Introduction
Hey there, have you heard about the recent controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s? They recently made a bold statement on Twitter, claiming that the United States exists on stolen indigenous land and called for actions to return it. This tweet has sparked a heated debate with people offering their own opinions on the matter. In this article, we will delve deeper into this topic and explore the various arguments being made.
- Ben & Jerry’s and their mansions
One of the points made by the speaker is that Ben & Jerry’s should start by giving up their mansions and property in Vermont. The suggestion is that if they truly believe in returning stolen land, they should lead by example. By sacrificing their luxurious properties, they could send a powerful message to others.
- Headquarters on indigenous land
It is mentioned that the headquarters of Ben & Jerry’s is located on land belonging to the Missisquoi Abenaki tribe. This raises questions about their commitment to indigenous rights. While Ben & Jerry’s has been vocal about social justice issues, some argue that their actions may not align with their words.
- Giving up the empire
The speaker challenges Ben & Jerry’s to take their commitment a step further and give up their entire empire. This implies that merely giving up properties or making statements on social media may not be enough. If they truly want to lead by example, the speaker suggests that they relinquish their power and wealth.
- Influencing others to take action
By setting an example and giving up their empire, it is implied that others may be inspired to take similar actions. The speaker suggests that once Ben & Jerry’s makes a bold move, others will feel compelled to follow suit. This could potentially create a ripple effect and lead to meaningful changes regarding indigenous land rights.
- Taste of the ice cream
The speaker comments on the taste of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, stating that it’s not as great as it’s made out to be. As an alternative, they suggest trying Bluebell ice cream. This may seem like a minor dig, but it showcases the speaker’s dissatisfaction with Ben & Jerry’s and their perceived hypocrisy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the tweet by Ben & Jerry’s regarding stolen indigenous land has sparked a significant discussion. The speaker challenges them to go beyond just words and take concrete actions. Whether Ben & Jerry’s will heed this call remains to be seen, but the debate surrounding this topic highlights the importance of addressing indigenous land rights. Let us hope that this discussion leads to increased awareness and actions that bring about positive change.
Remember, shutting up Ben & Jerry’s is not about silencing them, it’s about holding them accountable and nudging them towards meaningful action.