Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

Anonymous
Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

Somewhere around 2020, there was a snowball effect among some well known food brands which were known to tout racist characters as part of their logos. In many a public tweet, these companies announced that they magically figured this all out out of nowhere, and decided to change their brands to "reflect their new found understanding of these sensitive cultural issues."

NEWS ALERT! Let's be clear. Companies don't care if their products are racist or not (and many of them were, let's be clear on that, you can look into their long sorted history and advertisements)...in actuality they care about one thing, and one thing only, MONEY! Yes, if the masses get a whiff of their not so secret racist mascots and logos and start, say connecting and organizing in Facebook groups and Twitter lounges to boycott said products and take their argument public, all of a sudden, 'they care, and care a lot'.

Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

They're donating to BLM and starting programs to help impoverished kids in South America because MONEY! In this pandemic era, companies cannot afford to keep ignoring the will of their customers (MONEY) unless they intend to join the long hard march to the bankruptcy office, so they acquiesce because PR nightmares hurt their pockets. They then masterfully paint themselves as the caring, thoughtful companies they want you to believe they always have been (although many have had these logos for decades plus long after the so called "we'll allow it" racist historical points in time cutoff).

HISTORY LESSON: Writer Michael Twitty says "Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and “Rastus,” the Cream of Wheat man, were actually meant to be stand-ins for what white people viewed as a generation of formerly enslaved Black cooks now lost to them. As mascots, they were designed to be perceived by those white people as nothing more — and to have wanted to be nothing more — than loyal servants, in a frightening time of growing Black equality and empowerment." (You can research this information for yourselves and please do).

Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

The [2020] outcry against Aunt Jemima was not the first time it has come under fire. A 2015 New York Times op-ed titled “Can We Please, Finally, Get Rid of ‘Aunt Jemima’?” described the logo as an “outgrowth of Old South plantation nostalgia and romance grounded in an idea about the ‘mammy,’ a devoted and submissive servant.” In 2017, a Change.org petition launched by the husband of restaurateur B. Smith called on the company to change the Aunt Jemima branding to that of the lifestyle icon. Quaker attempted to update the breakfast brand over the years, including removing the kerchief from the Aunt Jemima figure in 1989. But [in 2020] the company acknowledged it had not done enough. Along with the renaming announcement in June, PepsiCo pledged a $5 million commitment to support the Black community. --Beth Kowitt

Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

After nearly 100 years, [in 2020] the Minnesota-based dairy company removed the Native American woman kneeling against a background of green pine trees and a blue lake from its products. New products feature the lake and trees with the words "Land O Lakes, 1921" in bold. In announcing the change, the company made no mention of the removal of the Native American woman...[however it came] as many businesses, universities and sports teams had begun to drop Native American images and symbols from logos.

Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

Eskimo Pie is rebranding after previously acknowledging its name and logo's insensitivity towards native arctic communities. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream announced that the popular chocolate-covered vanilla ice cream bar will now be called Edy's Pie, a nod to one of the company's founders, Joseph Edy. According to the Alaska Native Language Center, while the word "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to Inuit and Yupik people, it's considered derogatory and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

Is Food Becoming Less Racist?

Caitlin Elliott wrote that "‘The title “Uncle” was given to favored slaves, and later servants in the antebellum South. The iconography was deliberate and demeaning." The company wrote that "We will change our name to Ben’s Original™, as well as remove the image on our packaging to create more inclusive branding. This change signals our ambition to create a more inclusive future while maintaining our commitment to producing the world’s best rice."

Other brands changing their logos soon, are "Cream of Wheat," and Mrs. Butterworth.


