History of racist characters in advertising

How about Aunt Jemima? It amazes me that they still use her. Although at least they've updated her look. But still.

you ought to google ivory soap- I've seen several old advertisements showing Africans being turned white by using Ivory soap in the 19th century.
With regards to Aunt Jemima and other old sterotypes that persist in advertising, its just through plain ignorance that people don't protest them- updated look or not, they still represent the same ideas that set up colonialsim, segregation and all that muck.
I seem to rant often about the media on babble.

[ 30 April 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

quote:

---

Aunt Jemima and other racist images are not pulled because they work: they sell products and make money for the corporations. I heard (sorry no link) that a few years back the company pulled the image off (maybe as an experiment?) and sales dropped. Racism sells.

---

It's true. Sadly racism does sell. But it may be more complicated than just saying too many people welcome racist imagery.

I too grew up with the Aunt Jemima image on pancake mix boxes. But around our house, in our working class immigrant ignorance of US history, she was seen as simply a great cook--and a family-type gal who's the traditional aunt happy to prepare good meals for her relatives. That's why she must be so famous, right?

I was quite unpleasantly dismayed (to put it lightly) to learn several years later of where and how the Aunt Jemima image came to be and what it in fact represented--how it in many ways celebrated slavery and exploitation. I felt misled.

It seems that in our corporate capitalist dominated economy, we are generally taught only to look at how cheap a product supposedly--stress supposedly--is, not to think about where or how it's made, what's actually in it and the actual history of the imagery used to promote it.

For example, I doubt too many people in Canada would associate Uncle Ben with an Uncle Tom servant (especially since the Canadian and very Anglo-Saxon folk singer Burl Ives was featured in Uncle Ben’s TV ads across this country for years).

Probably in the US, it's different, which is likely why the firm's bosses have now changed the fictional character's position from cook to CEO (since being a dictatorial over-paid unaccountable corporate hack is supposed to be someone to look up to and respect, more than someone who actually does something useful for a living).

So it seems that an even bigger problem than the racist imagery itself is the fact that most people are not educated about the oppressive history that resulted in that imagery in the first place.

This isn't restricted to America. Who can forget [url=http://tinyurl.com/2ewfdx][b]Darkie Toothpaste[/b][/url].

[img]http://www.newint.org/issue164/Images/darkie.gif[/img]

The name has been changed to "[url=http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q52/roanphotos/darkie.jpg]Darlie Toothpaste[/url]" because of western sensibilities.

Colgate bought them in the late 80's and fought hard to keep the name. After all it it was a well established brand.

As a grad student in the 70's I had a Chinese roommate and his parents regularly sent him Care packages from home - this among them. Darkie Toothpaste was a stock item in our apartment during the years I roomed with him. And I remember asking him why he didn't find it offensive - I forget the exact words but he literally did not understand why anyone could find it offensive.

See also [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie[...

[ 01 May 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]

Should any human be a symbol for a company? For example, General Mills has “Betty Crocker” as the face of their company. Although, Mills updated her (yet again) relatively recently and gave her a slightly darker hue than the pure white stereotypical ьber suburbanite she used to be.

When I was a wee lad back in the late 1970's, on our annual spring road trips with my family, I remember going to a restaurant in California called "Sambo's", whose character was a blackface boy, based on the "little black Sambo" stories.

Hard to believe now.

quote:

---

So it seems that an even bigger problem than the racist imagery itself is the fact that most people are not educated about the oppressive history that resulted in that imagery in the first place.

---

I wholeheartedly agree with this- its what I meant to say earlier.Racism is such a powerful and ingrained thing in our society that few people notice it when its in front of them -Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben being cases in point.
I'm also pretty certain that US and Canadian racism is pretty much the same as the idealogical basis is the same.

In reply to the following question ...

quote:

---

Does the mention of an identifiable group immediately make that venue racist?

---

... BigCityGal noted: "If the identifiable group is a marginalized group with little to no systemic power, then yes."

I would just add that perhaps it would be more precise to assert that the product/service becomes racist [b]when images of the marginalized group are appropriated,[/b] i.e., taken possession of without authority.

Edited to add: And maybe more. I can think of an ad {a public service ad - mind you - for some common good] in which the image of a "Native American" is used by some branch of the US Government to discourage littering. In this example that I'm thinking of, [b]the image is used in a way that honours the marginalized group by being used as a way to lend dignity to a social good.[/b] Instead of appropriation we have empowerment.

