[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5731

File: 1592455046944.jpg (14.26 KB, 254x254, 1:1, Uncle-Ben.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So apparently racists on 4chan /pol/ have started a campaign to erase famous images of black people from popular products.  And the sad part is that they're actually succeeding, and major companies are doing this!  It started with Aunt Jemima, and now Uncle Ben is getting targeted.  What is wrong with our country???

 No.5735

What proof do you have that this was a 4chan plot? What did 4chan hope to gain from doing this? Figures like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have been controversial for some time now, and people have been asking that they be removed for longer than 4chan has existed. Helping those causes seems antithetical to 4chan's usual antics, especially /pol/, which is known for it's connections to the alt-right and white supremacy.

 No.5737

>>5735
>What did 4chan hope to gain from doing this?
Apparently the racist /pol/ users want only white people to be on product advertising?

>What proof do you have that this was a 4chan plot?
I saw a thread on 4chan where someone was gloating about it.  Or maybe that was a double false flag and I got bamboozled?

 No.5739

>>5737
I'm pretty sure that it's a joke. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because this all seems pretty factious, but...

Figures like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have been a controversial for many years now. Their depictions are similar to depctions of slaves in the American south before the civil war. These depictions were unrealistic, showing the slaves as being happy in their position of servitude and glossing over the abuse they received at the hands of their white masters. Because figures like Aunt Jemimima and Uncle Ben are so similar to these, people have been seeking to have them removed from from these products.

If anything, I'd believe that the recent racial unrest is the cause of the removal of these characters and not 4chan. But if 4chan did in fact help to get them removed, then it would seem antithetical to their usual antics and stance on these kind of social issues. Mostly because it is a GOOD thing these characters are being removed because of their connection to racist stereotypes.

 No.5793

>>5731
I know Aunt Jemima is an enslaved Mami taking care of white children, but i didnt know that as a kid.

To me it was just a respectable upstanding citizen who happened to be black, offering part of my breakfast alongside whatever other colors of people were at my breakfast table.

I know a lot of lamentation is out there about portraying everyone as white meaning that black kids dont have any self-insert role models etc.  Maybe, if there had been a little paragraph on the bottom of the label mentioning the history of mamis, i would have not only had more respect for how capable and reliable (edit: in spite of lies like "lazy" "dumb" etc that i heard kids parrot from their parents at school) black people have been in society in our history, but also i would have had a lot more to think about regarding fairness and the real world i was finding myself in.

(Edit my point is that imagery like responsible matrons helped form my world view that black people and white people are basically just people the same as anyone else)

I also remember what happened to Little Sambo.  A little black kid in an African jungle setting, but its racist to portray a non-white person even in a context where such a person would just happen to be black.  Sambos little stories on the menu etc were no more racist or inappropriate than the Brer Rabbit stories i read at home, and now i wonder what happens when other white kids have never seen anyone not white portrayed in their coloring activity set at their family's breakfast restaurant.

I fear that stripping away Aunt Jemima only deepens the problem by further misrepresenting the truth until simply being black will be racist in and of itself, which is the inevitable absurdity of whitewashing and making it all so clean and tidy.

 No.8698


 No.8699

>>5737
>>5735
I think there is some cynical joy that you can harvest from getting companies to bend over backwards in the name of racism/sexism/homo- or transphobia.

It's a little victory in how far they can push people with this.

 No.8742

>>5793
They can be replaced with figures that have done a lot of good, like Martin Luther King. I also like your idea of a little description of history, like two or three sentencing stating what they did for people. I think that would be really good honestly, and could provide a subject to discuss over breakfast with your kids.

 No.8752

>sad

>implying this is a bad thing

 No.8773

>>5735
>What did 4chan hope to gain from doing this

Back when i was a /b/ native, the answer would have been obvious. For the lols. We did things like that because it was funny. These days, that pure ideology has largely been muddled by douchebag racist neo-nazis, so now things are a lot less clear.

