When sitting down to watch a nostalgic movie, I always turn to Disney. In many cases, Disney does a great job illustrating different cultures and identifying struggles with power within the characters. One of the most impactful illustrations of a power struggle within different groups is in the movie Mulan. Mulan tells the story of a young girl in China that goes to war in place of her father. Women during that time were not allowed to fight in the war, so in dire desperation to save her father, Mulan dresses as a man and goes to war. Mulan was very successful in her attempt and even saves the Emperor from the Huns. This was the ultimate display of how women are wrongfully “Othered” by groups in certain situations.
Within the movie, it is a running theme that women are supposed to look and act a certain way to please men and if they don’t meet these standards, they will not bring honor to their family. Women during this time were “Othered” since they were expected to do everything for the One, which is men. In Mulan’s case, she didn’t meet the standards so she tries to find herself by fighting in the war, which was frowned upon by both women and men in society. She ended up outshining the other men and was trusted by General Li Shang. After they found out that she is a woman, she was no longer allowed to fight and did not receive the same respect. She even said to General Li Shang, “You said you’d trust Ping. Why is Mulan any different?”. This is a perfect example of the impact “Othering” has on women in particular. Women are more often than not viewed as Other which restricts their involvement in certain activities and the respect women receive compared to men. Throughout the movie, male characters would say that Mulan wasn’t worth anything because she is a woman, but when she was a man she gained a lot of respect due to her fighting abilities. This shows how women are perceived differently just because of their gender. Mulan proves that women are just as capable of being smart and strong fighters. Due to Mulan’s overall message, it has become my go-to movie when I need inspiration. It shows that women can do anything they put their minds to, even in the presence of adversity and “Othering”. What impact do you think Mulan had on young girls compared to other Disney Princess movies? After watching, do you believe “Othering” was portrayed in an effective way compared to some of the texts we have viewed in the course? For a mainstream movie, was it a risk for Disney to tell the story of “Othering” from a woman’s perspective (might lose male viewers)?
Hello everyone! My name is Makenna and I would like to welcome you to, “Yo, is this rebranding necessary?”. Today I would like to talk about a few things I have seen in the media, that seemed to gain a lot of negative feedback. Now I’m sure you are aware of the “Karen” stereotypes that seem to plague social media like Facebook and TikTok. While I was scrolling through my social media, I couldn’t help but notice the backlash brands and companies like Aunt Jemima, Hasbro, sports teams, etc. were getting for changing their branding. There is a lot of people complaining about how rebranding wasn’t necessary and “cancel culture” is taking away childhood staples and memories. In many instances of rebranding, the previous branding or product may have either included racist imagery or was not inclusive to all groups within society today. While there are very legitimate reasons behind these rebrandings, many people within society only choose to view surface-level facts and share their opinions based on what they saw within the media or what they heard from others. By educating the public about the motivations behind these rebrandings, we can hopefully avoid the uproar these previous situations have brought and can become more understanding of the groups that have been hurt in these situations. To dive deeper into this topic, I am going to explain the history of brands and/or the motivations behind some of these rebrandings and expand on why the changes were necessary.
To start, let’s talk about something pretty close to home. Now if you are from Ohio and you are familiar with baseball, you know of the Cleveland Indians. You also may have noticed that this MLB team has done away with their logo Chief Wahoo. Chief Wahoo is depicted as a caricature cartoon of a Native American that had been pointed out as offensive and racist for many years. Many efforts have been made over the years by the Native American community and after about fifty years, progress has been made to remove the offensive imagery from being displayed on uniforms, merchandise, and much of the things associated with the Cleveland team. Although they have done away with Chief Wahoo, there are still more improvements that can be made within the team. It was declared in December 2020, that the Cleveland team will be retiring the name “Cleveland Indians” and would be looking for a replacement name for the team. Now many fans may wonder, why Chief Wahoo and the Indians’ name needed to be removed? It is no secret that Native Americans have been the minority group for the entirety of our nation’s existence and have struggled to get equal representation like many other minority groups in America. When using Native American caricatures in sports teams, it makes it “more difficult to instruct about the history and plight of Native Americans” (Dator). The imagery used masks the history of Native American culture, as these logos and mascots become everyday symbols of Native Americans. It is unacceptable to use cartoons like Chief Wahoo and even the Indians’ name due to the reasons Native Americans have been voicing for years. Now that change is on its way within sports, people need to be respectful of these changes. Injustice has been rooted within sports teams for many years through caricatures and team names, so the changes promised need to continue to fix this cycle of injustice and oppression.
Moving on to another racially motivated rebranding, Aunt Jemima. Aunt Jemima seems like a wholesome woman that resides on syrup bottles and pancake mix boxes, but her history is not so wholesome. Aunt Jemima was presented as a character in the 19th century that was featured in minstrel shows. Her character was often performed by white people in blackface that depicted Aunt Jemima as a “slave mammy of the Plantation South” (Doneghy et al.). The Mammy was stated to be “created by white Southerners to redeem the relationship between black women and white men within slave society”(Doneghy et al.). They were pictured as subservient women that were often disrespected by white men. By using an image of Aunt Jemima on syrup bottles and pancake mix, it allows for the continuation of the use of the Mammy. Despite Davis Milling Company, which was later acquired by Quaker Oats Company, promoting Aunt Jemima through women like Nancy Green and Anna Robinson, they were still promoting the obedient woman there to wait on you hand and foot. By promoting an idea that formed near the time of slavery many years after the creation of the product, the company is continuing to enforce a character that is rooted in injustice. She is a symbol of a time where many black women were treated with little respect, seen as property, and had little to no rights within society. The character serves as a reminder of the injustice black people have faced in the presence of white people and needed to be removed. By removing Aunt Jemima, the constant reminder is diminished, but the history is still present. It is still extremely important to understand the reasoning behind the removal of Aunt Jemima because she represents some of the times in America where systemic racism plagued our society.
Next up is a toy that has been around for decades and even starred as characters in the Toy Story movies. You guessed it…Potato Head. Growing up, I always knew the brand as Mr. Potato Head, but recently they have revealed that they are dropping the “Mr.” in their name. They are doing this in hopes of catering to more children and becoming more inclusive with their product, especially with their family sets. Under the Potato Head branding, Hasbro will be releasing a family set that allows the making of a family with gender-neutral potatoes. Kids can create mom and mom, dad and dad, mom and dad, and other parent-parent combinations. This allows for children to better express their family situation within their play and not be limited to the typical family model that may have been used previously. Before the introduction of the gender-neutral brand, the LGBTQ+ community was not included as part of the brand. With constant changes within our society focusing around gender and marriage norms, it is important to make more toys like this and rebrand to accommodate these changes. The injustice within this example can be set within the fact that the LGBTQ+ community was not represented within the Mr. Potato Head brand. This exclusion needed to be discontinued as society changed and the Potato Head branding allows for more inclusion within the toy world.
Like I said earlier, there is a lot of controversy revolving around some rebrandings. A lot of people believe that “everything offends everyone nowadays” but that is simply not true. For many years before these recent changes in brands, systemic injustices have been rooted within everyday things within our society. There are bigger examples of systemic injustices that many people face every day, but these little things like brand logos or names contribute to these larger issues. The fight to correct these injustices did not just start recently, disputing the fact that many state “people are more easily offended nowadays”. These groups that have been facing injustices for many years are just now gaining traction within the world of the products and sports team I mentioned previously. The Cleveland Indians had previously not been respectful of the culture and the wishes of the Native American community by the continued use of Chief Wahoo and the Indians’ name. Aunt Jemima had a very racist history that was being displayed on the shelves and in media for many years. Potato Head was not inclusive to the LGBTQ+ community before their rebranding. These changes the brands have made were necessary to make progress against the injustice these groups face on the regular within our society. It is these small changes that are going to allow our society to see the larger changes that need to be made to be respectful and considerate to all groups seen in our world today. As perspective views of society grow and change, these brands need to keep up. It is not just people “getting offended easier”, it’s undergoing the changes that need to be made within our society to take the next step towards understanding how to create an equal and cohesive world. Groups have faced struggles that many of us will never experience, so it is important to recognize and understand that these rebrandings were not just to keep the company from being canceled, but to set reminders to the public that our world is changing little by little and everyday brands need to represent that. It is obvious that these companies’ rebranding is not gonna solve all injustices groups face, but they may lead to the education of the public on these issues. These things gain a lot of attraction in the media and can help spread the message as to why previous brandings are not acceptable. I know what you all are thinking, not everyone is going to learn the history of these groups or understand the rebrandings, but talking about issues helps to gain traction for change. Through the education to the public on why rebrandings are necessary and informing people on the struggles these groups face, society can put more effort towards righting these injustices through small and large actions. I hope this discussion helped you better understand the motivations behind these rebrandings (Yes, I am talking to all the “Karens” out there) and can help avoid backlash on something that doesn’t deserve such negative feedback. So to answer the question, yes, these rebrandings were necessary.
