Sometimes it seems the long struggle to force the NFL's Washington Redskins franchise to change its name is destined to fail.
Many Minnesotans remember the scene in 1992, when the American Indian Movement and its supporters organized symposiums and protests to coincide with the Washington team's Super Bowl appearance at the Metrodome. Nothing changed then. The Redskins remained the Redskins — and 22 years later, the team and its fans continue to embrace a name and a logo that many others consider blatantly offensive.
It would be easy to conclude that protest against corporate misappropriation of American Indian culture is futile.
But it's not. It has worked before. And a few of the most memorable success stories played out here in Minnesota.
In 1964, Minneapolis-based Pillsbury introduced a new line of powdered soft-drink mixes to compete with Kool-Aid. Pillsbury called its new, sugar-free product Funny Face. (Its artificial sweetener, sodium cyclamate, was later linked to cancer and banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but that's a different story.) Each Funny Face flavor was named for a silly character: Goofy Grape, Loud-Mouth Lime, Freckle-Face Strawberry, Rootin'-Tootin' Raspberry and two others that soon created major public-relations headaches at Pillsbury:
Chinese Cherry and Injun Orange.
The Chinese Cherry character was a slant-eyed red cherry with buckteeth and a pigtail. Injun Orange, with his crossed eyes, skewed war paint and limp feathers, smiled insipidly in a nearly perfect distillation of negative Indian stereotypes. Both characters, along with their less-offensive product linemates, were big hits with kids and parents alike.
But this was the height of the modern civil rights era. Minority groups were finding their voices, and they were not inclined to let corporate America get away with insensitive and insulting marketing campaigns. In early 1966, the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) called on Pillsbury to dump both Injun Orange and Chinese Cherry. The group claimed that the two characters' "derogatory nature" was "highly objectionable."