation and confusion.
The Washington Skins could work. Get rid of the red and it would be good to go without changing everything.

 
Some truth to this. Our marketing dept has gone to such an extreme. First it was ensuring you had graphics with diversity with race, gender etc which I thought was the right track and now everything is instead cartoon type images. Going back to stick figures almost so you don’t offend anyone 
Was just at a meeting with some suppliers and the Big #3 automakers talking about the same thing.  There were some ideas tossed around to have no actual people anymore in vehicle commercials, show the car or truck driving with a driver you can`t tell if it is a man ,woman, or any race as not to offend anyone, but highlight the vehicle only.

 
Removing actors and models from ad campaigns is a really dumb idea but I get the overly cautious cya POV many corporations have.

 
Most teams could go without names anyway.  Today Washington is playing Dallas.  Tomorrow New England plays Miami.  On Saturday Yale played Harvard.   Who the F needs a name?  All I care about is the Ws and Ls.
You can’t trademark a city name so that would be a no-go right off the bat for teams trying to sell merchandise.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
Redskins is a ridiculous name and its too bad most of the country doesnt care. As a business man, Snyder should realize how much money he would make with a name change. 
It would cost millions to hire a branding firm large enough to take this on, do the research, focus groups and design a new logo. Then you are replacing every single piece of existing merch, signage and office document. After that there is the immediate blow back by old die hard fans who will reject it outright—you will be hard pressed to find a pro sports rebrand that was universally accepted regardless of PC reasons or not. 

 
bradyfan said:
My guess is companies will phase out putting people’s faces on products/logos so as not to offend any group.

People are dealing with race the same way they dealt with religion. Instead of celebrating all religions openly, there is a trend to remove all religious references from public places.
This is a big trend now in places like web design. You are seeing more and more sites using very simplified illustrations of people with no distinguishable features and non-traditional skin colors

https://airtable.com/

also relevant to @Judge Smails post. (did not see that until I posted this) 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The great-grandson of the most recent woman to appear on boxes and bottles of Aunt Jemima products is angry that Quaker Oats will rebrand later this year.

Larnell Evans Sr. told Chicago Patch that his great-grandmother Anna Short Harrington began appearing on the pancake mix and syrup bottles for the Aunt Jemima brand in 1935 after she was discovered by Quaker Oats, the company which owns Aunt Jemima. Harrington, Evans said, toured the country as the brand's representative, and served pancakes as part of those duties for two decades.

"She worked for that Quaker Oats for 20 years. She traveled all the way around the United States and Canada making pancakes as Aunt Jemima for them," the 66-year-old Marine Corps vet told Patch Chicago. "This woman served all those people, and it was after slavery. She worked as Aunt Jemima. That was her job. ... How do you think I feel as a Black man sitting here telling you about my family history they're trying to erase?"

Evans added that removing Harrington from the products is "an injustice for me and my family. This is part of my history."

Quaker Oats made the announcement about the branding change on Wednesday, prompting similar announcements from Mrs. Butterworth, Uncle Ben's and Cream Of Wheat. Those brands also announced plans to change their packaging and, in some cases, brand names, due to their racially insensitive stereotypes. On Saturday, Eskimo Pie also said it will rebrand, due to stereotypes the name evokes of the Inuit people.

For Aunt Jemima, the brand's image references a 'mammy' character who served white people. The brand's name references a song, "Old Aunt Jemima" often performed in minstrel shows by a white person in blackface.

Harrington did not originate the Aunt Jemima character. Nancy Green was the first woman to portray the character in the 1890s, according to The Museum of Public Relations and the Aunt Jemima website's history of the product. However, The Museum of PR and the Chicago Tribune name Anna Robinson as the woman whose likeness Aunt Jemima was based on.

Evans said told Patch Chicago that Quaker Oats has profited off the images of slavery.

"The racism they talk about, using images from slavery, that comes from the other side—white people. This company profits off images of our slavery. And their answer is to erase my great-grandmother's history. A Black female. ... It hurts," he said.

Evans and his nephew attempted to sue the company in 2014 over royalties they felt the family were owed as he said Quaker Oats is using Harrington's pancake recipe. They asked for $3 billion in restitution, though the lawsuit was dismissed in federal court since the two men weren't executors of Harrington's estate, Syracuse.com reported.

 
I think some companies are using this as a convenient excuse to modernize their brands. Before this, Aunt Jemima might have gotten complaints for taking an iconic image off of their products.

 
Some truth to this. Our marketing dept has gone to such an extreme. First it was ensuring you had graphics with diversity with race, gender etc which I thought was the right track and now everything is instead cartoon type images. Going back to stick figures almost so you don’t offend anyone 
at the college where I work there were signs designed by the previous student residence hall leadership about 5-6 years back - they had a clip-art outline of a girl with a backpack and read "Stay Safe On Campus - Don't Walk Alone At Night", and they were posted around dorms and walking paths on campus in an effort to help keep students safe.

all the signs had to be taken down last year when the new student residence hall leadership said that they were discriminatory and offensive to female students, because the image inferred that only women had to be careful at night. :lmao:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top