'Sambo's'& Other Political Ranting

Ok...can anyone give me a good history of the Sambo's restraunt chain.

A good history...no. I can tell you that in the 1970s (I believe) the chain, which in my area at least was sort of a Denny's kind of place, came to the realization that Sambo's wasn't the most politic name anymore. In my area, they changed their name to Sam's, which I presume was a nationwide name change as opposed to the choice of our local franchisee. Soon after, poof, they were gone.

Here's an article I found from 1998:

Sambo's revival running into hot water
In this story:
Original Sambo looked African
Book reissued under new title
Related sites
January 28, 1998
Web posted at: 9:16 p.m. EDT (2116 GMT)
From Correspondent Greg LaMotte

SANTA BARBARA, California (CNN) -- Once upon a time there was a man named Sam Battistone. Sam had a friend named Newell Bohnett, whom everyone called Bo.

In 1957, the two men decided to open a restaurant. They figured they'd serve sizzling hotcakes, offer coffee for 10 cents a cup and give their customers service with a smile.

They called the restaurant Sambo's.

Fast-forward 41 years. Sam Battistone's grandson, Chad Stevens, has plans to rebuild the restaurant chain -- which once numbered 1,200 units coast-to-coast -- to its former glory.

There's just one problem: the name.

Sambo's was an amalgam of Sam and Bo, and as part of their marketing strategy the founders used a logo based on a children's story called "Little Black Sambo."

The book was written in 1899 by Helen Bannerman, a Scottish woman, and takes place in India. It is about a little boy who goes into the jungle and loses his clothing to bullying tigers. But the tigers chase each other around a tree and eventually melt into butter, which Sambo puts on his pancakes and eats.

The marketing strategy was obvious: Sam and Bo open Sambo's, and pancakes were one of the restaurant's specialties.

Original Sambo looked African

Sambo as depicted in the book
The original Sambo's restaurant used as its logo a depiction of an Indian boy, but in the book -- and in the minds of many who read it -- Sambo looked more African than Indian.

Eventually the chain failed and the reason given was that it expanded too fast. But Stevens nurtures visions of putting his grandfather's empire back together.

Only one of the original restaurants survived, the first one in Santa Barbara.

"This store hasn't changed at all," says Stevens. "We've done a little bit of facelift on it but, for the most part, the kitchen's the same."


Sambo as depicted by the restaurant
Stevens not only wants to rebuild the Sambo's empire, he also wants to keep the name. And the name, which took on negative connotations in the 1930s and 1940s, is generating opposition.

"The cultural understanding of 'Little Black Sambo' is a negative," says Professor Frank Gilliam of UCLA. "It's meant to suggest that people of African descent are childlike, that they're irresponsible, that they're not fully developed human beings."

Carol Codrington of Loyola Law School said the character was used to stereotype African Americans as shiftless and lazy.

Book reissued under new title
Stevens protests that the restaurant is based on a family name, not racism.


"I have a hard time," he says, "and maybe being white or Anglo-Saxon, maybe I'm not seeing something. Maybe I'm blind to something. I'm sorry about that. Just read the story, and you tell me."

While it is no doubt still possible to find copies of Bannerman's original story, which has charmed generations, publishers decided to avoid the negative connotations by reissuing the book with a new title: "The Story of Little Babaji."

The boy, his mother and father are given authentic Indian names -- Babaji, Mamaji, Dadaji -- and the illustrations are emphatically Indian.

Stevens says this is the 1990s. He just wants to sell good food and coffee, and he hopes that when it comes to Sambo's, this won't be the end.

We had several of these in Fresno and they were always a favorite of mine. Dad would take me at least once a month, just him and I. It was a great time and I loved the story of Little Black Sambo. I always found Sambo to be pretty smart, he outwitted the tigers and didn't get eaten.

Our YMCA Indian Guides held a yearly pancake breakfast and Sambo's always gave us the pancake mix free. We usually got 2 5 gallon milk cans and almost always sold out.

MikeS.

