OT: It's (nearly) Valentine's Day...

Subject: OT: It's (nearly) Valentine's Day...
Author: Vixenmage
Posted on: 2010-02-12 04:29:00 UTC

...And, in the words of a certain singer, Do You Know Where Your Soul Is? ~~_{Yes, that's right, another awkward and heavy-handed prod from your resident crazy activist about worldwide slavery!}~~

This is not about giggling in the hallways over balloons and teddy bears, or sending dagger-glares to the girl in the front row with all the flowers from your corner (though if anybody wants to put up a thread about that, I'll gladly come commiserate), or anti-commercialism, or anti-anti-commercialism-killjoys (like me!), or even the fact that Saudi Arabia has just outlawed celebration of Valentine's Day (no, I'm not kidding).

This is about chocolate. Yes, chocolate! That most delicious of foods, that symbol of young love and luxurious romance.

This is actually about more than chocolate. This is about chocolate and slavery, and the fact that the two are very, very closely linked. Most mainstream chocolate companies-- and by "most" I mean "almost all of"-- get an overwhelming majority of their cocoa from the West Coast of Africa-- Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire. Most of this chocolate comes from huge slave plantations, the workers of which are mostly young teenagers, kidnapped from Mali, where they'd set out looking for jobs to feed their families, in one of the very poorest countries in this world. They're worked to the bone, starved, beaten, kept locked up at night to keep from trying to escape, and live in utterly horrible conditions. And all this-- all this cruelty, this pain, this stupid, stupid wickedness-- to satisfy the cravings of the Western world-- for candy. To give our sweet tooth a hit.

Think about that for a second. Young teenagers being beaten to death so that young teenagers can get a cheap candybar on their way home from school. Slavery feeding romance, for what can a guy give his girl that's more romantic than a chocolate rose? Slavery feeding happiness-- for which of us hasn't seen the Hershey's commercials, little kids with smiles on their faces?

Guys. It doesn't have to be this way. We can do something about this.

http://vision.ucsd.edu/~kbranson/stopchocolateslavery/

There's a link. It'll take you to a site where they have legitimate news articles about this, ways to stop it, ways to avoid it, and other useful information. I'll say it again: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

I know it doesn't always seem like it, but chocolate is a luxury. We don't -need- it to survive, not at the cost of the freedom of our brothers and sisters across the ocean. And even if we do? There are solutions. I mentioned Green & Black's, earlier-- they buy fair-trade, certified chocolate which only comes from small farmers who are given a fair price for their cacao beans. I've heard a lot of people complain about how fair-trade stuff is always more expensive-- but as I said, it's a luxury, and as for me personally? I'd rather pay a little more or go without than eat something I know has bathed in the blood, sweat, and tears of some poor kid who's been chained to this travesty against his will.

Reply Return to messages

OT: It's (nearly) Valentine's Day... by Vixenmage on 2010-02-12 04:29:00 UTC

Re: OT: It's (nearly) Valentine's Day... by Pads on 2010-02-14 01:19:00 UTC Reply

Is this one going to crop up every time a chocolate related holiday rolls round? I'll throw in a disclaimer now, saying I'm drunk, and so anything that may look offensive is just poor phrasing on my part, and please don't take it to heart, but...

I won't try to deny that some workers are forced to contend with appalling conditions. I won't try to deny that the western world is all too happy to shit all over other people for cheap commodities. But I have a couple of problems with your post nonetheless.

The first is the guilt issue: the suggestion is that it is our fault, each and every one of us, that some people live in appalling conditions and work in the same, and that the west benefits. We're not individually responsible. We may, some of us, buy into a system that has, over decades, led to this situation, but personal responsibility and guilt for this cannot be laid on the shoulders of any one of us. The suggestion that it can not only gets my back up, but also suggests a lack of understanding of the many and varied factors over a lengthy period of time that have led to the situation you object to. Your post may not deliberately suggest this; I suggest altering the wording somewhat to make it less of a personal laying of blame.

