7 ms·

Not too take it too deep, but a Chocolate factory in the early 1900 is fundamentally using products involving slavery and productions from remote island where l

by hrktb 8y ago

Not too take it too deep, but a Chocolate factory in the early 1900 is fundamentally using products involving slavery and productions from remote island where local population social well being is not really a focus. It comes with the times, and it was just normal from an English empire perspective. Just saying, it's a matter of perspective I guess.

Lio 8y ago
It wasn't the English empire it was the British Empire. It's quite important not to confuse that given the history of prominent Scottish trading firms such as Jardine Matheson.
- krageon 8y ago
  While I recognise it's an important local issue, globally I don't think Scotland is seen as materially different from Britain.
  - Lio 8y ago
    I think you've missed the point. Scotland is a sub-set of Britain so that would be actually fine but... The grand parent didn't conflate Scotland and Britain. They conflated an English Empire with the British Empire. England is a different sub-set of the British Isles. Much of the commodities trade in South East Asia during the period referred to was controlled by powerful Scottish firms. To talk about an "English Empire" like that is not a "local issue" it's just factually incorrect.
    - Jaruzel 8y ago
      There was never an English Empire. However, it seems an ongoing trait of non British people (mainly Americans) to call our nice little set of islands and territories 'England'. Most notably is constant use of the title 'The Queen of England' - There hasn't been a Monarch of just England since before 1603. To counter, maybe us Brits should start pretending that New York in't part of the USA, or that there are only 9 federal regions (take your pick which one should no longer belong!). Summary: Stop calling Britain 'England'.
      - RugnirViking 8y ago
        Of course, it's not actually wrong to call her the queen of england any more than its not wrong to call her the queen of canada or australia - it's part of her title, just not her entire job. It would be just as incorrect to call her queen of the UK or queen of great britain. Yeah I know its a bit nitpicky and less of an issue but there you go :-)
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Of course, it's not actually wrong to call her the queen of england Yes, it is. > any more than its not wrong to call her the queen of canada or australia - it's part of her title, Queen of Canada is one of her titles. Queen of Australia is one of her titles. Queen of England is not (Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is.)
        RugnirViking 8y ago
        I'm not making much of a 'technical' argument for the rules as written but more one of convenience - I think what im getting at here is that while the act of union means that its a single kingdom, its relatively useless to suggest that she is not the queen of england because the title that gives her that power also gives her more power over other areas, when she also has more power than that title alone gives her - that line of thinking almost seems to lead to the idea that it would be wrong to suggest any specific title without listing every single one? Something along the lines of the following: If somebody asks me "who is the queen of scotland" I would answer the question - I assume that the asker is not asking about a specific title that was removed in 1707 but instead they want to inquire about the current monarch that holds control over that territory I mean of course my thought process here is a bit rambly but I think you get where im going.
        tomjakubowski 8y ago
        I suppose that asking, "Who is the queen of Scotland?" is a bit like asking, "Who is the president of Texas?".
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    And all Americans are okay with being called Texans? England and Scotland are subsets of Great Britain, both physically (on the island named Great Britain) and politically (both countries within the UK).
- hrktb 8y ago
  I stand corrected
rleigh 8y ago
I think you might want to read up on this history of Cadbury and the Quakers in general. They were some of the most ethical companies around.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I got through the whole wikipedia article, and I don't see anything related to anything ethical they did related the products they are buying. I think your point is they were very serious about treating well their company workers. I totally agree, it's just in the current perspective we would also care about supply chain and how the products are sourced. > Cadbury was established in Birmingham, England in 1824, by John Cadbury who sold tea, coffee and drinking chocolate. All their main businesses come from imported raw materials with heavy slavery involved. That's the times, it's no use faulting them for that retrospectively, I just don't agree calling them "ethical" now.
  - rleigh 8y ago
    Not just the workers though. Read more about Quaker businesses, rather than jumping to conclusions. They were responsible for treating their customers and suppliers ethically and fairly as well. For example, the reason we have standardised pricing on all consumer goods is entirely down to 19th century Quaker ethics, which required not overcharging based upon how much they percevied one could afford, and treating everyone equally required to ask the same fair price for everyone, regardless of class, race or whatever, in line with their Christian philosophy and beliefs. This also extends to treating your suppliers on the same terms. While slavery was in existence for a very short period at the start of the company's founding, it's not something which the founders of the company would have countenanced, and I don't think it plays any particularly significant role in the company's history. Their fair and ethical business practices set the standard for how good companies should operate. Cadbury would be horrified by the practices of Kraft/Mondelez. Both are capitalist enterprises, but there are good reasons Cadbury was held in high regard, and Kraft is not. The way Kraft have treated Cadbury and its workers is contemptible. I've not bought a single product from them since the takeover, and I'm by far from the only one.
  - 8y ago

by hrktb 8y ago

Lio 8y ago

It wasn't the English empire it was the British Empire. It's quite important not to confuse that given the history of prominent Scottish trading firms such as Jardine Matheson.