Sambo is a racial slur and should not be in a restaurant name, regardless of the owner's intent.

Yep I agree. Doesn't matter what the name originated as, the point is, its deemed to be offensive in the now. Lets not get bogged down in nostalgia about what these words and images did or didnt mean in the past, its 2005 and hopefully we've moved on some.

Yea, sorry Sam and Bo, but it's just too full of historically negative connotation.
I read LBS when I was a child and didn't get any negative impressions of black people from it, but when someone referred to a black man as "Sambo" it was full of nothing but racist hate. It would be rediculous to use that to name an establishment.
Give up the name. If you've got something worthwhile to offer, why ruin it with a bad name?

"Racial slur", "deemed to be offensive", "negative connotation" . . . .

An annecdote: my white, rather racist dad recently succumbed to cancer but in his last months required a lot of assistance to eat, bathe etc. My 80-something mom couldn't do it so they got a home health aide who turned out to be a marvelous, sweet and very large African-American lady who cooked some mean soul food for them among her other duties. She and dad bonded in a way that was quite surprising and, since his death, we now consider her a family friend. My sister, however, got very nostalgic in dad's last days and one of the things from her childhood she dragged out was some old books including "Little Black Sambo". One day, she forgot and left a copy of that book on a table at dad's house and, when the health aid came over, she saw it. She had never seen it before, apparently and she picked it up and looked through it (my mom was, at that point, cringing in the corner), smiled and said something like, "That looks like a good book. I'm surprised to see you white folks have it."

"Slur" is in the eye of the beholder. But I agree that enough people consider it a slur that it's an unwise name for a business serving the public.

That's probably what they call the exception that proves the rule

If they want to keep the historical connotations without the racist ones, I guess they could call it literally Sam & Bo's.

Thirty-five years ago I was and intern for a police department in New York. Doing pretty much ride along stuff but also some photgraphy. I worked the midnight shift and the only place that was open to eat was "Sambos". They had great coffee and pancakes. The coffee was free the pancakes we had to pay for. I find the name "Sambo's" no nore offensive than I do the name "Hooter's". Is it ok to offend one group and not care about the other. How about "Fat Boy's in Statesville, NC. Should we feel bad for all the fat boys who have had their feelings hurt over the name of a restaurant.

I think that you should call your restaurant anything you like. Blatant racisim is one thing but this is not. If the food is good then people will come. BTW, I feel sorry for all those single folks having to know that there is a "Loveless Cafe".

BB

My brothers and I were convinced that the "tiger butter" served at Sambo's was better than the regular stuff we had at home or anywhere else! And I agree with MikeSh: Sambo seemed pretty smart to me for outwitting the tigers...
I wonder if mom still has our copy of Little Black Sambo packed away with Pokey Little Puppy, Mike Mulligan, Sam the Firefly, Benjie Engie, etc...

The Sambo's in Lacey, WA, changed its name to "Seasons" then quickly went out of business. Though I understand how offensive the name was to people of color, it's kind of a shame that they closed because I have fond memories of their pancakes and hamburgers.

It seems to me that people are all too willing to create their own enemies where they don't exist. If it is offensive in the 'now', then someone decided it was, and for their own selfish reasons. Someone that probably was not around the situation originally (1957). To say that it doesn't matter what the original motive was, they are still guilty, is not something you would want done to you. I think that after 40 years of government programs designed to offer opportunities to blacks, and other 'minorities', there would be some gratitude. Mainly because the U.S. is the only country in history to do this. Yep, that's right, those Trillions of government dollars spent on the 'Diversity Programs' since 'The Great Society' are from taxpayers. Working Americans, the very ones that are supposedly the racists. If people want to use PC tactics on others (shrill, hollow accusations), blame the President for everything, use their own racial slurs when they think no one else is listening, then they need to take a good long look at themselves. If Sambo would have been a Viking, a Saxon, or even a Leprechaun, there would be no cries of 'racial slur'. Gives you a good idea of who does most of the work in this society, and who doesn't. We have better things to do than playing the victim role, and expecting everyone else to take care of us.

quote:

Originally posted by MissKitty

Yep I agree. Doesn't matter what the name originated as, the point is, its deemed to be offensive in the now. Lets not get bogged down in nostalgia about what these words and images did or didnt mean in the past, its 2005 and hopefully we've moved on some.

