MAC’s ‘cancel culture’ rant was misguided

By Guest

Dear Editor:

I was disappointed to read MAC’s most recent column on “cancel culture.” Of all the examples of cancel culture he gave, none of these products have actually been cancelled. Being cancelled would imply that someone/something was completely de-platformed, stripped of their power, shunned from society, and no longer allowed to profit, and usually refers to an overreaction for a minor offence. However, nobody demanded that Land O’ Lakes and Aunt Jemima change their logos, or that Dr. Seuss’s publishing company stop publishing a very small selection of his books. The companies decided to do that on their own because they recognized the harm that the caricatures on their labels and in their stories caused, which is no minor offence. And they are still selling their products — I’m sure you could find them at any grocery store in town, and any of Dr. Seuss’s books (including the “cancelled” ones) at the town library. How are they “cancelled” if these companies are still selling their products and profiting from them? What MAC calls “cancel culture” is just rebranding.

I would love MAC to consider why these companies might be rebranding. Aunt Jemima is a racist caricature based on the minstrel show stereotype of the “Mammy,” which is an extremely harmful and racist stereotype that perpetuates the idea that enslaved African American women were content being enslaved and loyally serving their masters. These caricatures and stereotypes influence the way that we, as white people, view BIPOC and interact with them. These images work to justify systemic racism and excuse violence towards minoritized groups. As we’ve seen with the rise of hate crimes directed towards Asian Americans, negative stereotypes and things like referring to the coronavirus as the “China virus” have actual real-life consequences, and bring physical harm to our fellow Americans.

Therefore, I would like to suggest to MAC that his anger seems misplaced. You say that this “cancel culture” is divisive and racist and erasing history, though none of that is true. There are other ways to learn this history that don’t involve glorifying and perpetuating harm. You say that people who are offended by who’s on the syrup bottle may be the problem, and yet you seem offended by the fact that a racist caricature has been removed from a syrup bottle. I, for one, am more than happy to see Aunt Jemima rebrand if it means that one negative caricature has been removed. Perhaps you could instead direct your outrage towards the fact that we live in a society that systematically disadvantages and murders BIPOC.

Sincerely,

Siobhan McKenna, CHS Class of 2016

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=73833