Turning Uncle Ben into Chairman of the Board

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

At a time when we’re seeing various institutions acknowledge and apologize for their involvement with the slave trade (the state of Maryland and Brown University are two recent examples), it’s sad to see one company so enthusiastically reviving a brand that was built on slave imagery.

The New York Times discusses a new campaign from Uncle Ben’s Rice that is attempting to give Ben a makeover:

Uncle Ben, who first appeared in ads in 1946, is being reborn as Ben, an accomplished businessman with an opulent office, a busy schedule, an extensive travel itinerary and a penchant for sharing what the company calls his “grains of wisdom” about rice and life.

Check out the Uncle Ben’s web site for a glimpse at the campaign.

Uncle Ben is a perfect example of the Tom caricature. From the excellent Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia web site:

The Tom caricature portrays Black men as faithful, happily submissive servants. The Tom caricature, as with the Mammy Caricature, was born in ante-bellum America in the defense of slavery. How could slavery be wrong, argued its proponents, if Black servants, males (Toms) and females (Mammies) were contented, loyal servants? The Tom is presented as a smiling, wide-eyed, dark skinned server: fieldworker, cook, butler, porter, or waiter. Unlike the Coon, the Tom is portrayed as a dependable worker, eager to serve. Unlike the Brute, the Tom is docile and non-threatening to Whites. The Tom is often old, physically weak, psychologically dependent on Whites for approval.

During the antebellum era, whites would often refer to elderly black slaves as “uncle” or “aunt.” It was a way of bestowing some respect without going so far as to treat them as actual equals by calling them “Mr.” or “Mrs.” This means that the very names of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are directly descended from the culture of slavery.

Let’s take a look at the history of how Uncle Ben came to be, shall we? From the Times article:

According to Ms. Kern Foxworth’s book and other reference materials, there was a Ben — no surname survives — who was a Houston rice farmer renowned for the quality of his crops. During World War II, Gordon L. Harwell, a Texas food broker, supplied to the armed forces a special kind of white rice, cooked to preserve the nutrients, under the brand name Converted Rice.

In 1946, Mr. Harwell had dinner with a friend (or business partner) in Chicago (or Houston) and decided that a portrait of the maitre d’hotel of the restaurant, Frank Brown, could represent the brand, which was renamed Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice as it was being introduced to the consumer market.

This story is really the epitome of packaging and selling and profiting from blackness. Basically, they used the likeness of some random black man to represent the real Ben, and went on to make millions and millions of dollars from this brand. And something tells me that neither the maitre d’ nor the original Ben ever saw a cent of that fortune. [And by the way, the business unit that produces Uncle Ben's rice is called Masterfoods USA. No comment.]

Of course, Masterfoods USA trotted out their Official Person of Color to demonstrate how un-racist the brand is:

Vincent Howell, president for the food division of the Masterfoods USA unit of Mars, said that because consumers described Uncle Ben as having “a timeless element to him, we didn’t want to significantly change him.”

“What’s powerful to me is to show an African-American icon in a position of prominence and authority,” Mr. Howell said. “As an African-American, he makes me feel so proud.”

…So about 18 months ago, the company and agency decided “to reach out to our consumers” and gauge attitudes toward Uncle Ben, Mr. Howell said. There were no negative responses or references to the stereotyped aspects of the character, he said. Rather, the consumers “focused on positive images, quality, warmth, timelessness,” he added, and “the legend of Uncle Ben.”

That encouraged the idea that “we could bring him to life,” Mr. Howell said, sensitive to “the sorts of concerns that are important to me as an African-American.”

Barf.

This rebranding campaign is really the epitome of putting lipstick on a pig.

  • Uncle Ben is still grinning and wearing a bowtie. There’s nothing Chairman of the Board-esque about that image.
  • Uncle Ben still has no last name. When’s the last time you heard a powerful man referred to by his first name? That’s Mr. Gates to you, not Bill.
  • He’s still Uncle Ben. No matter what fantasies you weave about him being the Chairman of the Board, his very name still comes from the culture of slavery.

Just get rid of the brand altogether. There’s nothing worth salvaging here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. The Colbert Report on Uncle Ben's Rice at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 22 May 2007 at 7:00 am

    [...] ranted about the lame Uncle Ben’s rebranding campaign back in April. Good to see I wasn’t the only one who thought MasterFoods’ (hehe) [...]

  2. BIG IDEAS » Blog Archive » The Most Important Blog Posts of 2007 on 02 Jan 2008 at 10:54 am

    [...] And lots of folks has plenty to say about the “re-branding” of Uncle Ben, put perhaps Racialicious said it [...]

Comments

  1. LM wrote:

    I’m more offended by this than by Karl Rove’s dance… and what’s sad is that these MFers (Masterfood-ers) seem to have taken some time to think about all this. It’s as if a builder decided on sand as a foundation because of the “warm” connotations.

    Vincent Howell told the Times that “there were no negative responses or references to the stereotyped aspects of the character” in consumer focus groups? That’s mind-blowing for any of three reasons: 1) the reporter might have completely misconstrued that piece of his conversation with Howell, 2) Howell might believe wholesale what he was told by someone who was actually part of the focus-group process, or 3) Howell might actually think that the world would believe what he said.

  2. Mrs. J wrote:

    I would have appreciated it if they’d have given (Uncle)Ben a last name and I would have liked to have seen him in an Armani suit or something less “bell hop” like. But I have to hand it to the creatives there for trying to bring the brand into the 21st century and make the image more than just a pleasant black face.

    They could have easily made him a gourmet chef, but instead chose reappropriate the image by pushing the envelope a whole lot further. Short of shutting down the entire brand (in which case, Brown University, Phillip Morris and any other American institution that benefited from slave labor should be shut down, too) I thought this was the least they could do.

