coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58
From:
Subject: Black Gold showing in Philly
The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
International House
Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm

http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm

"Multinational coffee companies now rule our shopping malls and
superkets and dominate the industry worth over $80 billion, making
coffee the most valuable trading commodity in the world after oil.
But while we continue to pay for our lattes and cappuccinos, the price
paid to coffee farmers remains so low that many have been forced to
abandon their coffee fields.

Nowhere is this paradox more evident than in Ethiopia, the birthplace
of coffee. Tadesse Meskela is one man on a mission to save his 74,000
struggling coffee farmers from bankruptcy. As his farmers strive to
harvest some of the highest quality coffee beans on the international
ket, Tadesse travels the world in an attempt to find buyers willing
to pay a fair price.
Against the backdrop of Tadesse's journey to London and Seattle, the
enormous power of the multinational players that dominate the world's
coffee trade becomes apparent. New York commodity traders, the
international coffee exchanges, and the double dealings of trade
ministers at the World Trade Organisation reveal the many challenges
Tadesse faces in his quest for a long term solution for his farmers."

Stan S





 
Date: 22 Jan 2007 06:41:20
From: Russell Patterson
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
So, let's say we double the price the farmers get for their beans.
The middlemen find their profits drop, so they raise their prices.
The businesses that buy their beans from the middlemen either have to
buy those higher priced beans or buy someone else's.

If they buy the more expensive beans, they will have to pass this on
to the consumer. The consumer starts buying less coffee, and the
business will buy fewer beans. The middlemen buy fewer beans and the
farmer has to dump the beans he can't sell.

If they buy someone else's beans, the middlemen will be buying the
cheaper beans, too, the result being that the farmers end up dumping
unsold beans.

If the farmers can't make a living (note I did not say decent living)
out of growing coffee, then they will grow something else or do
something other than farm for a living. Or they, and their families
will starve.

If the coffee producing nations could form an alliance like the
OPEC'ers have done, they might be able to do something, however,
coffee can be grown in a lot of places and it's not like the world
would come to an end for the general populace if there were no coffee
tomorrow. I might have to start getting 10 hours of sleep everynight
and have to start eating more fiber, though!

On 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58 -0800, stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:

>The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
>International House
>Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
>
>http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm
>
>"Multinational coffee companies now rule our shopping malls and
>superkets and dominate the industry worth over $80 billion, making
>coffee the most valuable trading commodity in the world after oil.
>But while we continue to pay for our lattes and cappuccinos, the price
>paid to coffee farmers remains so low that many have been forced to
>abandon their coffee fields.
>
>Nowhere is this paradox more evident than in Ethiopia, the birthplace
>of coffee. Tadesse Meskela is one man on a mission to save his 74,000
>struggling coffee farmers from bankruptcy. As his farmers strive to
>harvest some of the highest quality coffee beans on the international
>ket, Tadesse travels the world in an attempt to find buyers willing
>to pay a fair price.
>Against the backdrop of Tadesse's journey to London and Seattle, the
>enormous power of the multinational players that dominate the world's
>coffee trade becomes apparent. New York commodity traders, the
>international coffee exchanges, and the double dealings of trade
>ministers at the World Trade Organisation reveal the many challenges
>Tadesse faces in his quest for a long term solution for his farmers."
>
>Stan S



  
Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:49:18
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
I'm afraid the film will backfire in this way - several of the reviews said
things like "you won't be able to enjoy your cup of coffee at Starbucks
after seeing this movie" (cause you'll feel guilty). Anything that causes
people to feel less good about drinking coffee is only going to make the
farmers worse off, but apparently the filmmakers didn't take that into
account when they were so busy constructing their clever work of propaganda.

If you are a commodity producer, there are only a few ways to bypass kets
and receive more than would otherwise be the ket price. All these ways
are well known and have been tried (without much success in most cases) in
the past. One way as you say is to form a cartel of producers and withhold
supply until the ket price goes up - this was a lot easier back in the
day when Brazil controlled a greater share of the world ket. Today it's
pretty much a lost cause.