"..the US is the only country in history to do this.."
Not correct, scotta..numerous countries in Western Europe, as well as other nations, have developed programs to integrate minority populations into the "mainstream." Regardless, your argument seems to be if a term was inoffensive at one point in history, then we have no right to deem it offensive at a later point in time. This argument makes little sense to me, and if we look at a whole of terms used for various races, creeds, religions that we used historically in this country as well as other places, we would cringe at using them again...and rightly so. Language is organic and dynamic, not static...meaning it grows and adapts to the cultures in which it survives and thrives.

quote:

Originally posted by scottasbj

Yep, that's right, those Trillions of government dollars spent on the 'Diversity Programs' since 'The Great Society' are from taxpayers. Working Americans, the very ones that are supposedly the racists.

Yeah, because only white people work and pay taxes in this country. Sheesh. Somebody please tell me this is a troll.

There's a principle of hospitality suggesting that hosts not do things that could offend their guests, and my momma called it "good manners." If you're an entrepreneur it's also called "business sense." I like to call it "getting your head out of your (synonym for 'donkey' goes here)."

Given our complicated history, there's often a fine line between nostalgia and racism. I have a friend whose father looks down upon her dating men of other races. She explains it away with "he's very traditional." Yeah, maybe, but he's a racist too. Some traditions deserve to be allowed to lapse.

quote:

Originally posted by caratzas

quote:

Originally posted by scottasbj

Yep, that's right, those Trillions of government dollars spent on the 'Diversity Programs' since 'The Great Society' are from taxpayers. Working Americans, the very ones that are supposedly the racists.

Yeah, because only white people work and pay taxes in this country. Sheesh. Somebody please tell me this is a troll.

There's a principle of hospitality suggesting that hosts not do things that could offend their guests, and my momma called it "good manners." If you're an entrepreneur it's also called "business sense." I like to call it "getting your head out of your (synonym for 'donkey' goes here)."

Given our complicated history, there's often a fine line between nostalgia and racism. I have a friend whose father looks down upon her dating men of other races. She explains it away with "he's very traditional." Yeah, maybe, but he's a racist too. Some traditions deserve to be allowed to lapse.

First of all, I didn't say only white people work. If you need clarification, the majority of the people that have been paying the taxes over the last forty years for these social programs have been the majority in the population, whites. Define for me what racism is, please. I don't believe that any ethnicity is superior to another. I do feel that some cultures do markedly better than others, and it has nothing to do with one group of people being superior 'racially' to anyone else. The U.S. didn't invent slavery, it has been around since civilization has been. You would think by all of the rhetoric that we did. There is a ton of hypocrisy on this subject, and Morgan Freeman said the same thing I did 7 years ago at my Boeing Diveristy class. It will get better when we stop talking about it. I was told that I had to go to this class to learn how talk to blacks. If we live in a society where we are truly equal, then this is basically illegal. How can things get better when you are forced into that? It is as if there is this assumption that 'the rest of us' are held to a standard of behavior, and the 'protected classes' are exempt. The fact that certain people want to find anything they can to cry 'racism', and that is 'offensive' should maybe stop and wonder how 'offensive they might be. Yes, we blew up the levees because we needed something to do, yes Mayor Nagin is a qualified Mayor/Human Being, and yes, Katrina is all W's fault, because although the same people that want the government to stay out of their lives, also want them to come and rescue them 'right now'. Ever deal with a government agency? If you have, it would not be a surprise that things don't happen immediately. Especially if the local and state people don't even attempt to do their jobs. My message is really simple, you look for trouble and easily find it anywhere, Or, you can start living your life as an American, not an African-American (does that mean I should call myself a Scandinavian-American, and seek money because a tribe of Saxons enslaved a large group of my ancesters), not a Mexican-American, Asian-American, etc.