From the capitalist point of view, however, [b]selling a product is much more sacred[/b] than rebuffing racist imagery of identifiable or marginalized groups. Money trumps everything and there is no law against such things. Boycotts, solidarity and moral revulsion must suffice to combat these sort of racist appropriations.

It's the capitalist way and a good example of capitalist "civilization". Blecch.

[ 02 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Well, if you're right, then the example would be appropriation and not empowerment. It's been a very long time since I saw the ad.

But I would still want to include the idea of [b]appropriation[/b]. Otherwise Black History ads would be racist.

I had a look at the Slate Magazine slide show. Holy Shit. I remember the "Injun Orange" and "Chinese Cherry" flavours of Pillsbury's "Funny-Face" drink mixes from childhood. [i]Yet I can't recall any outrage being expressed in my family at the time.[/i] And I don't think I will ever feel quite the same about Robertson "Golden Shred" marmalade, what with their "Gollywogs".

There is a remark in the slide show that bears repeating:

quote:

---

Once again the company stuck with the product only for as long as the upside of cash flow outweighed the downside of adverse publicity.

---

In other words, a successful boycott, adverse publicity, etc. CAN work. But it won't be the advertising industry that leads the charge against racist ads - it will be organizations in civil society. Capitalism is incapable of policing itself.

"Braves" is not an allusion to macho bravery. It's an allusion to First Nations people.

They may have gotten rid of this:

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NuLbUH7nRZvVzM:http://www.logoshak.c...

but they still use a tomahawk in their logo, so it's pretty obvious what the logo is all about.

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:UW8jeBj_Uqo7QM:http://www.logoshak.c...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]"Braves" is not an allusion to macho bravery. It's an allusion to First Nations people.

They may have gotten rid of this:

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NuLbUH7nRZvVzM:http://www.logoshak.c...

but they still use a tomahawk in their logo, so it's pretty obvious what the logo is all about.

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:UW8jeBj_Uqo7QM:http://www.logoshak.c...

---

You do not mention the "tomahawk chop' antic that the fans perform at the games, which I find very offensive (both in Atlanta and Cleveland). But here is part of a discussion between [/B]Dr. David Anthony Yeagley [/B] and [b] Russell Means[/b]. Yeagly seems to be a right wing favourite, while Means was once connected with AIM, an organization I hold in high regard. (Means is Ogala Soux and Yeagly is Comanche, Chickasaw on his mother's side.)

They are speaking to the point we are discussing now, the icons of the Atlanta and Cleveland basball teams. The Washington [i]Redskins[/i] are deal with elsewhere.

quote:

---

MEANS: It's not only my view. It's the view of every intelligent Indian I've spoken to in the United States of America. These protests have been ongoing for over 30 years, since I sued the Cleveland Indians baseball team in 1970 for its its franchise worth over the mascot. The mascot is insulting. But what happens here, whether it's a college team or a especially from the the opponents of those schools. You have fraternities and sororities putting out T-shirts, for instance, and handouts and handbills with drawings, obscene drawings, you know, at different kinds of animals fornicating Indian men from behind.

---

[b]YEAGLEY[/b]takes a different tact:

quote:

---

YEAGLEY: Well, I'm looking at to the future. It seems to me that modern American Indians have very little imagery to deal with. We have pre-reservation imagery of the warrior, the brave, the man that's courageous, the man that lives for his people, the man that will sacrifice his life for his people. This side of the war days, our image is quite different. We have the Indian alcoholic, the Indian suicidal, the Indian...

Well, I I'd rather I'd rather hear of the Atlanta Braves than the Atlanta Alcoholics. I'm looking for what what do Indians have to build on for the future? We have very little. And and a mascot that calls to mind the kind of bravery that I spoke of, the kind of dedication to people, to one's own people I think this is admirable.

---

Around the mid-60s the little sister of a lady I knew objected to being taught Mark Twain in High School - particularily [i]Huck Finn[/i] with the [i]n---ger Jim[/i] character. (She was black.) After a great search the best word I could find on the subject came from the local Rabbi.

