Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Bikewer]

Here in St. Louis, they are now after.... St. Louis. The Large, prominent statue of Louis IX on the prominent Art Hill in Forest Park.
Why? Well, Louis was anti-Semitic, it seems. Of course, Europe was pretty much anti-Semitic 600 years ago....

The folks pushing for the statue to be removed also want the city to change it’s name. Apparently, it’s a very small group.....
Working here at “Wash U.”.... I’m wondering when our statue of the “father of our country” will be targeted. Slaveholder, you know.

 

[Mike!]

Here in St. Louis, they are now after.... St. Louis. The Large, prominent statue of Louis IX on the prominent Art Hill in Forest Park.
Why? Well, Louis was anti-Semitic, it seems. Of course, Europe was pretty much anti-Semitic 600 years ago....

The folks pushing for the statue to be removed also want the city to change it’s name. Apparently, it’s a very small group.....
Working here at “Wash U.”.... I’m wondering when our statue of the “father of our country” will be targeted. Slaveholder, you know.

Once again, how long before the New American Taliban decide it's time to subject Mount Rushmore to cannon fife?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Here in St. Louis, they are now after.... St. Louis. The Large, prominent statue of Louis IX on the prominent Art Hill in Forest Park.
Why? Well, Louis was anti-Semitic, it seems. Of course, Europe was pretty much anti-Semitic 600 years ago....

The folks pushing for the statue to be removed also want the city to change it’s name. Apparently, it’s a very small group.....
Working here at “Wash U.”.... I’m wondering when our statue of the “father of our country” will be targeted. Slaveholder, you know.

hard to imagine why America would tolerate a statue to a monarch in any public space. We fought a war over it, we don't like kings.

 

[Earthborn]

Her image has been tweaked at least twice before...

Maybe Quaker should bring back the old version and claim they never thought of her as a black person, but rather as someone covered in soot. Seems to work for most of us Hollanders.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Avoid Wikipedia for this specific issue because it has not caught up with current events. Instead browse the various news articles about this so that you can read more specifically about what is going on right now.

The problem is that the name "Uncle Ben" is being associated with slavery in America. It doesn't matter that the use of Uncle is common throughout the world. It doesn't matter if YOU or anyone else can't figure out why it has to be eliminated. This is specifically an American issue directly related to the history of slavery in America and how modern culture deals with it.

Brits are going to say goodbye to Uncle Ben because of what's happening in America.

Brits being outraged over packets of rice and various flavoured sauces because of something going on in America... Can't say I'm shocked!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'd guess that because Aunt Jemima had the bandanna on her head before the rebranding with pearl earrings, it had a decidedly racist vibe, and Uncle Ben has a nearly identical portrayal (smiling up in the corner of the box in a circle), so it smacks of the same vibe.

I guess, but if that's the case then what isn't racist? Society is obsessed with race to the point where Uncle bloody Ben is being black-balled (is black-ball still good?) We're nowhere near being unified as people, we're as divided by race as we ever where.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

And....I have never heard of "Uncle" being associated with slavery. I can't say that I've paid close attention to all contemporary sources to figure out how people talked about slaves, but if "uncle" and "aunt" have any connection to slavery, I somehow have missed it.

The closest thing I know is an "Uncle Tom" is a black person who accepts white supremacy. That's from the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which I have not read, and I suspect darned few Americans ever have read, although we would recognize that it is, indeed, a book about a black guy referred to as "Uncle Tom". I had always assumed that it was because the title character was named Tom, and was someone's uncle, and he had a cabin.

ETA: I've seen similar things happen many times. There is some phrase, word, picture, or whatever that is in common use, and someone invents a "history" behind the phrase, and declares that the phrase now means whatever the history implies, and further use of it is now taboo. It doesn't even matter if the history is entirely fictitious.

We saw an example earlier in this thread. Black Boy Tavern in Bristol, named because it was near the slave market, except that there was never a slave market, and it was actually a reference to King Charles II. Never mind that. Because it could be taken as racist, it's racist. QED.

Frankly, the Uncle Joe of Mint Balls fame is far too white, IMO, very cocky-looking with all of his many spearmint-scented privileges. I vote for a whitewash of Uncle Joe's Mint Balls.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods. They don't represent a cause or a team or a movement. They represent some food brands. They're names and images that huge corporations designed and used to manipulate you. Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?