Is Food Becoming Less Racist?
121
29
Add Opinion
29Girl Opinion
121Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • Sublime_Master
    This whole thing is completely absurd, because we could just as easily flip it around and say they are "white-washing food history" (or something along those lines) and now people of color are being excluded and underrepresented in food packaging. Speaking of people of color, what about the Kool-Aid guy? How come he has to be red when Kool-Aid comes in plenty of colors? It's not fair to purple and green Kool-Aid. What about anthropomorphic animals? Tony the Tiger? Toucan Sam? Are they being exploited or underrepresented? What about Count Chocula? I feel like he is a negative stereotype of vampires and that could be offensive to all vampire-kind. Also, since Aunt Jemima had to go for whatever reason... Where does that leave Mrs. Butterworth? Who i have only seen as represented as a human shaped bottle of syrup, who would be "colored" only if the bottle is full and then clear when empty?
    See the ridiculous places we could take this if we actually wanted to follow these debates to their logical conclusions? It's all completely asinine, surely we could be investing our time into something more beneficial.. I just pray Captain Crunch and Mrs. Butterworth are left out of this! They are both saints, and I love them! They've never hurt anyone..
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 16 People
    Is this still revelant?
  • GreenLanternI0I
    If you still haven't figured out, they are ERASING all black or native American successful history. Can you imagine how proud a black person was when he or she had a picture of him or herself on a product that she made and was able to share it nation wide? What they are doing has absolutely nothing to do with racism, it has absolutely everything to do with erasing black people's success stories. They did the same thing with a Black Wall-Street, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't even heard of it. Back in early 1900's a lot of extremely smart black people decided to build their own wealthy towns and communities with having doctor's offices, law offices, architecture etc... and of course access to their own stock market exchange. Those people and their entire town was literally bombed to the very ground. Out of 1000's of people only few survived to tell what actually happened and why.
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 10 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Anonymous

      I think you are confused. These companies did not choose to remove these figures on their own out of nowhere to erase "successful history." Keep in mind some of these products have been in production for upwards of a century relatively untouched. The logo removals were petitioned by the very people complaining of it's offensiveness to have them removed. Please do research if you want to know more on that. Also the minority figures represented were created as racist propaganda (see the history explained in the take), so I'm not sure why black people, as you mention, should have pride in that? Also the creators of these products weren't black, Native American, or Alaskan at all with exception of Frank L. Wright, so they weren't promoting their own cultures or seeking to support these communities by selecting these racist figureheads.

      There is a HUGE difference between this and Black Wall Street. BWS was black owned, successful and meant to uplift African American's who came to Tulsa. This was a matter of pride that was forcefully taken from them in the most violent and disgusting of ways. I'm not sure I understand your logic in wanting minorities to support products and images that degrade them as opposed to things like BWS that should be illuminated and now are thanks to some recent movies like "Tulsa Burning" and the series "Watchmen."

    • Ok, I'll admit, I haven't done a full research on products that are being portrayed in pictures. Though my logic was simple and I thought straight forward. If a black person created a product in early 1900's and placed his own picture in it, it did few things. 1. show all black people that it is possible to open a black owned business and prosper in the process 2. encourage more black communities to do the same thing, because again by portraying a black person on a product, it shows that times have changed, slavery was over and now it is time to have a happy and successful life. I honestly didn't know products in the pictures are not owned by black people.

    • Man, you’re one hell of a big ole Lefty aren’t you. Only a racist could see a black man in a chef’s hat and think that someone is being oppressed. A smiling black woman on a bottle? Gotta be racist lol.

      Here’s something fun for you to try and that shows how hypocritical SJWs are. Put ANY word into Google with the add on “is racist” and you WILL get hits from news articles. I put in “cheese is racist” and sure enough, I found an article about a cheese company that changed their name because someone thought it “sounded” like a racial slur.

      You people see racism in everything. Fucking everything.

      And this is why we can’t have nice things anymore.

Most Helpful Girls

  • ShaTTeredMasterpeace
    The crazy part about it is that if you ask a POC if they cared about any of this, they'd most likely tell you no. It made zero sense to me when the domino effect started happening with all these brands. It was basically a slap in the face. Like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. Nothing more than a feeble attempt to coddle the masses. I was and am still annoyed that Ain't Jemima is now Pearl damn Milling.
    LikeHelpful 3 People
    Is this still revelant?
  • Daniela1982
    No worse than being sexist.Is Food Becoming Less Racist?Is Food Becoming Less Racist?Is Food Becoming Less Racist?Is Food Becoming Less Racist?Is Food Becoming Less Racist?
    LikeFunny 9 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • TwinTonyz

      There's a substantial difference. The acts and wording of those examples you provide enforce the abuse, assault, and oppression of women directly and purposefully. That diverges substantially from presenting a smiling black person. A better analog for this comparison would be to completely remove women from packaging all together, because at any point in the past women have been meaningfully abused on that same packaging. Your example is plainly not comparable.

    • YunoMe

      OP's post was just bullshit but this here is something real. Some proper sexism.