Another way is to de-commoditize your product - attach an adjective or brand
name to the front of the commodity, so you are no longer selling "chicken"
which trades on the CBOT for x cents/lb. period, you are selling "free range
chicken" or "organic chicken" or "Perdue chicken", etc. whose price is
subject to a whole different supply/demand equation. "Fair trade" is
another such adjective. The problem with this approach is that there is a
reason why most commodities are commodities - in the minds of most
consumers, a "chicken" or a "cup of coffee" is an interchangeable item - one
is just like the next. It takes a lot of consumer education/keting to
convince people that your (insert adjective here) (name of commodity) really
is different and worth paying extra for and in the end you're never going to
convince more than a small minority. It's a doubly difficult job when your
"pitch" is benefit to a third party rather than the consumer - you say that
your product does not taste any different / otherwise is physically
identical to the commodity product, but you should pay more for it because
of some benefit to a third party -- your adjective of choice is "cruelty
free" or "fair trade" or "union made". Most people are unwilling to pay a
higher price for an attribute that does not benefit themselves directly in
some way, greedy capitalist bastards that they are.

The one approach that would do the farmers the most good in the long run is
the one that has been tried the least in the area of coffee. The farmers
can join together in a keting campaign (e.g. Incredible Edible Egg,
Florida Orange Juice) that will promote the overall category rather than any
one producer. Per capita coffee consumption in the US has fallen by
something like half in the last 50 years. If people were still drinking
coffee at the 1960 rate, the farmers would be hard pressed to meet demand
and would be rolling in dough. It's all well and good to promote coffee as a
"specialty" beverage but coffee has lost its position as the national all
purpose all occassion drink - that's now Coca-Cola I guess.


"Russell Patterson" <me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:tj79r211h3cr6mn319p45rruvibru6r0jj@4ax.com...
> So, let's say we double the price the farmers get for their beans.
> The middlemen find their profits drop, so they raise their prices.
> The businesses that buy their beans from the middlemen either have to
> buy those higher priced beans or buy someone else's.
>
> If they buy the more expensive beans, they will have to pass this on
> to the consumer. The consumer starts buying less coffee, and the
> business will buy fewer beans. The middlemen buy fewer beans and the
> farmer has to dump the beans he can't sell.
>
> If they buy someone else's beans, the middlemen will be buying the
> cheaper beans, too, the result being that the farmers end up dumping
> unsold beans.
>
> If the farmers can't make a living (note I did not say decent living)
> out of growing coffee, then they will grow something else or do
> something other than farm for a living. Or they, and their families
> will starve.
>
> If the coffee producing nations could form an alliance like the
> OPEC'ers have done, they might be able to do something, however,
> coffee can be grown in a lot of places and it's not like the world
> would come to an end for the general populace if there were no coffee
> tomorrow. I might have to start getting 10 hours of sleep everynight
> and have to start eating more fiber, though!
>
> On 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58 -0800, stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
>>International House
>>Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
>>
>>http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm
>>
>>"Multinational coffee companies now rule our shopping malls and
>>superkets and dominate the industry worth over $80 billion, making
>>coffee the most valuable trading commodity in the world after oil.
>>But while we continue to pay for our lattes and cappuccinos, the price
>>paid to coffee farmers remains so low that many have been forced to
>>abandon their coffee fields.
>>
>>Nowhere is this paradox more evident than in Ethiopia, the birthplace
>>of coffee. Tadesse Meskela is one man on a mission to save his 74,000
>>struggling coffee farmers from bankruptcy. As his farmers strive to
>>harvest some of the highest quality coffee beans on the international
>>ket, Tadesse travels the world in an attempt to find buyers willing
>>to pay a fair price.
>>Against the backdrop of Tadesse's journey to London and Seattle, the
>>enormous power of the multinational players that dominate the world's
>>coffee trade becomes apparent. New York commodity traders, the
>>international coffee exchanges, and the double dealings of trade
>>ministers at the World Trade Organisation reveal the many challenges
>>Tadesse faces in his quest for a long term solution for his farmers."
>>
>>Stan S
>




 
Date: 22 Jan 2007 01:11:44
From: stereoplegic
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
BTW, there is, to my knowledge, no Ethiopian coffee in those $3 lattes.
*$ Espresso Roast is described as "a blend of Latin American and
Asia/Pacific coffees roasted slightly lighter than Italian Roast". So
the most I've seen them charge for a cup of Ethiopian coffee is $2 in
my area (tax included in that price). Not really relevant to this
topic, just eliminates the $3 latte argument.