I can't say I care too much beyond it being absolutely ridiculous and hilarious, but it's more of a sign of how even misplaced outrage is something we're now addicted to as a society, anything to bolster yet more guilt upon people with nothing better to do with their lives than simply be outraged about stuff and spend days talking about it on the internet.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

This is my view when the brand stuff comes up. Never mind logos these ruthless manufacturers or as likely these days license holders are concerned about what will sell or sometimes what will lose the least sales.

There are generation rifts in the UK from the renaming of Marathon and Opal fruits, these are important!

Ah, Opal Fruit days! Oh my days. Back when Snickers was known as Opal Fruits! - Razz Prince (Phoneshop)

 

[wareyin]

I can't say I care too much beyond it being absolutely ridiculous and hilarious, but it's more of a sign of how even misplaced outrage is something we're now addicted to as a society, anything to bolster yet more guilt upon people with nothing better to do with their lives than simply be outraged about stuff and spend days talking about it on the internet.

I can't say I've seen anyone outraged over it, to be honest. A company is picking a different name for their product because they think the current one might not be as popular as they want. Oh, the horrors!

 

[RedStapler]

..

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I can't say I've seen anyone outraged over it, to be honest. A company is picking a different name for their product because they think the current one might not be as popular as they want. Oh, the horrors!

The very fact that Uncle Ben is apparently causing enough outrage to be removed from a packet of rice is exactly what I'd consider to be called outrage. If there was no outrage, it wouldn't be an issue, fella.

 

[William Parcher]

I can't say I've seen anyone outraged over it, to be honest. A company is picking a different name for their product because they think the current one might not be as popular as they want. Oh, the horrors!

Or maybe Quaker Oats is thinking that a boycott would be inevitable and so they are doing this to prevent widespread outrage against their company.

You might think that boycotted corporations are just simply "not as popular". That was a phrase that you used above.

 

[William Parcher]

The very fact that Uncle Ben is apparently causing enough outrage to be removed from a packet of rice is exactly what I'd consider to be called outrage. If there was no outrage, it wouldn't be an issue, fella.

I look at the removal of Uncle Ben as being prevention of outrage.

It could be looked at as the result of quite obvious outrage and that is the current cultural revolution going on in America.

 

[wareyin]

The very fact that Uncle Ben is apparently causing enough outrage to be removed from a packet of rice is exactly what I'd consider to be called outrage. If there was no outrage, it wouldn't be an issue, fella.

So you've assumed this was caused by outrage, and are using that assumption to prove there is outrage? Hilarious!

 

[wareyin]

Or maybe Quaker Oats is thinking that a boycott would be inevitable and so they are doing this to prevent widespread outrage against their company.

You might think that boycotted corporations are just simply "not as popular". That was a phrase that you used above.

Or maybe the lizard people overlords ordered Quaker Oats to find a reason to change the brand image to a more lizardly one.

Both explanations are equally plausible, so who really knows?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"buT dA brANDs aRe onlY dOIng iT beCAUse of tEH CONTOversey!!!!!"

*Shrugs* I'm okay with that, not going to cost me any sleep.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

So you've assumed this was caused by outrage, and are using that assumption to prove there is outrage? Hilarious!

Nah, they're just removing the cartoonish image of Uncle Ben from rice packets because it has a calming influence on people.

People who stop in aisles in supermarkets, look at the smiling face of Uncle Ben staring at them from a sweet and sour sauce jar and immediately think of slavery are the same kind of people who play Grand Theft Auto and go out to punch their neighbour before stealing his car.

Uncle bloody Ben.

 

[William Parcher]

Or maybe the lizard people overlords ordered Quaker Oats to find a reason to change the brand image to a more lizardly one.

Both explanations are equally plausible, so who really knows?

So then a lizard people theory is just as likely to come from a Board of Directors meeting as would be a prevention of boycott theory?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

"buT dA brANDs aRe onlY dOIng iT beCAUse of tEH CONTOversey!!!!!"

*Shrugs* I'm okay with that, not going to cost me any sleep.

But why does it cost some people sleep either way? lol.

Everyone's saying well it doesn't bother me...

It shouldn't bother you, regardless.