“I will mohr” – I want more/a blackamoor. With this slogan, which conjures age-old racist stereotypes, an ice cream company advertised its newest product targeted specifically at Austrian customers, namely “Mohr im Hemd” ice cream. “Mohr im Hemd,” a warm chocolate cake served with whipped cream, literally translates to “Blackamoor in a shirt,” which triggers associations with colonialism and slavery. But “Mohr im Hemd,” be it as ice cream or in its usual cake form, is not the only product in German-speaking countries whose name bears a racist subtext. Until fairly recently, dark chocolate with whole nuts went by the name of “Negro bread” and dark beer was served as “Negro beer” or “Blackamoor beer.” While the term “Negro” has disappeared from advertising and product naming, the “Blackamoor” is still very present in Austrian and German culture.

Debates on the usage of “Blackamoor” images in advertisements primarily revolve around the question of tradition and branding. In 2000, the Austrian coffee company Meinl proudly advertised that the millennium was coming to an end but the “Blackamoor” on the company’s logo was going to stay. Despite continuous protests against the logo because of its visual perpetuation of injustice, discrimination, and exploitation, Meinl holds on to the “Blackamoor,” who has been part of the company for over 80 years and renders it easily recognizable. The attitude of Meinl is symptomatic for companies that employ the image of the “Blackamoor”; those companies distance themselves from alleged racism but refuse to abandon the “Blackamoor” because that might compromise the recognition of their brands.

Considering the difficult history of the term “blackamoor,” such an attitude is highly problematic. The “court blackamoors” of the 18^th and 19^th centuries were mostly abducted children, who were taken to Europe, put into “oriental” costumes, and served their masters as “toys.” The “court blackamoor” was considered a status symbol, and frequently aristocrats would have their deceased “court blackamoors” prepared by taxidermists to put them on display. Until today, the term “blackamoor” has retained its belittling, trivializing connotations, which romanticizes the bloody history of slavery and exploitation that is inextricably linked to the fate of “court blackamoors.”

“Tradition” does not hold as a valid argument for retaining images of otherness that perpetuate racist stereotypes and ideologies. Why is there such a lack of understanding among “traditionalists” that an ethnic minority rejects certain terms because of their ambivalent history? Where does this apparent lack of awareness concerning the usage of derogatory images and language come from? And how can the sensibility for language be heightened, if problematic images of otherness continue to circulate in advertisements, rendering (more or less) subtle racism socially acceptable?