> In other words a sophisticated subtle piece of agitprop. Do they really
> want you to draw your "own conclusions"? What if you conclusions are that
> Starbucks is a clever keter and deserves every nickel they get for their
> $3 lattes and is under no obligation to pay more than a ket price for
> their coffee, any more than they should be slipping extra money to their
> paper goods suppliers or the electric utility? Would this be OK with them?



 
Date: 20 Jan 2007 07:39:57
From: stereoplegic
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
this film focuses on *$, devoting very little time to the big four (who
pay much less), not to mention the brokers. the real push should be to
eliminate MIDDLEMEN (why do they really need them) and GOVERNMENTS
(observe the current ethiopia tradek issue, like that's really going
to help the farmers if fewer people buy coffee for whose name they have
to pay (pay who? politicians and beareaucrats) to use) from the
process, allowing more direct dealings w/ farmers. observe *$ in mexico
or guatemala, for example.

stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:
> The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
> International House
> Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
>
> http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm
>
> "Multinational coffee companies now rule our shopping malls and
> superkets and dominate the industry worth over $80 billion, making
> coffee the most valuable trading commodity in the world after oil.
> But while we continue to pay for our lattes and cappuccinos, the price
> paid to coffee farmers remains so low that many have been forced to
> abandon their coffee fields.
>
> Nowhere is this paradox more evident than in Ethiopia, the birthplace
> of coffee. Tadesse Meskela is one man on a mission to save his 74,000
> struggling coffee farmers from bankruptcy. As his farmers strive to
> harvest some of the highest quality coffee beans on the international
> ket, Tadesse travels the world in an attempt to find buyers willing
> to pay a fair price.
> Against the backdrop of Tadesse's journey to London and Seattle, the
> enormous power of the multinational players that dominate the world's
> coffee trade becomes apparent. New York commodity traders, the
> international coffee exchanges, and the double dealings of trade
> ministers at the World Trade Organisation reveal the many challenges
> Tadesse faces in his quest for a long term solution for his farmers."
>
> Stan S



  
Date: 20 Jan 2007 17:05:41
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
They must fill some role or they wouldn't exist. Last time I looked there
was no easy way for Ethiopian farmers to serve you a cup of espresso in or
near your home. Until that happens (never) there will be a chain of
middlemen in between the farmer and the consumer who will account for most
of the value (most people have no real use for coffee cherries as they are
picked). It always galls the wheat farmer that he gets a nickel for the
wheat in a $3.00 loaf of bread and the cattle farmer that he gets 75 cents
out of your $30 steak meal, but this is how it's always been and probably
how it will always be. Even if the farmers form coops or whatever, they
have costs associated with them which are not that different from the costs
faced by traditional middlemen - labor, capital, fuel, transportation,
packaging, spoilage, etc.



"stereoplegic" <stereoplegic@aim.com > wrote in message
news:1169307597.612991.250910@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
. the real push should be to
> eliminate MIDDLEMEN (why do they really need them)




   
Date: 22 Jan 2007 12:49:31
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
The price reflects the relative supply, added value and risk. That does not
negate the necessity that the start of the supply chain (any supply chain)
should be profitable for the participants.

If that results in higher prices - be that a few cents more for a coffee or
loaf of bread or a few dollars extra for the steak, long term it isn't
really reaslitic to maintain the lower price and hold the quality and / or
continuity of supply.

What Black Gold did highlight was that for some farmers the classic statment
"do something else" isn't always that easy or even possible.

Even middlemen have a place...

Brent

> They must fill some role or they wouldn't exist. Last time I looked there
> was no easy way for Ethiopian farmers to serve you a cup of espresso in or
> near your home. Until that happens (never) there will be a chain of
> middlemen in between the farmer and the consumer who will account for most
> of the value (most people have no real use for coffee cherries as they are
> picked). It always galls the wheat farmer that he gets a nickel for the
> wheat in a $3.00 loaf of bread and the cattle farmer that he gets 75
> cents out of your $30 steak meal, but this is how it's always been and
> probably how it will always be. Even if the farmers form coops or
> whatever, they have costs associated with them which are not that
> different from the costs faced by traditional middlemen - labor, capital,
> fuel, transportation, packaging, spoilage, etc.
>
> . the real push should be to
>> eliminate MIDDLEMEN (why do they really need them)
>
>




    
Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:14:53
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
I didn't say the farmers should do something else (though in the long run
that must be the solution for some - in the last century the US economy went
from having a majority of people in the agricultural sector to today's
situation where only a small portion of the workforce is employed in
agriculture and our current prosperity could not have occurred unless this
happened (but it was not without painful disruption along the way). Even in
a high value commodity such a coffee, one person and a mule can only produce
a few hundred $ worth of goods annual and this sets a (low) ceiling on
national incomes. Once you mechanize you need far fewer people to work the
same amount of land.


