By Avar He Zapata

Take a good look at this image above. What comes to mind when looking at this image? How do you feel or interpret this image? What do you think is the message trying to convey to the viewer? Can you personally relate to what’s in this image? The people who are being depicted here? Now let me ask if you were randomly scrolling through social media, YouTube or anywhere else on the internet, or if this popped up on TV when flipping through channels and then your eyes caught this out of the blue. Would you ignore it? Engaged with it? Be shocked? Or would you even know it was there? How would you respond to all of these things? Well my thesis and the point that I am trying to get across is why this very old ad from around 1917 is seen today as being offensive and stereotypical and to go further into deeper detail to explain why this is the case.

The image presented here was an old coupon to purchase what was basically early merchandising for the Aunt Jemima/Pearl Milling Company brand. A brand known today for selling pancakes and syrup. (Lamphier) But cutting to the chase here, anyone who has any knowledge of US and world history and critical race theory will know about the topics of slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow laws. (Teach Democracy) After the civil war ended in 1865, these laws were put into place to help legalize the marginalization of African-Americans and other non-white ethnic groups in the United States. This separation was seen and based around the idea of white supremacy and reconstruction after the defeat of the confederates in the South. This kept people of color away from any social place separated from whites such as movie theaters, restaurants, single race schools, neighborhoods, etc. This lasted for nearly a century until ultimately in 1968 when these laws were overturned by the government. Following the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr and the assassination of US president John F. Kennedy, this allowed all race groups the freedom to do whatever and go wherever they want in the US without being racially profiled. Something that sadly people today still have issues with. 

In the present day, we still see racism and other forms of hate, violence and brutality occur in our society. All this has been made even worse with the advent of social media and other controversial news outlets and platforms that fuel and spread this mass negativity. It’s why some people still cling onto certain racial beliefs like the Ku-Klux-Klan or Neo-nazis. It’s because of all this content that we are being fed that generations both young and old are still falling into this trap of stereotyping. Stereotypes as we know are the oversimplifications and generalizations that we see based on certain groups of people. As the Oxford’s Learner Dictionary puts it, “a fixed idea or image that many people have of a particular type of person or thing, but which is often not true in reality and may cause hurt and offense.” (Oxford) Any person can make a false claim based on anything or anyone, like making fun or ​​deliberately attacking a certain ethnicity, race, nationality, or the way one speaks in an accent, native language, speech delivery or religion.    

Going back to the image above, how can all this relate to stereotyping? Well we can decipher this image by relying on these certain methods from these notable theorists. Ferdinand de Saussure’s signs and signing. Charles Peirce’s index, icon and symbol. Roland Barthes “Rhetoric of the Image” and Stuart Hall’s “The Work of Representation.” All of which are valid and proven viewing methods to understand how certain things can be shown and depicted to us in the media.

Let’s start by going off on signs and signing. Often called the father of semiotics, Saussure had the theory of a sign being signified and viewed with a signifier to conjure up the whole meaning or objective concept of a certain sign or image. (Hall #52) When taking a look at this coupon, what’s the first thing we see that comes to mind, what is the sign? The sign being this coupon ad stating to purchase this rag doll family and how to “secure” them. While Saussure believed that signs can be interpreted differently by certain people, when I look at how old this ad is and the messaging that goes along with it, several things point out to me. A signifier in the ad being an African-American family and the ragged clothes that they are wearing. That to me can be signified as dirty or uncleanliness. That overall can mean that this family isn’t being depicted in their best appearance. Another signifier can be how joyful this family looks despite the condition that they are in. Aunt Jemima (left) and the two children in the front seem to be smiling while Uncle Mose (right) is playing a fiddle. In any other context, this might be seen more innocently if this was any other average black American family doing mundane things in the modern day. But given a specific time period of 1917 and judging how old and tarnished this ad looks with a certain hand drawn illustration (how most advertisements and graphic designs were done at the time), my personal signifier can be that them smiling can either imply that it’s being forced, they enjoy or are content with being in the state they are in, or they are being made fun of, most definitely in a negative way to show off to other people that this is how people of their kind are suppose to be like in reality. Giving people, like white folks of that time period a reason to spread bigotry and be racist towards people who may look like the four people being depicted on this ad. 

