As both James and Joseph have noted this is our first
commodities text that not only places the commodity as the center of the
narrative but also the Coes also discuss chocolate in terms of its spread
throughout the marketplace. The True History of Chocolate was the one of
the text in Robbins’ critique that appeared to be the one for which he had the
most disdain. While I do perceive the
Coes’ work as one with a more positive narrative bent than Mintz’s Sweetness and Power, I did not perceive
chocolate as being the ‘hero’ of the text as Robbins’ claimed during his
critique.
Instead, as James hinted at, the True History of Chocolate instead appears to focus on “Chocolate []
becoming democratized.” (Coe & Coe, 166) That is to say, the book is not a
treatise on the goods of capitalism as Robbins’ initially claimed, but rather
an examination of how chocolate spread through the world and trickled down from
the palettes of the elites who could afford it to the everyday worker and in
the process the consumption habits changed to reflect its change in status from
a luxury good to a candy bar. This
consumption is not limited simply to the food market but also discussions are
made as to chocolate’s medicinal values and concessions are made to include the
evolving nature of chocolate as a way to balance either “hot” or “cold”
constitutions, even examining differences between how the English and Spanish
perceived the drink despite agreement between “contemporaries in England and on
the Continent, that chocolate was an aphrodisiac.” (Coe & Coe, 173)
Eric, I agree with the assessment that the Coes' book does not paint chocolate as a hero and even thought it may have been more positive about the production of chocolate. I think they did not shy away from describing the effects of the encomienda system and how forced labor nearly decimated on en entire communities (Coe & Coe, 183)
ReplyDelete