    • That first picture looks hawt. I'd want to eat datass after spanking it.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

27119
  • MCheetah
    It's so stupid to lose all your customers, branding, and "go woke" just to appease a few retards on Twitter. Oh, I know the REAL reason why they do this; to get in with the elitists trying to push their New World Order propaganda on us and show that they're "all in" on joining the Great Reset Club. But *publicly* they do this to promote wokeness and it's SO stupid. The ones not important enough to be on the inside, think they're really going to make money but destroying their decades-long successful brands just to appeal to a fad of Millennial retardation and wokeness that may not even be a thing five years from now. The middle-management twats on Twitter who think this is really "the future" while they destroy companies in the process... It really is baffling, to say the least. (The ones who don't know the real agenda, that is.)

    "Mascots are racist" now! God I f*cking HATE the 2020s! Even more so than the 2010s. This truly is unprecedented levels of stupidity, among a species that is galaxy-known for being stupid.
    Like 6 People
    • RealMarek

      Have you ever heard of Larry Fink? He’s the CEO of BlackRock. Late 2019 the market realized most American companies are bad bets and the markets for corporate bonds and overnight loans were in trouble. The Federal Reserve Bank decided to intervene by directly purchasing bonds and stock. BlackRock waived its management fee in exchange for managing the Fed’s purchases, which have become the main source of investment in American companies. Today, Larry has $10 trillion of assets in management. If you run a company and want to succeed in the US, you cannot afford to piss off Larry, who is the dominant investor. He has, among other things, pushed companies to produce electric cars even though consumers don’t want them. He wants people who aren’t rich to eat fake meat to cut methane emissions from cattle even though nobody is buying it, so fake meat companies get investment without a market, fake meat shows up in stores, and he funds a company set up by a certain nerdy ex-software executive that is gobbling up ag land so they can take cattle out of the economy to drive up the price and force non-elite people into fake meat. He imposed ESG scores on companies and all of the sudden its very difficult to get a management job if you’re a white male. Aunt Jemima? She had to go, customers be damned. What really matters is not what people want, it’s what Larry wants. Interestingly, Larry is investing heavily in the market for trailer homes. We’ll need lots of them for non-elites. The reason you don’t like the 2020s is that, despite outward appearances and legacy institutions, the US is converting to a Soviet-style economy with an economic controller (Larry), with Soviet-style views on free speech, rights, government power, etc. It will no doubt suffer a Soviet-style disintegration and currency collapse, but that could take a long time.

    • MCheetah

      @RealMarek
      A long time? Eh, I say they'll get there by 2030. They'll already rigging elections in plain sight, gaslighting the public about it, pushing propaganda daily on almost every mainstream media news source, and intentionally destroying the US from the White House through hyper-inflation, turning the military woke, and turning a blind eye to China instead of drone striking them and satellite lasering them back into the Stone Age long before they fully build up their militaries and become unstoppable on the global stage. Look how badly things got so quickly from just 2019!

      I've never hidden how I feel about these people selling out the US: They literally need to be killed for the good of the free world. Them and everyone else siding with them.

    • RealMarek

      You’re probably right about the timing. My predictions along these lines have tended to come true faster than I expected.

  • AncientWisdom
    No I think it’s a bunch of political bs to divide a nation. Malcom ex once told blacks people the biggest danger to them was rich white liberals. I feel like he told the truth.
    LikeDisagree 4 People
    • Anonymous

      So your argument then is that they should be out there fighting to maintain characters who were designed to show them in an inferior way? That seems kind of F'd up man.

    • OpenClose

      I'd say remove aunt and uncle, but keep the faces.

    • You misunderstand. You state “my argument.” I don’t argue with people that’s my opinion. my opinion it won’t change I also know what I said to be a fact. It’s what the democrats have done since the became a party. Also any company that bends to these stupid politicians will lose my business , any one who contributes to this stupid crap will invite my derision. I don’t respect it. I also don’t care what people think I also quite frankly don’t care what 13.4 % of the population thinks and it’s not even that much because most black people I know don’t by the rhetoric and bs either.

    • Show All
  • DarkWinterNights
    Since no one else brought it up, Land-O-Lakes got rid of the Indian but kept the Land? These changes are driven by racism, but because they’re clouded in wokeness everyone’s okay with it. It blows my mind.
    Like 7 People
  • Investigator
    Let's get make one thing perfectly clear: food is not racist. Brand images can be racist or not, but food does not play favorites, regarding which races are able to consume it. I know there was a thing, a couple of years ago, about how "milk is racist, because black people are more likely to be lactose-intolerant", but that is reversing cause-and effect. Those people cannot process a chemical in the milk, the milk does not (to my knowledge) possess any sort of anomalous characteristic that allows it to know which race is consuming it and to be toxic to those people specifically.

    However, even the idea that something like "Uncle Ben's Rice is racist" is true, is false; unless proven otherwise, Uncle Ben's was not conceived of, with the express idea of embedding a racist caricature of a black man into a rice product, to be consumed primarily by white people. These products were not made by people who could see the future and decided to intentionally use offensive stereotypes (which would not have been offensive in their time or they couldn't have been used in the first place) to spite modern sensibilities; these products were designed the way they were, to appeal to their target demographics. It is only with the "clarity and insight" of hindsight that we think otherwise. To claim anything else is to invoke the fallacy of "historian's bias".
  • ObscuredBeyond
    Replacing Aunt Jemima's name with the name of the company that she worked at when she was still a slave. In order to make it "less racist."

    A "thought" process after Brandon's own heart! Also, I loved the Land-O'-Lakes girl! It made me want to meet a hot Indian chick, to know that women that pretty really do exist! And now... she's verboten? What is this, the Trail of Tears? Bring her back!

    And everyone loved Uncle Ben! They all wished he could've been their uncle for real. Now, he's just some generic nobody with no face and no title. And no reason why we should care about his food. They didn't make the packaging more "inclusive." They made it bland, and devoid of character. Just like the losers behind this culture war!

    Woketards want every package to be utterly bland and lifeless. Because they are unpleasable, miserable little illegitimates with no sense of purpose in life - other than to destroy everyone else's!

    I make a package for a food product. I give a sense of character to the food. I create a mascot that makes sense in context. They notice it's a white guy. They bitch, moan, eat Tide Pods, and scream at the sky, and then riot and murder my delivery truck drivers, until I replace him with a black woman - lack of historical or thematic logic be damned. Then, they repeat the cycle, because it's "racist" somehow to have a black mascot! So I pick a mix of mascots. And then somehow, that's wrong, because they're all "stereotypes!"

    They're not happy, until the box is dehumanized entirely and boring; and the logo has no soul - and makes the product look like it was meant to be pet food instead!

    These monsters belong in a wood chipper, so the rest of us can have personalities again.
  • OpenClose
    I would like to know what the polls look like for how much the demographics represented give a shit.

    Most of it is political posturing. Kinda like Pelosi blocking a bunch of bills that help black communities and then taking a knee in African garb like that's actually doing anything for anyone. And frankly the main ones who fall for this seem to be white people who are more interested in self-flagellation, virtue signaling, and "woke bullying" than undergoing actual change.

    "We want an investigation into police murders."
    "OK, but how about instead we take some lady off some syrup because a white guy in the South in the 30's would see that and think "slave" despite the fact that damn near nobody living today would jump to that conclusion. That helps, right?"

    It's like someone asking for help because their car is broken. And the auto mechanic just says "yeah... that really sucks. I'll write a song about how much it sucks to have a broken car."
  • TwinTonyz
    These terms for racism require every last vestige of identity be removed from the world around us. That you may not combine the word 'Uncle' with black men without being racist presents an existential issue to every black man who has a sister, especially anyone with the name Thomas. That a woman of color cannot present herself in stereotypical garb, despite that being her prerogative or culture, presents conflict with personal identity in brands.

    On these terms, the presence of any person not wholly ambiguous is offensive, sexist, racist, xenophobic, etc. An image of a black person being synonymous with racism because it's used to sell a brand implies there is never any point in time black people may be pictured. The idea is hyperbolic and ought to have been lambasted for how ridiculous these standards prove to be.

    This topic takes me back to a private college video game project I'd worked on. We'd wanted a female protagonist. We had to consider the idea that giving a female character breasts could be offensive. This conflict resulted in us scrapping the project, on the grounds that none of us could agree on whether or not the existence of moderately sized tits would be too offensive to those viewing or not. This era of overt sensitivity can only persist where we remove any depictions of humans. Of course, once that's been achieved, the most-fragile among us would assert that certain colors or shapes reference other ideals most-evil.
  • Screenwriter
    You certainly know that food has never been racist. Advertising has been. And all your points are salient: black servants in the kitchen have been a staple in many homes, especially in the Old South.

