Racial Stereotypes in Today’s Advertising: Confronting the Fantasy of Harmonious Race Relations
An Essay I wrote for missing Jan 16 Friday Forum
Many of the racial stereotypes from slavery in America were carried into the branding of products created post-emancipation, and several of these examples wield great brand equity to this day. While the associations of these brands with their stereotypical origins have been made less obvious, some scholars argue that their continued presence bespeaks an underlying societal obsession with a fantasy of harmonious race relations—and thus a dangerous aversion to addressing the real problems of racism in this country.
This reality can be seen in characters such as Aunt Jemima, whose original advertising under the R. T. Davis Milling Company evoked an even stronger racial stereotype than today’s packaging (see Figure 1). The original ads feature the Aunt Jemima character grinning widely and saying “I’se in town, honey.” A similar caricature can be seen in the advertising for Uncle Remus brand syrup, also from the early 20th century. The copy reads “Dis sho’ am good” (see Figure 2). Our society still embraces brands featuring such iconography, including Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben’s rice. While the images have been changed to appear more contemporary, their origins are still routed strongly in racial stereotypes that average consumers may not consider. To the contrary, the longevity of these brands suggests a real strength of identity and brand equity. But to what do these brands owe their continued power in today’s society?
According to certain scholars, the American consumer’s obsession with such brands can be viewed as a “Mammy Complex.” Micki McElya writes: “If we are to reckon honestly with the history and continued legacies of slavery in the United States, we must confront the terrible depths of desire for the black mammy and the way it drags at struggles for real democracy and social justice.” 1 She goes on to say that branding such as Aunt Jemima is appealing because it evokes “servility, obedience, and joviality.”
According to W. Fitzhugh Brundage, our obsession with such characters goes above and beyond these emotions. “If lynching was the brutal face of white supremacy, Aunt Jemima and her ilk were the face of the white fantasy of harmonious race relations.” 2 So why haven’t these “fantasy” icons been challenged? One reason widely circulated is that the majority of audiences viewing advertising content continue to be white. By definition, advertisers place their dollars toward targeting larger communities that are perhaps less equipped to discern stereotypical imagery in branding. Another potential reason is the lack of diversity in the advertising community itself.
Both of these barriers are being broken down, however, with the proliferation of the internet and democratization of content. As a result, there is now more room than ever to re-address persistent racial stereotypes in today’s advertising. In the words of the authors of the Moss H. Hendrix Retrospective, an homage to the African American public relations pioneer, “African Americans are seen in one-shot takes. […] As our country grows more diverse, more groups will lobby and vie for valuable advertising dollars. Those interested in change will have to take aggressive action. There is room for everyone to be represented, but the jury is still out on who will create the image.” 3
1 McElya, Micki. “Clinging to Mammy: The Faithful Slave in Twentieth Century America.” Harvard University Press. 2007.
2 Brundage, Fitzhugh. “The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory.” Harvard University Press. 2005.
3 Moss H. Hendrix, a Retrospective. http://www.prmuseum.com/kendrix/future.html#top
