Poll of the Day > So where do you stand on "Aunt Jemima" controversy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

You consciously base your syrup purchasing decisions off of which mascot is looking at you from the bottle? That doesn't strike you as being more than a little ridiculous?

Well, you don't buy iPhones because you like apples so much. There are certain expectations associated with certain brand logos / mascots.


---

Jen0125 posted...

Who said that

You. There's no reason to not support the actual family's wants.
---

Zareth posted...

It's fucking dumb that people are focusing on this instead of police restructuring.

Its dumb that people are focusing on this instead of trying to fight the virus thats actually killing people.

---

Revelation34 posted...

You. There's no reason to not support the actual family's wants.

its the company making the decision, it doesnt really have anything to do with the family of the person the character was based on

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Its dumb that people are focusing on this instead of trying to fight the virus thats actually killing people.

why do you think people cant focus on more than one thing at a time

why do you think people cant focus on more than one thing at a time

---

I doubt pancake syrup causes COVID

---

The family sees it as honoring the woman that made them their fortune. Aunt Jemima is literally a black success story. What next? Tear down statues of Rosa Parks?

Lokarin posted...

I doubt pancake syrup causes COVID

It causes diabetes.
---

DDirtyDastard posted...

The family sees it as honoring the woman that made them their fortune. Aunt Jemima is literally a black success story. What next? Tear down statues of Rosa Parks?

I heard someone people in USA took down a statue of a man that freed slaves, because... you know... statues...

---

Revelation34 posted...

It causes diabetes.

No it doesn't. There is no correlation between sugar(carbohydrates) causing diabetes outside of the risk factors of being overweight (probably from eating said sugar)

---

Lokarin posted...

No it doesn't. There is no correlation between sugar(carbohydrates) causing diabetes outside of the risk factors of being overweight (probably from eating said sugar)

Isn't genetics a bigger factor?

If sugar alone did it though, I'd have super diabetes.

Lobomoon posted...

I heard someone people in USA took down a statue of a man that freed slaves, because... you know... statues...

it was a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a shackled slave on his knees before him

even when it was built it was criticized for its depiction

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Isn't genetics a bigger factor?

If sugar alone did it though, I'd have super diabetes.

Type 1 has a large genetic component, type 2 lesser but also significant.

---

Mead posted...

no I love a good deal so I wait for a sale

I do love a sale...

Zareth posted...

It's fucking dumb that people are focusing on this instead of police restructuring.

Maybe its the police doing this to keep news away from them...

adjl posted...

You consciously base your syrup purchasing decisions off of which mascot is looking at you from the bottle? That doesn't strike you as being more than a little ridiculous?

Sometimes, they stare at you with those Buy me eyes...

Sonicplys posted...

They should have changed it a long time ago. Why did it have to be now? Nobody had a problem with it for decades until now? Sounds ridiculous.

Actually, they did change it. I think it was in 1989...
---

Well we all know "Aunt Jemima" was taken from minstrel shows and slave women who dressed in that fashion who worked on plantations and maybe for the time when Aunt Jemima was first marketed, that image was acceptable but today I think it is and has been outdated for quite some time.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Well we all know "Aunt Jemima" was taken from minstrel shows and slave women who dressed in that fashion who worked on plantations and maybe for the time when Aunt Jemima was first marketed, that image was acceptable but today I think it is and has been outdated for quite some time.

But people still Tip and tipping has its roots in organized crime

---

Lokarin posted...

Type 1 has a large genetic component, type 2 lesser but also significant.

Alright, thanks!

Mead posted...

it was a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a shackled slave on his knees before him

even when it was built it was criticized for its depiction

They also tore down a Ulysses S. Grant statue, the General who won the war to free the slaves and one of, if not the best, president for black rights

---

Muscles posted...

They also tore down a Ulysses S. Grant statue, the General who won the war to free the slaves and one of, if not the best, president for black rights

That's the one.

---

Revelation34 posted...

You. There's no reason to not support the actual family's wants.

So that means I think they're evil?

---

Just replace Aunt Jenima with Aunt Karen.

If this is what those people want then this is what they'll get, no more minorities or people of colour on any products anywhere.

---

aHappySacka posted...

Just replace Aunt Jenima with Aunt Karen.

If this is what those people want then this is what they'll get, no more minorities or people of colour on any products anywhere.

Those people huh

---

I think they should've just updated the design regardless of current events tbh. Like brands change their designs all the time so this is "okay thank you, moving on" for me.

---

aHappySacka posted...

