Here’s the problem in a nutshell. If you’re a CEO of an iconic brand, do you modernize the branding of your product if it is associated with a country’s racist history? If so, how do you do this without either losing brand recognition or whitewashing the past?
 |
|
The original label |
To ensure Victorian consumers got the message that they were drinking the same treacly caffeine concentrate designed to fortify soldiers subduing the colonies, the kilted Gordon Highlander was shown being brought his drink by a Sikh manservant. [Link]
<
p>Of course, times change. The sun went down on the British empire, dusky Britons moved in and took over the cornershops. They weren’t quite as fond of this label as Victorian customers were.
So, in the 1980s, a compromise was reached:
In the 1980s, the label was moved to the back and later the Sikh bearer’s tray was removed but he remained standing. [Link]
This new label was a bit bizarre. It had the Sikh servant with his fist up, like he was about to punch the Scottish officer in his face.
 |
|
The newest label |
Of course, this didn’t last either. Brown people being uppity like they are, they wanted yet more:
Recently, several Asian shopkeepers threatened to stop putting the liquid coffee and chicory concentrate on their shelves unless the label was changed. After such threats and pressure from race equality groups, the manufacturers have had the scene radically redrawn to show the two men sitting side by side. [Link]
<
p>So the label was finally changed to the anachronistic image of the officer and his batman sitting down for coffee together. While this might be a useful image for today’s multicultral UK, it’s absurd to imagine that it might have happened back in the day.
<
p>Now of course, the other side is crying foul:
David Davidson, Conservative MSP (members of the Scottish parliament) for Northeast Scotland, said the change was “political correctness gone mad”. He added that there was “nothing pejorative” about the original label. [Link]
<
p>Actually, the image on the label is more suited to modern multicultural Britain than it might seem at first glance. To understand why, you have to look at the man on the right, the Scot. General Hector Macdonald was one of the Empire’s finest soldiers. He also may have been gay, and took his own life rather than be courtmartialed for it:
 |
|
The interim label – look at the Sardarji’s right hand |
.. while much has been written about the changing appearance of one Britain’s most enduring brands, there has been an uncomfortable silence about the British officer whose coffee break was immortalised on the bottle. The image, from 1885, of a Highland guardsman sitting outside his canvas tent far from home was based on perhaps the foremost military hero of his day – Major General Sir Hector Macdonald, scourge of Afghans, Boers and the Dervishes of Sudan.
He was the low-born soldier who turned down a Victoria Cross in favour of a commission, telling his superiors he would earn his medal later. He single-handedly saved the imperial Egyptian army from massacre.
… Macdonald, the son of a crofter, shot himself in the head in his bedroom in the Hotel Regina in Paris on 25 March 1903, minutes after reading a front-page story in the New York Herald suggesting he faced a “grave charge”. The accusation was one of homosexuality, an offence considered so serious under Victorian military law that those “convicted” were shot. In keeping with the mores of his era, Macdonald decided even the allegation was a death sentence. [Link]
<
p>A fighting queer scot in a skirt, sitting down to coffee with a Sikh man who had a fist pointed at him for two decades on a coffee called “Camp” … it seems like an apt image for the modern United Kingdom to me.
Articles by Turbanhead and Manish on the same subject
UPDATE:
Here’s the image that we ended up discussing in the comments: Figurine Pillar Candleholder – India from Target
Kush,
Good point. The fact that Sikhs actively aligned themselves with the Brits against the other Indian revolutionaries in 1857 might have something to do with it too.
Also, it’s interesting to note that the Scottish connection with Indians is fairly extensive; many of the Brits involved in dealing with India and possibly expanding British influence were actually Scots, not English. Some very Indianised Scots were already present in the subcontinent a long time before the “official” colonial period; a mercenary called Alexander Gardner is a notable example.
I’m currently reading a book called White Mughals, by the way; I’d recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the pre-Victorian period in India in relation to the lifestyles and attitudes of the British people present there at the time. Quite eye-opening. I knew there was a lot of assimilation by the Brits but I’d had no idea it was on such a large scale; some of my recent “Colonial Jai” humorous posts have referred to this to some extent. The aloofness and notions of racial superiority which developed later on were a massive step backwards; the Victorians did a great deal to cover up the previous social and cultural mixing which had commonly occurred.
i think the disturbing part of the target candle holder is that it’s marketed under the India Colonial collection. that brings up an entirely different connotation and -for me at least- wipes away the possibility of any religious diya-type interpretation.
Kush, PS:
I’ve visited Edinburgh Castle too but I was very young at the time. If I go there again I’ll definitely check out the Indian section you’ve mentioned — I had no idea about that. Thanks for letting me know 😉
I thought “Indian Colonial” was a sarcastic embellishment. IF that’s what they’re calling it, that’s kind of lame.
Jai,
Yes, the early English mixed with Indians quite freely, this shocked the English Church and their women back home – therefore, the concept of cantonment (a walled garrison like campus) was born – where an English/ Brown Sahib lives their life mostly cutoff from the masses. Early colonials were Scots and Irish looking for retirement money/ home/ savings as Indians now take job offers in Gulf.
About 1857, one of the reason Sikhs sided with British was that they had costly wars with them just before – Anglo Sikh Wars – were not in position to cross swords again. Then, 1857’s objectives were parochial too.
I am always fascinated by British myth making – even later by Gabriel Garcia Marquez for Falkland War – is the ruthless gurkha.
Noooooo! I cannot face this harsh “truth” :). The real reason I can’t accept this is because I don’t think it’s true. This belongs in the category of “Americans will never take to public transportation”, “American are stupid and you can’t expect them to really understand any complex political issues. So let’s just shout slogans about how stupid Bush is and that way we can defeat him.” That one really worked. Most people have “unalalytic” in their genes or something? They just need to be spoken to.
Many of us here are target shoppers. I don’t think it’d be too much to expect anything of us. Oh, but we’re the smart ones. Not like the “ordinary” shoppers who can’t be educated. What about Target itself? Are they beyond caring. Will they carry whatever people will buy? Will they carry little statues of a chain gang in the pre-civil-war South? I’m sure there’d be enough customers to buy that. I’m not saying necessarily that the candle-holder is offensive, but if it is offensive to someone, the right thing to do is to let than be known.
This only contributes to the continued insensitivity and stereotyping. Unless people object to it, nothing changes. Protest may still lead to no change/slow change. But silence guarantees no change.
I think most people around the world can understand “Look, I feel hurt by that. Please don’t do it.” They might react badly to it (since they were at fault and nobody likes that) at first, but they within themselves, they know they are wrong and ultimately change will happen. No social change would have ever happened if the affected party said “they are too stupid to understand that they are not being fair. What do i expect from these unanalytical idiots anyway? I’ll simply stop expecting any better.”
I have seen such things in Target & World Market. This candleholder, as part of the India Colonial collection, featured without any indication of religious significance (i.e., not sold next to communion/wedding bibles) would become an Indian lawn jockey.
I think that is why some find it offensive.
World wide/cultural experience is not required, IMO, for empathy. Conversely, one can have that kind of experience and not have empathy.
My objection, by the way, to the candle-stick holder is not because it’s offensive. I object because it’s oppressive. The difference means a great deal to me. I like lots of things that are offensive, and I do think that progressive people, in general, ought to lighten up a bit.
But I have no tolerance for the idea that some people are inherently inferior to others, the idea that some are born to serve, and others to Lord it over them. That’s an idea that needs to be attacked again and again, seriously, humorously, any which way we can. It’s a murderous idea, an old and murderous idea. Oompah-loompahs bother me in a way that Krishna briefs or Andreas Serrano’s “piss Christ” never could.
And yes, there could be a lot of argument about what’s offensive and what’s oppressive. Everyone might draw that line at different places. But I think the disinction is worth making anyway.
Now that we’ve left the world of coffee behind for that of candlesticks, Mr.K. do you think the candlesticks connote that a particular type of person is meant to serve?
Also, could somebody please explain what diya is? Much of what I know of Hinduism I learned from ACK comic books, and this wasn’t in there …
Diya is a small lamp. Usually just a small shallow earthen container filled with oil with a wick in it. It’s not specific to Hinduism.
I’ve added the image of the candlestick holder to the post so that people can see what we’re talking about more easily.
Mr. Kobayashi, I totally see the difference between offensive and oppresive that you point out. Thanks.
OK, deviating a little from the main thread – What about the way dwarfs were shown as a lower “caste” in The Lord of the Rings. And the river people (gollum), who looked like a vietnamese/South chinese farmer? And all that stuff about a “fair elven tongue” – Everyone’s birth determining their nature and “culturedness”. Was that oppressive? Or is it OK just because they were all fictional.
Also, would “piss christ” bother you more than Oompa-loompas if you were a religious Christian?
I think the argument could be made, yes. The servile gesture, the Sambo-like depiction. The argument holds for the “Camp” label as well, and both fit very well with 19th century ideas about evolution and the stratification of the races. And these particular depictions are even more insidious than “the Oriental king” variety, specifically because of the servile narrative.
I feel the same way about cigar-store “Indian” statues, and white South Africans who go on about how wonderful their black nannies were. Enough is enough. We are not “happy natives, ready to do your pleasure, Sahib.” Fuck that shit already.
Of course, taken in extremis, this attitude could lead one to condemn a shop like Banana Republic for its pervasive colonial nostalgia (instead of, rightly, condemning it for making boring and overpriced clothing). But that’s why one shouldn’t take ideas to the extreme.
In any case, only the one who wears the shoe knows how it pinches. If some fed-up Trinidadian or Kenyan decides to torch the nearest Banana Republic, I’m not going to cast judgment…
I wish they sold actual linen clothing and fashions inspired by that era, rather than gap stuff priced higher. I’d willingly tolerate the colonial nostalgia if I could get some colonial era fashions. What better way to subvert the dominant paradigm than to adopt it? Just call me India-na Browns 😉
I find the quasi-racial social stratification in Lord of the Rings absolutely sick-making. It’s so obvious it’s not even funny. But what I hate even more is computer-generated effects, especially when used in battle scenes. So, I’ve avoided the films and books altogether.
Yes.
For some quick perspective though, I do not think the image of the Sikh batman and his master drinking campy coffee (!) are exotic, but merely a signal that establishes the longevity of the brand. As Ennis and some other commentators have pointed out, this particular image isn’t historically accurate, but that does not take away from the point of the label. While historical inaccuracy is a silly, it is unlikely to deter anyone from recieving the core message of the brand — that it is old and therefore well respected. Also, it does not offend anyone and hence is perfectly legal and ethical.
Having a Sikh and a Scot on the label is to establish the brand’s mililaristic history — not to exoticise either Sikhs or Scots, but to signal that this was the drink of choice of hardy battle-weary men. To harangue about the exotification of either the Sardarji or the Scot on the label is to miss the point entirely.
DDiA – I hadn’t noticed people objecting to the current label. I was wondering how people felt about the original label, or how they would have felt if it had been maintained.
Thanks for the link Ennis. Now that I know what we’re talking about (I had assumed we were talking about a lady-diya like the many I have at home) I can say that this is pretty weird and unhealthy. That’s not even a lady! It’s a distinct departure from the age-old decorative art tradition, and definitely dragging in the colonial mentality. This is not a servant in a temple, this is a servant-servant, and making an object d’art dressed like any kind of servant is itself distasteful–you’re objectifying the person into a tool or machine. A frechn-maid candle holder would be weird. And then there’s the addtional layers of color, exotic costume, context, etc. Okay, I agree that this is irritating.
I’m not sure what oppressive means in this context, exactly though. That we are more likely to run into figurines like this then they hypothetical French maid I also don’t like? Yes, that’ a bit oppressive. That’s separate from the distaste that applies equally to both of them.
My bad, Ennis. I was responding to this.
Seriously, I don’t believe the new label is about any sort of normalization. Or Anglonormativity. Or any such thing.
Also, my point was sort of tangential to the discussion which is, as you point out, more about the original label, which incidentally, I believe, should not be making a reappearance at all. Blasted old conservatives. I mean, they won’t win the election despite Blair being tarred and feathered over the Middle East.
Am I the only one here who actually prefers the original label, on historic and artistic merit? If I could I would buy a bottle with the old label as a keepsake.
I have an old print I bought on a trip to India, with similar subject matter, that I love. Racism is a part of our history. I don’t see the point in trying to re-write history.
It’s not about re-writing history, it’s about perpetuating the racism. For it’s historical value, sure old bottles should not be chucked, but that doesn’t mean new bottles need to have the same logo on it.
…and the old bottles should only belong in a museum with adequate historical explanation.
🙂
All in all, it would’ve made better sense to simply remove the sardar from the label (the focus is the soldier, not the servant, and so they could’ve explained the new stoic, solitary coffee-drinking general as an even stronger stronger tribute to the British military)
I’ve come across a sentiment amongst elderly people in India who regret, in some ways, the removal of the British Raj. Example; one military man; “the military was in order as long as the British were in charge, when they left – chaos”.
Similar things were said regarding ordinary civic life.
I don’t know how prevelant such an attitude is, maybe it’s not common, but I’ve come across it several times when conversing with older uncles and aunties.
BRING BACK THE RAJ!
Huh? Somebody call?
I’ve come across a sentiment amongst elderly people in India who regret, in some ways, the removal of the British Raj. Example; one military man; “the military was in order as long as the British were in charge, when they left – chaos”.
Maybe such people should volunteer to have their faces put in place of the Sikh gentleman. Under a red banner that reads “Ready to put down the b****y Sepoys, lord and master”.
I personally don’t have a problem with the one where the Sikh is simply standing there, either.
I personally don’t have a problem with the one where the Sikh is simply standing there, either.
I personally would have a problem even if it was one with a Scottish guy serving the Sikh guy.
Forgot to ask the follow-up question, sixty. Would you have a problem if it was one with a Scottish guy serving the Sikh guy?
🙂 Well, in the context of the original artwork, I would have a problem with it because it’s not something that likely would have happened at that place and time.
Since then, I’m sure that at some point somewhere a Scotsman has served a Sikh (maybe at a restaurant in Scotland) and I wouldn’t have a problem with someone putting that down on paper.
Ooh, my imprecise pronouns. My point is that this discussion is not about getting revenge or getting even. It is about equality. For me, personally speaking, given the historical context of the original picture, it would be a problem if the original picture were replaced with one showing the reverse relationship. See Mr Kobayashi’s comment # 20. This is about offense to some people. And I think this discussion is getting a little digressive.
Re: this idea, I think a lot of people were cannon fodder in WW I especially, from what I have read. War itself seems like a problematic activity. I don’t know, though, the for the Sikhs in the British Army it was always a degraded position. I grant that War itself is something gruesome, but probably most soldiers have to deal with these feelings. Its commonly said that people in war end up fighting for their “buddies” instead of fighting for more abstract causes. Its not certain that volunteering for the British Army was looked on totally negatively; it did provide quite a lot of people with economic advancement, even given the circumstances.
There may also be some truth to the idea that pre 1857ish, the situation was different vis a vis relationships between Indians and British. From the little I know, although warfare did come to Punjab in the 1840’s, the really bad stuff started happening later; e.g. the Rowlatt Act (if I have the name right) and Jallianwala Bagh. I think even compared to today, India in the indepedence movement was a bit more regionalized. By the time the people in Bengal were reading for an Uprising, the people in Punjab were just finishing their first war. It was only later that the pan-Desh freedom struggle got going. And I think, with all the faults, the Congress movement deserves credit for that.
Re: the image, I think this image can be appreciated as a colonialist motiff quite readily and thus, opposing it on those grounds seems to be an appropriate thing
Good catch, Gatamala, re lawn jockeys.
I see Target is offering to outfit my whole house to make it Raj-like. Check out the counterpart figures to the pillar candleholder. There’s the Taper Candleholder
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/ref=bxgy_cc_img_b_1041538/601-7714781-2674522?asin=B000BGLRV4
and the even more excellently servile Figurine Vase – India
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/ref=br_1_13/601-7714781-2674522?%5Fencoding=UTF8&frombrowse=1&asin=B000BGFPXA
whose description promises that “YouÂ’ve always got an exotic friend at the table with this unique piece from the Global Bazaar collection.”
It is about equality. For me, personally speaking, given the historical context of the original picture, it would be a problem if the original picture were replaced with one showing the reverse relationship.
Or one that showed an implausible or illogical relationship, such as the one depicted in the new label (British-Indian equality aside, the Sikh appears to be quite a lower rank than the General). That said, I can’t see how a Sepoy chatting about subduing the colonies over coffee with a Scottish officer is better than a Sikh manservant. But that’s just me.
Or one that showed an implausible or illogical relationship, such as the one depicted in the new label. Yes, it might paint a somewhat implausible picture, but I would argue that it is meant to be taken in a non-literal sense and that it is meant to be read as an evolution of the historical baggage that Camp coffee comes with in the first place. It is to be taken as a figurative expression of a Sikh coming to the table, so to speak, on an equal footing with a Scot. Whether Indians need that is a separate question. What is clear to me is that the original label has no place in the United Kingdom of today.
That said, I can’t see how a Sepoy chatting about subduing the colonies over coffee with a Scottish officer is better than a Sikh manservant. Yes, I think it is important not to take away blame from the side of the Indians in the Indian army as well. It is possible to ask the question “Did the Indians in the Indian army commit any war crimes during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857?” without absolving in any way the responsibility of the British as well in those war crimes. I would urge you to read my comment on the text in the red flag in this context. I believe that non-violence was the right approach, one of speaking truth to the power of the British Empire. However, the context of the comment is also one of the savagery of the British response to the mutiny (for instance, mutineers were strapped to cannons and the cannons discharged) and war crimes.
is the camp still in market?
is the camp still in market? Yes.
Yeah, and I’ve met people who think Elvis appeared in their grilled cheese sandwich, and other people who think rain travels from the ground up. What’s your point?
Kush & Sahej,
You guys should read that book “White Mughals” I mentioned earlier, if you haven’t checked it out already. Fascinating stuff.
One of the subjects it describes is the fact that 1/3 of British men were living with Indian women in the period up to (approx.) 1830; many of them dressed and lived in an extremely Indian way, yet it wasn’t regarded as being strange at all, but an appropriate response to the wider environment. Other European groups were also present and many men even took the “extra step” of converting their religion (Islam seems to have been the popular choice, perhaps motivated in part by the waning-but-still-dominant Mughal influence at the time), changing their names, living in traditional Muslim ways with their “local” wives and so on. So from what I understand, the European immigrants would have been socially and ethnically absorbed into the Indian cultural fabric just like all their predecessors, if the Victorian notions of racial “separateness” and superiority hadn’t arisen later on. Apparently, European — including British — ideas in this matter were comparatively liberal, loosely-defined, and “blurred” during the 18th & early 19th centuries; Amardeep’s recent article about Dean Mahomet is one example of this and was also mentioned in “White Mughals”.
Something else that occurred was the fact that when British men who’d married Indian women decided to move back to Britain, their children were frequently given English names and baptised as Christians. So it’s a thought-provoking idea; the fact that there may well be quite a few “white” Brits currently in the UK who actually have some Indian ancestry but have absolutely no idea about the desi blood in their veins. Makes you think, doesn’t it ? 😉
Even the writer of the book — William Dalrymple — stumbled across the fact that he has some desi ancestry himself during the course of his research; a Hindu Bengali woman in the 1730s married a French officer and converted to Catholicism, and it turns out that he’s descended from them. Imagine how many other English (or Scottish) people have some Indian roots but are completely unaware of it.
PS:
….in Pondicherry (not France or Europe).
Aah the good old days of the Raj. When genteel ladies and gentlemen walked the mall in Shimla. It may be time to bring Colonel Jai out.
By the way, pardesi gori you’re comments on SM have made me gag many times. I wonder why someone like yourself who clearly hates everything desi would continue to post on here. Take a hike.
PG’s comment on the British staying on and “maintaining” order sounds unbelievable, but I heard my 90 year old grandpop say it a few times.
Its kind of like when you get out of a crappy relationship, you only remember the good times. My grandfather worked in the the railways, so perhaps the changes in the way government was run pre/post partition (in Amritsar, Punjab) were fairly drastic (I imagine)and difficult to adjust to?
Not sure though, the statement always perplexed me.
DesiDawg,
“Colonial Jai” is one of the “Indianised” Englishmen from the late 18th Century, not the stiff-upper-lipped imperialist racists from the Victorian era. He thoroughly disapproves of the latter 😉
However, he is currently away on a tiger-hunting safari with the Nawab of Bukwaaspur and will make an appearance here if he is successful in bagging a couple of the fierce Big Cats, along with probably “bagging” the Nawab’s wife too.
HMF – you crack me up. Keep cracking.
White Moghuls is a good but lengthy read.
I was in Delhi when the book was released there. Much hoopla written about it in the papers, mags, etc. Dalrymple has several books out. He dominates the book shelves in the stalls of Pahar Ganj. Delhi has some of the best and biggest book stores I have ever been to. And Delhi is Dalrymple’s city, of which he writes much about.
I’ve always wanted to check out the book stores in Kolkatta, since that city was once considered the intellectual capital of India (maybe it still is), but never got a chance.
Can anyone recommend to me some good book stores in Kolkatta for the next time I’m there?
Puducherry, please! The BBC map is funny!
Nostalgia for the Raj: Listen to this radio interview of one Mr. Srinivasan Kalyanam who was in Gandhi’s ashram and was with Gandhiji when he was killed. Talk about boot-licking! Some excerpts “We got independence too soon”, “If Gandhi were alive, he would fall on Tony Blair’s and the Queen’s feet and ask him to take back independence”, things like that scattered throughout the interview.
Has anyone tried Camp Coffee? Is it any good? What do you do, mix it with milk?