Ed Do you like your cheese?

[Agatha]

What, do they need an arrow between 'coon' and the image of the racoon?

Raccoons aren't native to the UK (or Australia) so it's less likely that people would even know what the picture represented, let alone understand that a word which is almost exclusively a racial slur in the UK is a short form of the name of this strange animal in the picture.

For some reason you have introduced the idea that they would see the clarifying image as obfuscating instead. I see no reason to assume this would be true.

Why would it be a clarifying image, given that the majority of people probably wouldn't recognise the animal, and even if they did then the shortened form has never meant the animal here?

We've heard of the animal, some people might recognise it from a picture but there is simply no association here with the short form and the name of the animal.

You can't ignore the cultural references of the country in which you are trying to sell this hypothetical raccoon cheese - and a product called raccoon cheese would be assumed to be made of raccoon milk anyway, in the same manner as goat cheese.

 

[Belz...]

That was my answer.

Darat, since I know you're a rather smart fellow, I do not believe for a second that you didn't understand that I was asking for someone else's opinion, not mine.

 

[Giordano]

You're missing the point of the hypothetical, Darat. But then, hypotheticals are fine when we agree with them, and off-topic when we don't, right?

The point is that 'Coon' can have several meanings. It can refer to a racoon or, indirectly, and derogatorily, to a black person, or it can be someone's name. I'm using the first meaning as a parallel to the third one to show that the automatic assumption that the brand name relates to the second meaning is unwarranted.

Exactly. That is why it is a problem, not why it is not a problem.

First, its reference as a racial slur is not “indirect” but rather is well understood as such.

So it has at least three possible meanings, one of which is extremely demeaning and hateful. Having a 1 in 3 chance of a hateful misinterpretation for a business is not ideal.

But it is worse than a 1 in three possible bad association. The link to a name, although true, is obscure and not evident on the current packaging, so few customers will summon up that meaning. The link to an abbreviation of raccoon is also likely obscure to many, particularly Australians, and even in the USA that usage often includes an apostrophe, “ ‘coon,” and is used as a Southern dialect. Whereas for black people, at least in the USA, the use of “coon” as a hateful racial slur is widely known and is likely to be the very first definition summoned up in their brain.

I’ll ask you specifically a question I asked more generally upthread: do you think as a business decision the company should change the name or not?

 

[Belz...]

Wrong! I have said the word "coon" does not mean "raccoon" in the UK.

Soba, even if I didn't know that 'coon' originally refered to racoons, I'd immediately understand since racoon includes 'coon'. Plus, even without any picture, I would assume it was either someone's name or something else that was innocuous. Why would someone jump to the conclusion that it's a slur without any other indication?

Drawing a picture of a raccoon and an arrow to it would look like a pisstake.

Why? Because one's knee-jerk interpretation must be correct?

I gave you two already. Did you not read them?

What, the movie one?

 

[Belz...]

You said "...
What I disagree with is the claim that the name is offensive ..."

And there you are again with the unbelievable pretense of not understanding language and concepts. Did you really seriously believe that this meant no human on the planet could find it offensive, even though we already know that some people do?

When you provide some reasoning rather than merely your opinion you may convince me, but until you do repeatedly restating your opinion isn't going to change my mind.

I've provided that reasoning more than once. That you think "reasoning" is somehow in this case distinct from "opinion" is laughable. Of course you don't think so.

 

[Giordano]

https://twitter.com/shutupmikeginn/status/403359911481839617?lang=en

If the name even unintentionally causes a potential consumer to harbor a momentary negative thought about the brand, it's a terrible name. If, as a marketer, your spending any effort explaining why your brand name isn't a racial slur, you've already failed.

Exactly!

 

[Agatha]

Soba, even if I didn't know that 'coon' originally refered to racoons, I'd immediately understand since racoon includes 'coon'. Plus, even without any picture, I would assume it was either someone's name or something else that was innocuous. Why would someone jump to the conclusion that it's a slur without any other indication?

Because your familiar cultural references include a familiarity with an animal called a raccoon.

The cultural references of a person where there is little or no such familiarity with such an animal, and a history of the short form being only a racial slur and nothing else, will be entirely different. Why would we link the word for a racial slur to a picture of an unfamiliar animal, any more than we'd link the french word for wall to a picture of a lemur?

 

[Belz...]

Why would it be a clarifying image, given that the majority of people probably wouldn't recognise the animal, and even if they did then the shortened form has never meant the animal here?

Are you seriously suggesting that British people don't know what a raccoon is?

Exactly. That is why it is a problem, not why it is not a problem.

First, its reference as a racial slur is not “indirect” but rather is well understood as such.

I meant indirect in the sense that 'coon' as a slur refers originall to the animal.

So it has at least three possible meanings, one of which is extremely demeaning and hateful. Having a 1 in 3 chance of a hateful misinterpretation for a business is not ideal.

No one's denying that.

I’ll ask you specifically a question I asked more generally upthread: do you think as a business decision the company should change the name or not?

I've already answered that: It's their decision, not mine. I don't care whether they change the name. I'm merely concerned with the contention that it is reasonable to jump to the interpretation that there is a racist intent in the brand name.

 

[angrysoba]

Why would someone jump to the conclusion that it's a slur without any other indication?

Because that is the most salient meaning to most people in the UK!!!! How is that something you are still confused about?

And believe it or not, there have indeed been products with racist names.

Why? Because one's knee-jerk interpretation must be correct?

