Right wing in tizzy about Coke ad

So, Coca Cola airs an ad during the Superbowl that celebrates the very diversity that defines what America is. And the right-wingers fly into a hate-filled bigoted frenzy because the ad features… oh how can it be?.. minorities, foreign languages, gays and… gasp… Muslims!!

Cenk Uygur comments:

It is interesting that the left is more interested in the right’s response to the Coke ad than in the actual problem with Coke in Latin America, which includes a record of persecution of trade unionism and elimination of union leaders. They are certainly not very diverse in terms of respecting collective bargaining. :laughing:

Instead of criticizing the right for their perceived dislike of the ad, shouldn’t the left be more concerned about Coke’s deceiving message (a friend to Latin American workers–I think not)? What superficial criticisms the left have :laughing: :laughing: :smiley:

Don’t get me wrong. I’d support the paramilitaries in Colombia versus the alternative (Che-loving FARC revolutionaries), and I am no fan of organized labour. I am also a huge Coke drinker. That being said, I felt a little nauseous watching that politically correct commercial because I don’t think they are practicing such diversity. Even shareholders at Coke’s AGM meetings have told them to stop such practices in the Latin world because they are bad practices in a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) world.

killercoke.org/crimes_colombia.php

Oh, the left has plenty of criticismd about the coca cola corp. But thats off topic. The topic here is the rights bigoted reaction to an ad that fearures people other than white straight Chrisitans and languages other than “American”.

Posted via Tapatalk on tiny
smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.

[quote=“Chris”]Oh, the left has plenty of criticismd about the coca cola corp. But thats off topic. The topic here is the rights bigoted reaction to an ad that fearures people other than white straight Chrisitans and languages other than “American”.

Posted via Tapatalk on tiny
smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.[/quote]

No, the topic in my opinion is the hypocrisy of Coke. If you had watched documentaries on Coke and Colombia, you would realize that Coke’s worldwide marketing for decades (songs such as “I’d like to Buy the World a Coke”) play upon a false benign multicultural internationalist image whereas their activities in Colombia are thuggish. If the left in the US wants to criticize the right’s response to such false advertisement during the Superbowl, then it only reiterates the “suburban stupidity” and “myopic ignorance” of such salon liberals.

[quote=“ChewDawg”]It is interesting that the left is more interested in the right’s response to the Coke ad than in the actual problem with Coke in Latin America, which includes a record of persecution of trade unionism and elimination of union leaders. They are certainly not very diverse in terms of respecting collective bargaining. :laughing:

Instead of criticizing the right for their perceived dislike of the ad, shouldn’t the left be more concerned about Coke’s deceiving message (a friend to Latin American workers–I think not)? What superficial criticisms the left have :laughing: :laughing: :smiley:

Don’t get me wrong. I’d support the paramilitaries in Colombia versus the alternative (Che-loving FARC revoluationaries), and I am no fan of organized labour. I am also a huge Coke drinker. That being said, I felt a little nauseous watching that politically correct commercial because I don’t think they are practicing such diversity.

killercoke.org/crimes_colombia.php[/quote]

So as someone who is is not a fan of organized labor and I guess also not a fan of the government regulations telling companies what to do, what would you suggest to remedy the problem with Coke in Latin America? Or if this sort of thing happens in the US, what is the preferred way to right the situation?

Any hypocrisy or Coke thuggishness may be the topic in your opinion, but it’s not the main topic here IMO. Some people seem to have a problem with the diversity message of this ad in itself. That is an issue, and the issue at hand.

[quote=“hansioux”]
So as someone is is not a fan of organized labor and I guess not a fan of the government telling companies what to do, what do you suggest to remedy the situation with Coke in Latin America? Or if this sort of thing happens in the US, what is the preferred way to right the problem?[/quote]

This sort of thing doesn’t happen in the developed world. Increasingly (you would know this if you watched the 2010 Documentary: ‘The Coca-Cola Case’), the courts in the US are willing to hear such cases, even if the crimes weren’t committed in the US. This is a positive development. Just because I’m a right winger doesn’t mean I am not a humanist. I may think unions in the developed world haven’t been useful in 70 years or so :smiley: , but that doesn’t mean I don’t see a place for them or somewhat stronger labor laws in the developing world. I don’t think they should be nearly as strong as laws are in developed countries, but they should at least provide basic protection, safety standards, and respectful working climates.