http://www.roadfood.com/Forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10405
I brought this subject up a bit back.. Click the link, and there are many replies, and a very heated subject .....
Tara

quote:

scottasbj Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:52:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that people are all too willing to create their own enemies where they don't exist. If it is offensive in the 'now', then someone decided it was, and for their own selfish reasons.

quote:

scottasbj Posted - 01/20/2006 : 01:36:26There is a ton of hypocrisy on this subject

where you will find many a Liberal ready to shut down a Sambo's because a little Indian boy ( who may resemble a black kid from Gary Indiana) is used to sell pancakes, these same Liberals wont even blink an eyes as they pass a joint using Benjamin Franklin to sell hot-dogs. ................ Ben Who? I guess racism only applies to certain races.

Of course, because it really isn't about 'justice and equality', like is was with MLK (RIP). It is about the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by fpczyz

quote:

scottasbj Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:52:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that people are all too willing to create their own enemies where they don't exist. If it is offensive in the 'now', then someone decided it was, and for their own selfish reasons.

quote:

scottasbj Posted - 01/20/2006 : 01:36:26There is a ton of hypocrisy on this subject

where you will find many a Liberal ready to shut down a Sambo's because a little Indian boy ( who may resemble a black kid from Gary Indiana) is used to sell pancakes, these same Liberals wont even blink an eyes as they pass a joint using Benjamin Franklin to sell hot-dogs. ............... Ben Who? I guess racism only applies to certain races.

Welcome to Roadfood.com scottasbj .."Scott" I presume ........ I must say I agree with your first 3 posts............. but I also must warn you that tomorrow morning when the Liberals on this forum take note of your presence they will nail you to the cross as if you were President George W Bush himself......... lol
Right now there very busy spending their evening hours hand printing "Hillary In 2008" posters. and a few are out of town attending a symposium on "How Global Warming caused
by George W, is effecting the plumpness of today's market tomatoes "
Welcome Scott and hang around this is the best food on the road forum you'll find. Frank

Hey Frank,

I have to recommend a few books to you. The first is "This Present Darkness", and "Piercing the Darkness", by Frank Peretti. The former being fairly famous, and the latter being right on the nose regarding Liberalism, and the forces behind it. I come here with some credentials on this subject matter, BA in History and Popular Culture, with some time in a class called 'Ethnicity and Race', a few years back when I was naive enough to think that trying to do what is right will eventually bring about 'equality and justice', some other classes on Southern Africa, which makes more clear the
connection of racism to slavery, mainly because it offers the chance to look at the History from more of an outsider perspective. But enough of that. I am old enough to remember a time when as a kid, a could go out at night, and be safe. We didn't lock the doors to our cars in the High School parking lot. My point is that if we are more 'free' now than we were before, then why is life so dangerous now? That isn't freedom. We do people seriously fools like Ted Kennedy? By the way, how many of our soldiers have Mr. Chappaquiddick Kennedy get killed with his Seditious remarks? Oh, I forgot most of the people around today have no idea that is. Look it up! More Taxes? Didn't we fight the American Revolution over that? Presidential Powers? Remember FDR? George Clooney doing a movie about Edward R. Murrow? I read Fred Friendly's book more than two times, and I don't believe that Murrow would even talk to Clooney if he were alive. The same people that defended Clinton (yes, I want the leader of the free world to be a known adulterer, that is a great example to our youth) hate George Bush? So what? Stupidity isn't cured in very many individual's lifetimes. Hey, if we have a woman President, I think that it should be Monica Crowley, with Anne Coulter as Defense Secretary. There, I think that I have said enough for now. Nice to meet you Frank. Glad there is a few of us still left.

