Someone in the group has posted an article about the family of the actresses who have portrayed Aunt Jemima (OMG I hate even TYPING that phrase).

She is arguing that changing the brand is a form of erasure.

My own perspective is that the brand is inherently racist because to me, it represents that whole ‘affection for the dear family slave’ trope.

(I had never heard of this brand before – we don’t have it in Australia)

Are there any really good resources I can provide to aid the conversation? Specifically, anything which speaks to how we navigate changing old racist branding without it becoming the erasure of specific individuals? And do those individual family objections even matter?

Thank you!!

I responded: 

I see what you did here. You made it public so we can have a full-fledged dialogue about it. LOL.

Ok. Here goes. First of all, did the company talk to the family about it? Or did they make a unilateral decision to quickly look like they are taking anti-racist action? Did they ask the family? Is the family getting any money for the use of this label and does this cut off the family from needed resources? Here we are having opinions of things that we do not have a full context about. You have to first have the full context.

Furthermore, not all Black people want the same thing. Freedom means different things to different people. Black people exist on a complex spectrum that often mirrors that of white people who happen to also exist on a similar and varied spectrum. Not every Black person is “woke” and not every Black person is an activist. So to think that all Black people want the same thing is not enjoying the deliciousness of nuance and complexity.

I want to hear the voices of these people that are family members. Yeah, to me, it does not feel super “woke” to want the notoriety of being the image of Aunt Jemimah on the pancake bottle. But how judgmental of me! This is the difference between equity and equality. To move into an equitable solution, we must hear the voice of that family. Equality is using the same measuring stick and speaking on behalf of these Black folks as to what they want.

Nevertheless, a very superficial google search shows that two family members tried to sue Pepsi co in 2014 for 3 billion dollars for damages they feel that are owed to them from using their relative’s image. They lost. “The men tried to establish that they are indeed Harrington’s heirs, but failed royally. Chang notes, “The only information about Plaintiffs’ connection to Harrington provided by the amended complaint is an account of how Hunter received a photograph (now lost) of Harrington from his grandmother and of Plaintiffs’ attempt to locate Harrington’s grave in Syracuse, New York.” Better luck next time.” 

Now, with that being said, if you do not have relationship with the family, what is a company like PepsiCo to do? Two things:

1) Monuments versus Museums: I want to see the Pepsi Co Museum handle this history of this case. I want to see them put on display how much money they made their share holders with this image. I want press releases that preserve the value and heritage of Aunt Jemima even if she is no longer on the bottle. I want to see them untangle the complexity of this whole thing. Just like a monument of confederate solider is offense yet the history of the civil war and her generals must be memorialized in a museum, PepsiCo has to pay homage and do the same thing.

2) Your question focuses on who is the victim as opposed to what relationships have been harmed. Companies dealing with this type of thing are well served to look at restorative justice outcomes to satisfy all parties. It is about focusing on the relationships and harms done and how to repair such harms. I will be talking about restorative justice in my upcoming class as a tool.

Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms as well as the wrongdoing. If the parties are willing, the best way to do this is to help them meet to discuss those harms and how to about bring resolution. Other approaches are available if they are unable or unwilling to meet. Sometimes those meetings lead to transformational changes in their lives.
Notice three big ideas: (1) repair: crime causes harm and justice requires repairing that harm; (2) encounter: the best way to determine how to do that is to have the parties decide together; and (3) transformation: this can cause fundamental changes in people, relationships and communities.

Questions?

Janette Dalgliesh responded:  OMG you are the BEST. I knew that I was missing layers and layers of nuance, and that the discussions I’ve seen have also suffered the same lack of subtlety. I was pretty sure I could not unpack all the nuance, working on my own.

Thank you SO MUCH.

This has given me much to absorb, to learn and to understand. I love you. <3

(And yes, I did make this public because I figured I’m not the only one with this confusion – and I apologise if that put you on the spot!)

Also – I learned about restorative justice when I was a union organiser, but I’d forgotten about it.
SOOOOO good.