ENG111M03Discussion
txt
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
111
Subject
Communications
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
txt
Pages
1
Uploaded by ConstableRedPandaPerson996
After applying my understanding of Chapter 4 of "They Say / I Say", and from what I
have learned so far , some responses I have come up with for the reading I chose, "Why Did It Take So Long for Food Companies to Rebrand Their Racist Products?" by Nadra Nittle are:
Disagree–and Explain Why: I disagree with Nittle’s assertion, and find it questionable, that food companies were slow to rebrand their racist products because they were afraid of losing consumers and earnings. Nittle seemed to fail to
notice the fact that many food companies have been under duress from activists, clientele, and even their own employees to change their derogatory names and logos for years. I feel that the true cause of the food companies’ hesitation in remarketing their racist products was not because of anxiety or concern, but because of laziness and disregard.
Agree–But with a Difference: Nittle was right to point out that food companies were
hestitant to rebrand their racist products because they feared isolating their loyal customers and losing their position in the market. However, Nittle did not think about the role of social media and the public's viewpoint in influencing the decisions of food companies. Social media platforms have heightened the opinions of
those who seek and call out for a change, while revealing the racism and disregard of the food companies. After the protests and movements of 2020, the public's general voice has also shifted in support of racial justice and equality. These details have forced food companies to rebrand their racist products, not out of a moral position, but out of necessity and survival.
Agree and Disagree Simultaneously: I concede with Nittle that food companies were hesitant to rebrand their racist products because they wanted to maintain their brand identity and look good to their loyal customers. However, I also challenge Nittle’s suggestion that food companies are entirely responsible for the tenacity of racism and stereotypes in the food industry. Nittle ignored the historical and cultural conditions of how these products were invented. Many of the products came out of a time when racism and discrimination were normalized and even accepted. Many consumers grew up with these products and connected them with nostalgia and comfort. I think that both food companies and consumers accept the responsibility for the duration of racist products.
I found that writing the “Agree and Disagree Simultaneously” response was the most challenging to me, because it challenged me to weigh in on both sides of the discussion and recognize the complexity of the issue. My “Agree–But with a Difference” response was the most shocking one to write, because it made me more aware of how much social media and the public's general consensus have changed the
outlook of the food industry and the society at large. The “Disagree–and Explain Why” response was the one that best conveyed what I wanted to say about this reading, because it questioned Nittle’s assumption and offered a different explanation. I would be more excited to say more about this because I think and feel that it brings up more questions, and makes one think. It makes me wonder in what ways can food companies conquer their laziness and arrogance, and instead become more motivated and responsible in addressing the racism and stereotypes in their products?
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help