It is hard to keep up with the cancel culture – ripping down statues of historic figures who freed slaves, cancelling 80 year-old movies, banning comedies, stopping production of skin creams, renaming pancake syrup, and now children’s candy. So many products that nobody raised a whimper over for decades now all of a sudden have been deemed racist and we are drowning in nauseating woke apologies from corporate PR departments, many of whom have highly challenged pasts themselves meaning they are in no position to lecture the rest of us.
Now Australian candies, Redskins and Chicos will be renamed. Nestle, the owner of the Allens brand, wrote,
“This decision acknowledges the need to ensure that nothing we do marginalises our friends, neighbours and colleagues...the names have overtones which are out of step with Nestle’s values, which are rooted in respect.”
Can Nestle give us a comprehensive list of the number of complaints made because of these names? Has anyone seriously been triggered in their local supermarket when buying these products?
We wonder whether these acts have less to do with racism and more to do with polishing tarnished reputations unrelated to BLM. This site lists 10 most outrageous Nestle scandals. We have not verified these claims.
Seriously, if the name of candies or skin creams is the extent of the oppression of minorities, the war on racism has been largely won, no?
We wrote a while back about the removal of the Chief Wahoo caricature from the Cleveland Indians’ uniform, used since 1915, by activist pressure.
Douglas Cardinal, an indigenous Canadian activist who pushed for the Cleveland team logo change said that “I had been thinking about the problems we have as a community with the issue of suicide, and I think there is a direct correlation between these kinds of depictions of our people as inferior and as caricatures to be mocked. It is wrong and it must stop.”
Remember the same noise was made about the name of the Washington Redskins NFL team. Why not listen to the Native American community? In May 2016, the heavily left-leaning WaPo released a poll targeted at self-identified Native Americans which produced the same results as the Annenberg poll of 2004. That is 90% of the respondents were “not bothered” by the team’s name.
Perhaps the question should be put back to the activists. Can they guarantee that after the removal of the stigma caused by these supposedly inappropriate product names that alcohol-related deaths, diabetes and tuberculosis, which are way above the national average, will plummet? Will the highest rate of intimate partner violence or child abuse and neglect among the Native American community fall off a cliff by the removal of the name of candy in Australia? After all, it is they who push the idea of direct correlation. If nothing changes, what will have been the point of all this virtue signalling?
Hypocrisy in the way the West deals with (certain) faiths is rife too. The tragedy that was the Christchurch terror attack has led the Canterbury Crusaders rugby team to reconsider its name so as not to offend Muslims. Devout Muslim Sonny Bill Williams even played for the side after his conversion to Islam. Didn’t seem to phase him and he didn’t protest once. Although he did take exception to the Bank of NZ sponsorship displayed on his uniform as it conflicted with his religious beliefs.
Where have those same activists been to bully The Saracens in Middlesex to select a more palatable name for the sake of countless victims of Islamic terror in the UK?
What we do know to be an absolute truth is that whatever we cede to the mob, it will never be enough.