I don’t think that has been the case with Coke in Colombia. Considering they are an Atlanta-based company, they should be aiming higher. :ponder:

Any hypocrisy or Coke thuggishness may be the topic in your opinion, but it’s not the main topic here IMO. Some people seem to have a problem with the diversity message of this ad in itself. That is an issue, and the issue at hand.[/quote]

I think we are free to make additional comments/add additional perspectives are we not? Is this Pravda?

Of course you are. But the issue raised but the OP is quite worthy of discussion in itself. You originally said:

The issue of any problems with Coke in Latin America could be raised at any time, anywhere. What I find interesting is that you would raise this issue at this moment, when another issue has already presented itself.

It’s not surprising to me that anyone would be concerned about this issue, regardless of any problems with Coke in Latin America.

You’re free to say what you want, but you would be committing a logical fallacy called a “red herring”: a distraction from the issue at hand. Those may be topics in their own right, worthy of discussion in another thread, but they are totally unrelated to the issue at hand: the bigotry expressed by prominent right-wingers regarding the diversity shown in this ad.

Such bigotry in response to a Super Bowl ad promoting many visions of what defines America is ignorant. There I said it.

But I think having a big, powerful company use Latin American family images to sell sugar water on one hand, while at the same time having used aggressive, non-democratic, and often violent tactics against Latin union leaders on the other hand, is 100000X as ignorant. :no-no:

And I think many people on the left (instead of making cheap political points in the American context by criticizing the reactionary responses to the ad) should be more concerned about such international practices!

Such bigotry in response to a Super Bowl ad promoting many visions of what defines America is ignorant. There I said it.[/quote]

It is. I don’t know how mainstream it is, but it’s troubling in any event.

It would be very hypocritical on Coke’s part. I don’t know enough to make a more informed statement. I took a quick look. Some issues seem to be in dispute, and other cases have been decided and acted on. I want to watch “The Coca-Cola Case” a documentary about it. For one thing, it doesn’t seem to be a huge issue even in Latin America. There has been a boycott lately, but for a completely unrelated issue:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/ … n-america/

That’s debatable. Even if a fringe opinion, I think it’s disturbing enough to be worthy of attention in its own right.

You should. While Hiram later went to jail (he’s a Democrat and had some corruption/GF issues :laughing: :laughing: ), the delegation included officials from the Communications Workers of America, United Students Against Sweatshops , the Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York, and the Civil Service Employees Association
(CSEA).

[quote]
In January 2004, New York City Councilmember and former police officer Hiram Monserrate led a delegation on a 10-day, fact-finding tour to Colombia to investigate allegations of human rights violations by Coca-Cola. “We heard one story after another of torture and injustice,” said one member upon returning. “The sheer number of these testimonials was overwhelming.”

The delegation issued a scathing report in April 2004 that said: “Coca-Cola is complicit in human rights abuses of its workers in Colombia…The conclusion that Coca-Cola bears responsibility for the campaign of terror leveled at its workers is unavoidable.”

The report referred to "a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola’s workers, including nine murders. [/quote]
killercoke.org/crimes_colombia.php
killercoke.org/cci_talking_points.php

Thank you for worrying about us Latin American workers. However, that does not distract from the fact that what we Latin Americans perceive is a strong racist reaction against any language other than English "from “the Bible was written in English” crowd- same ones who do not recognize their own president “because he’s black or African American as you guys call it” or at least that is how it feels to many in Latin America. The general perception of Coke as a company is that it is powerful, as powerful as any company that handles 5% or more of a country’s GDP can be, and there is actual prestige in working for such company, as it at least is held accountable and has, as we say in Spanish, a tail that can be stepped on. Such power is always a double edged weapon, but it is not as if Coke = Chiquita brand or others. It is always clear who’s the puppet master. Coke holds still a positive image in Latin America, which cannot be said of certain elements in US media -and yes, in the era of Internet, the world is small, small.

BTW, and also going off tangent, did you know Esai Morales is going to play the president of the US in a West Wing kind of new TV series? Next up we need John Cho or Steven Yeun as president. Remember all the jokes about the apocalyptic movies having a darker than night president at the helm? Time is near…

Not for SINALTRAINAL workers or their families.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola

Oh, if you want to take out all the problems, then do list all US companies and individuals you find guilty. Don’t stop at labor jobs/wages, peanuts compared to sterility and deformities in thousands of men, women and children? Why not move abroad and try, say India, Bopal, etc.? Think about the core problems there in this argument: to bring these companies to justice, we need to do so in the US, at costs that are not realistic for developing nations whose riches are squirreled away to big banks in Zurich. Our governments have signed treaties with the US -treaties written by those same politicians that look down on our not so white skinned nations- that say so. So actions -or protests as we fondly call them- are the only recourse, if little is to come from them. Because when companies get punished or worse, nationalized, you call us communists and hence the party gets started.

