If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
We already talked about Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, Land O Lakes , etc. a few weeks ago. There really wasn't any large scale organized effort to boycott those products. Companies just proactively did the rebranding.
Varying results afterwards. Land O' Lakes butter sales actually went UP the year after they ditched the Indian maiden. Aunt Jemima's pancake mix dropped double digits because they didn't just erase Aunt Jemima they changed the name of the product to Pearl Milling Company brand pancake mix. Which, believe it or not, was the original name of the product before introducing Aunt Jemima. Uncle Ben became Ben's Original and dropped the picture. Doesn't seem like their sales took a major dive.
There was no real organized conservative counterreaction either because in the end people don't identify with rice or butter the same way they do with beer. I know people who will drink nothing but Bud or Miller. I know no one who proudly declares that they only eat rice from Uncle Ben.
We already talked about Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, Land O Lakes , etc. a few weeks ago. There really wasn't any large scale organized effort to boycott those products
There didn't have to be, because the corporate management was already on board with the concept. But there was pressure to remove Aunt Jemima for years. I was hearing squawking about Aunt Jemima from Leftists in the early 90s, albeit in a much more confined space (academia). Loony academia has gone mainstream since then though. They didn't randomly come up with the idea back in 2020.
I don't care about sales for those brands. It's just telling that Democrats think of old school minority mascots as "offensive" no matter what kind of image they portray.
While no nationally organized boycott, all of those brands had received much criticism and backlash over their names over the years.
Trader Joe’s received a petition with thousands of names to change the name Trader Jose (Mexican products) and Trader Ming (Chinese products). They later reversed course and decided to keep the name.
Anyway, the companies were weathering the backlash but became nervous that the Floyd riots would cause further or increased activism so when one changed a name, it started a domino effect with the others.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
Yeah...we should all be ok with transgender swimsuits with crotched out bottoms should be on full display at a family store...very wholesome...I'm glad CGVT is all for the perverting of children...
Yeah...we should all be ok with transgender swimsuits with crotched out bottoms should be on full display at a family store...very wholesome...I'm glad CGVT is all for the perverting of children...
Yup. CGVT has no problem with toddler and baby clothes that promote transgenderism.and homosexuality.
CGVT -- make sure to get this onesie for your grandkids!
Not all cancel culture is created equal. I'll debate the merits of cancelling toddler gay pride clothes over the merits of cancelling Aunt Jemima or someone who told a racist joke 30 years ago any day. I'd choose not having cancel culture over all of this, but that's not one of my choices now. That debate is over, so people like me are going to play by the game's new rules.
Tweet
Comment