I honestly don’t know why “it’s bad to show”. Like, if the person on the packet isn’t a white man, it’s bad.
We had these growing up in Australia…
Like, that I get now, but it’s worth pointing out no kid in Australia obviously even knew what a “redskin” was. Hell, I thought Comanches and Apaches were snakes because of the Huey Cobra.
Wait a second… Oh my god, just realised a Blackhawk isn’t named after a hawk, this is also a native American peoples. Like the NHL team, duh. And that’s my wife’s second fav team because she thinks it’s a cool logo and “I’m glad they’re repping the native Americans.”
See?
Anyway, I strayed from my point. I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful. If there’s a dark history, no one’s researching that, they’re more interested in other things like buttering some toast and then deciding to put a documentary about native Americans on because of the cool image.
Maybe if your only reference to a culture is an insulting one, they’d rather you not have an impression at all. Though I dunno much about Australia. That bunch of bogans seem to like people to think bad about them.
I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful.
This would be true if what you were seeing was culturally representative. “Redskin” is a racial slur and the images on that package are racist caricatures. All of it was created by white men, using Native Americans as mascot for their product.
These images were not created by or for Native Americans, and they are racist and insulting.
The most disrespectful thing you could do is to keep using images like this. The most disingenuous thing you could do is argue that they earnestly represent the cultures they depict.
I don’t see how that’s racism. There’s no discrimination of traits, assertion of superiority or inferiority of races, and it’s actually being used to help sell a product and brand identity which requires.positivity.and.attraction from others.
Culturally inappropriate? Sure, could be. That’s up to that culture to determine and advise though. But we know the artist was also of the same group of indigenlus people.
The artist responsible for redesigning the Land O’Lakes logo in 1954 and creating the iconic image of the Native American woman was Patrick DesJarlait. DesJarlait was an Ojibwe artist from Red Lake, Minnesota, and his design has become closely associated with the Land O’Lakes brand.
Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.
I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.
As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.
Unless you’re talking specifically to an anti racist audience, you really gotta explain what revisionist history mammy meant for those who want to whitewash the antebellum south.
THAT is absolutely the same “point” I made when I first saw it?!!
Ok, so, the person was bad to show, I guess, but now it’s an even better analogy to what the settlers did…
I honestly don’t know why “it’s bad to show”. Like, if the person on the packet isn’t a white man, it’s bad.
We had these growing up in Australia…
Like, that I get now, but it’s worth pointing out no kid in Australia obviously even knew what a “redskin” was. Hell, I thought Comanches and Apaches were snakes because of the Huey Cobra.
Wait a second… Oh my god, just realised a Blackhawk isn’t named after a hawk, this is also a native American peoples. Like the NHL team, duh. And that’s my wife’s second fav team because she thinks it’s a cool logo and “I’m glad they’re repping the native Americans.”
See?
Anyway, I strayed from my point. I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful. If there’s a dark history, no one’s researching that, they’re more interested in other things like buttering some toast and then deciding to put a documentary about native Americans on because of the cool image.
This is pretty much how I feel about it. Heck my ancestry is French and I’m still salty as hell over Pepe LePew vanishing from existence.
Maybe if your only reference to a culture is an insulting one, they’d rather you not have an impression at all. Though I dunno much about Australia. That bunch of bogans seem to like people to think bad about them.
This would be true if what you were seeing was culturally representative. “Redskin” is a racial slur and the images on that package are racist caricatures. All of it was created by white men, using Native Americans as mascot for their product.
These images were not created by or for Native Americans, and they are racist and insulting.
The most disrespectful thing you could do is to keep using images like this. The most disingenuous thing you could do is argue that they earnestly represent the cultures they depict.
I don’t see how that’s racism. There’s no discrimination of traits, assertion of superiority or inferiority of races, and it’s actually being used to help sell a product and brand identity which requires.positivity.and.attraction from others.
Culturally inappropriate? Sure, could be. That’s up to that culture to determine and advise though. But we know the artist was also of the same group of indigenlus people.
Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.
I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.
As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.
Unless you’re talking specifically to an anti racist audience, you really gotta explain what revisionist history mammy meant for those who want to whitewash the antebellum south.