The second problem is the assumption that we each of us wilfully buy cheap chocolate. Perhaps you live in such circumstances that you can decide which of a variety of brands and prices to opt for. Some of us are not so lucky. Some of us exist on a daily income well below that considered necessary by the wossnames (UN? my memory fails when drinking). Some of us don't have the option of spending two quid on a bar of chocolate when we can get the same for twenty pence. Poverty doesn't only exist in the third world. While I realise western poverty is nothing compared to that experienced in the third world, these things are, to some degree relative: it's fine for you to advocate buying fair trade, but fair trade costs money some of us simply do not have.

Ansela would like me to add that chocolate is not necessarily a luxury. If anyone can add any Science to the whys and wherefores here, I'd be glad to hear it, but chocolate's about the only thing stopping her killing the three of us once a month. Is it, perchance, the same sort of luxury as tampons?

Randomly leaping in here by The Trojanhorse on 2010-02-18 02:42:00 UTC Reply

Chocolate is supposed to stimulate your brain into producing endorphins.

In the words of the film Legally Blonde - '[Chocolate] gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don't kill their [housemates]'.

Also there's probably an element of psychosomatic-ness in there - she thinks the chocolate will make her feel better, and then voila, it does. But it *does* stimulate the brain into producing endorphins, so it's not all in her head :)
Re: OT: It's (nearly) Valentine's Day... by Maudlin Hart on 2010-02-16 00:25:00 UTC Reply

If tampons were a luxury, I'd have to go on a killing spree.
If tampons were a Luxury, I'd have to go on a killing spree and then file about fifteen sexual assault lawsuits.

But they are. by Neshomeh on 2010-02-16 05:54:00 UTC Reply

They're convenient (if you like them), they're mass-produced, they're disposable, they're optional, and it's entirely possible to get along without them--not to mention the fact that they're nasty, nasty things. I saw a demonstration once where they dropped one in a clear cup of water for a few minutes, and the amount of filaments and fibers left floating around in the water when they took it out was scary.

Got slightly off-point there. Anyway. I know of at least one place to get washable, reusable items to replace tampons and pads, too: www.gladrags.com Been meaning to give 'em a shot myself. Although they're pricey at first glance, they would save money in the long run, and also be more sustainable.

Er, sorry if this topic bugs anybody. I felt that it bore elaboration, since we began with sustainability. ^_^;

~Neshomeh

...Oh, -ew-. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-18 01:50:00 UTC Reply

I don't wear them just because the idea kind of creeps me out, and also it hurts (yes, I am aware that means you're doing it wrong, but it hurts badly enough to make it not worth it to keep practicing), and although I never considered the idea that they would leave crap -in- your body... Ugh. That is -gross-.

But yeah! Reusable stuff like that's actually quite awesome. I knew a few people who actually wore the things that basically collected the discharge, which could then be thrown out. ...Or used for fertilizer, if you're really into self-sustainability and stuff. But even in a mostly anarchist community, people tended to think that was going too far.

Offensive? No. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-15 23:35:00 UTC Reply

It just makes me angry.

Because it's not just appalling work conditions. It's slavery. Like, as in, thirteen year old boys kidnapped and sold to a plantation where they are beaten and worked to death without pay and chained up at night to keep them from escaping. That's not just appalling conditions, that's slavery, a practice outlawed in most of the Western world (all, actually, to my admittedly little knowledge).

I don't blame people for the condition of Africa, nor Asia, nor the workers who make them up. I blame the corrupt governments of those countries, and I blame the corporations propping them up because cheap labor makes the economy go 'round. But honestly, I don't understand how buying something you don't need (yes, I know, some people do, endomorphins, etc, but the fact is the more expensive stuff is a higher percent cocoa most of the time, which means it's actually -better- for those scientific purposes than the cheap stuff, which is usually less than fifty percent cocoa and thus virtually useless where antioxidants and endomorphins are concerned), fully knowing that the product was made with unwilling slave labor, is... I don't know. There are a lot of words I want to put there, none that won't offend you (and several other people). I know I was harsher in that post than I needed to be; I should've glanced over it before putting it up here, as it was cross-posted from another forum (where, by the way, it was utterly ignored. so you're not alone in being irritated with my constant activist shite). Anyway. Yes, I meant there to be a guilt issue. There should be. On that, I won't back down. But you're right in that it shouldn't have been that aggressive.

