I don’t know about you, but I was shocked when the Bud Light boycott took off and Anheuser-Busch lost $31 billion in market value as their stock price plunged since April 1.
Shares of Anheuser-Busch InBev (NYSE:BUD), the multinational brewing company behind Bud Light, have also taken a hit. Since April 1, when Mulvaney first promoted the beer on social media, the New York Stock Exchange-listed BUD stock has tumbled about 15%.
Most analysts think that those losses are irreversible. In light of the catastrophic losses of Bud Light, Target, Disney and the NBA, you would think that businesses would tread a little more carefully when it comes to political messaging — especially “woke” messaging.
Apparently Ben & Jerry’s didn’t get the memo.
The idea that we sit on “stolen indigenous land” is an affront to all patriots, but publishing such an offensive message on July 4 when we celebrate our country is (intentionally) maximally rude and obnoxious. It is also an incredibly stupid message. Everybody the world over is sitting on what was once someone else’s land.
The uncomfortable fact behind Ben & Jerry’s propaganda is that pretty much the entire world is stolen land at this point. Human history is a history of conquest and occupation. The idea that the United States is somehow uniquely stolen land while the rest of the world is occupied by native peoples is naïve and ahistorical. If Ben & Jerry’s were to follow through on its determination to return land to its indigenous owners, it will have virtually no place anywhere to sell its ice cream.
Stephen Kruiser over at PJ Media agreed:
The “stolen land” thing is the weakest of all leftist “GOTCHA!” crap. Yeah, it feeds their brain-dead faithful a lot of non-meat red meat. Winning land via colonization is not “stealing.” It’s HISTORY. Leftists can’t grasp this because every part of their emotional and ideological development is stuck in toddlerhood.
Ben & Jerry’s has long been an activist for radical left-wing causes, including defunding the police and extreme climate change policies.
However, unlike Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch, Ben & Jerry’s has posted nakedly political messages for decades. The company, based in Vermont, has often supported left-wing causes—especially those championed by self-proclaimed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
In June, Ben & Jerry’s announced it wouldn’t pay to advertise on Twitter and claimed that “hate speech” is on the rise across the platform since Elon Musk purchased the company last year. In a blog post weeks ago, the company wrote that changes at Twitter are causing it “great concern” and that “hate speech is up dramatically while content moderation has become all but non-existent.”
The firm also faced boycotts from consumers after saying it would not sell ice cream in Israel’s Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which it described as “occupied Palestinian territory.”
The decision was denounced by Israel supporters as well as state governments. Eventually, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever after the firm sold its Israeli division to a local franchisee before the issue was settled in December.
And in March, company co-founder Ben Cohen spoke out about the U.S. government providing military assistance to Ukraine, saying that the United States should instead try to negotiate and end to the war.
In the wake of their absurd July 4 message, the market value of their parent company, Unilever, is taking it in the groin.
Since sending out the message on Tuesday, Unilever, which has owned Ben & Jerry’s since 2000, has lost $2.6 billion in market capital. Those shares were down .5 percent on Wednesday and down 1 percent at the start of trading on Thursday.
At the time of writing, the company’s market capital is down to $131 billion from $133.5 billion.
All I can say is, “Good!” The blowback has come fast and furious. The Washington Examiner posted an opinion piece that summarized a lot of the reaction.
But it is safe to assume this is not only the company’s most bizarre political stance, it is also its most hypocritical.
If Ben & Jerry’s was truly committed to the “Land Back” movement it describes as “all about restoring the rights and freedoms of Indigenous people,” then surely it could be a leader and return its own corporate offices to the Native Americans first.
Ben & Jerry’s headquarters is in South Burlington, Vermont, which was home to the Abenaki tribe before the British colonists came and before America was founded. Considering what the company is calling for, it does not seem too unreasonable for us to expect it to step up, be the first to give the land back, and presumably return to Europe.
After all, Ben & Jerry’s wrote that this “Land Back” movement is “about dismantling white supremacy and systems of oppression and ensuring that Indigenous people can again govern the land their communities called home for thousands of years.” I doubt Ben & Jerry’s would want to, in its own words, be a part of perpetuating white supremacy and preventing Native tribes from governing their own land. In fact, it would be quite cruel for this huge corporation to simultaneously advocate “Land Back,” acknowledge the harms of not returning the land, yet not actually give back the land it occupies.
It may be fun to imagine, but, of course, Ben & Jerry’s will never actually give back the land its corporate office sits on. It will simply exert pressure on others to give up their land.
As always, vote with your pocketbook. It should be obvious by now that if millions of us just stop patronizing these political organizations masquerading as businesses, we can do some significant damage to their brands and their bottom lines, with the goal of making them think twice before taking sides.
Have a great weekend.
Not supporting Ben & Jerry’s is not something new in my house, as I stopped buying their ice cream years ago, when I first heard of their lefty lunacy.
I’m not sure I ever bought anything from them—but I’m now sure I never will.