    As an African American who sees slavery as a significant part of my own history and American history in general, I saw this as a step in the right direction. Playful, yes, but positive. I think the original Ben would be proud.

    That said, after seeing the website, I had to stop myself from looking for some Uncle Ben’s risotto this weekend after I remembered that (sadly) the real Ben’s family wouldn’t gain one red cent from the purchase either way.

  3. Ananse wrote:

    Irony #1: West African slaves had to teach Southern plantation owners how to grow a crop that went largely unchanged for thousands of years, because the latter lacked the knowledge and temperament [See Judith Carney's 2002 book "Black Rice" for more scoop]

    Irony #2: The scientist who developed the “parboiled conversion” improvement to a crop which had remained largely unchanged for thousands of years was from England, the entrepreneur exploiting the process from the South

    Irony #3: When Frank Brown’s (aka “Ben”) image was removed from boxes in the 80s to try an change with the times, sales went, um, south.

  4. kim wrote:

    Just change the name…over time. Introduce it in another way…touting health benefits…exploiting the parboiled, nutrient-retained aspects.

    Or, go the Ben-Un-Ben rice route, and spritz it with a cherry aroma.

  5. Erica wrote:

    Given the number of people that had to approve this whole thing, I can’t believe it saw daylight.

    They ought to just drop “Ben” from the whole thing. Keep the brand name, but leave the guy out of it all together.

  6. Kyla wrote:

    LM – It may also mean that the focus groups were made up entirely or almost entirely of white people, too.

    I agree with Erica. Keep the brand name, drop the “mascot.” Though at least they didn’t make him a basketball player or rapper, I guess.

  7. mtevc wrote:

    Sheesh! I am speechless. Some people are simply clueless at just how offensive they are. Between Aunt Jemima getting a perm and no Uncle Ben getting a do-over as Robert Johnson, I just don’t know what to do with myself. Who should I look up to? A whitewashed lawn jockey?

  8. LM wrote:

    @ Kyla: I can imagine a lot, but not that these focus groups were lily white affairs. And even if they were, I’d like to think that SOMEbody would have said something reasonably enlightened.

    @ Mrs. J: companies and brands change names all the time, including Philip Morris (now Altria, though the tobacco piece of the business still bears the Philip Morris tag). I don’t think they should shut down the business; if links to slavery were the criteria for that life in the United States would just about cease. I agree that Masterfoods was right to consider rebranding. I just think this particular spin on “Uncle Ben” is trifling.

  9. obw wrote:

    I just caught up on all the new articles on this site and I have to say, my soul threw up a little when I read about this new Uncle Ben campaign. I browsed the website, which includes a history of the brand. No mention of the image, historical context, nothing – no surprise, I guess.
    What I can’t believe, above everything else, is that they didn’t change the name/image of Uncle Ben – here they’ve revamped his profession, made him seem like some Donald Trump figure, but, as you’ve pointed out, the three biggest changes that should have been made were not.
    I tried looking for a customer service number or email, but wasn’t able to find one – if someone is able to access something where people can submit their opinions, please post it! Thanks!

  10. Ananse wrote:

    Here you go:

    Masterfoods USA
    800 High St.
    Hackettstown, NJ 07840
    908-852-1000
    Toll free: 1-800-222-0293
    E-mail: askus@masterfoodsusa.com
    E-mail:consumer.affairs@mmmars.com
    http://www.masterfoods.com

    Other thing that slipped my mind earlier: this $20 million(!) fiasco is the *second* controversial offensive campaign Mars’s agency of record- TBWA/Chiat/Day- has concocted and launched within less than a year. Think back to the recent backlash against their perceived anti-gay Snickers campaign for the 2007 Super Bowl. Someone’s just not getting it, no?

  11. Kevin wrote:

    I used to work for the lame company. They have very few African Americans in senior management (just 2). They had almost none in the middle ranks waiting for promotions. They wanted most of us to stay working in the plant on the night shift making the products that made them billionaires. Most African Americans have left the company.

  12. David wrote:

    How about CONDOLEEZA® brand Rice?

    Actually (and seriously) there is really no persons name needed. Wasn’t Uncle Ben a Pullman Porter?
    Call it DINING CAR, or FIRST CLASS rice.

  13. Barbara wrote:

    I just think its pitiful that the company refuses to acknowledge that there was a real man named Ben behind the brand. He was known for the quality of the rice that he grew, but died before this rice got his ‘brand name’. I am sure they are denying the association so that they don’t have to pay millions in royalties to his family for using his name to promote the quality of their product back in the day by associating their rice with his. The family should go after them and not stop.
    And I am sure the people of his area that respected his product and his life’s work didn’t call him ‘Uncle’. That is in no way able to be disguised as anything but a slave era reference, just like ‘Aunt’ in Aunt Jemima.
    Not to mention how both of them are depicted.

  14. Christine wrote:

    Is the Uncle Ben marketing strategy built on maintaining offensive racial stereotypes. I nearly had a blood boil episode when I saw Uncle Ben’s campaign for their new Wok Rice, here in the UK. The advert featured a father figure who when asked by his son what was for dinner, proceeded to do kung fu moves and then said ‘Stir Fry’ in a mock Chinese accent.

    I have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK, as have a few other consumers. Unfortunately, because the South East Asian community aren’t as empowered here as in the US, they concluded that it was not offensive to them [ie. the mainly white board of ASA who decides what is offensive and what is not].

    Although born and bred here, every day I have to deal with random people on the street saying Konichiwa or Nee Hai in strangled cat call voices, or worse, kung fu voices. After so many years, I’ve decided to stand up and tell people how offensive this is… and they are ALWAYS shocked at my reply. I truly believe this is because of an assault by main stream media using racial stereotypes to market their products, films etc.