budanski
03-26-2003, 09:01 PM
a Tunisian-born French Muslim launched a drink called Mecca-Cola, with the slogan "Don't Drink Stupid?Drink Committed!" and a promise to donate 10 percent of its profits to Palestinian children's charities and 10 percent to European Muslim charities. He expects to sell 300 million bottles this year and says his product "is not just a drink. It is an act of protest against Bush and Rumsfeld and their policies." Another French-based drink called Muslim Up promotes itself as "an alternative for all who boycott Zionist products and big American brands." Qibla-Cola?named for the direction in which Muslims pray?launched this year in England, and also promises to give 10 percent of its profits to Muslim charities, a fraction of the funding provided by american countries.
In the Middle East, however, a successful boycott could be harmful?to the boycotters, not the targeted companies. Western fast-food restaurants are locally owned franchises; their employees, naturally, are also local. Qibla and Mecca colas are not even Arab owned; they are European companies who showily donate a portion of their profits to charity and use canny ethnic appeals to entice buyers whom they, unlike Coke and Pepsi, do not employ. In Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, Coke pays its employees 15 percent more than local franchises do. In Palestine, Coke, which is the region's second-largest investor, and their Palestinian bottling company offer steady work, loans, and business training. In Egypt, Procter & Gamble?the company that supposedly named its products after Ariel Sharon?has spent $97 million on factories and community projects; it has built schools and paid for pilgrims to go to Mecca.
Right now, Qibla, Mecca, and Muslim Up offer a Potemkin alternative; the percentage that the companies donate to charity is ultimately of less value to the region than the hundreds of jobs Western companies provide. Could the companies ride the crest of anger, expand into the Middle East, and become as prominent a part of the local economy as Coke and Pepsi are now? Possibly, but that's a long way off. Right now, if Arab consumers believe that venting anger is more important than sustaining their economy, then Qibla and Mecca are the appropriate colas for them to buy. But perhaps a better immediate investment?for the region, if not for the arteries?would be an order of freedom fries in a red and yellow carton.
Read the entire text here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080611/
The point here is that american companys contributions to the arab populations dwarf the token 10% promised by the French companies attempting to somehow profit from their anti-american position by mascarading as "Arab interests". This point drives one to ask the following question. "Who is the actual bad guy here?" It sounds alot like France is exploiting the arab world for profit taking money that would otherwise be in the hands of the Arab people and instead lining its own pockets.
Are Arabs realy so stupid as to allow themselves to be exploited in this way? Is their malformed hatred of America more important than their own economy, jobs, schools, etc? While I am of the opinion that many if not most Arabs wrap their turbins way to tight, I don't think for a second that they are stupid. The French on the other hand... are definatley that stupid....
In the Middle East, however, a successful boycott could be harmful?to the boycotters, not the targeted companies. Western fast-food restaurants are locally owned franchises; their employees, naturally, are also local. Qibla and Mecca colas are not even Arab owned; they are European companies who showily donate a portion of their profits to charity and use canny ethnic appeals to entice buyers whom they, unlike Coke and Pepsi, do not employ. In Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, Coke pays its employees 15 percent more than local franchises do. In Palestine, Coke, which is the region's second-largest investor, and their Palestinian bottling company offer steady work, loans, and business training. In Egypt, Procter & Gamble?the company that supposedly named its products after Ariel Sharon?has spent $97 million on factories and community projects; it has built schools and paid for pilgrims to go to Mecca.
Right now, Qibla, Mecca, and Muslim Up offer a Potemkin alternative; the percentage that the companies donate to charity is ultimately of less value to the region than the hundreds of jobs Western companies provide. Could the companies ride the crest of anger, expand into the Middle East, and become as prominent a part of the local economy as Coke and Pepsi are now? Possibly, but that's a long way off. Right now, if Arab consumers believe that venting anger is more important than sustaining their economy, then Qibla and Mecca are the appropriate colas for them to buy. But perhaps a better immediate investment?for the region, if not for the arteries?would be an order of freedom fries in a red and yellow carton.
Read the entire text here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080611/
The point here is that american companys contributions to the arab populations dwarf the token 10% promised by the French companies attempting to somehow profit from their anti-american position by mascarading as "Arab interests". This point drives one to ask the following question. "Who is the actual bad guy here?" It sounds alot like France is exploiting the arab world for profit taking money that would otherwise be in the hands of the Arab people and instead lining its own pockets.
Are Arabs realy so stupid as to allow themselves to be exploited in this way? Is their malformed hatred of America more important than their own economy, jobs, schools, etc? While I am of the opinion that many if not most Arabs wrap their turbins way to tight, I don't think for a second that they are stupid. The French on the other hand... are definatley that stupid....