Unfortunately it was long before the internet and no electronic record of it remains ... but his point was that [b]something was racist, so long as an individual finds it racist[/b]. It is a subjective judgement and cannot be made universal. [b]It is racist for that person.[/b]

This is probably a badly remembered conclusion of a very erudite essay the good Rabbi wrote - but the concept was adapted by the [b]Dept of Education[/b]. If someone finds a racial problem with a text, or assignment they are excused from that assignment and an investigation is done to see if it has a wider application.

[url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1271]web pagehttp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1271[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
[b]never mind [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 02 May 2007: Message edited by: jas ][/b]

---

Jer:

As I said before I can be in no way described as a racist - but as a ex-teacher I feel the best way to deal with racism/discrimination and associated ideas is throught education, disputation and confrontation.

[b]If your responses is not a misguided, personal slage, please let it stand.[/b]

I have to deal with the world around me, and those that have been the recipient of the [i]spin[/i] put on the title Braves, is but one of them. A good start, in this case, has already been made my Mr. Means.

Tripping off into a philosophical places is not much help went someone, in the lunchroom, says; "Ain't the Braves/Redskins/Indians (or Aunt Jemima - for that matter) "sumpin elses, Eh?"

This is more about a cry for aid [b]then it is an attempt to justify racisms in any of it's incidious forms[/b]. If I am to tell someone what they have believe without question, for their life, that is is now racist, I need help.

(I am sort of an Atlanta fan, enjoy the Indians and liked Joe Theisman with the Redskins.)

The consatant fear is that if you (and I do not mean to be persoinal here) cannot be logical, rational and clear about your positon there is a danger of your being wrong. Perhaps it is incorrect ----

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To expand that - can the Atlanta Bravesor the Cleveland Indians be said to be racist? Edmonton Eskimos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the mention of an identifiable group immediately make that venue racist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the identifiable group is a marginalized group with little to no systemic power, then yes.

---

This is partly the case. But I think whether people consider it racist, or to what degree it is offensive, depends on how much respect or status those who use the ethnic imagery or names or symbols.

For example, seems that one of the reasons why major footballs teams can get away with using names like [i]Braves[/i], [i]Indians[/i], [i]Eskimos[/i], etc., is because people look to them as symbols of respect and social power.

So those names, and often the image of the ethnic groups they represent, are seen in a sort of honourable or respectful way--even though it is still stereotyping and in many way appropriation.

For example, "Brave" was apparently the English translation of a Cheyenne Nation word for fighter or soldier--someone who was apparently held in high esteem in that culture.

Another case is how people often accept racist stereotyping and imagery because of the status and wealth/privilege portrayed of those people of that ethnicity--especially in TV and music.

An example is that I know many people who see the TV show [i]The Sopranos[/i] as some sort of empowering message, even though it is basically a cynical blatant example of stereotyping of Italian Americans as mobsters, racketeers and thugs. Yet because often these types often command respect (even though they don't earn it) gives them status among the general public.

You see a similar situation with the whole Black urban gang culture: tough, ruthless, demanding, loaded with cash and connections, having access to things that most working class people of every ethnicity can't have, etc.

quote:

---

Nonsense. These are merely cartoonish colonialist stereotypical myths of masculine imagery. Nobody is showing real Anishnawbe any respect by using such demeaning symbols.

---

Forget nonsense.

I never said the Anishnawbe or anybody else of any of the ethnicities in question gets respect as a result of this.

What I was trying to point out is that the imagery is presented in the context of power and status--not that people who aren't football players or actual "Braves" warriors get any respect as a result.

Remember, it's the imagery that's being talked about here, not any real benefits (if there even are any) of the average working class folks of these ethnic communities.

Yes to Makwa's points, and to add to them: only the most stereotypical, grossly exaggerated and most easily appropriated "characteristics" (and I hesitate to use that term) get glommed onto by mainstream white supremacist and male supremacist culture.

Who respects soldiers and their proxies, aka professional athletes? Mostly, men. Most sports franchises are owned by white men.

Why hasn't the notion of seeking out the guidance of the elder women of a community been taken up by the mainstream? Why hasn't a stereotype of Black families been that education is important been taken up by the mainstream? (Those are rhetorical questions, btw.)

SA, your points completely reiterate unchallenged notions of who has "respect". Many of us don't feel that some man, simply because he's a professional athletes get immediate respect. Quite the opposite in fact.

