Green & Black’s chocolate to go Fairtrade!

Green & Black’s chocolate has announced that it will convert 90% of its range to Fairtrade by the end of 2010, and its entire range by 2011. This is exciting and very welcome news!

These announcements are great news for cocoa farmers in developing communities. Through this Fairtrade deal they will receive economic, social and environmental benefits, empowering farmers, their families and communities.

This commitment by Green & Black’s, which is owned by Cadbury, supplements Cadbury’s existing commitment to make its Cadbury Dairy Milk product Fairtrade and available to Australians by Easter this year.

You may have heard that multinational company Kraft Foods are expected to confirm the purchase of Cadbury Global in the coming days. In welcoming Green & Black’s announcement, World Vision calls on Kraft to honour Cadbury’s commitments to covert its product range to Fairtrade.

For more information read the Green & Black’s and Fairtrade joint media release.

The first time I heard this quote, it rattled me big time. The significance of what is being said here is profound. From a ministry-focused perspective, this is particularly weighty, let me explain why. I’ve had the chance to travel quite a bit and during those travels I’ve visited churches all around the world. Coming from a pentecostal/charismatic background, most of the churches I’ve visited have been part of this tradition. Now, one thing that typifies this whole movement is this: imitation.

Imitation plays out in two ways during the establishment of a pentecostal church: the imitation of culture and the imitation of eminent church practice. Lets discuss the first. Contemporary churches look very closely at culture to understand perceived human need. This is a fatal mistake. Let me explain: my understanding of culture is that it is a social apparatus constructed in order to meet the demands of the population at large. For example: people desire faster, easier communication with larger and more diverse audiences. Culture therefore forms itself according to meeting this need through creating social networking, video conferencing, VoIP etc, fundamentally transforming the way people interact with each other.

What happens is that churches then look to culture to understand what people like in order to attract congregants, and in this example create cool websites, podcasts, videos, facebook pages etc to communicate with their congregation. Here’s the problem: culture almost always gets it wrong. Keyword: “perceived” human need. If we define culture, using Robert Redfield, as “the shared understandings made manifest in act and artefact”, or as Clifford Geertz states “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols”, then one needs little convincing to understand that our culture is in a crisis of legitimacy. The individualism, consumerism, materialism, nihilism, hyper-reality, obesity, vanity, erotomania, self-centredness and the epidemics of stress, overwork, suicide, waste and indebtedness of our post- modern culture are creating a pattern that is destroying our world.

So why would the church ever need to look to a lost and dying culture for answers that have already been given to them? For instance, people don’t need faster, easier communication with larger and more diverse audiences, they need authentic relationships, to be part of a genuine community. This quote sums it up: “People don’t need enormous cars, they need respect. They don’t need closets full of clothes, they need to feel attractive and they need excitement, variety and beauty. People don’t need electronic equipment; they need something worthwhile to do with their lives. People need identity, community, challenge, acknowledgement, love, and joy. To try to fill these needs with material things is to set up an unquenchable appetite for false solutions to real and never-satisfied problems. The resulting psychological emptiness is one of the major forces behind the desire for material growth” – Donella Meadows

It may just be that being ‘irrelevant,’ offering what has always been our strong point, an ‘alternative,’ may just be what those seeking an authentic life are really looking for. To follow Christ and to live out a genuine faith means, more often than not, confronting the patterns of this culture and living out the radical life that Jesus has called His followers to live. Christianity is not just a radical message; it’s a radical lifestyle. It can’t just be believed, it has to be lived. It challenges and confronts the way we consume, the way we interact, what we drive, where we live, what we say, what we eat, what we wear, what we buy, and whom we love. Behind the veneer of plastic promises and counterfeit dreams, lies a culture in desperate need of redemption, not imitation.

I’ll leave it at that today. In the next blog we will discuss the second kind of imitation: eminent church practice. So stay tuned…

Thanks Becca!

[If you cannot see the embedded video, click here to view it]

If you get a chance, watch this longer and more challenging sermon: Luke Warm & Loving It: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBhqrtMqrv8

Undercover footage and first-person testimony from former slaves and respected experts expose the enormity of the crime — but a remarkable strategy and the courage of today’s abolitionists offer hope for a final end to this brutal trade.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.attheendofslavery.org/

I’m not picking on Yes Man, all you have to do is pick up a romantic comedy and 9 out of 10 times, you’d ultimately be watching the same movie. The main character is usually down and out, single or divorced, then some life-changing event causes them to do something out-of-character and low and behold they meet an unlikely mate who nonchalantly enters their life. They fall in love (usually in a matter of days), and then just when you think things couldn’t get any better, the main character (occasionally the supporting role), does something foolish or some damaging truth surfaces, then it all falls apart.

But, in its usual predicable fashion, the main character (or foolish doer), performs some elaborate or vulnerable stunt, apologises, achieves redemption, and wins back the mate in a climactic romantic scene, and blah blah blah, they all live happily ever after. Sound familiar? That’s because I just described 90% of every romantic comedy to come out of Hollywood since I was born. And that’s just one genre, you’ve got your political thrillers where some inexperienced amateur discovers some corporate conspiracy and manages to bring to justice a large corporation in a David & Goliath type battle. The list goes on, don’t even get me started on action movies.

Now, I understand the reason behind the predictability—according to the rules of narrative, a necessary element of literature is to present a conflict and resolve it. You see this common theme in each of these painfully unimpressive films—they all have happy endings. The guy gets the girl, the bad guy gets busted, or the main character gains redemption, often triumphantly. These rules of narrative are seen as necessary to keep the interest of the reader or viewer. It seems that we overwhelmingly favour the conflict resolution narrative. Why?

