HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Race & Ethnicity » First Americans (Group) » Land O'Lakes Removing Nat...

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 04:18 AM

Land O'Lakes Removing Native American Woman From Packaging After 92 Years

Land O’Lakes is removing the Native American woman who has appeared on its containers of butter and margarine since 1928. Instead, future packages will showcase photos of real Land O’Lakes farmers and co-op members, along with the phrase “Proud to be Farmer-Owned,” according to a company release.

The Grand Forks Tribune noted that many Native people, including North Dakota state Rep. Ruth Buffalo (D), have called the woman’s image racist. Buffalo told the paper the image goes “hand-in-hand with human and sex trafficking of our women and girls.… by depicting Native women as sex objects.” 

Land O’Lakes President and CEO Beth Ford did not cite cultural sensitivity as the reason for the change.

“As Land O’Lakes looks toward our 100th anniversary (in 2021), we’ve recognized we need packaging that reflects the foundation and heart of our company culture — and nothing does that better than our farmer-owners whose milk is used to produce Land O’Lakes’ dairy products,” Ford said in a release.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e978a28c5b6a92100e1a900

27 replies, 1758 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Land O'Lakes Removing Native American Woman From Packaging After 92 Years (Original post)
SunSeeker Apr 2020 OP
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #1
mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #2
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #3
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #4
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #9
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #11
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #12
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #13
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #14
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #15
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #16
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2020 #7
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #8
RestoreAmerica2020 Apr 2020 #5
TlalocW Apr 2020 #6
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #10
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #17
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #18
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #19
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #20
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #22
mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #23
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #24
TlalocW Apr 2020 #25
SunSeeker Apr 2020 #26
TlalocW Apr 2020 #27
fleabiscuit Apr 2020 #21

Response to SunSeeker (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 04:34 AM

1. The image seems pretty innocuous to me ...

Clue me in on the sex-trafficking link with the image?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 05:34 AM

2. Same here. Now I've got to start hoarding the old boxes. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 05:57 AM

3. It's an image of a NA woman on her knees.

Enjoy your butter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 06:08 AM

4. It's an image of a young NA woman on her knees looking up submissively.

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2020, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

She is holding up butter, smiling up at what appears to be an observer looking down at her, she is apparently offering up her butter to them.

It's creepy and weird.

Why even use a Native American character to sell the European-introduced staple of butter, let alone a young Native American woman on her knees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:13 AM

9. Ummm ... no, it's nothing whatsoever like that anymore ...

Or I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. What you describe would be sexist in general, without even getting into the tragic NA history part. Least not where I purchase it, Safeway in AZ.

Now, granted, at some point in the past it may very well have been such an image (though I don't recall anyone but her in the image, ever), but I have a box in my fridge right now, and at this point, it's a perfectly nice portrait of a pretty NA woman in traditional garb, smiling, from the shoulders up.

That's why I asked why it recalls 'sex-trafficking'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:24 AM

11. Ummm...yes it was. Here's the packaging that was dropped in February 2020:







Not only was the packaging creepy as is, but adolescent boys were giddily making her "show her boobs" by folding the carton to turn her knees into breasts.

Do a search on Twitter right now for "Land O Lakes" and you'll see tweet after tweet of men waxing nostalgic, bragging about this "trick."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:29 AM

12. Are you calling me a liar?

Mine looks like this ... okay? That's why I asked.



Nevertheless, even in the pic you showed, it's most certainly not this:

"She is holding up butter, smiling up at what appears to be an observer looking down at her, she is apparently offering up her butter to them."

Look I get the objections on various other ground like cultural appropriation, and a woman on her knees (any sort of woman) isn't too cool, but ... sex-trafficking accusations are a bit over the top, given the image.

MHO, ymmv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:54 AM

13. You are showing recent transitional packaging before they dropped her altogether.

And Rep. Buffalo didn't accuse Land O Lakes of sex-trafficking. Her point was that depicting Native American women and girls as sex objects "goes hand in hand" with sex-trafficking of Native Ametican women and girls (i.e. is part of the spectrum of abuse of Native American women and girls that includes sex-trafficking).

It's no joke, sex-trafficking of Native American women and girls is a huge problem. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/18/native-american-women-trafficked-searchlight-new-mexico

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:02 PM

14. How is even the older picture 'showing her as a sex object'?

Because stupid little boys fold the package? Do you think that's the company's intent?

Again, I get the objection on various other grounds (in particular, the accusation of wrongful cultural appropriation, from the standpoint of First Americans), and I'm not suggesting sex trafficking doesn't happen.

I just think it's a big stretch to say the image 'goes hand in hand' with sex trafficking.

Which was my original point, and I remain unconvinced otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:05 PM

15. They're using a pretty native girl's face/body to sell butter. That's sexual objectification. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:06 PM

16. I think we should just agree to disagree ... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 08:20 AM

7. There is the fold-the-cardboard trick too. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:05 AM

8. Turning her knees into her breasts...a formative part of manhood?

















Not only was the packaging creepy as is, but as your post indicates, adolescent boys were giddily making her "show her boobs."



