The Racist left think that black people should not appear on food packaging

[Mountain Man]

Same with all of these attempts to have American Indian names removed from schools and sports teams. The Indians themselves actually aren't bothered by it and appreciate that their heritage is being remembered. It's just white liberals who are upset.

[Mountain Man]

Alternate facts is legitimate although a clumsy phrase. They are the sort of things that one side might leave out to paint a false picture.

For instance, if I were to say that A threatened to kill B, that A owns a firearm of the same caliber used to kill B and that witnesses say someone of A's size and build was seen running away right after the gun shot, I paint a pretty damning picture of A being guilty of killing B.

But if I left out the "alternate facts" that A was was a thousand miles away where dozens of people saw and spoke with him at the time of the shooting we suddenly have a very different picture.

Now you can still believe that the truth is that A shot B regardless of the evidence but you would be choosing your truth over the facts.

Real world example: CBS News recently ran the headline, "Police shoot and kill brother of black man found hanged in park" which gives the impression that they shot him without cause. The "alternative facts" are that he opened fire on the police, and they were simply returning fire.

[rogue06]

Same with all of these attempts to have American Indian names removed from schools and sports teams. The Indians themselves actually aren't bothered by it and appreciate that their heritage is being remembered. It's just white liberals who are upset.

In more than a couple of instances the local tribes, after who the teams were named, vigorously objected.

[rogue06]

In more than a couple of instances the local tribes, after who the teams were named, vigorously objected.

[Whateverman]

Certainly the far left is dragging the left further left.
If it is declared Aunt Jemima represents racism, no one will say otherwise. Whether Quaker Oats is left or not is irrelevant.

Considering that Quaker Oats is the subject of this thread, and that you brought up the topic of the far left doing things you don't agree with - you're implying that Quaker Oats is far left.

You understand how implications work, right?

[Darth Ovious]

Considering that Quaker Oats is the subject of this thread, and that you brought up the topic of the far left doing things you don't agree with - you're implying that Quaker Oats is far left.

You understand how implications work, right?

Sorry to nit-pick and I admit I am being a bit pedantic here. Although Quaker Oats is part of the discussion the other brands who are changing their brands are also part of it. Quaker Oats aren't doing this in a Vacuum they are doing it because of certain voices putting pressure on them to change things.

[JimL]

I apparently don't read the racist sources you do, so I never saw that.

Well perhaps you should, it might prevent you from saying the ignorant things you say..

http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/primat...ey-photoshops/

[Leonhard]

So apparently they are going to replace the logo for the syrup brand Aunt Jemima because they think black people are offensive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53083664



Now other brands are following suit. Uncle Ben's, Mrs Butterworth and Cream of Wheat have made announcements that they too are going to be reviewing their packaging also. The message I am being told here by the left is that they think black people should not be allowed on food packaging. I don't see anybody trying to cancel Aunt Bessie, but then again she is white and according to the left having white people on packaging is fine.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45767[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45768[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45769[/ATTACH]

These companies are they owned by minorities or by white people? If they're owned by white people then having those logos could be considered a racist example of blacksploitation, but if they're owned by minorities then it is not an act of racism to decide not to have those logos.

In neither case is it an example of racism.

[Ronson]

These companies are they owned by minorities or by white people? If they're owned by white people then having those logos could be considered a racist example of blacksploitation, but if they're owned by minorities then it is not an act of racism to decide not to have those logos.

In neither case is it an example of racism.

Aunt Jemima is owned by Quaker Oats, which is owned by Pepsico, which is owned by shareholders of any color.

[Leonhard]

Aunt Jemima is owned by Quaker Oats, which is owned by Pepsico, which is owned by shareholders of any color.

There's no board of directors? The decision to do this materialized out of thin air and was executed by nobody?

[Darth Ovious]

These companies are they owned by minorities or by white people? If they're owned by white people then having those logos could be considered a racist example of blacksploitation, but if they're owned by minorities then it is not an act of racism to decide not to have those logos.

In neither case is it an example of racism.

Well I wouldn't have a problem of a business owned by a black person that used normal images of white people on their brands. You also have to remember that when brands become big enough it becomes irrelevant if they are owned by a white or black person. They are selling their brand to everybody. If EA Sports are going to release a basketball game for instance then it only makes sense if the game box has a picture of a black basketball player on front of it, because a lot of NBA players are black. Doesn't matter if the person who owns EA Sports is black or white. Using this same logic then having a black person on the front of a food package is ok too since black people also eat food just like any person. They are not exempt from the day to day chores of making meals and having something to eat.

[Leonhard]

Well I wouldn't have a problem of a business owned by a black person that used normal images of white people on their brands.

That would also not be an instance of racism. It might still be inappropriate (depending on what it was) but it wouldn't be racist.

You also have to remember that when brands become big enough it becomes irrelevant if they are owned by a white or black person.

I disagree with that, but regardless I don't get why you're upset with the board of directors deciding that the image doesn't fit with the signs of the times. You might consider it sad that it is leaving, but I can't see how it is racist. I have no attachments to these images.

[Cow Poke]

I think the point is being missed..... many things that seemed perfectly acceptable are all of a sudden being targeted in this new round of "PC on Crack".

[Leonhard]

I think the point is being missed..... many things that seemed perfectly acceptable are all of a sudden being targeted in this new round of "PC on Crack".

The question is whether this was perfectly acceptable. I'd be very comfortable if the people who have benefited from this label, earned money from it etc... are all of the same minority as the one depicted. However if they're almost all white, then it is a clear example of racism in action. The question wouldn't be whether or not it was racist, just whether or not it is racism we'd be okay with. They might decide that the times have changed, and people have been growing increasingly sensitive to issues like that.

[Cow Poke]

The question is whether this was perfectly acceptable.

OK, technically, that wording might not be best, but there wasn't this "mad purge". People weren't "on the war path" looking to be offended by the strangest things.

I'd be very comfortable if the people who have benefited from this label, earned money from it etc... are all of the same minority as the one depicted.

Think about it, Leon --- that's racist. Only certain races can do certain things in commerce?

However if they're almost all white, then it is a clear example of racism in action.

No, my fiance board at the Church is "all white" and we fund the mission that deals almost exclusively with minorities.

The question wouldn't be whether or not it was racist, just whether or not it is racism we'd be okay with. They might decide that the times have changed, and people have been growing increasingly sensitive to issues like that.

I love ya, brother.