Best,

Scott

"Better to be a Pachyderm than an Ass!"

quote:

Originally posted by fpczyz

Welcome to Roadfood.com scottasbj .."Scott" I presume ........ I must say I agree with your first 3 posts............. but I also must warn you that tomorrow morning when the Liberals on this forum take note of your presence they will nail you to the cross as if you were President George W Bush himself......... lol
Right now there very busy spending their evening hours hand printing "Hillary In 2008" posters. and a few are out of town attending a symposium on "How Global Warming caused
by George W, is effecting the plumpness of today's market tomatoes "
Welcome Scott and hang around this is the best food on the road forum you'll find. Frank

More than a few of us. Welcome, Scott.

quote:

Originally posted by fpczyz


where you will find many a Liberal ready to shut down a Sambo's because a little Indian boy ( who may resemble a black kid from Gary Indiana) is used to sell pancakes, these same Liberals wont even blink an eyes as they pass a joint using Benjamin Franklin to sell hot-dogs. ............... Ben Who? I guess racism only applies to certain races.

Huh?!? While this may be a tasteless exploitation of a great founding father's name, how in the heck does it qualify as, or relate to, "racism" in any way shape or form? Sorry Frank, your argument is spurious. As for our little Scotty's rantings, I'll address those when I have time. I gotta get somewhere at the moment so, sorry to leave you hanging.

Hugs and Kisses from a tree huggin', flag burnin', gay marriage supportin' lefty,

Buddy

quote:

Originally posted by scottasbj

More Taxes? Didn't we fight the American Revolution over that?

This is the problem with a rant.
You want to make a sound argument, but instead you rant and make a huge blunder.

You lay a claim that you have some sort of inside knowledge of what's really happening in government, and then manage to show your misinformation all in the same breath.

The American Revolution was NOT about more taxes. Though, concedingly, taxes were used as the rally call. It's not so much that there were taxes, it's that they were taxed and had no representation in England. The money went overseas and was not kept for use in the colony and the colony parliament. Taxes were a mere part of the broader picture of reasons for separation and to trivialize the revolution to have occured simply because of taxes, does not show a knowledge of depth in the subject. Taxes were a way Britian was trying to control the colony. The war was over control of the land, mercantilism, industry and religion.

However, I haven't the time for a lengthy dissertation on the subject. However, I will say that while I hold but some of your beliefs to be true, your misleading comment allows others to puncture gaping holes in the rest of your argument.

And that is the problem with a rant, instead of a well thought out comment.

Welcome to the site. I hope to also hear about your food experiences as much as your dealings with the Federal government.

Good start Scorereader. I've got more in the works. Talk to you soon Scott.

quote:

Originally posted by scottasbj

Hey Frank,

I have to recommend a few books to you. The first is "This Present Darkness", and "Piercing the Darkness", by Frank Peretti. The former being fairly famous, and the latter being right on the nose regarding Liberalism, and the forces behind it.

Due to a tight schedule, I am sadly lacking a big enough block of time to tear this apart all at once. So, let's do this piece by piece.

You've got some major problems with your argument right off the bat. This Frank Peretti fellow is an Evangelical Christian writer. Now while there is nothing inherently wrong with this, the works you've sited, as described on his own website, are FICTION, not unlike that "Left Behind" series of books. If you're going to make a case for yourself in subjects like racism and politics, which are based in the real world, you might want to load your arsenal with non-fiction. To make matters worse for you, because this is the lead sentence in your rant, it pretty much strips away whatever legitimacy the rest of your argument might have had.

But that is a matter for tomorrow. Tonight I must go. More later. Toodles.

So, if conservatives are really against more government involvement in people's lives, then why are they so darn committed to legislating who you can love, who you can marry, and how/when/if you want to bear children?

well Scott as predicted here they come.............. break out the old rubber boots it's going to get a little putrid in here and you'll soon be up to your butt in Liberal crap.............. Our job here is done Scott lets move on. Making fun of Liberals is fine but to drag these poor mentally ill folks through the mud by associating them with intelligent thought is no longer fun...... these are truly sick people.

Frank, I thought better of you up to this moment. Good healthy political disagreement, when it is based on fact, reason, and ethics, is an important part of our American heritage. My point here with Scott's ramblings (and I'll continue my critique in a fresh post) is that they contain none of the above.