I do see a certain level of very cynical humor in getting companies to go whitewashing using social justice rhetoric to effectively work against social justice ideology, or at least, to work against classical-liberalism-style multiculturalism, but i think that sort of scorched-earth social justice is very toxic. I think recognizing that characters like uncle ben and aunt jemima were important first steps in the long staircase towards racial equality is important, and that those steps, while by our current standards can be a bit jarring, are positive ones in the right direction, and that we should celebrate that moving forward, not damn them because we want to forget about the racial tones of the past. I also happen to find the white nationalists who push this sort of thing to be edgy idiots who wouldn't last 2 days without the comforts of classical liberalism they so decry. I think it takes a real special kind of idiot to bite the hand that feeds them like that.

 No.8841

Can't common sense apply here?

As somebody who's LGBT, I would find it cool if there was, say, Neal Patrick Harris cereal. Maybe it's marshmallow bits mixed in wit little corn-type things and on the cover is NPH riding a horse through a ring of fire. Sounds sweet.

I would be horrified if there was, I don't know, dead gay boy prostitute cereal. Suppose there's a corpse of somebody in a fishnet shirt on the cover, their body next to broken bottles of alcohol and used condoms. I suppose the foodstuff itself would be like... cocaine flavored?

I'm being a bit glib and extreme there, but come on... can't we accept that having a successful, well-dressed, attractive, and otherwise positively portrayed black person on a product is fundamentally different in a night-versus-day sense than having a stereotypical cartoon-ish character that looks as if a Klansman trying to promote the 'happy slave' myth did it?

 No.9311

>>8841
>>8841
>I'm being a bit glib and extreme there, but come on... can't we accept that having a successful, well-dressed, attractive, and otherwise positively portrayed black person on a product is fundamentally different in a night-versus-day sense than having a stereotypical cartoon-ish character that looks as if a Klansman trying to promote the 'happy slave' myth did it?

Cause things like aunt jemima and uncle ben are the happy slaves. It's called whitewashing. Uncle Remus from Song of the south is a good guy sure, but he's presented as a happy slave/sharecrooper. It's not offensive because it's a negative portrayal of a black person, it's offensive because it's propaganda, it's literally denial of history, whitewashing, covering up, revisionism, used to push a narrative that racism never existed and that no one has, nor ever had a good reason to fight for their rights against things like jim crow segregation.

 No.9313

File: 1621257305567.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

>>9311
The original source dictates the inspiration for Uncle Ben the character was a maître d' and the official cannon dictates that the character grew and marketed the rice.

Saying that he's a "Happy slave" is purely emotional on your part, and shows that you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist.

 No.9316


>>9313
>Saying that he's a "Happy slave" is purely emotional on your part, and shows that you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist.

Oh look a telepath, what number am I thinking of?

 No.9319

File: 1621303948789.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

>>9316
Calm down.

 No.9322

>>9319

I mean, you're the one accussing me of ...

>shows that you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist.

this hyperbole here stinks of projection and hyperbole and being triggered.

And you ignored the fact I included characters like Aunt Jemima and Unckle Remus, I was talking about the character archetype and what purpose they've historically served in the Jim Crow era south.

 No.9323

>>9322
You claimed Uncle Ben was a "happy slave".
Why are you getting so offended at being called out on that?
Why do you find it necessary as to act like that's some far-fetched presumption, when it's literally in your post?

>>9311
>"Cause things like aunt jemima and uncle ben are the happy slaves."

 No.9324

>>9323
>>9323

because of

>>9311
>Cause things like aunt jemima and uncle ben are the happy slaves
>like

 No.9325

File: 1621360126794.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

>>9322
Calm down.

>And you ignored the fact I included characters like Aunt Jemima and Unckle Remus
Isn't collectively including all of these characters and claiming they're all the same racial profiling on your part?

I was discussing Uncle Ben specifically because his background wasn't that of a "Happy Slave" as you proposed all these characters to be.

 No.9326

>>9324
If they're like something that isn't an example of a happy slave, they can't be examples of happy slaves.
So you're just destroying your own argument

 No.9331

>>9325

Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt.