As for your second problem? Yeah, like I said, if it's a medical issue the fair-trade organic stuff is better for any purpose. Hershey's and their ilk are generally a very tiny percent cocoa-- if you look at the ingredients, it usually goes "sugar, milk, etc," and then chocolate'll be somewhere near the end. For dietary purposes alone you're better off buying the good stuff. Chocolate's not medically necessary for me, though, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I do take offense (kind of-- I am bearing in mind that you're drunk, and trying not to take it personally) to you implying that I can afford to buy luxury chocolate all the time, or whatever. I currently work two jobs, don't get enough hours at either, can't afford to drive or go to college or do much more than eat (most of the time) and pay a few of my dad's bills. And this is going to sound self-righteous, but if it's a choice between fair-trade and nothing, I just don't buy it. To me, it's not worth the guilt trip. Because even though I complain about my life all the time, the chocolate isn't worth making someone else's life that much worse.

And actually I don't wear tampons either. ~~Though that's actually just because they bug me.~~
I'll have to second... by Chliever on 2010-02-14 03:11:00 UTC Reply

...the remark about holidays. It's nice to be informed, but there's no need to make your point more than you have to.

Duly noted. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-15 23:36:00 UTC Reply

Though I'd disagree with it being nice to be informed. It sucks to be informed, because then you have to actually make the decision. Ignorance is bliss. I just generally assume people on this site don't want to remain in ignorance.

Wholeheartedly by BeetleFire on 2010-02-13 19:31:00 UTC Reply

(Pun semi-intended.)

Yes, I buy free trade chocolate whenever I can. I find that it often tastes better than mainstream chocolate, too. Thank you for advocating awareness of this issue.

No, thank you for caring/being involved. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-15 23:56:00 UTC Reply

(And it may say something about my state of awareness or intellect that it took me about thirty seconds to figure out where that pun was. x_x)
Fair trade, not free trade. by BeetleFire on 2010-02-13 19:33:00 UTC Reply

I rarely make that mistake.

Hurk... by Maudlin Hart on 2010-02-13 00:22:00 UTC Reply

I did an extensive Social Studies project on Cote d'Ivoire a few months ago. So yes.
The creepy thing is... by Chliever on 2010-02-12 16:12:00 UTC Reply

...cocoa beans are bought in bulk, mixed in from all over. Unless you buy exclusively Fair Trade, it's nigh impossible, really, for anyone - chocolate-makers and -eaters - to tell where each individual bean comes from. Chocolate isn't the only thing that has this problem; it's also a big issue with palm oil and other things, and for this reason I've developed a fear of having eaten something illegal...

...because you never can be too sure...

Yeah. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-13 04:07:00 UTC Reply

It is completely impossible to tell what comes from where, because all the cocoa is mixed together by the time it reaches the consumer. Unless it says something like 100% Fair-Trade certified, or... I think Rainforest Trade is another one that's both ethical and environmentally friendly, you honestly can't tell.

The thing that I don't get is why it's such a problem to buy fair-trade chocolate and coffee. If it was, I don't know, life-blood or something, yeah, but this stuff is a luxury. It's not like we literally can't do without it.

Were you the one that has brought this up before? by IndeMaat on 2010-02-12 09:24:00 UTC Reply

I remember a thread here about chocolate and slavery.

http://www.chocolonely.nl/

Yeah, probably. by Vixenmage on 2010-02-13 04:04:00 UTC Reply

I plug it sporadically throughout the internet.