This is progress, but when will Pepsico drop the derogatory “Quaker” brand name?
Um… what’s derogatory about Quaker? They are a religious group that is associated with anti-racism and the abolitionist movement?
25 Likes
They originally were known as Religious Society of Friends. Their detractors coined the term “Quaker” because they seemed to be afraid of everything. The name wasn’t meant as a compliment.
Edit: seemed to be afraid of everything “quake with fear before God”
2 Likes
Huh; the history I read claimed that the name mocked their intensity whilst in prayer - they tended to “quake.”
That said, the Quakers and the origin of the moniker isn’t really germane to the current topic at hand.
15 Likes
Quakers call themselves as such:
https://www.fgcquaker.org/discover/faqs-about-quakers
However there are many versions, splits, etc so not all might like the name or consider themselves Quakers. But looking around it does not seem that the term is considered antagonistic nor offensive these days.
14 Likes
But isn’t that the REAL crime here, that quakers are being called a name that they don’t find offensive, but did hundreds of years ago? Won’t someone think of the English dissenters…/s
But back on track, while the logo has most certainly gotten far less racist over the years (even from back in the 80s, where it still straight up invoked the enslaved women of the antebellum), given the history, it’s far past time to stop using it. Others have mentioned Uncle Ben’s, so hopefully, that will go next. But it reminds me that a big part of slavery and segregation is the white need to deny that the enslaved or oppressed objected to their status, and were in fact glad to be serving white people. Despite the changes to the logo, it was still projecting that.
19 Likes
So based on 5 minutes of wikipedia research apparently, quaker oats never had any association with the religious society of friends, nor were the founders Quaker, but Quakers were seen as honest and pure, and they wanted that association with their oats. Also during WW2 their subsidiary the “Q O ordinance company” manufactured munitions for the war effort despite opposition to war being a key part of the faith and they were among the original legally recognized conscientious objectors. Many quakers did server in WW2 in or out of combat, but if I were them I still wouldn’t want the name of my religion appropriated (even abbreviated) as the name of a weapon factory…
3 Likes
Okay, but that’s not the topic of this thread and the original post was seriously just an attempt to dismiss and derail. 
how about we get back on topic?
14 Likes
My point here is that PepsiCo is the perpetuator of a broad legacy of offensive brand names. Removing the one that is most obvious today is progress (like I said), but is perhaps not enough to blot all the stains that PepsiCo causes on our culture. Keep going. Continuous improvement is the goal
3 Likes
They are changing the name to Qanon.
9 Likes
They were so very much historically and systematically discriminated against. Do a little research before going all flag happy. They were lynched, HUNG UNTIL DEAD, just for following their religion.
3 Likes
Yeah, Quaker here. It’s not a slur.
29 Likes
The broader concept of offensive brand names is what I was trying to discuss here. Getting rid of this one is definitely progress (like I said), but PepsiCo can’t just dust off it’s hands now and consider itself pure. those hands are still dirty.
2 Likes
Quaker City resident here - I support you.
14 Likes
Anyway… Benjamin Lay…
http://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/commentary/people/lay.php
I believe there is a recent book about him…
18 Likes
I’ve got to say, I agree with @ee0r.
Saying that Quakers don’t find this offensive is painting an entire group (or, more precisely, multiple groups) with the same brush and saying that the offensiveness is obsolete is likewise dubious. I know personally that none of my Cherokee family (card-carrying citizens of the Cherokee nation) find the term “Indian” offensive and use it by default, but a whole lot of native Americans do. At the very least it is cynically appropriative and, based on @ejeffrey’s research, the origins are entirely at odds with core tenets of the faith. This does not seem to be so off-topic to warrant flagging; that’s what topic splits are for.
4 Likes
I’m guessing that they find the name of the “Cherikee Red” brand cherry-flavored soft drink to be at least mildly aggravating, though.
3 Likes
Honestly, I doubt it. Despite being from a minority group and members of the Western Band of Cherokee (ie. the end of the Trail of Tears), they’re pretty goddamn racist. My brother in law didn’t allow my niece and nephew to attend the Cherokee High School where the language is living, because he thought they were all thugs and criminals. He’s a fucking asshole in more ways than one, though. His sister is a gem, though!
3 Likes
They might have once found it offensive, but no longer seem to, nor do they face continued, systemic discrimination FOR their faith in the way that African Americans or Native Americans do. This is the same arguments people have about other (now white) ethnic groups, that they also suffered discrimination and that might be true, but literally no one in American who is Irish or Italian American suffered from systematic discrimination as have people of color.
And that’s why @orenwolf split it. Many of us disagreed that it was on-topic, and hence it was moved. No one objects to discussing the history of the quakers, but when it’s brought up in a thread about racial discrimination it’s off topic. 
17 Likes
