Special opinion by Paul Plante
Yes, people, it’s true – Aunt Jemima, who I grew up with and have fond memories of as a comfort on cold winter mornings, is no more!
Too racist, you see!
Or that is what I heard some snippy little girl reading the news this morning (10 Feb. 2021) on NPR saying, anyway, as if all of us here in America who did grow up with Aunt Jemima and found her a real comfort coming into the kitchen on cold winter mornings in an old farm house with no insulation, no hot running water, and wood/coal stoves for heat, seeing her sitting there on the table with her big comforting and welcoming smile on the bottle of maple syrup for our pancakes, were either too stupid to be able to form our own opinions as to who Aunt Jemima was and is in our lives, or we would have to be racists if we admitted to liking seeing the smiling visage of comforting Aunt Jemima on a bottle of maple syrup, which I thought was quite insulting on the part of the snippy little girl lecturing us on NPR about how Aunt Jemima is really a racist symbol.
WHO are these people that come up with this BULL****?
And here, let’s go to the print version of the NPR story entitled “Aunt Jemima No More; Pancake Brand Renamed Pearl Milling Company” by Jaclyn Diaz on February 10, 2021, where we have the following to ponder, to wit:
Quaker Oats cooked up a new image for an old, offensive brand Tuesday.
An old “offensive” brand?
Offensive to whom?
What kind of a warped and twisted mind does it take for somebody to find the comforting smile of Aunt Jemima on a cold winter morning “offensive?”
And why are they controlling our lives, or trying to, anyway, by feeding us the pig**** that Aunt Jemima is offensive?
It isn’t Aunt Jemima that is offensive, it is those people spewing the rank pig**** who are offensive!
Getting back to NPR’s version of reality, we have:
PepsiCo Inc. the parent company for Quaker Oats, announced it’s rebranding Aunt Jemima, the popular pancake and syrup brand, retiring the racist stereotype used for the product’s image.
That is ******* BULL****!
Aunt Jemima was hardly a “racist stereotype” to me, who shared her company on a daily basis for many months through the cold waiting for the spring to come.
Why would we have a racist stereotype in our house, in the kitchen where the family took its meals together, sitting on our kitchen table?
Aunt Jemima was very much a part of the family, not a racist stereotype, and calling her such reveals the troubled and/or sick nature of these people’s minds.
Getting back to the horse****, it goes on as follows:
Aunt Jemima and other food brands, including Uncle Ben’s, Cream of Wheat, and Mrs. Butterworth’s, announced redesigns amid protests against systemic racism and police brutality in the U.S. last summer.
So now Aunt Jemima is somehow responsible for police brutality?
What on earth kind of stupid statement is that?
Saying that eating Aunt Jemima maple syrup on a pancake is responsible for police brutality is ABSURD!
You have to be a moron to even think that, let alone express it as a belief like NPR is doing here, which again takes us back to the story, to wit:
Aunt Jemima has been criticized as an image harkening back to slavery.
Criticized by whom?
And an image harkening back to slavery?
HORSE**** is what I say to that.
These people doing the criticizing have some serious mental and pyschological issues that preclude us rational people in America who love Aunt Jemima from treating them as other than psychopathic morons, which takes us back to NPR, as follows:
Old Aunt Jemima originated as a song of field slaves that was later performed at minstrel shows.
What relevance does any of that have to reality?
How does that make the smiling face of Aunt Jemima on a bottle of maple syrup into a racist stereotype?
And the answer is that if you are rational, if you have a brain that works, if you are not an idiot, it doesn’t, because only an idiot would think Aunt Jemima was a racist stereotype, which takes us back to NPR for even more horse****, to wit:
Both Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben’s have been criticized for relying on the titles aunt and uncle, which historically were used by people who resisted applying the honorific Mr. or Ms. to a Black person.
This **** is so unbelievable it isn’t funny.
If one were to peruse the Marxist Bible by Freddy Engels entitled “Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” one would find as follows:
II. The Family
MORGAN, who spent a great part of his life among the Iroquois Indians – settled to this day in New York State – and was adopted into one of their tribes (the Senecas), found in use among them a system of consanguinity which was in contradiction to their actual family relationships.
The Iroquois calls not only his own children his sons and daughters, but also the children of his brothers; and they call him father.
The children of his sisters, however, he calls his nephews and nieces, and they call him their uncle.
The Iroquois woman, on the other hand, calls her sisters’ children, as well as her own, her sons and daughters, and they call her mother.
But her brothers’ children she calls her nephews and nieces, and she is known as their aunt.
Similarly, the children of brothers call one another brother and sister, and so do the children of sisters.
A woman’s own children and the children of her brother, on the other hand, call one another cousins.
And these are not mere empty names, but expressions of actual conceptions of nearness and remoteness, of equality and difference in the degrees of consanguinity: these conceptions serve as the foundation of a fully elaborated system of consanguinity through which several hundred different relationships of one individual can be expressed.
What is more, this system is not only in full force among all American Indians (no exception has been found up to the present), but also retains its validity almost unchanged among the aborigines of India, the Dravidian tribes in the Deccan and the Gaura tribes in Hindustan.
To this day the Tamils of southern India and the Iroquois Seneca Indians in New York State still express more than two hundred degrees of consanguinity in the same manner.
And among these tribes of India, as among all the American Indians, the actual relationships arising out of the existing form of the family contradict the system of consanguinity.
How is this to be explained?
In view of the decisive part played by consanguinity in the social structure of all savage and barbarian peoples, the importance of a system so widespread cannot be dismissed with phrases.
When a system is general throughout America and also exists in Asia among peoples of a quite different race, when numerous instances of it are found with greater or less variation in every part of Africa and Australia, then that system has to be historically explained, not talked out of existence, as McLennan, for example, tried to do.
The names of father, child, brother, sister are no mere complimentary forms of address; they involve quite definite and very serious mutual obligations which together make up an essential part of the social constitution of the peoples in question.
So what kind of real ignorant horse**** is NPR trying to peddle here with this BULL**** that calling Aunt Jemima “Aunt” is demeaning to colored folks?
When she was as much a part of our family when I was young as I was she deserves to be called “Aunt,” which is a term of RESPECT, not racism.
Aunt Jemima, we love you, we grew up with you, and now that you are being taken from us, we will continue to hold you in our hearts because you helped to give us nourishment and life!