to Aunt Jemima and other companies that changed their logos and advertising to meet 21st century expectations, leaving their somewhat racist backgrounds behind. The uproar over it all by MAGA was insane!

What kind of person objects to changing old, racist a/o misogynist logos and company backgrounds to better respect the groups they portrayed in their beginnings?

Blacks, women in general, Latin Americans, Italians, Irish, Asians, and Native Americans (not a complete list) were often stereotyped and used in advertising campaigns that were eventually recognized as offensive in modern society. So why keep the symbols of offensive stereotypes in advertising, logos, and sometimes in product names?

Yes, it can go too far. but MAGAts don't want anything to change. They prefer the offensive and object to changes.

The renaming of sports teams, for example. Cleveland Indians could be see as a very racist name since Native Americans are no longer called that by many Americans. It is deemed offensive. But is it offensive? Well, it depends on who you ask. Advfar as I am concerned, that decision should be the view of Native Americans ONLY since they are the ones impacted by it. If they don't care, or approve of the original name, then it should have been kept! If they hated it and were deeply offended, then change it. Don't change because Progressive "do-gooders" are offended. It is not THEIR call. IMHO anyway.

I've seen very conflicting views on it within the Native American culture, but it seemed that those offended were a distinct minority while a majority actually liked and approved of the name.

So why was it changed? If a distinct majority didn't care either way, then of course change it. But when a distinct majority oppose the change and feel slighted by the change, then keep it and improve the stereotype and perception of the name so that those offended also feel heard.

From what I've read, most Native Americans did not object to the name Indians. It wasn't a majority of them who demanded change. It was a majority of social Progressives who took offense in their behalf.

OTOH, a majority of Black's objected to the term Negroes, so that term is no longer used by most. It has been replaced with Blacks and earlier as African Americans. The problem with the latter is that not all Americans with African roots are Black. Take skuM for example. Maybe that's why many prefer to be referred to as Blacks.

Black works for people from any part of the world, Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. and even from mostly white European countries who all disliked being called African Americans when they did not have known or recent roots in Africa. If all people ultimately came from Africa at some point, then aren't we all African-Americansvif we live here?

It is a shame that our world still insists upon sorting people by the color of their skin.