You're deliberately ignoring the point I made desperately trying to grasp at some "gotcha". Plus, you accused me of "going to great lengths to see something negative that doesn't exist". I should report your original reply to me for how fucking bad faith it is.

It's doesn't matter what the origin of the original uncle ben character was when discussing why he is perceived the way he is, when he fits an archetype that existed for the sake of propagandic white-washing of history. The character's origins aren't printed on the packaging, but the use of the character has always served the same purpose of other tropes of black people who are happy in servitude to whites, hence the reason I talked about the category of characters. You're deliberately ignoring that pretty explicit part of my post. Whether or not Uncle Ben is or is not based on a real person doesn't matter when the image, without context is no different than any other archetypal character used for historical revisionist propoganda. What matters is the perception of that character. If that's not acknowledged, then any assertions about why anyone would find such an image is offensive that doesn't acknowledge that is strawmanning. It's also cowardly.

Like I said, characters of this archetype, i.e. Characters like many of the slave characters in Gone With The Wind or characters like Uncle Remus from Song of the South are not offensive to anyone because they think they're negative depictions of black people. It's offensive because it's part of a revionist narrative that served propoganda purposes that justified the race-based caste system of the deep south in the Jim Crow era. It's offensive because it's literally a part of a whole genre of fiction that served to deny history.

 No.9332

File: 1621476017212.png (164.08 KB, 900x891, 100:99, flutter whimper.png) ImgOps Google

dear friends... i have reviewed a report in this thread, and i am inclined to agree with the report, that this comment here was an ad hominem, and not in accordance with the rules here on /townhall/

i see too, the thread has taken a turn towards anger, which is understandable given the circumstances, but i hope we can take the conversation back to a more reasonable place together

>>9313
is the comment in question

please, dear friends. let us do our best to be civil. please, swan, consider this a warning.

 No.9333

>>9332
Is Brainy Griffon recieving a warning as well, considering the post here?
>>9331
>"Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt. "

I do not believe Cheerful Swan's assertion was unreasonable, and am inclined to agree with it, as Brainy did, as an objective fact, state that Uncle Ben was an example of a happy slave when he was not.

He's clearly very angry that this was pointed out to him, and likewise has very clearly let that emotion get control over him.
Cheerful Swan is the only one in this thread who made any attempt at deescalation. Brainy Griffon immediately jumped to condescension and aggression.
This is the fact of the situation.
The first response Griffon made was >>9316
>"Oh look a telepath, what number am I thinking of?"
A clear violation of /townhall/'s anti snark and mockery rule, as listed in >>3
>"2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans."
And likewise, it should be pointed out, Brainy Griffon engages in the same behavior Swan is accused of.
>>9322
>"this hyperbole here stinks of projection and hyperbole and being triggered. "
Not to mention the blatant personal attacks made as well. >>9331
>"Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt. "

Is the standard now that only who started things matter? As, that seems to go against rulings made in the past. It was my impression that rulebreaking is rulebreaking, regardless of who starts it. Has this policy changed?

Please, do explain to me how saying someone is arguing from emotion is unacceptable, but calling them an "disingenuous, hypocritical cunt" is perfectly fine, and not worthy of any kind of warning whatsoever.
Only one single party felt necessary to go to that length. This thread has taken a turn towards anger for only a single poster; Brainy Griffon.
Acting as though it is reasonable to behave like a child and call people a cunt is not liable to result in a healthy board standard.
>>9324
"Because of" does not change the statement.
"Cause things like" was irrelevant to the item being pointed to.

You made the claim that Uncle ben is a happy slave.
>"uncle ben are the happy slaves"
Whether or not you are referring to additional examples beyond Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima is irrelevant to this fact of what you stated.
This is easily confirmed by simply quoting to you exactly what you had stated.
You did, as objective fact, state that Uncle Ben was a happy slave. You added room for more items beyond Uncle Ben to be a happy slave, yes, but that does not change the fact that your statement made the claim that Uncle Ben was a happy slave.