It's impossible to have a long term situation where the price of an item is
below its cost of production. Eventually the weakest members of the supply
chain drop out and the price rises in response to the reduced supply. Again
not without pain along the way, but in the long term these situtations
cannot and do not persist.

What I did say is that it was a dream to eliminate the middle men because if
they did not exist we would have to invent them.



"Brent" <me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:51icgeF1kdi70U1@mid.individual.net...
> The price reflects the relative supply, added value and risk. That does
> not negate the necessity that the start of the supply chain (any supply
> chain) should be profitable for the participants.
>
> If that results in higher prices - be that a few cents more for a coffee
> or loaf of bread or a few dollars extra for the steak, long term it isn't
> really reaslitic to maintain the lower price and hold the quality and / or
> continuity of supply.
>
> What Black Gold did highlight was that for some farmers the classic
> statment "do something else" isn't always that easy or even possible.
>
> Even middlemen have a place...
>
> Brent
>
>> They must fill some role or they wouldn't exist. Last time I looked there
>> was no easy way for Ethiopian farmers to serve you a cup of espresso in
>> or near your home. Until that happens (never) there will be a chain of
>> middlemen in between the farmer and the consumer who will account for
>> most of the value (most people have no real use for coffee cherries as
>> they are picked). It always galls the wheat farmer that he gets a nickel
>> for the wheat in a $3.00 loaf of bread and the cattle farmer that he gets
>> 75 cents out of your $30 steak meal, but this is how it's always been
>> and probably how it will always be. Even if the farmers form coops or
>> whatever, they have costs associated with them which are not that
>> different from the costs faced by traditional middlemen - labor, capital,
>> fuel, transportation, packaging, spoilage, etc.
>>
>> . the real push should be to
>>> eliminate MIDDLEMEN (why do they really need them)
>>
>>
>
>




     
Date: 22 Jan 2007 14:01:54
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
Sorry for any confusion Jack, I didn't mean to infer that you said they
should do something else, rather them over ther said it - >

The vibe I picked up from Black Gold was that the farmers were more
interested in being self sufficient, which could be achieved through better
pricing, rather than dependant on aid.

but I will assert that middlemen will always be there in some way - freight
is a middleman thing, and I sure as hell will bever try and deal with our
customs people again, nor the various officials who are charging their
weight in gold as stuff comes past them. I need that freight broker to
handle that... etc etc etc

Also basic economies says that a broker in the end ket will assist moving
all your produce, as they can efficiently sell one sack and still make
money, whereas for one farmer to make money selling me one sack of coffee is
just plain hard work for everyone.

The key is trying to minimise the chain, which is what Tadese is trying to
do.

Brent
(only half thinking through replies...)