    So Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and the Cream of Wheat man, have memorialized the "comfort" those subservient slave/servant images provided for generations of white Americans. They also presented images of "safe, sexless and complacent" blacks.

    Think of the 1930s version of "Imitation of Life," where Louise Beaver offers her pancake recipe to Claudette Colbert's character for NOTHING. Then poses as the grinning "mammy" figure for the pancake box! Colbert's character offers Beaver 20% of the profits! A recipe that Colbert had absolutely no part in creating.

    It's the age-old steal. Elvis, the white version of Little Richard and Chuck Berry, made more money and was more appealing to white audiences that the transgressive, sexual, black, male rock'n'rollers.

    And just like in those cases, those black images were the ad agencies' steal. Look at Betty Crocker. Same thing. Just, she was a white lady. They moderized her image too. But the ad agency thought a homemaker woman would sell more cake.

    So let's not focus only on one "ism." It was sexist to use a woman's face and made-up name to sell cakes; racist to use elderly black men's faces to sell cereal and rice, sexist AND racist to sell pancake mix and syrup using a mammy-face.

    "Darkie" toothpaste in Japan used to feature a grinning blac-faced, Negro-featured character on the box the tube came in. It was recently changed to "Darlie" toothpaste and the character removed.

    There was a Southern restaurant chain called "Coon," that had a "Big Boy" type character at the entrance to the restaurant. You entered the eatery through the grinning "coon's" giant mouth. This was started in the 1930s and lasted until the 1950s.

    None of these instances of advertisers using inappropriate images were taken to task until PEOPLE complained and, as you've said, the bottom line was threatened.

    Change never comes until it's forced. People have pulled down a few slave-owning founding fathers' statues nationwide. But in my town alone Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay are still standing. Why? Again, the bottom line. It costs money to remove these statues and no one is ponying up the pricetag for their removals. Also, at least one statue had a storied history where it's located.

    It costs money and time to change. Only when the costs equal the "COSTS" does change happen.

    And THAT IS the bottom line.
    • Joshua0213

      It is still racist to only remove minorities from packages. Why dont they erase white people? Because it only has to do with racw

    • What “ist” is Quaker Oats? 😂

    • @Joshua0213 No it's not. RacISM is perpetuated by institutions and people who are IN CHARGE. White males have been and are still in charge. They haven't, as I mentioned, removed Betty, as far as I know, from the cover of her cookbooks because no one has complained.

      To remove racist images of minority people to make money for white -dominated institutions through advertising is a move toward ACKNOWLEDGMENT that these images are inappropriate to that use.

      Minorities are the majority of these inappropriate images used to sell products. Wheaties is the only example I can think of that features women, men, and people of color in some balance and therefore doesn't misuse images to sell a product.

      As to the "ISM" of Quaker Oats... the slogan that used to be had the Quaker guy using "thee" in his speech advertising how healthy Quaker Oats were... which could be construed as offensive on some level.

      It's a milder case of changing the names for some sports teams from Braves and to eliminate the tomahawk chop...

    • Show All
  • cth96190
    A tiny minority of Communists and their useful idiots cry bullied corporate cowards into removing positive images of black and native Americans from packaging.
    Only the extremely stupid would count that as a success for blacks and native Americans.
    LikeDisagree 8 People
  • purplepoppy
    Give it a few years and people will be complaining coloureds are underrepresented on food packaging
    LikeFunnyDisagree 19 People
    • Jersey2

      Stirring the pot ever so slightly, lol.

    • When people saw uncle Ben's smiling face they saw a happy black guy who was proud of his product not an oppressed slave. The term uncle was and still is used as a term of endearment for people regardless of race.

    • Akumuviral

      I also see this happening

  • BeMuse
    The communist just erased minorities from grocery store shelves. The next step in their plan was to block them from actually accessing grocery stores so that they would starve to death due to vaccine passports. They want to erase minority history, so that it is easier to erase minorities completely...
    LikeDisagree 3 People
  • Miristheiss
    I couldn't care less about any of this meaningless stuff.