Similar to Saussure’s Signs and Signing theory, a French theorist by the name of Charles Peirce also had another method known as icon, index and symbol. (Hall #2) An icon is the sign. With this image we’re looking at, the icon (or icons) are the characters/people being represented in this ad. Aunt Jemima’s family. A symbol (the signifier) is perhaps the state or condition that they’re in. This whole family is shown wearing ragged and unkempt clothes. And then there is the index (what is being signified to us). The index is the overall assumption or conclusion one can decipher when putting everything that is mentioned into context. This being a “happy” African-American family presenting themselves in dirty tarnished clothes in a time of the early 20th century and the text saying or calling this family rag dolls and securinging them can give me the impression that this is supposed to be bigotry on slavery or encouraging that non-white people are seen as property and not human. Something to own and toss away like garbage or objects and them smiling can mean that Aunt Jemima and her family enjoy being treated this way. Glorifying this kind of inhumanity.

A more in-depth way of looking at all of this is through Roland Barthes’ 1977 essay “Rhetoric of the Image,” where he presents his ideas by visually annotating every detail in a certain image and giving critical points in the details that make up said image. (Barthes #1) The DNA on everything of sorts. Knowing what the Aunt Jemima brand is, I can start by encoding the image which is creating a message for transmission. The creation and distribution of the advertisement. This is a brand that sells pancakes, syrup and other breakfast products. The decoding of this image is the process of interpreting what the message is. What I can interpret when watching and interpret when viewing this ad. Supposedly, one is to think that an American breakfast involves these black people, or that it comes from someone’s black aunt. There can be some hint of a positive message where maybe someone wants to create a family business based on a relative’s recipe and it just so happens this said person is a person of color. But there are other factors here that say otherwise. Barthes at some point brings up denotation, the literal meaning of a message, what the image shows without encoding or decoding any sort of detail. These four people that I see in ragged clothing. Connotation is the symbolic and cultural meaning when coding a message. What do I see within this image that is of symbolic and cultural significance? These are four African-American people who are dressed a certain way and seem to look joyful. The linguistic message are the words here that convey meaning to ad. The top reads “Aunt Jemima,” the brand name. The bottom reads as follows, “Rag doll family coupon. See the other side for how to secure them.” We established Aunt Jemima to be a breakfast food brand. So why are they selling rag dolls? Or why are they referring to this family as rag dolls? And what does it mean to secure them? Do you mean to purchase said merchandise? Similarly to denotation, there is a non-coded iconic message: an image with literal meaning. I see that it’s a black family wearing torn clothes but it seems that this is what Aunt Jemima is about. That lady to the left must be Aunt Jemima. Lastly there is a coded iconic message, an image with a coded message. So what I’m getting at here is that Aunt Jemima, let alone the whole Pearl Millings Company, views or based their mascot on real African-American people and their entire brand is supposed to revolve around this particular family who appear in this certain fashion.

Lastly, let’s look at Stuart Hall’s theory on “The Work of Representation ” and see how this relates to this ad. Hall being someone of Jamaican and British descent who has lived through British occupied Jamaica and would later go on to Oxford University to receive a scholarship in English and Master of Arts. He had this theory of how representation was depicted in the media and why certain people pick up certain things when they only view those aspects without going any deeper into how or why people have these fixed mindsets. He believed that representation was aimed to be more of a positive message where if done right, the language spread between people can be meaningful and can highlight a certain aspect of culture that usually is not shown in the media. (Hall #1) You have to seek it out elsewhere beyond watching the news or reading it in the paper. But that doesn’t always mean it’s necessarily positive. Nowadays, we are all well aware of this kind of depiction and time period this is from. I look at this ad and it reeks of ugly undertones such as blackface and the minstrel show. (Britannica) These two parental figures in the background are what some would call a caricature of uncle Tom and aunt Mammy. Essentially they’re glorified fictional characterizations of African-American men and women being depicted in old media who enjoy being slaves or servants in white households and are usually seen blindly doing and enjoying laborious things for white people. (Garvey) It’s a disgusting and fake depiction and over glorification of what slavery really was like where many people were beaten and put to death. (Garvey) This to me just shows me that most white Americans in this time of history had no decency on other race groups and saw themselves as the definitive race. That America is all white and any other race or ethnicity is not seen as a human being but just property or an animal with no soul. Upon more research, there were actual rag dolls of Aunt Jemima and her family and these were actually sold as merchandise for the Aunt Jemima company. While their appearances have been improved overtime, later being depicted to look better dressed, this doesn’t excuse the fact that this is still seen as some form of racism and to poke fun and mass offense on black people. (Lamphier) This is also derivative of the golliwog dolls which is an ugly looking rag doll from a British children’s book meant to be based on black minstrel stereotyping. (History of Dolls) 