krageon 8y ago
While I recognise it's an important local issue, globally I don't think Scotland is seen as materially different from Britain.
- Lio 8y ago
  I think you've missed the point. Scotland is a sub-set of Britain so that would be actually fine but... The grand parent didn't conflate Scotland and Britain. They conflated an English Empire with the British Empire. England is a different sub-set of the British Isles. Much of the commodities trade in South East Asia during the period referred to was controlled by powerful Scottish firms. To talk about an "English Empire" like that is not a "local issue" it's just factually incorrect.
  - Jaruzel 8y ago
    There was never an English Empire. However, it seems an ongoing trait of non British people (mainly Americans) to call our nice little set of islands and territories 'England'. Most notably is constant use of the title 'The Queen of England' - There hasn't been a Monarch of just England since before 1603. To counter, maybe us Brits should start pretending that New York in't part of the USA, or that there are only 9 federal regions (take your pick which one should no longer belong!). Summary: Stop calling Britain 'England'.
    - RugnirViking 8y ago
      Of course, it's not actually wrong to call her the queen of england any more than its not wrong to call her the queen of canada or australia - it's part of her title, just not her entire job. It would be just as incorrect to call her queen of the UK or queen of great britain. Yeah I know its a bit nitpicky and less of an issue but there you go :-)
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Of course, it's not actually wrong to call her the queen of england Yes, it is. > any more than its not wrong to call her the queen of canada or australia - it's part of her title, Queen of Canada is one of her titles. Queen of Australia is one of her titles. Queen of England is not (Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is.)
        RugnirViking 8y ago
        I'm not making much of a 'technical' argument for the rules as written but more one of convenience - I think what im getting at here is that while the act of union means that its a single kingdom, its relatively useless to suggest that she is not the queen of england because the title that gives her that power also gives her more power over other areas, when she also has more power than that title alone gives her - that line of thinking almost seems to lead to the idea that it would be wrong to suggest any specific title without listing every single one? Something along the lines of the following: If somebody asks me "who is the queen of scotland" I would answer the question - I assume that the asker is not asking about a specific title that was removed in 1707 but instead they want to inquire about the current monarch that holds control over that territory I mean of course my thought process here is a bit rambly but I think you get where im going.
        tomjakubowski 8y ago
        I suppose that asking, "Who is the queen of Scotland?" is a bit like asking, "Who is the president of Texas?".
- alistairSH 8y ago
  And all Americans are okay with being called Texans? England and Scotland are subsets of Great Britain, both physically (on the island named Great Britain) and politically (both countries within the UK).
hrktb 8y ago
I stand corrected

rleigh 8y ago

I think you might want to read up on this history of Cadbury and the Quakers in general. They were some of the most ethical companies around.

hrktb 8y ago
I got through the whole wikipedia article, and I don't see anything related to anything ethical they did related the products they are buying. I think your point is they were very serious about treating well their company workers. I totally agree, it's just in the current perspective we would also care about supply chain and how the products are sourced. > Cadbury was established in Birmingham, England in 1824, by John Cadbury who sold tea, coffee and drinking chocolate. All their main businesses come from imported raw materials with heavy slavery involved. That's the times, it's no use faulting them for that retrospectively, I just don't agree calling them "ethical" now.
- rleigh 8y ago
  Not just the workers though. Read more about Quaker businesses, rather than jumping to conclusions. They were responsible for treating their customers and suppliers ethically and fairly as well. For example, the reason we have standardised pricing on all consumer goods is entirely down to 19th century Quaker ethics, which required not overcharging based upon how much they percevied one could afford, and treating everyone equally required to ask the same fair price for everyone, regardless of class, race or whatever, in line with their Christian philosophy and beliefs. This also extends to treating your suppliers on the same terms. While slavery was in existence for a very short period at the start of the company's founding, it's not something which the founders of the company would have countenanced, and I don't think it plays any particularly significant role in the company's history. Their fair and ethical business practices set the standard for how good companies should operate. Cadbury would be horrified by the practices of Kraft/Mondelez. Both are capitalist enterprises, but there are good reasons Cadbury was held in high regard, and Kraft is not. The way Kraft have treated Cadbury and its workers is contemptible. I've not bought a single product from them since the takeover, and I'm by far from the only one.
- 8y ago