    Also, if those example photos are meant to be examples of "RACISM"... a black guy wearing a bow tie or native American lady in her 1700's wardrobe then your skew of real "RACISM" is waaaay off.

    Ok, he is a cook or she is a housekeeper and they are black. And? You've got to really, really be straining to claim racism and the denigration of an entire race of people because the word uncle is there. Well, is he an uncle? How about nephew? What about grandfather? Oh but this family title is racist but this one is ok... blah, blah.

    Some super, miserable, uptight people really have too much time on their hands.

    They ignore real racism... actual in the flesh, hurting people in real life racism and spend their time fighting the war of package labels and historic statues... not real human rights violations happening in real time in this world. A black guy has a suit and bow tie (an illustration, by the way) and he is named "uncle". People are supposed to be offended by this? What about Mr. Clean or the Lucky Charms leprechaun, the Jolly Green Giant, Ronald McDonald, the Quaker Oats dude (he is from the 1600-1700 hundreds)?

    Oh, they didn't have the hidden little secret tag words of "UNCLE". That make it "OFFENSIVE". Showing an Indian at all... is apparently "RACIST". She is just holding butter and dressed like... a native American of that time period. OFFENSIVE!!!
    Quaker Oat guy dressed like a 1650 Quaker... that is fine. A woman dressed like a 1650 Indian "RACIST!!!" Oh, by the way, the word "Indian"... RACIST!!!

    People that live these bitter, uptight, miserable lives... they aren't emotionally equipped to survive in the modern world if this is what racism is to them and they live offended by stuff like this and can seriously tell you this is "racism". They should be committed where they can live in a padded room and not be triggered.

    This is the dumbest stuff I've ever heard of.
  • TexasRed95
    They weren't racist to begin with. That Aunt Jemima brand had a major controversy from the family of the founder. It was the founder's likeness on the cover. The family gets money from the product but they don't have a say in marketing anymore. They felt completely betrayed by the company company they said that they were removing her likeness. This stupid "woke" fad that has everyone overly sensitive is all thats going on.
    LikeDisagree 6 People
  • RealMarek
    After years of racist foods hurling racist insults at me every morning and lecturing me about the inferiority of people with my genetic background, sometime around 2020 my food decided to stop doing this and only gives me dirty looks instead. I can finally eat breakfast without hearing some racist nonsense. You know, I think food is becoming less racist!
    Funny 2 People
  • hahahmm
    If liberals don't want to be racist then they should donate any property to Native Americans & get on a boat to Europe where their ancestors came from. It's not that complicated. Anything less is just hypocritical bs.
    Like 2 People
  • DCooper
    Is Food Becoming Less Racist?...
    LikeFunnyDisagree 9 People
  • Alwayreckles93
    Oh my god why does everything have to do with race? A few weeks ago I had a customer complaining that Nick Jonas was super racist to her. How exactly is Mick Jonas a racist when he decide to marry Choppa lady Southside of his grace
    HelpfulDisagree 2 People
    • You can still be racist and married outside of your race lol 😆 who you are married to doesn’t really mean anything. Why do you suppose there or divorces? Do you not know there’s domestic violence in married couples? Like wtf

    • @snowboarder720 Fuck OFF! I'm blocking you

  • PAcc92
    They did Uncle Ben dirty, he was a respectable looking dude.

    The family of Aunt Jemima are not happy with their ancestor being erased, but hey why would the left listen to black people actually involved in the situation, they never have before.
    Helpful 1 Person
  • Baredog69
    I don't think food is racist at all. I can't understand why blacks for instance went through so much trouble to get products for them put on shelves as opposed to everything like makeup and hairspray and hair color being geared toward white women. They finally got their faces on products and then decided for some reason it's racist and had him taken back off. If you really want to fuss about something think about this Woody woodpecker is three names for a dick and nobody says shit.
    Like 1 Person
  • demonics
    Everything IS less brown though...

    Which goes to show how stupid certain *read brown people are...
    >Feed them a line of BS (racial politics)
    >They take it gleefully
    >Subjugate them in some form or fashion (in this case remove them from the public eye)
    >They thank you for being sensitive to their racial politics (which you fed to them in the first place)https://www.youtube.com/embed/9-k5J4RxQdE
    Like 1 Person
  • Show More (126)
Loading...