In Banana Cultures, John
Soluri’s study evolved from the “relationship between social and environmental
change in Honduras” to “mass production and mass consumption of bananas.”[1]
He wants his readers to understand and “acknowledge the dynamic relationships
between production and consumption, between people and nonhuman forms of life,
and between cultures and economies.”[2]
He is similar to the other authors we have read this semester in that they have
also tried to strengthen the relationship between the producers and consumers.
Soluri’s focus on producers on the North Coast of Honduras and consumers in the
United States shows a stronger relationship than was previously understood by
historians. I think he is one of the most effective authors at doing so because
of the sources he is able to use: archives, censuses, local newspapers, fruit
company records, telegrams, documents from worker organizations, oral histories
and U.S. cultural ephemera ( e.g. song lyrics, recipes, and advertisements) to
name a few. One of the way he shows how strong the ties are is his discussion
of how the diseases that ran rampant amongst the massive banana plantations in
Honduras wrought monumental changes that affected market prices and consumption
patterns in North America. Another facet of the books we have read so far is the
author’s desire to re-frame the known history and perhaps make the center a bit larger in
order to encompass locals that contribute more to the commodity chain/web.
While a large part of the history is the story of these transnational fruit
companies, Soluri ‘s focus is also on small scale farms and local growers who,
as “true sons of Honduras”[3],
requested access to the same concessions that the government granted the fruit
companies. I especially like when he points out that the word sons is inexact as many women also moved to the North Coast and established their own banana farms. However, due to the Panama Disease the inability of these local growers to combat the
pathogen limited their autonomy over their lands unlike the fruit companies who
could afford the cost of fighting the disease. Overall, Soluri’s book is well
written and full of data in the form of anecdotal stories and charts that does
a good job of supporting rather than overwhelming the story and his reader’s
senses, mine in particular.
Nadine states that "local growers requested access to the same concessions that the government granted the fruit companies." I agree that this is an interesting part of the history. Here and in other places Soluri talks about the independent growers. It is too bad that he did not tell us the story of why local growers were not encouraged.
ReplyDelete