Basically none of this is a good representation. The language on this ad and the culture being depicted here is a very false image of what the black race is. Any uninformed individual who sees this who knows nothing about black history and racism may think that this is just how black people are like in reality. Or who are taught very bad things from other individuals who produce other ill-minded individuals who spread more of this hate. Any decent human being who does look at this with better knowledge and experience will most definitely feel disgusted, offended, angered, saddened and ashamed. They all look like clowns honestly, which is where the character of Jim Crow originates from and not in a very positive way. The characters in this ad look like they are being made to be ridiculed, hated upon and to be treated inhumanely. The fact that they are smiling and are happy joyful characters just illustrates that the advertisers are using entertainment and positivity as a weapon or tool to create a very nasty image or mentality on a race group. To make fun, mock, spread ill will and show the rest of the world that black people, like the ones being depicted in this coupon are supposed all look like this in reality. No one likes being represented in this manner. No one should have to go through this kind of mockery. It’s just not right.

In conclusion, we are able to find deliberate offense in advertising in how the way the advertisement depicts itself to us. Especially that we are now living in a digital age where information (true or false) gets spread fast. History and who we are as a species is our reminder why these certain things are not allowed in today’s age. When we look at this image, the emotions that we feel, the thoughts that go around in our heads, the impressions that we get, that’s all us. We are a reactionary species. We act negatively or positively to certain things because deep down we know that what we are looking at has some sort of effect on us based on personal experience, what happens in the real world, the messages we receive and interpret, our own beliefs, and our own history.

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. “Rhetoric of the Image.”” New York: Hill and Wang, 1977, p. 2.

“A Brief History of Jim Crow – Online Lessons – Lessons and Resources for Teaching About Black History.” Constitutional Rights Foundation, https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lessons/black-history-month/a-brief-history-of-jim-crow. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Garvey, Marcus. “The Tom Caricature – Anti-black Imagery – Jim Crow Museum.” Jim Crow Museum, https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/tom/homepage.htm. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Hall, Sean. This Means This, This Means That : A User’s Guide to Semiotics. Laurence King Publishing, 2012.

Hall, Stuart. THE WORK OF REPRESENTATION. 2013.

“History of Golliwog – Origin and Meaning.” History of Dolls, http://www.historyofdolls.com/history-of-famous-dolls/history-of-golliwog/. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Lamphier, Mary Jane. “Aunt Jemima and Family.” Collectors Journal, 2020, p. 1. www.collectorsjournal.com, https://www.collectorsjournal.com/columns/aunt-jemima-and-family/article_61307022-3614-11ea-a937-ef75e3057c03.html. Accessed Thursday March 2024.

Lamphier, Mary Jane. “Aunt Jemima and family! | Columns | collectorsjournal.com.” Collectors Journal, 13 January 2020, http://www.collectorsjournal.com/columns/aunt-jemima-and-family/article_61307022-3614-11ea-a937-ef75e3057c03.html#. Accessed 21 March 2024.

“The Mammy Caricature – Anti-black Imagery – Jim Crow Museum.” Jim Crow Museum, https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/mammies/homepage.htm. Accessed 21 March 2024.

“Minstrel show | Description, History, & Facts.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/art/minstrel-show. Accessed 21 March 2024.

“stereotype noun – Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com.” Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/stereotype_1. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Google doc site:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqlKlPHttEoc1Daxt8R_-5rf0V8d8ysLgCFgPv1zQ4M/edit?usp=sharing