>I didn't say the farmers should do something else (though in the long run
>that must be the solution for some - in the last century the US economy
>went from having a majority of people in the agricultural sector to today's
>situation where only a small portion of the workforce is employed in
>agriculture and our current prosperity could not have occurred unless this
>happened (but it was not without painful disruption along the way). Even
>in a high value commodity such a coffee, one person and a mule can only
>produce a few hundred $ worth of goods annual and this sets a (low) ceiling
>on national incomes. Once you mechanize you need far fewer people to work
>the same amount of land.
>
>
> It's impossible to have a long term situation where the price of an item
> is below its cost of production. Eventually the weakest members of the
> supply chain drop out and the price rises in response to the reduced
> supply. Again not without pain along the way, but in the long term these
> situtations cannot and do not persist.
>
> What I did say is that it was a dream to eliminate the middle men because
> if they did not exist we would have to invent them.
>
>
>
> "Brent" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:51icgeF1kdi70U1@mid.individual.net...
>> The price reflects the relative supply, added value and risk. That does
>> not negate the necessity that the start of the supply chain (any supply
>> chain) should be profitable for the participants.
>>
>> If that results in higher prices - be that a few cents more for a coffee
>> or loaf of bread or a few dollars extra for the steak, long term it isn't
>> really reaslitic to maintain the lower price and hold the quality and /
>> or continuity of supply.
>>
>> What Black Gold did highlight was that for some farmers the classic
>> statment "do something else" isn't always that easy or even possible.
>>
>> Even middlemen have a place...
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>> They must fill some role or they wouldn't exist. Last time I looked
>>> there was no easy way for Ethiopian farmers to serve you a cup of
>>> espresso in or near your home. Until that happens (never) there will be
>>> a chain of middlemen in between the farmer and the consumer who will
>>> account for most of the value (most people have no real use for coffee
>>> cherries as they are picked). It always galls the wheat farmer that he
>>> gets a nickel for the wheat in a $3.00 loaf of bread and the cattle
>>> farmer that he gets 75 cents out of your $30 steak meal, but this is
>>> how it's always been and probably how it will always be. Even if the
>>> farmers form coops or whatever, they have costs associated with them
>>> which are not that different from the costs faced by traditional
>>> middlemen - labor, capital, fuel, transportation, packaging, spoilage,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> . the real push should be to
>>>> eliminate MIDDLEMEN (why do they really need them)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




      
Date: 22 Jan 2007 00:20:22
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
Well sure they'd be better off if coffee prices were higher. The question is
how is this to be achieved? I get the feeling the Black Gold people
distrust kets and want more money to be channeled to the farmers thru
strongarm tactics applied against evil capitalists like Starbucks, until the
farmers receive a "fair" amount of money. Whenever you hear the word "fair"
you should hide your wallet because this means that somebody thinks he knows
how to spend your money better than you do and better than kets do. By
the way, I think that movies are "unfairly" priced too high.


The directors, quoted on the movie's webpage:

"From the beginning we wanted to make a film which, while having a political
purpose, was not overly polemic; a film which was observational - giving the
viewer the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about what they are
experiencing."

In other words a sophisticated subtle piece of agitprop. Do they really
want you to draw your "own conclusions"? What if you conclusions are that
Starbucks is a clever keter and deserves every nickel they get for their
$3 lattes and is under no obligation to pay more than a ket price for
their coffee, any more than they should be slipping extra money to their
paper goods suppliers or the electric utility? Would this be OK with them?


"Brent" <me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:51igo5F1k0i6nU1@mid.individual.net...
> The vibe I picked up from Black Gold was that the farmers were more
> interested in being self sufficient, which could be achieved through
> better pricing, rather than dependant on aid.
>




       
Date: 31 Jan 2007 14:56:10
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
Hi Jack,

(back from break number two or three)

How is it achieved? (better pricing) - fair trade is a starting point, but
it is not the bee all and end all. If it is, then free ket is probably a
better long term option.

That pretty much sums up my position - if you look at fair trade as a
minimum starting position, then it's fantastic!

It doesn't give answer sure, but the direction is the right way, and until
there is movement it is all hot air.

<rant >
The "statement" that bugs me most though is "Someone still has to buy the
non fair trade to keep all those other farmers going" (be that slave labour,
coffee, sugar or whatever) which is incredibly shortsighted in terms of
viability and sustainability.
</rant >

Brent


> Well sure they'd be better off if coffee prices were higher. The question
> is how is this to be achieved? I get the feeling the Black Gold people
> distrust kets and want more money to be channeled to the farmers thru
> strongarm tactics applied against evil capitalists like Starbucks, until
> the farmers receive a "fair" amount of money. Whenever you hear the word
> "fair" you should hide your wallet because this means that somebody thinks
> he knows how to spend your money better than you do and better than
> kets do. By the way, I think that movies are "unfairly" priced too
> high.
>
>
> The directors, quoted on the movie's webpage:
>
> "From the beginning we wanted to make a film which, while having a
> political purpose, was not overly polemic; a film which was
> observational - giving the viewer the opportunity to draw their own
> conclusions about what they are experiencing."
>
> In other words a sophisticated subtle piece of agitprop. Do they really
> want you to draw your "own conclusions"? What if you conclusions are that
> Starbucks is a clever keter and deserves every nickel they get for
> their $3 lattes and is under no obligation to pay more than a ket price
> for their coffee, any more than they should be slipping extra money to
> their paper goods suppliers or the electric utility? Would this be OK with
> them?
>
>
>> The vibe I picked up from Black Gold was that the farmers were more
>> interested in being self sufficient, which could be achieved through
>> better pricing, rather than dependant on aid.
>>
>
>




 
Date: 20 Jan 2007 05:01:57
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
pretty defensive!!

dave

shall wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58 -0800, stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
> >International House
> >Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
> >
> >http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm
>
> It's useful for seeing how coffee farmers live and work in Africa
> (dreadfully). Other than that, it is largely a piece of misinformed
> propaganda that persuades through innuendo and artful editing.
>
> Example: The film cuts directly from a giddy shop manager at the
> original Seattle Starbucks, telling why she loves the company, to
> Ethiopian farm land. The narrator reads "This is the region where
> Starbucks buys its Sidamo coffee." They then go to a crisis center
> where starving Sidamo children are fed (or not fed, if they are only
> starving "a little"). The clear implication is that Starbucks
> underpays for coffee and is killing these children. But, the film
> never quite says that out loud.
>
> The internal structure of the Ethiopian coffee economy is never
> examined.
>
> The conclusion is that all the suffering is caused by the specialty
> coffee industry and nefarious trade organizations.
>
> shall



  
Date: 20 Jan 2007 16:53:18
From: Lavarock
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly

>> The conclusion is that all the suffering is caused by the specialty
>> coffee industry and nefarious trade organizations.
>>
>> shall
>

It would not be the shops themselves that are the cause, but the patrons
who constantly buy the products from them.

Without patrons who line up at the register, these companies would
quickly be out of business, thus not buying the coffee.

If you want to get technical, it is really the fault of the US
Government, who has not taken enough of our money, thus allowing us
disposable income... oh nevermind :-)
--

They said that someone has to live in Hawaii and I raised my hand first!


 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:59:28
From:
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly

shall wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58 -0800, stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
> >International House
> >Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
> >
> >http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm
>
> It's useful for seeing how coffee farmers live and work in Africa
> (dreadfully). Other than that, it is largely a piece of misinformed
> propaganda that persuades through innuendo and artful editing.
>
> Example: The film cuts directly from a giddy shop manager at the
> original Seattle Starbucks, telling why she loves the company, to
> Ethiopian farm land. The narrator reads "This is the region where
> Starbucks buys its Sidamo coffee." They then go to a crisis center
> where starving Sidamo children are fed (or not fed, if they are only
> starving "a little"). The clear implication is that Starbucks
> underpays for coffee and is killing these children. But, the film
> never quite says that out loud.
>
> The internal structure of the Ethiopian coffee economy is never
> examined.
>
> The conclusion is that all the suffering is caused by the specialty
> coffee industry and nefarious trade organizations.
>
> shall
Of course, shall. This is the Michael Moore school of documentary
filmmaking, but probably worth seeing.
Stan S



 
Date: 20 Jan 2007 04:49:43
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Black Gold showing in Philly
On 19 Jan 2007 20:22:58 -0800, stan.shire@gmail.com wrote:

>The documentary "Black Gold" will be shown in Philadelphia at
>International House
>Feb 2, 2007 at 7pm
>
>http://www.ihousephilly.org/humanrightwatch5thedition.htm

It's useful for seeing how coffee farmers live and work in Africa
(dreadfully). Other than that, it is largely a piece of misinformed
propaganda that persuades through innuendo and artful editing.

Example: The film cuts directly from a giddy shop manager at the
original Seattle Starbucks, telling why she loves the company, to
Ethiopian farm land. The narrator reads "This is the region where
Starbucks buys its Sidamo coffee." They then go to a crisis center
where starving Sidamo children are fed (or not fed, if they are only
starving "a little"). The clear implication is that Starbucks
underpays for coffee and is killing these children. But, the film
never quite says that out loud.

The internal structure of the Ethiopian coffee economy is never
examined.

The conclusion is that all the suffering is caused by the specialty
coffee industry and nefarious trade organizations.

shall