Thieves, such as colonizers, must steal to enact their own versions of respect, ego, power. These values then get imposed on the population at large. Don't believe the hype. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Yeah, if you look at the caricature for the Cleveland Indians, for instance, it's pretty clear that there is no respect or dignity involved. [/b]

---

I have played for several sports teams, and none that I know of would want their name to be associated with [b]'unemployed alcoholics"[/b]or [b]"obsequous serving persons"[/b]. Many teams try to put in a local twist to their names, like [b]The Stampeders, the 49ers, or even the Washington Nationals[/b]. Formerly the Expos [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] . They try to exhibit some kind of power and control, verging on the attractve side of reckless.

I would not be offended at all of some major team decided to call themselves the [b]CROGHAN27s[/b]I must agree with [b]Steppenwolf Allende [/b]when he says: [b] major footballs teams can get away with using names like Braves, Indians, Eskimos, etc., is because people look to them as symbols of respect and social power.[/b] (even if ony one of them is a football team, the first two are baseball teams [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ) Here in Ottawa there was a team called The Ottawa Rebels - good and bad "rebels" depend upon which side of the revolution you support.

I am less troubled by cartoon figures on their logos - the 49ers have one of an old coot with a shovel and a donkey and the Vikings one of a steriotypical Viking.

Now I am left in something of a quandry - if racism is so very individual, I am back at my origional question - can a person, an identifiable group, have their name(s) used in another context? Michelle seemed to poopoo my suggestion that one Inuit interveiwed did not mind the name Eskimo - but where does that stop? I have not seen any general objections by the Inuit themselves.

I take the idea that [i]racism is whatever that person feels is racism[/i] quite seriously, I do not wish to offend anyone - racially at least (I can think of several landlords I have happily slagged and will probably do again. Not for their race/gender/orientation/age/etc. - but for their capitalist impulses.

Thank you, M.Gregus

quote:

---

For over two decades, Chief Illiniwek was the center of a controversy. At the root of the controversy is the view of many Native Americans and others that the symbol/mascot was a misappropriation of indigenous cultural figures and rituals and that it perpetuated stereotypes about Native American peoples.

---

An organized body of the offended ones convinced the NCAA that Illiniwek was indeed offensive, and appropriate action was taken. A problem clearly stated is one that can be quickly solved.

and thank you Makwa for [i]yeh, thanks Croghan27. whateva. wat u sed. or something.[/i]you certainly helped the discussion along considerably with that. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 03 May 2007: Message edited by: Croghan27 ]

[ 03 May 2007: Message edited by: Croghan27 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
Ahem. That was me doing the "poo-pooing". Did you notice you used rather minimizing language there?

And just because [i]you[/i] haven't seen objections means, um, not much. Where have you been looking? (That's also a rhetorical question)[/b]

---

I guess I have to apologize to both you and Michelle - I hate it when poopoo attributes go astray.

I am not sure what you mean by minimizing language - another new concept I will have to deal with ..... is it something like

quote:

---

Well! If "an Inuit" who was interviewed said so...

---

The CBC out of Edmonton did a major look into seeing if the name ESKIMO was racist. If I remember correctly the conclusions was it was not, but on the border line. I suspect if the team were to be named again, something else, something less specific racial, would be used.

I lived in the semi-north (Northern Alberta) for about 20 years and had a lot of dealings with the local FN peoples - and consider many of them my personal friends even yet, although I have not been back, save for one quick trip, in years. No, they were not Inuit - they were another FN peoples in truth they called themselves Indians or referred to the more specific Chip or Cree. Sadly one of them just died, but at 93 he had lived a full life.

We often discussed racism and its attributes - as much as good friends do. They were not all that upset by the name - but again, remember they did not take it as applying to them.

The closest I could comes was that the Inuit, now they have their proper name, rather than the one applied by outside sources, do not really care what is done with term Eskimo - it is not them. (It never was, but they got tagged with it, and that was definitely racist.)

This is not rhetorical, if you have a specific place to look, kindly send it along

[b]Where have you been looking?[/b]Do you have a URL, a website, a blog or some place where I can get some definitive word - if there is a definitive word, on this? [b]Please share.[/b]

All I have at the moment is memories of a long ago radio investigation, and the experience of some friends that were not directly involved, even if FN peoples.

How about exploiting white man imagery to flog carcinogens?