If it is not what you meant, next time say so. Do not get needlessly angry at others, and start insulting them. Your miscommunication is your own.
Insulting others because you were not clear is immature, petty, and thoroughly unproductive. It does nothing for your argument beyond make you look like a child, who lacks the maturity to engage in arguments without throwing a temper tantrum. And I have no doubt Moony ignoring your actions, while punishing your opponent will do nothing but further strengthen this habit. A brat given what he wants will continue to behave as a brat.

 No.9334

I think you really have to dig up history for these depictions to be viewed as racist.  If you pick up a box of food that's labeled "Uncle Ben's Rice" and it has a picture of a black dude on it, I think the first assumption you're going to make is this black dude is Uncle Ben and that he invented this rice.  It would be supremely weird to even imagine this guy was a slave, much less a made up character meant to depict slaves as happy.

That said, this is all from the consumer side.  The change itself didn't come from some kind of 4chan campaign, it came from within the company.  The people who own the company are completely aware that Uncle Ben does not exist, so it's reasonable for those people to feel guilty about it and decide to change it.

 No.9335

>>9334
Pretty much how I've always seen it.
There's a pretty long stretch of time by this point, and I don't think I've ever seen any advertisements going into the history of any of the characters.

The change doesn't really do anything, and hurts nobody, at the end of the day. There's no moral complaint I think can reasonably be made about it. Most I can say is I think it's dumb, and a non-issue, but that's not a particularly strong critique.

 No.9336

File: 1621539868974.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

>>9332
Raven said more than enough as a rebuttal.

I know you only poke your head in when someone reports another poster, to which I can only assume one other person in this thread had done so.

I can report Griffon for blatant personal attacks as well, but I don't care all that much. Really it just furthers my point that they're overly emotional in their thinking of matters, and refraining from using logic.

 No.9337

>>9333
>>9333
>>9336

You're both clearly trying to use a pathetic deflection. One if you intentionally tried to provoke anger with your accusations that I was angry, and then petulantly say act like that proves your point ehen you were deflecting from the actual point I was making, about why such characters are seen as racist. It doesn't matter if Uncle Ben was a real person or not, cause that's not common knowledge, but he looks like that kind of character who has, historically, served the purpose of historical revisionism in the deep south, especially in response to the civil rights movement. Racism in America isn't always just simple xenophobia nor is it always about the klan, but it's nore complexly about cultural values that support a racial caste system (hence segregation) which needed to portray blacks as happy to be subservient to whites.

This whole threads topic was about why anyone would be offended at uncle ben when the character is like a lot of old black "uncle" characters, like uncle remus or uncle tom. Kindly, but most importantly subservient and definitely not equal to whites, and perfectly content to serve them, whether as a slave or some other subservient position.

Congratulations, you pissed me off, I am very deliberately breaking rules here to show my lack of faith in this board, the people here, and especially the staff of ponyville. And I am calling you out on your bullshit.

Tell me chain, have you stopped beating your wife today?(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.9338

>>9336
>>9336
>>9337

I mean you literally violated at least rule 2a and 2c.

I mean you literally violated

 No.9339

File: 1621588984869.png (1.37 MB, 1000x1041, 1000:1041, Storm, Stone, and Salt.png) ImgOps Google

Thread and posts within are now pending mod review. The thread will be locked until I have the free time after work, or another mod can do so.

Do not spread the issue further. If I see anyone trying to make a new thread to continue it or to try to dispute this action I will respond with short bans upon my discovery of said attempts.

Just give me time to work on this.

 No.9340

File: 1621609091395.png (163.09 KB, 500x500, 1:1, That's one way of staring ….png) ImgOps Google

Alright. I am going to lay things out as I see them, and try to get this cleared up.

>>5731
We'll start with the thread premise. I sincerely doubt that 4chan is responsible for the removal of Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima. I think this is a matter of corporations being the amoral entities they are, and seeing that they can make more money by removing depictions of African-Americans that in the modern day are seen as problematic.

As for why they're problematic, it is summarized decently, here.>>5739

>>5793
In this post, while your interpretation of the characters is charitable, for many, especially African-Americans, the depiction of these characters is too steeped in the harmful character archetype of the "happy slave."