Works Cited
Dator, James. “What Made the Cleveland Indians Finally Change Their Name?” SBNation.com, SBNation.com, 15 Dec. 2020, www.sbnation.com/mlb/22176074/cleveland-baseball-team-name-change.
Doneghy, Sarah, and View all. Aunt JEMIMA: It Was Never About the Pancakes. 16 July 2020, blackexcellence.com/aunt-jemima-never-pancakes/.
Segran, Elizabeth. “The Iconic Mr. Potato Head Gets a 21st-Century Rebrand.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 26 Feb. 2021, www.fastcompany.com/90607931/the-iconic-mr-potato-head-gets-a-21st-century-rebrand.
When looking at many of the larger cities in America, gentrification is an issue that on the surface seems to cause much improvement, but behind the scenes causes an impact on many people. Gentrification is the “process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents” (Merriam-Webster). Within Columbus we see gentrification, and Scott Wood of Columbus Alive even compared gentrification to a game of Monopoly (Woods). He compared the previous, poor area as Baltic Avenue with green low-middle income houses. As gentrification or “development” begins in these areas, more red hotels which symbolize upper-class housing or businesses are introduced and in turn cause a decline in green houses in the area. This causes an increase in housing prices due to the influx of more wealthy people coming into the area to build businesses or renovate houses. This all comes with a price that affects the previous residents of these areas.
While reading The Leavers by Lisa Ko, we see that Peilan and Deming live in New York City, which is a hot spot for gentrification. Stacey Sutton explains in her TedTalk the impacts of gentrification, specifically within New York. She highlights the different forms of displacement that happen when gentrification occurs. One form, exclusionary displacement, focuses on the group of people that are not forced to leave but leave due to the fact that where they live now does not fit their lifestyle (Sutton). Peilan and Deming, being immigrants in New York City, could have been victims of gentrification and either direct displacement or exclusionary displacement. When gentrification occurs, many of the cities affected lose much of the culture that developed in those cities. Being an immigrant in a new place, Peilan and Deming valued the culture within places like Chinatown and would have ultimately been affected negatively if these areas were gentrified.
Gentrification causes many issues for the residents living in these areas because the cost of living within these areas rises as gentrification proceeds. Many of the residents are not able to afford housing within these areas after developments are made. Another issue gentrification brings to attention is the neglect many of these areas face until they are further developed by an outside wealthier source. Many of these areas lack proper care from the city, like policing and street repairs (Woods). Care from the city, which should have been present previously, finally becomes present after gentrification. Systemic injustice is present in gentrification through the displacement of low-income residents and the neglect their area faced before gentrification. By giving more attention to areas that are at risk of gentrification or developing these areas to fit the needs of the residents, the issues gentrification brings can be eliminated.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a major shift in power within the Iranian government. The Revolution was an attempt to overthrow the Shah, as many people of Iran were unhappy with the Westernization of Iran and the economic shift to the oil market, which caused many other jobs to dwindle (CrashCourse, 07:20-08:52). As the Revolution came to an end and the Shah gave up his power, a shift to the Islamic Republic was pushed by Khomeini, who participated heavily within the Revolution and received much power in the absence of the Shah. His new Republic focused heavily on Islamic Law, which in turn changed the role of women within society (Rafique and Butt, 432).
