I tracked down that the lower image is by an artist. I don’t know if he was using actual Crocker and Aunt Jemima advertisements, or simply what he imagined they would be like. But, given other historical ads I have seen, I would not be shocked if these are quite similar.
I can’t even type or say Aunt Jemima with a straight face. To me, the brand and name drip with all this negative imagery of the happy house slave and mammy taking care of the white folks and putting a shit-eating grin on just to survive or mask her true feelings. Ugh. I didn’t ask to inherit America’s racial history.
The Aunt Jemima picture has changed over the years but the negative imagery still exist. Mammie is another word for mother. These women were considered to be a part of the family but in the lower hierarchy. These mammies where slaves that cared for the white children.
Mammies are now called nannies like in the movie, The Help. Quaker Oats recently changed the picture of “Aunt Jemima” pancake syrup bottle to remove the racially insensitive mammy image.
I think that Aunt Jemima is one of many products that we can question why are they still on the market when their imagery is so negative.
It’s interesting to consider how different mascots/brand images have come under fire in recent years, such as the Cleveland Indians (MLB), Washington Redskins (NFL). A Business Insider article even mentions the trademark leprechaun on the Lucky Charms box as epitomizing certain Irish stereotypes and offending some. From what I’ve read and seen online, Quaker Oats has continually changed the Aunt Jemima image and has gone from imagery and marketing that was clearly extremely offensive to something much less-so now. The negative feelings and emotions it creates still remain for some people, however, which makes me wonder whether companies/organizations simply don’t care about having an offensive brand/mascot if it’s already been established into the marketplace.
Do you think these examples that you have given are similar to the Aunt Jemima symbol? If we as consumers continue to patronize and purchase these items than I don’t think it will ever change. I appreciate your insight on the picture.
In some ways I think the examples I gave are similar to the Aunt Jemima symbol, as they each contain offensive stereotypes, however in other ways I believe they are different. Personally, I feel as thought the original Aunt Jemima brand took it to a new level of disrespect with the use of the dialogue bubbles appealing to the “Mammy” archetype. Do you feel the imagery they use is still offensive or is it more about to the feelings that the imagery still brings about?
And we are also not talking about the Betty Crocker image. Why did the artist pair them? Did he see them as similar?
Betty Crocker also reflects what companies think consumers want or value, doesn’t it? I am less sure, but i think Betty Crocker projects this wholesome image of the always-in-the-kitchen mom/wife who wants nothing more then to make sweet things for you.
In the back-and-forth of consumer and producer, who is driving what?
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 
Ok, what is going on here? No comments? Are people afraid to enter into a conversation about race, gender, class, food, and images of home comfort?
Let’s go. Confront our shared cultural history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tracked down that the lower image is by an artist. I don’t know if he was using actual Crocker and Aunt Jemima advertisements, or simply what he imagined they would be like. But, given other historical ads I have seen, I would not be shocked if these are quite similar.
I can’t even type or say Aunt Jemima with a straight face. To me, the brand and name drip with all this negative imagery of the happy house slave and mammy taking care of the white folks and putting a shit-eating grin on just to survive or mask her true feelings. Ugh. I didn’t ask to inherit America’s racial history.
Why does the brand even still exist?
LikeLike
The Aunt Jemima picture has changed over the years but the negative imagery still exist. Mammie is another word for mother. These women were considered to be a part of the family but in the lower hierarchy. These mammies where slaves that cared for the white children.
Mammies are now called nannies like in the movie, The Help. Quaker Oats recently changed the picture of “Aunt Jemima” pancake syrup bottle to remove the racially insensitive mammy image.
I think that Aunt Jemima is one of many products that we can question why are they still on the market when their imagery is so negative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting to consider how different mascots/brand images have come under fire in recent years, such as the Cleveland Indians (MLB), Washington Redskins (NFL). A Business Insider article even mentions the trademark leprechaun on the Lucky Charms box as epitomizing certain Irish stereotypes and offending some. From what I’ve read and seen online, Quaker Oats has continually changed the Aunt Jemima image and has gone from imagery and marketing that was clearly extremely offensive to something much less-so now. The negative feelings and emotions it creates still remain for some people, however, which makes me wonder whether companies/organizations simply don’t care about having an offensive brand/mascot if it’s already been established into the marketplace.
LikeLike
Do you think these examples that you have given are similar to the Aunt Jemima symbol? If we as consumers continue to patronize and purchase these items than I don’t think it will ever change. I appreciate your insight on the picture.
LikeLike
In some ways I think the examples I gave are similar to the Aunt Jemima symbol, as they each contain offensive stereotypes, however in other ways I believe they are different. Personally, I feel as thought the original Aunt Jemima brand took it to a new level of disrespect with the use of the dialogue bubbles appealing to the “Mammy” archetype. Do you feel the imagery they use is still offensive or is it more about to the feelings that the imagery still brings about?
LikeLike
And we are also not talking about the Betty Crocker image. Why did the artist pair them? Did he see them as similar?
Betty Crocker also reflects what companies think consumers want or value, doesn’t it? I am less sure, but i think Betty Crocker projects this wholesome image of the always-in-the-kitchen mom/wife who wants nothing more then to make sweet things for you.
In the back-and-forth of consumer and producer, who is driving what?
LikeLike