• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

jimbob said:
We know he was an invented character.

Who happened to fit with the stereotypes of a black servant who was too old to be called "boy".







He was a fiction.

So the fact that he's also an offensive fiction is enough.
Click to expand...

And we definitely know all of this? It's more fact than speculation?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
There's no big deal with any of it, to be quite honest.



If the supposedly racist connotations of Uncle Ben reside in the naming of the brand itself, then ridding the smiling black man on the packet won't change that, will it?



Will Uncle Ben's genuinely take the chance to rename an already established brand name, though? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Sum of the parts and all that.
 
Darat said:
Lots of marketing research has been going on, I literally between making posts in this thread had an email and done a survey from Samsung Smartlab.
Click to expand...

It's always going on, but my comment was more in relation to Uncle Ben's, I sincerely doubt that they've been asking the public about whether they find the whole notion of the mascot to be offensive, of course, I could be totally wrong, I've just seen no evidence to suggest that they have, and like I said earlier, companies aren't exactly shy about letting people know they've done the research.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
There's no big deal with any of it, to be quite honest.

If the supposedly racist connotations of Uncle Ben reside in the naming of the brand itself, then ridding the smiling black man on the packet won't change that, will it?

Will Uncle Ben's genuinely take the chance to rename an already established brand name, though? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

It's the combination.

And the fact it was made up in a time when casual racism (and even non-casual) was acceptable.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I don't really get that, though, I mean I get what you're saying, but I don't follow the logic in the idea that removing the black man makes "Uncle Ben" less unpleasant a name for the brand when the supposedly racial problem with said brand is the name itself.



Unless they just stick Peter Parker's uncle on the packet and have the new slogan be: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, enjoy as part of a balanced diet.
Click to expand...
Only seems to be you that has concluded the problem is the name alone.

It would appear the problem is the name combined with the current image (and that image has changed over the years).
 
There's a pretty low ceiling on how many pages of whining about something "not being a big deal" you can make.

If it's not a big deal... why is this a big deal?
 
jimbob said:
It's the combination.

And the fact it was made up in a time when casual racism (and even non-casual) was acceptable.
Click to expand...

I guess so, although as I've already mentioned, if that's the case, then the name itself is also potentially damaging to the brand as far as their customers go. It's not like people are going to forget that Uncle Ben happened to be a black man by simply removing the image of said black man from all packaging.
 
"You can't fix everything, so why bother fixing anything."

Taking the stereotypical domestic black figure off the packing shows they are at least trying. This ain't that complicated.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
It's always going on, but my comment was more in relation to Uncle Ben's, I sincerely doubt that they've been asking the public about whether they find the whole notion of the mascot to be offensive, of course, I could be totally wrong, I've just seen no evidence to suggest that they have, and like I said earlier, companies aren't exactly shy about letting people know they've done the research.
Click to expand...
You've definitely got that wrong, most market research by companies is held by the companies to be highly confidential and commercially valuable.

Are you thinking about astrieked adverts with the small print that says "23 out of the 45" people we asked agreed skin was more biosparkling"?
 
Darat said:
Only seems to be you that has concluded the problem is the name alone.

It would appear the problem is the name combined with the current image (and that image has changed over the years).
Click to expand...

Come on, surely you can see that the racist connotations supposedly stem from him being regarded as "uncle" while also happening to be black.

Taking the black man away doesn't eliminate the stereotype that others have spoken about regarding the name and its history regarding black slaves.
 
Darat said:
You've definitely got that wrong, most market research by companies is held by the companies to be highly confidential and commercially valuable.

Are you thinking about astrieked adverts with the small print that says "23 out of the 45" people we asked agreed skin was more biosparkling"?
Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if Uncle Ben's had done the research and not bothered to mention it to help make their changes seem more acceptable to the paying public.

Here at Uncle Ben's, we've asked you, our valued customers, what you feel about how our product is presented is the sort of thing I'd imagine they'd be putting up on Facebook in an instant to connect with people and show them that they're progressive.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"You can't fix everything, so why bother fixing anything."

Taking the stereotypical domestic black figure off the packing shows they are at least trying. This ain't that complicated.
Click to expand...

Is literally not what I'm saying, Joe, but again, you seem to have a shockingly splendid ability to make general assumptions based on your own fragile anxieties about people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's a pretty low ceiling on how many pages of whining about something "not being a big deal" you can make.

If it's not a big deal... why is this a big deal?
Click to expand...

Look around you, Joe, this is a forum. Not everything is a big deal, it's just that all we do here is discuss things and debate about them. Welcome to the ISF, considering you apparently spend many hours on here posting comments, you seem oblivious as to the reasons why.
 
"But this is a forum... therefore apologetics" is an old, tired argument.

Even here you have to have a point beyond "I want there to be a problem I can argue about."
 
JoeMorgue said:
"But this is a forum... therefore apologetics" is an old, tired argument.

Even here you have to have a point beyond "I want there to be a problem I can argue about."
Click to expand...

And even here you insist on being outraged by my correct use of the forum. If the forum isn't about discussing and debating topics, then it's an echo chamber where the very premise of posting topics is instantly made redundant as far as further discussion goes.

If that's the case, every thread created should just be an OP, followed by stock replies of "I agree" or "I disagree", rinse and repeat.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Come on, surely you can see that the racist connotations supposedly stem from him being regarded as "uncle" while also happening to be black.



Taking the black man away doesn't eliminate the stereotype that others have spoken about regarding the name and its history regarding black slaves.
Click to expand...
I've no idea how they are going to weigh up whatever measures they are going to take. I suspect that the name "Uncle Ben's" has more value for the brand than the image of the black man so if they can "get away" with losing the image that is the route they will take. Certainly there is no racial context to an uncle called Ben. The issue only seems to arise when it is combined with the image and the origin of the original marketing idea.
 
Darat said:
I've no idea how they are going to weigh up whatever measures they are going to take. I suspect that the name "Uncle Ben's" has more value for the brand than the image of the black man so if they can "get away" with losing the image that is the route they will take. Certainly there is no racial context to an uncle called Ben. The issue only seems to arise when it is combined with the image and the origin of the original marketing idea.
Click to expand...

Which was what I was saying. They're never going to risk losing their established position in the market by changing their name, and from what I can tell, the name is where the racial connotations stem from, as the image of a black man, in and of itself, is not a problem. Simply removing the black man isn't doing much in the way of improving that supposedly racial problem, as far as I can tell.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's a pretty low ceiling on how many pages of whining about something "not being a big deal" you can make.

If it's not a big deal... why is this a big deal?
Click to expand...
It's called discussion and it is happening on a discussion forum.


Joe, for how many pages are you going to whine about whether this is a "big deal" for some posters, or not. I think you are good for at least a dozen more.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I'd be shocked if Uncle Ben's had done the research and not bothered to mention it to help make their changes seem more acceptable to the paying public.



Here at Uncle Ben's, we've asked you, our valued customers, what you feel about how our product is presented is the sort of thing I'd imagine they'd be putting up on Facebook in an instant to connect with people and show them that they're progressive.
Click to expand...
Did you not read their statement? The meat was

".... As we listen to the voices of consumers, especially in the Black community, and to the voices of our Associates worldwide, we recognize that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben's brand, including its visual brand identity, which we will do....."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom