Word count: 899
Readers of TOO have by now no doubt read about the recent controversy of the Cheerios commercial featuring a mixed race family (Black father, White mother, mixed child). This has provoked a so-called “racist backlash” from people justifiably outraged by this celebration/promotion of miscegenation. Of course, the “racist backlash” has itself provoked the usual hysterical hand-wringing from the “morally superior” denouncing the “backwards backwoods racist rednecks.”
Let us make no mistake – there is an agenda behind the Cheerios commercial. General Mills – the company that owns the Cheerios brand – and their supporters state that the commercial merely celebrates the different types of American families that exist.
However, that assertion does not seem on its face to be wholly accurate. How about other types of American families not represented in these commercials? After all, as the negative comments to the cereal ad show, there are plenty of “racists” out there. Why not celebrate a skinhead family making denigrating remarks on multiculturalism, gay marriage, and miscegenation?
However, for some mysterious reason there has not yet been a Cheerios commercial featuring an American family like that. No “celebrating different types of American families” when the family type is not supportive of multiculturalism.
But, why not? Such people do exist in America, do they not? One would think that they, like many others, are consumers of breakfast cereal.
But they won’t be celebrated, as that would be “offensive” and “send the wrong message” and “promote hatred.” Very well. But by normalizing mixed families, which are still in the small minority, isn’t the Cheerios ad at least indirectly promoting a lifestyle that some (re: all the negative comments) find highly offensive?Hence, calls for a boycott. This is added to previous calls to boycott General Mills because it supports gay marriage (see also here). Has General Mills staked out a certain position on the sociopolitical spectrum? Do their ads reflect a cultural left position, rather than simply reflecting “American families”? Quite clearly, the families ignored by these corporations include opponents of gay marriage, devout Christians, racialists, and other “undesirables.”
I would also point out that, given current American demographics, it is safe to assume that the majority of General Mills customers are White. And although market analysis suggests that the relevant cereal ad gets “high marks” from viewers, one wonders how the general White population really feels about the commercial. What’s the racial breakdown on approval ratings? Further, given how and what many non-Whites eat (e.g., fast-food, junk food, unhealthy diets), I really do wonder whether the numbers of “White racists” who eat (or, now, used to eat) Cheerios do not exceed the numbers of mixed race families who are current or prospective consumers of that product.
This brief blog entry is not the place to get into an extended analysis of the problems we have with miscegenation. Suffice to say that, given declining White demographics, miscegenation involving Whites, particularly White women (women being the limiting resource for reproduction) is considered by many racialists as genocide. And since “official” definitions of genocide include “conditions that decrease numbers of the group,” this equation of miscegenation with genocide may indeed have validity.
Miscegenation across wide racial lines not only sharply decreases the parental kinship parents have with their own children. They are thus less likely to have the natural rapport that results from high levels of genetic kinship. But, particularly if genetic structure is added to the equation, miscegenation harms the ethnic genetic interests of members of the racial groups involved, especially those groups who are, like Whites, demographically endangered.
Miscegenation across wide racial lines can also be considered to be anti-evolutionary, from the perspective outlined here.
Others may have objections from the standpoint of aesthetics/physical appearance, IQ and behavior, or a wide variety of other more proximate concerns. In addition, the mainstream scientific literature suggests that mixed race youths have higher health risks compared to their more racially homogenous counterparts. It would seem that, based on all of this, the socially responsible approach would be to discourage, rather than promote, miscegenation. Unfortunately, the norm is to instead promote something which clearly has a great deal of negatives from the standpoint of both ultimate (i.e., genetic) and proximate (i.e., phenotypic) interests.
General Mills of course has the right to run whatever advertisements they wish. However, consumers have the equal right to protest these advertisements and to choose to buy or not buy a particular product. If a company deeply offends a group of consumers then a boycott of that company’s products by that group is quite appropriate, and to be expected.
Again, it is a matter of choice. I myself choose not to purchase General Mills products, and my disgust extends to throwing away the box of Cheerios I had been using when this whole controversy began.
Under conditions of capitalism, what corporations — even those that style themselves “socially progressive” — care about most is the “bottom line.” If the “bottom line” of General Mills is negatively impacted by their advertisements and activities, this violates the legitimate interests of shareholders. Perhaps other companies will think twice before so blithely “celebrating” social trends that diminish the ethnic genetic interests of the majority of their current and potential customers. Readers of TOO, and others with similar views, should carefully consider whether or not they wish to purchase products from General Mills