Coke®: The Drink that Represses (The Nation article)

One after another, students, labor activists and environmentalists blasted Coke's international human rights record. Many focused on Colombia, where Coke has been accused of conspiring with paramilitary death squads to torture and kill union activists. Others highlighted India, where Coke has allegedly polluted and depleted water supplies.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/blanding

-ramon

I don't see any way to discuss this article without violating this forum's rules.

Probably not, but give it a shot if you have something factual or sociological to say about it.

I was recently pm'd about the politics rule for clarification and in part I replied:

In my moderator's ermine robes, I wrote:The problem with [a place for political discussion] is that 1) people, being human, can't keep it there; if I learn that you (gasp) voted for [somebody or other], then I can't speak to you ever again and certainly can't talk mere taquerias with you when the future of mankind is at stake and you're on the side of Evil.

I guess that's the real issue. Can users discuss the factual (or non-) aspect of a piece like this while keeping it rational and cool, or will it turn into talk radio partisan shouting after two posts? Who knows? Give it a shot.

One after another, students, labor activists and environmentalists blasted Coke's international human rights record.

I always thought Coke Zero must violate some sort of human rights treaty or other international law.

Also, not to nitpick, but "Coke" is not a copyright, it is a trademark.* Unless I'm missing something, the correct symbol after Coke would be the circle R for a registered trademark.

* Does "not to nitpick, but" ever mean anything other than "Warning: I'm about to nitpick"?

As I just posted a message with a link to a fairly political article on "Not About Food," I'd just like to put in a vote for allowing these sorts of discussions on this forum. (I'll add some thoughts about the article itself when it becomes clear that it will remain on the board.) People sometimes get nasty towards each other when discussing restaurants or where they like to drink coffee, and I dislike it then too. Those messages are properly removed when they get out of hand there, and should be on this topic as well, but that should not make the topic itself off limits. I do think it is possible to have intellectually stimulating discussions about the politics of food, and I think such conversations are important. Maybe you could add another section, on the philosophy and politics of food, so that those with such interests could engage in civil discussions on such issues without cluttering up other parts of the board. Just a thought. But I would note that this LTH fan welcomes hearing political thoughts of other board participants about food, almost as much as I value the restaurant advice.

ToniG wrote:But I would note that this LTH fan welcomes hearing political thoughts of other board participants about food, almost as much as I value the restaurant advice.

Toni,

Thank you for your reasoned input, but LTHForum is, and will remain, a religion and politics (as much as possible) free zone.

Enjoy,
Gary for the moderators

Not to be flip about the political side, but has anyone tried those free samples of Coke Blak (sic?) they're passing out? Anti-Coke activists have no greater weapon than this revolting "carbonated fusion beverage" as I believe the label calls it. I like cola OK, and I love coffe and mocha flavored things, but after a slug of this it was "tiramisu---and I can't get up!"

I can only describe it as tasting like someone had grabbed a filter full of old coffee grounds the day after a party, and it had some cigarette butts put out in it, and then they filtered coke through it and bottled the sludge. It was as if some alien, non-carbon based life form had tried to reproduce root beer based on substitute ingredients from their own planet. Yikes.

mrbarolo wrote:Not to be flip about the political side,

UMMMM.... Did I miss something?

Flip

Matt wrote:Also, not to nitpick, but "Coke" is not a copyright, it is a trademark.* Unless I'm missing something, the correct symbol after Coke would be the circle R for a registered trademark.

* Does "not to nitpick, but" ever mean anything other than "Warning: I'm about to nitpick"?

Matt,
I've changed the thread title to reflect your post. I use the ASCII chacters more for fun and variety than accuracy, but I never ignore a nitpicker, you nitpicker, you.

Insofar as the politics, I intended the item as a one-off rather than for genuine discussion. We all must choose wisely who we do business with, but our choices are often limited. Will I now buy more Pepsi instead of Coke? No. I doubt Pepsi's record is much better. Every year though, I try to spend less money with the corporate behemoths (really just wanted to use the word behemoth).

-ramon

Thank you for your reasoned input, but LTHForum is, and will remain, a religion and politics (as much as possible) free zone.

Enjoy,
Gary for the moderators

And I understand and accept your response. At the very least, attempting to police political discussions would no doubt make Herculean the already considerable labors of the LTH moderators. I do appreciate what you already do to keep discussions of all sorts on this board civil and respectful. If I might, though, as part of this concession I’ll make a parting recommendation for further reading for all those interested in the global politics of food: Bananeras: Women Transforming the Banana Unions of Latin America, by Dana Frank, who teaches history at the University of California, Santa Cruz. There’s much to learn in this book about the lives and labors of the people who make it possible for us to enjoy our favorite fruit. Full disclosure: Dana is a good friend of mine, and we both share a love of food and politics, so when I need to engage in such a discussion I can always call her.