Not Doing Coke

OK, so now we're meant to be boycotting Coca Cola products because, so far, they've declined to pull out of Russia.  I'm all for supporting Ukraine in any way possible, but I think that it might well be a bit late to worry as to whether or not the Coca Cola organisation is evil.  Let's not forget that, during World War Two its German subsidiary kept running.  After the US entered the war, they couldn't import the ingredients needed to produce Coke, so came up with Fanta, instead.  It was also produced at the Coca Cola plant in the occupied Netherlands. After the war, when the constituent parts of the company were re-united, the US parent company was happy to claim the profits made from selling Fanta to Nazi soldiers.  That's the thing, organisations like Coca Cola are multi-national conglomerates with allegiance to nothing but profits.  They don't much care how or where those profits are made, or who they have to deal with in order to realise them.  That's modern capitalism.  I'm always more amazed by those corporations who do observe sanctions regimes than I'm appalled by those that don't.  But to get back to boycotting Coca Cola products - it's actually a pretty easy one for me.  When I was diagnosed as diabetic a few years ago, one of the first things I gave up in order to reduce my blood sugar levels were soft drinks.  I do sometimes indulge in the sugar-free variety, but even then rarely.  So it wouldn't be any great sacrifice for me.

The trouble with such boycotts, though, is how far do you take them?  I remember not buying South African products back in the days of Apatheid, I also know people who won't buy Israeli grown oranges as a protest over the treatment of the Palestinians.  These sorts of boycotts are straightforward and easy to observe.  It's when it gets wider that you start having problems - which supermarkets can you safely shop at, bearing in mind that many pay low wages and have dubious employment practices?  Should I boycott Amazon for the same reasons?  This past weekend, my oldest great niece - she's fifteen - was telling me that she is refusing to watch some films because some of the performers have made homophobic, misogynistic or racist comments.  I understand where she's coming from, but I was moved to point out that if I was to boycott every film I knew that had such people involved in their making, I wouldn't be watching many films at all.  (Especially true in the world of exploitation - I'd have to avoid anything with Klaus Kinski in, for instance and anything Italian altogether, in fact).  The sad fact is that many of the things we love are produced by people we detest, (or whose views, at least, we detest).  But these things, like films, are rarely the product of single individuals - many of those involved in their production will be perfectly decent people.  By continuing to enjoy these things, we aren't necessarily endorsing the views of the unpleasant ones.

I'm not entirely sure that I'm convinced myself by my explanation.  (I'm pretty sure my great niece wasn't - she's a smart young woman of strong principles and opinions, quite rightly so).  But I can't, for now, come up with a better one.  Obviously, my best defence for watching exploitation films is that my doing so in no way directly benefits those who made them - neither he scumbags nor the good people - as so many are public domain and many of my sources for them aren't exactly kosher either and most certainly aren't paying licensing fees.  Jesus, now I'm endorsing copyright infringement and video piracy, (which, we all know from the warnings on DVDs and at the cinema, funds terrorism - because that's what bin Laden was doing in his cave: running off knock off copies of Disney DVDs with which to flood dodgy back street stores in the UK).  So yeah kids, don't watch dodgy DVDs or shady streaming channels.  But boycott Coke - it's full of sugar and probably worse shit, for all I know.