Back to the ad’s reaction, what is questionable here is the hypocrisy -hint, hint:



It gets better:

Ad nauseum…

You should lose the chip on your shoulder. :laughing: Most people that have been persecuted in developing countries don’t trust the corrupt system where they live, especially in some parts of the world. :wink:

They want to use the US courts because they trust them more than their local ones. :laughing: That’s why using a US Act that is over a hundred years old, the Alien Tort Claims Act, is quite innovative. Allows such cases to be prosecuted in the US, where companies can be punished where it hurts–in the pocketbook, and where there is some semblance of fairplay.

[quote] Because when companies get punished or worse, nationalized, you call us communists and hence the party gets started.

[/quote]

Yawn. 80% of the world’s oil is controlled by nationalized companies. :laughing: I don’t think you’d call Saudi Aramco communist! :laughing: :smiley: Again, using Aramco as a model, nationalization is not a problem when there is fair compensation (e.g., Saudis nationalizing but buying out US ownership in 70s and early 80s) and where private property rights are protected.

In Latin America—not as much a precedent for that! :wink:

There you go folks. Coke knows its business and marketing well. You dont buy a six million dollar slot on the most watched advertising slot of the year, without doing your research. They knew it would offend the extreme right wingers who get offended at things like Santa claus being referred to anything other than white, and try to point out how Santa Claus is a historically white person without realizing the absurdity of what they are doing.

They are not targeting rich white folk who try to keep their soda intake to a minimum because of the health risks, they target the poor, the minorities and latin America. Its a cynical type of advertising, one step removed from miley cyrus twerking on stage, designed to shock certain parts of the population, they really dont care about, create a talking point and at the same time galvanize their target customers with an uplifting and positive message (ok, that last part had nothing to do with Miley Cirus).

So my take, the Republicans who get pissed at this are morons. The liberals running around pointing at the Republicans are not far behind. Coke on the other hand played this beautifully, give them marketing guys a pay rise.

Such bigotry in response to a Super Bowl ad promoting many visions of what defines America is ignorant. There I said it.

But I think having a big, powerful company use Latin American family images to sell sugar water on one hand, while at the same time having used aggressive, non-democratic, and often violent tactics against Latin union leaders on the other hand, is 100000X as ignorant. :no-no:

And I think many people on the left (instead of making cheap political points in the American context by criticizing the reactionary responses to the ad) should be more concerned about such international practices![/quote]

Chewy, you know I love you, you are a tribute to your RWBH brethren because you are actually thoughtful and coherent.

BUT

The reaction from this commercial IS the story, more so than the content because the reaction is the embodiment of all the ‘good ole days’, ‘real America’, ‘SPEAK ENGLISH!’ thinly veiled hate speech that many on the right use to rally their fringe elements, and now that the fringe has a say (exemplified by the FOUR different ‘official’ responses to the SOU address) it is political and real.

You should lose the chip on your shoulder. :laughing: Most people that have been persecuted in developing countries don’t trust the corrupt system where they live, especially in some parts of the world. :wink:

They want to use the US courts because they trust them more than their local ones. :laughing: That’s why using a US Act that is over a hundred years old, the Alien Tort Claims Act, is quite innovative. Allows such cases to be prosecuted in the US, where companies can be punished where it hurts–in the pocketbook, and where there is some semblance of fairplay.

[quote] Because when companies get punished or worse, nationalized, you call us communists and hence the party gets started.

[/quote]

Yawn. 80% of the world’s oil is controlled by nationalized companies. :laughing: I don’t think you’d call Saudi Aramco communist! :laughing: :smiley: Again, using Aramco as a model, nationalization is not a problem when there is fair compensation (e.g., Saudis nationalizing but buying out US ownership in 70s and early 80s) and where private property rights are protected.

In Latin America—not as much a precedent for that! :wink:[/quote]

You mean that same chip of the patronizing tone you are now addressing me? Tsk, tsk. :doh:

Chewie, do go back to the reactions. Now you bring positive examples of nationalization? You are a hoot. Thought you’d like to address the situation in the US media. Why such a hard line, why such a knee jerk reaction, against Coke, I mean, such a symbol of the US enterprise success? Is it because it is showing a changing society? Social changes come from economic changes. Is it that the white elite folk are losing their grip on the economy? What is so bad about a multinational company selling a cheap overpriced sugar beverage to the world? Could it be that they are not receiving the benefit of the massive profits?