Way to honor Native Americans and women!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 06:13 AM

5. If IT offends our First Nations brothers and sisters then IT'S offensive! Gracias Sunseeker

..for post. That's great news!

In solidarity, Paz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 07:15 AM

6. I'm for this although there's a part of me

That's been conditioned through mass media as a kid to associate anything Native American to be cool - from stories as a kid, to being in Cub/Boy Scouts, to products like this or the song from the Hamm's Beer commercials (From the land of sky-blue waters), etc. Plus I hate to see anything historical to be damaged like some sort of signage with a Native American on it from the 50s in a small Oklahoma town I used to have to go to quite often (eventually destroyed by storms). But it's unfair to co-opt another culture like this which has to be what is taken into consideration over nostalgia from an ignorant childhood.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TlalocW (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 11:19 AM

10. I totally get the complaint on the grounds of cultural appropriation ...

And the older image, which seems to not be used anymore, with a woman on her knees I think can be argued is showing women as subservient and thus uncool on those grounds.

But I also think bringing sex-trafficking into the argument is a bit over the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:07 PM

17. Sexual objectification enables sex trafficking.

Dehumanizing and objectifying girls endangers them by increasing societal acceptance of child sexual abuse, pornography, and trafficking, and is linked to inequality, mental illness, eating disorders, low self-esteem, acceptance of violent treatment, and substance abuse among other harms. Female objectification is detrimental for males too—valuing females by these superficial, unrealistic criteria impairs work relationships and romantic partnerships, and makes males more likely to commit sexual assault and harassment.
 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/warning-signs-parents/201908/preventing-female-sexual-abuse-and-trafficking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:11 PM

18. There's nothing sexual about the image ...

Let's just agree to disagree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:17 PM

19. We can agree to disagree. But a depiction of a pretty girl on her knees is sexual.

And using a pretty girl's face to sell butter is sexual objectification. You may not think that it is, probably because it is so universal and you grew up with it and saw it all your life, but it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 12:32 PM

20. Yes, we do disagree ...

When I think of 'sexual' ads, they look something like this ... you know, the sort that are on every other page of magazines that are bought almost exclusively by females.



I think you have to have a dirty mind to think the Land O' Lakes lady (not a girl, really) is a 'sexual ad'.

So, we're not going to agree on this point you're trying to make, so let's just leave it, kay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 02:10 PM

22. You don't seem to understand the concept of sexual objectification.

It doesn't have to depict a sexual act. Sexual objectification is the treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity. 

Understanding this does not mean you have a "dirty mind."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 02:41 PM

23. I really don't think the intent of the Farmers in the MN Co-Op which established the logo in 1928

was 'Hey, I bet we can sell more butter if there's a picture of a chick that dude's wanna f*** on the label'.

Especially since the % of butter purchased by men in stores in 1928 was maybe 20% at most (my guess).

OTOH, there's 2 solid, reasonable arguments against this label:

1) Images like these should only be used by Native-owned companies at their own discretion. For others to do so is unfair cultural appropriation, and/or
2) Images of women (of any sort) on their knees offering up foodstuffs is a negative stereotype of women, implying they are subservient, belong in the kitchen, etc.

Making additional claims that the label 'goes hand in hand with sex trafficking' is over the top, and undermines your valid arguments by making you sound extreme. You just give people a reason to disregard what you said before, that made perfect sense, and was rhetorically sustainable.

In MY opinion.

Like I said, agree to disagree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 03:18 PM

24. Their intent was to sell butter. Pictures of pretty girls had long been a staple of advertising.

I can understand why you think Rep. Buffalo's opinion is a bit over the top, but I can also understand where she's coming from and she makes a valid point. I totally get that she may sound "extreme" to folks who don't share her cultural experiences. She lives in a community where sex-trafficking is a pervasive problem, so her perspective differs from yours, obviously.

You of course have a right to your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 07:48 PM

25. I can see the point about sexual imagery

But I think the use of Native American imagery here is also to imply the butter is made the old fashioned way without additives, etc. (Whether true or not) I'll point out my example of Hamns beer using stereotypical Indian drum beats and singing rhythm to tell us the beer is "from the land of sky blue waters."

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TlalocW (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 08:35 PM

26. This image has been used 92 years. I don't think "all natural" was a thing back then.

Regardless, how does a young woman invoke no additives? Is it because she's supposed to be a virgin and pure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 19, 2020, 04:26 AM

27. You could make that point

And credibly back it up, but I still stand by the "all natural" aspect. All natural might be a misnomer, but even back then I'm sure there were more advertisements for products that played on nature themes to indicate purity, and using a fresh-faced young girl as part of it would not have been used by just one company.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2020, 01:03 PM

21. It has always bugged me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread