The True History of Chocolate is at once taking a step back and a step forward in terms of what a commodity history should be. I think it is very important for commodity histories to describe the physical commodities for us and I think the Coes did this. Similar to Mintz, the Coes go into the botany of chocolate plants, the conditions in which they grow, and some of the production process. Important for food history as well, they discuss the way in which chocolate is prepared/cooked. In this respect, I think the Coes did a better job then Schivelbusch. We never really learn anything that makes any commodities different in Schivelbusch because he neglects describing the commodities in the way that the Coes do. For instance, it is important to know that the forastero chocolate plant yield more chocolate per harvest, but it is of inferior quality in comparison to criollo chocolate plants. The physical limitations and qualities of commodities set limitations on the "history" of the commodity in my opinion. Understanding the physical characteristics and processes of growing chocolate shape the history of its use, but it is important not to think that chocolate's place in history was predetermined because of these physical characteristics as all the works so far have argued. I think it is important to balance the ways in which a commodity has "limited agency."
I was happy the Coes discussed the commodity itself, but I was a little disappointed that they didn't make any concrete connections between the commodity's characteristics or production process and why it was adopted in Europe. Much of the book seemed to me about trying discover the origin or chocolate. This idea of "authenticity" and origins is important and interesting, but once the Coes prove to us that chocolate wasn't just a Mayan product, why is this important? If they find origins with the Aztecs and Mayans, how does this change the history of chocolate or change our understanding of its uses? Authenticity and origins are important in commodity histories, but only if the author answers the "so what?" question. I think most commodity histories take the "lens" approach to using commodities, which is very fruitful, but authors risk using a distorted or faulty lens if they don't understand the commodity in all ways. For instance, drinking chocolate cold or hot is a big difference between the way Europeans and Indians consumed it, and it shows that the Coes seem to think the cultural meaning of chocolate changed drastically in its importation to Europe. This fits in with the often held believe that little "culture" flowed from the Americas to the West. Other authors like Norton which we have read have argued that the cultural and social use of chocolate were transported to Europe thus arguing that the Indians culture shaped European culture in ways, and this is a powerful argument.
I share Timothy's problems with some of the biases of the Coes. In many ways they are too quick to essentialize. They allude to the idea of Western European taste being "simplistic" in their sole desire for sweetness as opposed to the Indians in the Americas who had very "diverse" uses for chocolate. They say, "we should be convinced that the Aztecs rang many more changes on the chocolate theme than do we, who are so indissolubly tied to drinks that are sweet. The mere idea of chocolate without sugar seems incomprehensible."(95) This book's use of "we" illustrates it is for a Western audience that is seemingly uniformed that Indians were civilized in many ways, and the Coes are illustrating the complexity of chocolate in Mesoamerica to indirectly argue that civilization existed before Europe arrived to the Americas. In fact, in many ways civilizations were destroyed when Europe arrived. On the same side, they are a little simplistic in describing Indians as well. The Coes say, "Given such a powerful myth, the Aztecs were of necessity a nation of pessimists."(67) The comments littered throughout the book like this made me pause and made me question some of the other authoritative comments they make throughout.
I was happy the Coes discussed the commodity itself, but I was a little disappointed that they didn't make any concrete connections between the commodity's characteristics or production process and why it was adopted in Europe. Much of the book seemed to me about trying discover the origin or chocolate. This idea of "authenticity" and origins is important and interesting, but once the Coes prove to us that chocolate wasn't just a Mayan product, why is this important? If they find origins with the Aztecs and Mayans, how does this change the history of chocolate or change our understanding of its uses? Authenticity and origins are important in commodity histories, but only if the author answers the "so what?" question. I think most commodity histories take the "lens" approach to using commodities, which is very fruitful, but authors risk using a distorted or faulty lens if they don't understand the commodity in all ways. For instance, drinking chocolate cold or hot is a big difference between the way Europeans and Indians consumed it, and it shows that the Coes seem to think the cultural meaning of chocolate changed drastically in its importation to Europe. This fits in with the often held believe that little "culture" flowed from the Americas to the West. Other authors like Norton which we have read have argued that the cultural and social use of chocolate were transported to Europe thus arguing that the Indians culture shaped European culture in ways, and this is a powerful argument.
I share Timothy's problems with some of the biases of the Coes. In many ways they are too quick to essentialize. They allude to the idea of Western European taste being "simplistic" in their sole desire for sweetness as opposed to the Indians in the Americas who had very "diverse" uses for chocolate. They say, "we should be convinced that the Aztecs rang many more changes on the chocolate theme than do we, who are so indissolubly tied to drinks that are sweet. The mere idea of chocolate without sugar seems incomprehensible."(95) This book's use of "we" illustrates it is for a Western audience that is seemingly uniformed that Indians were civilized in many ways, and the Coes are illustrating the complexity of chocolate in Mesoamerica to indirectly argue that civilization existed before Europe arrived to the Americas. In fact, in many ways civilizations were destroyed when Europe arrived. On the same side, they are a little simplistic in describing Indians as well. The Coes say, "Given such a powerful myth, the Aztecs were of necessity a nation of pessimists."(67) The comments littered throughout the book like this made me pause and made me question some of the other authoritative comments they make throughout.
No comments:
Post a Comment