The Definition of Racism Has Been Twisted to Suit the Real Racists - The Elites!

Which of these logos is racist? As part of the sweeping social changes happening in the USA right now, several popular companies (and their customers) are suddenly "realizing" they've been racist for generations, and need to be cancelled immediately. But deciding which to keep and which to delete can be confusing.

For example, which of these 3 logos would you say is likely to be targeted as racist?

Supposedly, Uncle Ben's and Aunt Jemima are racist, while KFC is not.

Aunt Jemima announced today both the logo and the name will be removed immediately. Uncle Ben's has also just decided to remove the face of 'Uncle Ben' from the packaging, but has decided to keep the name.

When I heard the above, I immediately wondered why KFC hadn't suffered the same treatment. I haven't bought food there in decades, so I had to look up their logo. Sure enough, 'The Colonel' was an old white dude from the South. Many of his customers were/are indeed black, but the guy on the logo is decidedly fair-skinned.

So the rule appears to be... black faces in logos are racist, but white faces in logos are not. The same goes for names. Ben sounds neutral. Jemima sounds black. Ben stays, Jemima goes.

No real explanation is given by the companies for why they're making these changes, especially now, after over 100 years with the same image. The most detailed reason given I could find was "the logo is a painfully racist image". That's not even an explanation. It sounds like the companies are just bowing to pressure.

But is it really black people behind this push? Does the average black person truly want all images of black people to be removed from brands, popular culture, and even history? What does that accomplish? Is it racist simply for a face to be black, now? How does make any sense?

Isn't the idea to remove the images (and names) of black people from culture actually ... offensive, and indeed, truly racist?

Statues

It appears the 'rule' for statues is the opposite. Right now, statues of white people are being torn down all across America by the Black Lives Matter movement, and tossed into nearby bodies of water. Culture and history are being rewritten and removed, but statues of black people are being spared.

Of note, even statues of white people who fought and gave their lives to end the slavery of black people are being vandalized, torn down, and destroyed. It appears that only the colour of the person's skin matters, not what they did or what they stood for.

So the rule with statues is white faces on statues are racist, but black faces on statues are not.

As we saw with Katy Perry's line of shoes with faces, black faces on shoes are racist, and have to go. But then the white shoes with faces have to go, too, because they exclude black people. You can't have shoes with faces, unless some of them are black! But black faces are racist... so the whole shoe line had to be scrapped. (They're ugly so maybe it's for the better, but they shouldn't have been called racist.)

So for shoes with faces, logos with faces, and names, black is racist. For logos, white faces aren't racist, but for shoes, they are.

It doesn't make sense.

I suspect that the actual racists are the elites and powers-that-be, who manipulate and steer this world to their advantage. They see "regular people" as livestock to be used and killed. They play us against each other to great effect. It keeps us from noticing them, or if we do, being able to do much about them.

I don't think many intelligent people (of any colour/ethnicity) really believe that logos are racist. Faces - black brown white or otherwise - aren't inherently divisive, discriminatory, or prejudiced. To suggest that is ridiculous, yet here we are, cancelling dark faces from culture, in the name of ending racism. And white statues. And white shoes with faces.

The above University of Virginia sports logo has just been deemed racist - and cancelled - because a previous version of the logo had wavy lines on the handles of the swords, and those wavy lines were a representation of the wavy lines of a wall on the University grounds in the 1800s, which at one time had been used to separate black people from others.

Yes, seriously. The logo has to go because a previous version had wavy sword handles.

And it isn't just black or brown faces on logos and names that are racist. Sports teams have recently been changing any logos and names featuring Indigenous people, such as the Cleveland Indians.

But what about sports team logos that feature fair-skinned stereotypes? Those appear to remain acceptable. For example, the logo of the Minnesota Vikings (none of whom have Viking ancestry):

Why is it okay to show a stereotypical face of a particular ethnicity in a logo, as long as the face is fair-skinned? This policy appears to be not only illogical, but also genuinely racist. Once again, and ironically, the only real racism in the entire situation is caused by those claiming to be stamping it out!

Where does it all lead? Without logic to restrict this line of thought, it can go just about anywhere the social engineers wish to take it. Pulling the "racism" card waters down actual attempts to point out genuine racism. Diverting attention from real problems to fake instances of racism, like the Uncle Ben's logo, harms genuine victims, and ensures there will be more. We must reign in these errant forces, these true racists, these dividers, these conquerors.

It doesn't make sense because we don't insist that it does. The power to change that lies solely with us.

Peace between all people, regardless of ethnicity, and Liberty for all. I can think of no better cause.

DRutter