Your most recent post is a low, name calling cop-out. I certainly acknowledge that there is more than one valid opinion around here (neo-cons call it wishy-washy). So let's hear yours in a thoughtful, well reasoned argument.

Just to give you a little idea of who you're dealing with, my political leanings tend to drift toward both the Liberal and the Libertarian point of view. Yes, people should be responsible for their own actions and decisions. But that assumes that everyone lives their lives in a moral, ethical, and just fashion, with no one taking unfair advantage of any other individual or group. As that is not the case, we need some level of government intervention to make sure that the lowest among us are protected and in some cases provided for.

Believe it or not I support the second amendment with just as much zeal as I do the first. The difference between me and the NRA is that I support ALL the words in the second amendment, not just the ones that make my case.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As I understand it, the NRA defines "militia" as every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States. You know what, I'll give 'em that. No argument. BUT-let's focus on the two words before that, "well-regulated". Well, let's see, I got me a Funk & Wagnalls (no, really) dictionary right here..."regulate, transitive verb, 1.To direct, manage, or control according to certain rules, principles, etc. 2.To adjust according to a standard, degree, etc."

So, a "well-regulated militia" is one that is subject to the management and control of the individual state (the second amendment only prohibits the federal government from sticking their noses into things) based on that state's rules and principles which can be adjusted to meet the needs and requirements of that state based on current standards or degrees. In other words, gun ownership never has been and never should be a free for all.

I also support the rebuilding in Iraq. We went in there, we made a mess, and now it is our moral responsiblity to clean it up. We've established this precedent in almost every conflict since the Civil War. That being said, I also believe that it was George Bush's unstated intent, in an effort to avenge his daddy's attempted murder by Saddam Hussein, to invade Iraq starting back before the 2000 presidential campaign. While I am not ignorant enough or callous enough to suggest that Mr. Bush brought the 9/11 attacks upon us, I would posit that he used that horrible criminal act to propel his own nation building agenda. Had 9/11 not occurred, he would have looked for any opportunity, any motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein. As such, this administration has conducted itself more shamefully, more criminally than any of Bill Clinton's extra-marital dalliances.

My point here is that while I call myself a Liberal, my attitudes and political beliefs are far more complex than the stereotypical characterization that neo-cons love to bandy about. If you're so smart and I'm so wrong, then convince me. I'm an open minded individual capable of seeing more than one point of view when it is intelligently and carefully laid out. If you want to have a political debate in the "Off Topic" forum (if the moderators will kindly allow it), then let's have one. A debate, I mean. Not some cheap shot, name calling barbs that prove nothing and accomplish less.

quote:

Originally posted by fpczyz

well Scott as predicted here they come.............. break out the old rubber boots it's going to get a little putrid in here and you'll soon be up to your butt in Liberal crap.............. Our job here is done Scott lets move on. Making fun of Liberals is fine but to drag these poor mentally ill folks through the mud by associating them with intelligent thought is no longer fun...... these are truly sick people.

It's comments like this that makes the GOP look bad. Thankfully, I'm surrounded by more intelligent conservatives than the person who wrote this, so I know better.

It's so anoying when someone slings mud, as you did, rather than pull a cohesive argument together.

In answer to unalaskawoman, the answer is: that was a trolling question. And I think you knew that. However, if you think "ah ha! I got you. Conservatives are hypocritical," then perhaps you need to to talk to either Senator Murkowski or Senator Stevens, or their staffers, the next time one of them is back home.

or contact them this way:
Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004
Web Form: stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm

then we can all be sure not to sling mud around.

Scorereader, have I been sucked in, duped by a troller called Scottasbj? Please say it ain't so. I had so much more to say about his post(s). But if this guy is just trying to stir up trouble, then why rise to the bait.

On the other hand, Frank, if you're up for a carefully thought out, well reasoned discussion, I'm all yours, till doctor assisted death and Liberal spent taxes do us part.