They’re changing the name of Uncle Ben’s.

[mummabear1967]

www.itv.com/news/2020-09-23/uncle-bens-name-dropped-from-rice-brand-after-logo-criticised-as-racial-stereotype?fbclid=IwAR0QAktv-u9bOTaruhDqMWGIcCJjAMILzpXtmRSe_iYzQE6qKBTWinyaIK8

Why on Earth are they doing that? Have people seriously complained? I don’t know why I’m acting surprised!

@saraclara I’m neither young nor old these days but having a strop because a brand name that’s offensive is changing, is idiotic.

And lately around MN I see a LOT of users who think the world is ending if anything changes. It’s like a temper tantrum except because someone is 40 or 50 she gets to pretend it’s actually due to her immense wisdom or some such rubbish.

We’re talking about cheap rice with a racist mascot. Yes it should change, get over yourself if you can’t accept it.

Product marketing moves with the times. Marathon became snickers, Opal fruits became Starburst. Its hardly going to have a huge impact on the product to call it Ben's instead of Uncle Ben's, with all its offensive connotations and imagery.
If just one person is offended by the use of the term Uncle Ben, then it would seem right to move to using a logo and name that cannot possibly offend anyone. The stronger message is surely that the company does not wish to be associated with, accepting of, or perceived as, promoting racism. How could anyone think that was a bad thing? Except perhaps Far Right Neanderthals?

Good on Mars.

I have just tried googling the bow tie - that’s what you said!

[quote turnitonagain]@saraclara I’m neither young nor old these days but having a strop because a brand name that’s offensive is changing, is idiotic.

And lately around MN I see a LOT of users who think the world is ending if anything changes. It’s like a temper tantrum except because someone is 40 or 50 she gets to pretend it’s actually due to her immense wisdom or some such rubbish.

We’re talking about cheap rice with a racist mascot. Yes it should change, get over yourself if you can’t accept it.[/quote]
I couldn't agree with you more. My post was only about people attributing certain views to certain age demographics.

Boomer, Millennial, woke etc are all terms that drive me nuts.

The bow tie. As in about why the bow tie being worn by 'Uncle Ben' might be contentious. Not just googling 'bow tie' expecting all the answers in the world without narrowing it down at all.

Wouldn't the mention of quilt code theory suggest there might have been some allusion to slavery in the search terms? Or do you think that would be one of the first results that Google would bring up from 'bow tie'?

I had no idea about the uncle reference

I now understand and agree with rebranding

Being totally honest and saying I wasn't aware of the racist overtones of the image,

Uncle Bens ...tbh I just thought based upon the name of the original owner of the company. I even though the picture was based upon his image. Shows you what little I know.

Done a bit of reading since the news item and stand corrected.

Yes it needs changing and am glad it's being done,

I have no idea what quilt code theory is but I do know that the shapes for quilt pieces have descriptive names so imagined that “bow tie” was one of them as the Internet is saturated with craft and sewing info!

I will of course now google “quilt code theory”. Truce?

It's just jars of sauce and instant rice packets, you don't need to get upset about them changing the name. I can't think of any reason why you would object to it.

I've always thought the uncle Bens branding was racist and I'm glad it's changing. But I wouldn't go to a march about it, I doubt that I even would be bothered to send a email to complain, instead I've just always avoided the brand and seen it as a gimmicky rubbish brand.

I think that the bottom line is the main reason for this change tbh, it doesn't seem very genuine and the timing is off. Why now?

🤝

It's a heck of an interesting (and heartbreaking) theory. Unsubstantiated but then there's no way we would know for sure as nobody would really have been documenting it or keeping artefacts.

@skedaddIe

I've always thought the uncle Bens branding was racist and I'm glad it's changing. But I wouldn't go to a march about it, I doubt that I even would be bothered to send a email to complain, instead I've just always avoided the brand and seen it as a gimmicky rubbish brand.

I think that the bottom line is the main reason for this change tbh, it doesn't seem very genuine and the timing is off. Why now?

Yep. The branding and picture have always felt 'off' to me, so I've never bought it. I was neither offended or outraged, and it wouldn't occur to me to have done anything about it. I just wasn''t comfortable being part of it.