So we get to here. >>9311
Where the examples of Uncle Ben, Uncle Remus, and Aunt Jemima are all lumped in together as "happy slaves." The sentiment is that these are all characters with their creation absolutely drenched in sentiment many in the modern day feel is racist.

Now: >>9313
Swan is pointing out a technicality that, no, Uncle Ben isn't literally an example of the Happy Slave like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Remus are. While this is technically true, I think this is ignoring that the Uncle Ben character, while debuting in 1946 well after abolition and even portrays him as the producer of the rice, it is ignoring that there is still a lot of coding in the Uncle Ben character that harkens back to the idea of the Happy Slave. In no small part due to the use of "Uncle" rather than "Mr."

This, according to my attempt to follow sources until I hit a paywall, was a tactic used by white southerners to avoid using the Mr., Ms. and Mrs. in reference to African Americans by substituting those honorifics for "Aunt" and "Uncle" instead. I would think that, given the timeframe, it is likely that the, again amoral corporation used this coding to ensure they would be able to market in places like the South and sell their product there.

So, Uncle Ben isn't literally a Happy Slave, but I think it's fair to say that he's adjacent, which is the contention that Brainy Griffon has with pointing it out in the way Swan has done here. I think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly.

I believe glossing over that coding like here >>9325
is what has Griffon upset. While Griffon is making the point less than perfectly, I think this is the point that is being attempted.

I note here: >>9331
>Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt.
>You're deliberately ignoring the point I made desperately trying to grasp at some "gotcha". Plus, you accused me of "going to great lengths to see something negative that doesn't exist". I should report your original reply to me for how fucking bad faith it is.
>It's also cowardly.
With these sentences you're just lashing out.

>You're deliberately ignoring that pretty explicit part of my post.
With this, I think you're offering a criticism of Swan's reading of your posts that could be fair if you weren't wording it to make Swan out as malicious.

The rest, the majority of the post, and notably is where you're arguing your point rather than attacking Swan directly, is fine. If the first three greentexts were omitted and the fourth rephrased to not be as inflammatory, this would be a completely fair rebuttal. The first three however, I think warrant warning you to tone it down.



Then we go through !!Fluttershy's post, and then to Raven here:

>>9333
I get where you're coming from. But leave this sort of thing to the reports, and let a mod assess.

I'd also say that while I understand that you are trying to use just what people say, I'd ask you try to take in the intent of the argument as well. Try to be charitable. Uncle Ben isn't literally the Happy Slave, but as I have said, it's perfectly reasonable to see him as having the Happy Slave coding. Instead of jumping in on someone who is in essence just technically incorrect, ask for clarification, offer your interpretation of what has been said and if that's what they mean. Rather than jumping straight into
>"Why are you getting so offended at being called out on that?"
>"Why do you find it necessary as to act like that's some far-fetched presumption, when it's literally in your post?"

If you instead gave your interpretation of what is being said, asked for clarification, and then Griffon continued to jump down your throat, then yeah, there's a problem there, but I can see where Griffon is coming from that it can seem like you're deliberately hanging on one point as, do use Griffon's word, a "gotcha." Though Griffon used that directed at Swan. I will also say I feel this applies to Swan.

>>9337
So, this is where I come in and start trying to figure this out. And, yeah. This post is pretty out of line, even more than the one I greentexted above.



So. I'm going to say that !!Fluttershy's warning to Cheerful Swan stands as is. You're right that Uncle Ben isn't literally in the Happy Slave archetype, but I think it's certainly fair to see Happy Slave coding in his design.

To Magnificent Raven, I'm giving you a warning, I think you're strawmanning Griffon. You need to try to be charitable to the other posters here and the arguments they're attempting to make. If you think there's a problem, report it and let the mods handle it.

Brainy Griffon. Just stop attacking them. Because of this last post, I'm banning you from /townhall/ for one week. After this, please, tone it down, make your points. Attack arguments, not people.



Furthermore. I'm going to keep the thread locked for the duration of said ban. I will unlock the thread around 10:00am CST on May 28, around when Griffon's ban is finished.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]