After the Shah was removed from power, women planned to celebrate their achievements on National Women’s Day, but this soon turned into a demonstration to oppose the news that veiling would become compulsory (Higgins, 477). It is believed that the reintroduction of veiling or wearing a hijab, and “accepting gender segregation” is for the “security and comfort” of women (Shaditalab, 17). Veiling was only the beginning of the shift women would face after the Iranian Revolution. Before the Revolution, the Shah put into place policies that helped women gain more rights within society (Rafique and Butt, 433). It took a turn when Khomeini took power and changed many of the policies the Shah put in place. An example is the termination of the Family Protection Law which resulted in the following, “the legal minimum age at marriage for women was lowered to thirteen; divorce was again granted to men on demand and women only under a narrow range of circumstances, and polygyny was declared legal without a first wife’s consent” (Higgins, 480). These new changes put in place by the Islamic Republic restricted women’s rights and encouraged gender inequality (Rafique and Butt, 432).
Growing up during this shift of power can be extremely difficult for young women. Many freedoms that people take for granted throughout the world like uniqueness, choices within marriage, comfortableness within the presence of men, etc. are restricted by laws for young women in Iran. This absence of choice and presence of control in many aspects of life creates a longing to be recognized and heard. When watching the film, Persepolis, it is important to keep in mind these struggles as it is highlighted through a young woman growing up and speaking out against the constructs in the Iranian Republic.
Works Cited
CrashCourse. “Iran’s Revolutions: Crash Course World History 226.” YouTube, uploaded by CrashCourse, 26 Feb. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI.
Higgins, Patricia J. “Women in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Legal, Social, and Ideological Changes.” Signs, vol. 10, no. 3, 1985, pp. 477–494. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3174262. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.
Jaleh Shaditalab. “Islamization and Gender in Iran: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?” Signs, vol. 32,no. 1, Sept. 2006, pp.14–21. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1086/505276.
Rafique, Sadia, and Khalid Manzoor Butt. “Position of Women in Iran: An Analysis of Pre and Post Islamic Revolution 1979.” South Asian Studies (1026-678X), vol. 32, no. 2, July 2017, pp. 431–439. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126924375&site=eds-live&scope=site.
ustrating different cultures and identifying struggles with power within the characters. One of the most impactful illustrations of a power struggle within different groups is in the movie Mulan. Mulan tells the story of a young girl in China that goes to war in place of her father. Women during that time were not allowed to fight in the war, so in dire desperation to save her father, Mulan dresses as a man and goes to war. Mulan was very successful in her attempt and even saves the Emperor from the Huns. This was the ultimate display of how women are wrongfully “Othered” by groups in certain situations.
wned upon by both women and men in society. She ended up outshining the other men and was trusted by General Li Shang. After they found out that she is a woman, she was no longer allowed to fight and did not receive the same respect. She even said to General Li Shang, “You said you’d trust Ping. Why is Mulan any different?”. This is a perfect example of the impact “Othering” has on women in particular. Women are more often than not viewed as Other which restricts their involvement in certain activities and the respect women receive compared to men. Throughout the movie, male characters would say that Mulan wasn’t worth anything because she is a woman, but when she was a man she gained a lot of respect due to her fighting abilities. This shows how women are perceived differently just because of their gender. Mulan proves that women are just as capable of being smart and strong 
fighters. Due to Mulan’s overall message, it has become my go-to movie when I need inspiration. It shows that women can do anything they put their minds to, even in the presence of adversity and “Othering”. What impact do you think Mulan had on young girls compared to other Disney Princess movies? After watching, do you believe “Othering” was portrayed in an effective way compared to some of the texts we have viewed in the course? For a mainstream movie, was it a risk for Disney to tell the story of “Othering” from a woman’s perspective (might lose male viewers)?