I've known the racist connotations since I was young (also my parents never allowed us to buy it and would say it was racist).

OP I dont think you should have this thread deleted, it has opened up an interesting conversation. You didn't know something and now you do, isn't that what forums are for? You can see how many people have learned something from this thread (plus I'm sure many more who haven't commented).

Huh. I have never bought Uncle Ben's stuff but I do remember seeing Uncle Ben's adverts from the nineties and, if I recall correctly, it was all a family sitting around a table kind of vibe, so it's not surprising many people just thought it was someone's uncle, named Ben.

I've never seen Uncle Ben wearing a bow tie, just an open neck shirt. I've just looked at the images on Google and most of them are of an open neck shirt. Was the bow tie image used for specific products/countries?

So 'uncle' was attributed to elderly slaves as Mr was not deemed appropriate. Also Ben was in a bow tie so connotations with servitude

This is interesting, I didn't know this -so yes, how is it acceptable to still have slavery throwback images and slaves depicted on things in this day and age?
How can anyone be against it changing/getting rid of the name in this case?
To me (as in white) it's too easy to think "bloomin' eck, PC gawn mad, it's only a name on a packet of rice!"
That's clearly not the case though, is it?

it was all a family sitting around a table kind of vibe, so it's not surprising many people just thought it was someone's uncle, named Ben

And that's the problem, I did too but it's insidious, isn't it? To people it doesn't affect, or people uneducated on slavery issues (for want of a better phrase) it's just your Uncle sat round a table.

Good About time too

@skedaddIe

I've always thought the uncle Bens branding was racist and I'm glad it's changing. But I wouldn't go to a march about it, I doubt that I even would be bothered to send a email to complain, instead I've just always avoided the brand and seen it as a gimmicky rubbish brand.

I think that the bottom line is the main reason for this change tbh, it doesn't seem very genuine and the timing is off. Why now?

Why now? Because after so many years of turning a blind eye to this kind of passive racism, the BLM protests have forced people to confront what's been right under their noses all along. So I don't think there's any underhand reason for it happening now from the company's point of view - I suspect they've simply realised they can't justify it any longer.

It's weird because I thought he was the farmer, the original company owner (before it was bought out). Didn't speak servitude to me.

when a culture makes very different (or no) associations with (eg) a word, people would need to have their attention drawn to the fact that it is problematic in context

Exactly, if you genuinely have no idea of the connotations behind it, how would you even know to "google it" in the first place?
Never mind know where to start looking?
It's when you (general you) know what's behind it, and then still say "no it's not" that's the problem.
Nothing wrong with learning

if you genuinely have no idea of the connotations behind it, how would you even know to "google it" in the first place?

Because you have read the press reports about it being changed?

I imagine it is a commercial decision on Mars' part, however they choose to present it. They have realised that attitudes are changing amongst their consumers and have followed. If they thought that changing the name was going to lose them more sales than keeping it, I bet it would remain.
After reading this thread last night I ended up awake until the early hours having followed some of the links posted here, and then some of the links in the links, discovering lots of things I didn't know before.
I'd never heard of Aunt Jemima and found a lot of the stories around that brand particularly disturbing. One article that I found was written by a black historian campaigning for a headstone to mark the grave of Nancy Green, the first "face" of the brand. She had approached Quaker Oats, the parent company of Aunt Jemima, asking for their help, given that they had made millions out of the woman now buried in an unmarked grave. But they declined, on the grounds that Aunt Jemima was a fictional character, not Nancy Green, so it was nothing to do with them. Now the tide of opinion is turning, that same company is "retiring" Aunt Jemima and making very public statements about their commitment to racial equality. Quite a turnaround in a very short time frame. I would like to believe it is because the top brass at Quaker Oats have realised the error of their ways, but I suspect it is more about wanting to have the right image fir the current mood.

It carries strong overtones of a racist stereotype.
No Auntie Bessie is not comparable as she wasn't enslaved and generally oppressed because of the colour of her skin. She may have been oppressed because of her sex however , feel free to campaign !

Unless uncle Ben was a black man called who actually set up the rice business then it is racist and using a racist trope .