When you are advertising a product, it is best to make the first interpretation the correct one. If you slap them with something unpleasant like "Dick Cheese" you did a bad job. No point blaming the stoopid customers for their knees being all a-jerking.

What, the movie one?

Yes! And the the meatball advert one!

Do you think that maybe the childish interpretation is the one that is intended?

 

[Giordano]

Soba, even if I didn't know that 'coon' originally refered to racoons, I'd immediately understand since racoon includes 'coon'. Plus, even without any picture, I would assume it was either someone's name or something else that was innocuous. Why would someone jump to the conclusion that it's a slur without any other indication?


Why? Because one's knee-jerk interpretation must be correct?



What, the movie one?

Because it is widely understood, at least in the USA, to be a horribly offensive racial slur. The meaning that invokes the most emotion is likely to be the meaning someone sees first and fixates on.

The “knee jerk” interpretation doesn’t have to be the correct one, but it is the most important one in marketing a product. Further, even a wrong interpretation can offend many people and it is best to avoid such a possibility if only in the name of politeness.

 

[Matthew Best]

I've already answered that: It's their decision, not mine. I don't care whether they change the name. I'm merely concerned with the contention that it is reasonable to jump to the interpretation that there is a racist intent in the brand name.

Has anyone actually made that contention? I don't think that people are saying there's racist intent in the name, are they?

 

[Giordano]

Are you seriously suggesting that British people don't know what a raccoon is?



I meant indirect in the sense that 'coon' as a slur refers originall to the animal.



No one's denying that.



I've already answered that: It's their decision, not mine. I don't care whether they change the name. I'm merely concerned with the contention that it is reasonable to jump to the interpretation that there is a racist intent in the brand name.

If a word is widely used as a racial slur, and I belonged to that population, it would be reasonable for me to see that word on a box as the racial slur. I would be puzzled by the intent, but at minimum I would be made very uneasy and I would be offended that a company would choose to use that word whatever their actual intent. I would see it as highly insensitive and uncaring at best.

 

[Agatha]

Are you seriously suggesting that British people don't know what a raccoon is?

I think it's likely that most people know vaguely that it's an animal from America. Ask them to describe it or pick it out of a sheaf of pictures of other unfamiliar animals and I think you'd struggle unless the person happened to be very interested in fauna or had watched a film featuring raccoons - and the only one I can think of is a very old John Candy comedy of which I can't even remember the title.

But even to someone in the UK who could recognise the animal, the short form has absolutely no association with the animal other than the coincidence of letters. It would be as if Americans had a short form for carpets as "pets"; the word "pet" has no association to us with the word carpet other than the matching letters - it has an entirely different and separate meaning. Here in the UK, the short form is a racial slur and nothing else. It has no association with the word raccoon at all.

 

[angrysoba]

Has anyone actually made that contention? I don't think that people are saying there's racist intent in the name, are they?

I don't think anyone in this thread has, although I think Hagan is unconvinced that the name has an innocent past.

 

[angrysoba]

Here in the UK, the short form is a racial slur and nothing else. It has no association with the word raccoon at all.

Yep!

I have to disagree, slightly, with your assertion about how little-known the animal is. I remember a TV show called The Raccoons (turns out it is Canadian) but it really, really is only known as a raccoon.

An advertising campaign to sell Coon Cheese in the UK would be dead before it got started simply because of the unpleasant associations.

People can mock and say it is "silly" to associate words with their most salient meaning, but that really is boldly venturing into Straw Vulcan Territory.

 

[Distracted1]

I think it's likely that most people know vaguely that it's an animal from America. Ask them to describe it or pick it out of a sheaf of pictures of other unfamiliar animals and I think you'd struggle unless the person happened to be very interested in fauna or had watched a film featuring raccoons - and the only one I can think of is a very old John Candy comedy of which I can't even remember the title.

But even to someone in the UK who could recognise the animal, the short form has absolutely no association with the animal other than the coincidence of letters. It would be as if Americans had a short form for carpets as "pets"; the word "pet" has no association to us with the word carpet other than the matching letters - it has an entirely different and separate meaning. Here in the UK, the short form is a racial slur and nothing else. It has no association with the word raccoon at all.

I think I envy you if you don't know what one of these is:

https://www.google.com/search?q=coo...qAhUlnOAKHbfpAgwQsxh6BAgOECs&biw=1680&bih=939

 

[Agatha]

I've managed over the course of 56 years and an extensive education (though obviously none of that was in North American fauna or headwear) to avoid having heard of such a thing.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I was a Trekkie as a 13 year old. To me, "Coon" will always be the guy who wrote "Devil in the Dark", and several other episodes. There was a time I could tell you exactly which ones they were, but for now only "Devil in the Dark" stands out in my memory. I know that he was writer for some of my favorite episodes at the time.

Weren't we all Trekkies at 13?

 

[Trebuchet]

Weren't we all Trekkies at 13?

Well, I most certainly was not!

It hadn't come out yet in 1961!

Back a little more on topic, we have a company in town called "Coon Plumbing". As with the origin of the cheese, it's the owner's name. If only they didn't use that despicable creature, the raccoon, as a logo!

 

[Belz...]

Because that is the most salient meaning to most people in the UK!!!!

Rather even than a person's name? Let's concede that, in the UK at least, they wouldn't recognise Rocket Raccoon... it's still a surname. Why is the racist slur more salient?

Do you think that maybe the childish interpretation is the one that is intended?

It's a matter of context as well. This is a commercial brand name, not a joke in a comedy movie.

Has anyone actually made that contention? I don't think that people are saying there's racist intent in the name, are they?

Condeded.