If this is what those people want then this is what they'll get, no more minorities or people of colour on any products anywhere.

Literally nobody protesting wants this. They want cops to stop killing black people without consequences.

---

Mead posted...

it was a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a shackled slave on his knees before him

even when it was built it was criticized for its depiction

For depicting Abraham Lincoln freeing slaves?
---

i could care less, but only a tiny bit

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Isn't genetics a bigger factor?

If sugar alone did it though, I'd have super diabetes.

Type 1 is genetic
Type 2 is unhealthy eating.

---

Lokarin posted...

But people still Tip and tipping has its roots in organized crime

Tip culture is objectively shitty and just gives employers an excuse to underpay their employees.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/15/why-americas-tipping-culture-is-actually-bad-for-restaurants/

---

Revelation34 posted...

For depicting Abraham Lincoln freeing slaves?

for depicting a powerful white man granting rights to a shackled black people on their knees who by all reason had those rights to begin with

that is the view some people held

---

I dont understand what they want exactly? Do we just put her in a business suit (Which doesnt really make sense for pancake mix and syrup) and call Ms./Mrs. Jemima (sense the word aunt is racist, I guess)? Or do we just not use black people on products anymore (since that seems to be racist now)?

Extreme_light posted...

I think they should've just updated the design regardless of current events tbh. Like brands change their designs all the time so this is "okay thank you, moving on" for me.

Technically, they have. Back in 1989, they changed it. The old one was like really bad. This one is just a lady...

Zareth posted...

Literally nobody protesting wants this. They want cops to stop killing black people without consequences.

But what does that have to do with removing a black women from syrup?
---

Lobomoon posted...

Well, you don't buy iPhones because you like apples so much. There are certain expectations associated with certain brand logos / mascots.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that changing the logo/mascot should change your opinion on a product you've been enjoying for years. The brand and the product remain the same, and it's really not hard to get used to and associate new packaging with the product. If Apple changed its name to Orange (ignoring that there are existing brands with that name), I'd keep on not buying them for the same reasons I don't buy Apple stuff now because the product qualities I associate with the brand won't have changed with the rebranding.

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, they stare at you with those Buy me eyes...

That's primarily a subconscious thing, though. What Zeus was talking about was consciously deciding that the products are less desirable without the mascot on them, which is absurd because the moment you start thinking consciously about it, you should be able to realize that there's no difference in the product itself.

---

adjl posted...

That's primarily a subconscious thing, though. What Zeus was talking about was consciously deciding that the products are less desirable without the mascot on them, which is absurd because the moment you start thinking consciously about it, you should be able to realize that there's no difference in the product itself.

I was mostly joking. That being said, isnt one of the points of a mascot (Though they are used for other things, as well) to make people buy your product instead of another if the products are pretty similar? Like, if I have to choose a syrup on picture alone, Id probably choose a motherly looking Aunt Jemima instead of this guy...

https://i.imgur.com/OHOw4SC.jpg
---

LinkPizza posted...

I was mostly joking. That being said, isnt one of the points of a mascot (Though they are used for other things, as well) to make people buy your product instead of another if the products are pretty similar? Like, if I have to choose a syrup on picture alone, Id probably choose a motherly looking Aunt Jemima instead of this guy...

https://i.imgur.com/OHOw4SC.jpg

That is, but that tends to be a subconscious association more than anything else, relying on imagery that makes the consumer feel good or that they recognize from commercials to bias them toward your product. Changing the mascot will certainly have an impact on PepsiCo's ability to attract new customers (whether a positive or negative impact will depend on good the new marketing is). Existing customers, however, already know what the product is and know that it's the one they want to buy. Provided they don't put actively off-putting imagery on there (like what happens with cigarette packaging) and they communicate the brand change well enough that people know what to look for to get the same syrup, that shouldn't dramatically impact their sales to existing customers.

---

idk she made a damn good syrup when i was a kid. i guess i just throught she was real and the syrup was her idea

I'm neutral here, though I worry things are getting taken too far. Stereotypes are not inherently racist, and the character herself was inoffensive in present day.

If not for the slavery origins, I would strongly oppose them getting rid of her. Because of the slavery origins, I at least understand. If it was merely due to stereotypes though and trying to erase a character due to that, I would strongly oppose it. That's not the case, though.

I will vehemently oppose people calling brands "racist" or stereotypes "racist" without context. It's a disgusting overuse of a word that should be used for real racism.

If you take it to an extreme all branding would be plain practically, no more knights and such either, unless we're going to pick and choose which stereotypes are offensive regardless of intent.
---

adjl posted...

That is, but that tends to be a subconscious association more than anything else, relying on imagery that makes the consumer feel good or that they recognize from commercials to bias them toward your product. Changing the mascot will certainly have an impact on PepsiCo's ability to attract new customers (whether a positive or negative impact will depend on good the new marketing is). Existing customers, however, already know what the product is and know that it's the one they want to buy. Provided they don't put actively off-putting imagery on there (like what happens with cigarette packaging) and they communicate the brand change well enough that people know what to look for to get the same syrup, that shouldn't dramatically impact their sales to existing customers.

Idk. Like you said, it just depends on what and how they do it. Though, I could see many people changing brands because of the decision. I dont really think that many people agree with the decision. That being said, I dont think that many people are against it, either. Most are probably indifferent. But some may change because of whatever reasons...

teddy241 posted...

idk she made a damn good syrup when i was a kid. i guess i just throught she was real and the syrup was her idea

I think most people did. I honestly dont think many people were constantly looking up the history of Aunt Jemima before...

Voxwik posted...

I'm neutral here, though I worry things are getting taken too far. Stereotypes are not inherently racist, and the character herself was inoffensive in present day.

Totally agree!
---

LinkPizza posted...

But what does that have to do with removing a black women from syrup?

It feels like some token gesture. It's not uncommon to see little stuff like this done, while the bigger issues are never addressed.

That's why I'm guessing at least that they brought that up.

This says it all distraction tactics

---

i don't care. i don't really give any thought to who is on the label of fake maple syrup that i won't buy, ok?

---

It's an outright lie to say black people don't have human rights and are randomly killed often.

Don't take a page from the Trump playbook like that. Ignoring the complexities of the situation helps no one.

Edit:
This is in response to the stupid captioned picture above.
---

Aculo posted...

i don't care. i don't really give any thought to who is on the label of fake maple syrup that i won't buy, ok?

I wouldn't even call it fake maple syrup. Fake maple syrup should at least bear some resemblance to the taste of actual maple syrup beyond the sugar. Aunt Jemima syrup and its ilk are really their own distinctive flavour.

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

It feels like some token gesture. It's not uncommon to see little stuff like this done, while the bigger issues are never addressed.

That's why I'm guessing at least that they brought that up.

Does anybody really win with empty gestures like this, though? I mean, I feel like its not really doing anything worthwhile. The latest Aunt Jemima doest seem very racist. Its feels more racist removing her since its just removing a black woman from a product... Idk...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Does anybody really win with empty gestures like this, though? I mean, I feel like its not really doing anything worthwhile. The latest Aunt Jemima doest seem very racist. Its feels more racist removing her since its just removing a black woman from a product... Idk...

I get ya.

Just explaining what the two might have to do with each other.

Honestly personally I'm more confused about Uncle Ben. Wtf am I missing there? Isn't he just a dude in a suit?

Voxwik posted...

It's an outright lie to say black people don't have human rights and are randomly killed often.

yeah George Floyd had all his rights respected and is still alive he wasnt murdered

fucking /s

---

Mead posted...

for depicting a powerful white man granting rights to a shackled black people on their knees who by all reason had those rights to begin with

that is the view some people held

No you meant SHOULD have had those rights. They were slaves so had no rights because it was a shitty part of the country's history.

LinkPizza posted...

Idk. Like you said, it just depends on what and how they do it. Though, I could see many people changing brands because of the decision. I dont really think that many people agree with the decision. That being said, I dont think that many people are against it, either. Most are probably indifferent. But some may change because of whatever reasons...

I think more people are against changing Uncle Ben.

revolution3603 posted...

This says it all distraction tactics

So Antifa is behind this change?
---

Revelation34 posted...

No you meant SHOULD have had those rights. They were slaves so had no rights because it was a shitty part of the country's history

yes, that is what I meant, thank you for the correction

---

I ordered a sweatshirt thats got the label all over it, if that answers the question.

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Honestly personally I'm more confused about Uncle Ben. Wtf am I missing there? Isn't he just a dude in a suit?

Its because hes black and they call him uncle...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its because hes black and they call him uncle...

https://i.imgur.com/pQpNAA3.gif

---

LinkPizza posted...

Its because hes black and they call him uncle...

Ahh fair.

That's something I hadn't thought of.

I always just thought of him as that happy gentleman in the suit, but... Yeahh... Fair. I can see how that could rub people the wrong way.