Posted inBUSINESS UPDATE: PepsiCo meets with Sharpton over DEI rollbacks, future action pending by Stacy M. Brown May 10, 2025 Facebook One-time Monthly Annually $7 $15 $30 Other Your contribution is appreciated. Donate Now By Stacy M. Brown Rev. Al Sharpton recently met with PepsiCo leadership at the company’s global headquarters in Purchase, New York, following sharp criticism of the food and beverage giant’s decision to scale back nearly $500 million in equity, inclusion and diversity initiatives. Leadership from PepsiCo are in talks with Rev. Al Sharpton. The civil rights leader is speaking with PepsiCo after leadership at the company rolled back initiatives related to equity, diversity and inclusion. Credit: AP Photo/ Brynn Anderson Sign up for our Daily eBlast to get coverage on Black communities from the media company who has been doing it right for over 132 years. Email Address Sign up The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond. Sharpton was joined by members of the National Action Network (NAN), the civil rights organization he founded and leads. “It was a constructive conversation,” Sharpton said after the meeting. “We agreed to follow up meetings within the next few days. After that continued dialogue, NAN Chairman Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson and I, both former members of the company’s African American Advisory Board, will make a final determination and recommendation to the organization on what we will do around PepsiCo moving forward, as we continue to deal with a broader swath of corporations with whom we will either boycott or buy-cott.” Sharpton initially raised concerns in an April 4 letter to Laguarta, accusing the company of abandoning its equity commitments and threatening a boycott if PepsiCo did not meet within three weeks. PepsiCo announced in February that it would no longer maintain specific goals for minority representation in its management or among its suppliers — a move that drew criticism from civil rights advocates. “You have walked away from equity,” Sharpton wrote at the time, pointing to the dismantling of hiring goals and community partnerships as clear signs that “political pressure has outweighed principle.” PepsiCo did not issue a statement following the meeting. The company joins a growing list of major corporations — including Walmart and Target — that have scaled back internal DEI efforts since President Donald Trump returned to office. Trump has eliminated DEI programs from the federal government and warned public schools to do the same or risk losing federal funding. Sharpton has vowed to hold companies accountable. In January, he led a “buy-cott” at Costco to applaud the retailer’s ongoing DEI efforts and announced that NAN would identify two corporations to boycott within 90 days if they failed to uphold equity commitments. “That is the only viable tool that I see at this time, which is why we’ve rewarded those that stood with us,” Sharpton said. This article was originally published by NNPA Newswire.
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment