After Slamming America, Hilarious Cartoon Brutally Reveals Ben & Jerry's Next Flavor Creation

They say a picture can be worth a thousand words, so here in one brutal cartoon is a look at what Ben & Jerry’s might be serving up soon, after slamming the USA on July 4th:

Does that about sum it up? Go woke, go broke!

After Slamming The USA on July 4th, Turns Out Ben & Jerry’s Corporate HQ is on Stolen Indian Land by Steve Straub

Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont-based ice cream company known for its social activism, finds itself facing accusations of double standards.

This controversy has arisen after their recent press release titled, “The US Was Founded on Stolen Indigenous Land—This July 4, Let’s Commit to Returning It.”

Yet, the company’s headquarters in Vermont are said to be located on land that was reportedly once seized from Indigenous tribes.

In the press release, Ben & Jerry’s advocated for returning the territory that currently hosts Mount Rushmore back to the Sioux people.

The release argues that the federal government appropriated this land, a situation they liken to their desire for increased government regulation and control.

Do you like Ben & Jerry's ice cream?

Now, however, sources have pointed out that Ben & Jerry’s headquarters may also be on stolen Indian land.

This 4th of July, it’s high time we recognize that the US exists on stolen Indigenous land and commit to returning it. Learn more and take action now: https://t.co/45smaBmORH pic.twitter.com/a6qp7LXUAE

— Ben & Jerry’s (@benandjerrys) July 4, 2023

They suggest the company, known for championing progressive causes, could also be implicated in the theft of Indigenous land.

In a letter to the company, a group comprising over a thousand Israeli students and academics associated with Students for Justice in America claimed that the Ben & Jerry’s site in Vermont is actually on land illegally occupied, formerly belonging to the Abenaki tribe.

The letter states, “We have concluded that your company’s occupation of the Abenaki lands is illegal and we believe it is wholly inconsistent with the stated values that Ben & Jerry’s purports to maintain.”

The students and academics went further, pointing out the irony that Ben & Jerry’s has recently announced its decision to stop selling products in Israel, citing occupation of Palestinian territories as their reason, while seemingly ignoring similar issues closer to home.

The letter demanded that Ben & Jerry’s vacate their facilities in South Burlington, Waterbury, and Saint Albans and return this land to the Abenaki people.

The claim is bolstered by an acknowledgement from the nearby University of Vermont, which has publicly recognized the historical theft of Indigenous lands: “The UVM HESA Program acknowledges that the University of Vermont rests upon the traditional territory of the original inhabitants of this land – the Abenaki people – and the State of Vermont now occupies the lands of the Mahican and Pennacook tribes.”

Wow .. I guess Ben and Jerry’s will find out that It’s just as easy for us to reach into the adjacent freezer for a different brand of ice cream as it is to take a step over to the next refrigerator to buy something other than Bud Light 😎 pic.twitter.com/P3sBpqLDXn

— ShotGunBonnie (@ShotGun_Bonnie) July 5, 2023

This situation raises the complex question of land ownership and historical reparations.

Some argue that long before Europeans arrived, warring Indigenous tribes were involved in their own patterns of land seizure and tribal displacement.

As such, deciding rightful ownership can be a deeply intricate process.

As for Ben & Jerry’s, critics accuse them of ignoring this nuanced history while focusing only on their agenda.

Critics claim that their stances are less about genuine advocacy for Indigenous people and more about tearing down established norms and promoting a central government that suits their own interests.

Regardless, the accusation raises a pertinent issue for Ben & Jerry’s and other corporations who aim to champion progressive causes: Should they be expected to reconcile their historical footprint with their current ideals? And if so, how should they go about making amends?

As this discussion continues, these are questions that many will be asking.

Recently Posted