Good Better Best

Good Better Best came up in a recent session I attended about innovation.  What is the minimal viable product?  What features could make it even better?  What would be the best benefits for the project?  This is great thinking to inspire creativity and I want to draw a connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion work… of course I do!

The Best thing would be to either have never colluded or participated in any form of oppression, never supporting or benefiting from any system of oppression, and always being included and including others.  This would be ideal.  Better might be having learned a lesson, acknowledging mistakes, pain, and suffering, and never allowing it to happen again.  Airing out historical mistakes to inform the present or future choices would ideally lead to better choices and practices.  To do Good would mean to recognize where one fits into the existing systems of oppression and causing less pain and suffering.  No longer actively participating or colluding in a system that you are now aware of and then taking responsibility for past actions and not perpetuating pain and suffering.  Good.

As seen in this picture, Land O Lakes butter’s packaging used to have an indigenous woman, dubbed the “Butter Maiden” as the mascot.  Mia is actually a depiction of a local tribe to the dairy source of the butter on the land of the Ojibwe people.  The landscape is a recognizable place demarking the land and the lakes in the area that produces these products since the 1920s.  In a lot of ways – this is the better marketing choice, utilizing local culture correctly and in collaboration with indigenous people, honoring both their land and the culture of the area. 

Perhaps it would be best to highlight indigenous products instead of descendants of colonizers that operate a farmer owned dairy.  It is better, that the image is realistic and representative of a real culture without tokenizing or culturally misappropriating a living community.  However, there is a better or best argument against using any people as a mascot for any product.  Perhaps Mia was a good mascot, and removing a culturally appropriated image from the product is a better or best practice?

The irony, is that based on US History, we stole land, break promises and legally binding treaties, and barely recognize tribal leaders because we haven’t come to terms with our failed attempt at genocide.  Many would argue that the genocidal attempt is still underway even.  Because the US doesn’t honor indigenous peoples and their living vibrant cultures of past and present, the marketing choice lands in a lake o’ irony.  The updated packaging has “disappeared” Mia and leaves only the land for commodification. 

This isn’t good, better, or best.