Well, for one, fictional constructs (film, literature etc) must contain elements of prediction and fulfilment because our mind needs narrative to make sense of things. We seek a beginning, a middle and an end. That’s how we understand and construct meaning. The problem is however, that reality is not always like that, it is very difficult to understand, and we struggle to construct meaning out of our everyday experience. In short, life doesn’t always play out according to the predictably redemptive narrative of film, for many, there is no happy ending.

This brings me to an interesting supposition about the nature of modern society. We overwhelmingly favour the conflict resolution narrative because we prefer the reproduction of reality to reality itself. We have an immeasurable obsession with fiction and fantasy because it provides escape. It provides form and constancy in an often chaotic and unpredictable world, and more interestingly, I believe it provides a fleeting departure from our own miserable existence.

Thirdly, maybe its a clue, but I’ll touch on that at the end. For now, let’s explore that second point a little more. Let’s be honest, our lives hardly resemble the excitement, adventure and quixotic romance that Hollywood portrays. Life is complicated, unpredictable and our expectations are seldom met. Life is full of pain, heartache, brokenness, and for many, unimaginable suffering. In my opinion, the popularity of fiction has to do with its ability to offer viewers the opportunity to live vicariously through the fictitious characters of unrealistic stories. Within that moment of delusion, we feel a part of an exciting narrative, but one that ultimately doesn’t exist.

Standing in stark contrast to Yes Man is a brilliant film called The Wrestler. I loved this film. Loved it. Why? Because it was real. It was true. It was nestled in reality. It was beautiful because it was tragic. Rather than depict an impossible story that presents a false portrayal of redemption, it shared a story that so many of us can relate to. It helped me to better understand the reality of the human condition and the suffering of my fellow man. It made me feel deeply burdened by the reality of pain in our world and the deep longing for redemption.

The story draws us into the world and point of view of a broken man. Granted, there is danger in wallowing in sickness and exploiting and indulging in brokenness, but that’s not what’s happening here. The film evokes an earnest empathy for the main character. Empathy is a strong emotion and a powerful driving force for action. The incarnation of Christ can be understood as the greatest demonstration of empathy. The way The Wrestler draws us into a tragic narrative is an allusion to how Jesus enters into our narrative to understand the fullness of our condition. After becoming like us and experiencing our pain, He takes it upon himself.

You see, we want to live in the delusion that there is always a happy ending for everyone. It appeases our conscience and sustains inaction. It gives us a false assurance that the world’s suffering is somehow, somewhere resolving itself in a happy ending. Our society doesn’t like being faced with reality, delusion is its sanctity, truth is its profanity. We switch the channel from the World Vision commercial back to Masterchef, we’d rather watch The Devil Wears Prada than face the painful truth of a film like Invisible Children. It disturbs us.

We’d much rather live in the delusion that life plays out according to a Hollywood narrative. It’s a false assumption to assume that conflict always resolves itself. Most conflict is never resolved in this lifetime. We battle an internal conflict within ourselves, we fight an ongoing war with culture, we are struggling for survival on a depleting planet, and our relationships have unresolved conflict. Look at the narrative of Middle-Eastern conflict and the intifada, or the continuation of poverty.

Now, I’m not saying that we ought to do away with the conflict-resolution narrative; it certainly has its place along with fiction, without a doubt. I would be contradicting my own belief system. You see, I believe in an over-arching meta-narrative, a grand story that actually represents a final and apodictic truth, which is ultimately: redemption. All I am saying is that popular media has too zealously bombarded us with a romanticised narrative that fails miserably in its portrayal of conflict and tragedy. How it deals with the resolution of tragedy isolates us in our own unresolved tragedy and insulates us from the reality of the world’s unresolved tragedy.

We need a balance of fiction and truth in popular media, purely because of the significance of the role of popular media in shaping culture. Film, in my opinion, should always strike a balance between presenting a conflict and resolving it (which there is truth in), reflecting a common belief in hope, but also leaving conflict unresolved (which is the reality for many), evoking empathy, and subsequently, action. But that gets us into questions of the purpose of art, literature and film, which is way too complicated.

One final observation: why the common hope for redemption? Is that how we were wired? Is it a clue to our purpose? Also, how do we reconcile what seems to be a common hope for redemption with the equally common non-religious accord in the western world? If we so demand redemption for the broken and repulsive protagonist, and if we so long for the peaceful resolution (happy ending) to internal and external conflict, then why the empty pews? Does the redemptive character of Christ not satisfy the yearning of those seeking hope in an unpredictable and painful world? Are the answers of secular thought winning out in the war of ideas over meaning?

Kraft has promised to honour Cadbury’s current commitments to use Fairtrade cocoa beans in the dairy milk range now being sold in the UK, New Zealand, Australian and Canada.

Our campaign to Tell Kraft: “Keep Cadbury’s Commitment” has been a great success: messages from over 1,300 supporters were passed on to the CEO of Kraft, Irene Rosenfeld.

Despite this success, our work is not yet over.

Kraft has not confirmed whether they will continue Cadbury’s ongoing talks to expand its use of Fairtrade cocoa beans to other products.

There is additional concern that Kraft’s current commitment may be time limited, with the possibility that Kraft may abandon the commitment when existing contracts end— a commitment that provided secure and sustainable livelihoods to cocoa farmers, empowering them to tackle poverty in their communities.

The Global Poverty Project team will be monitoring Kraft’s future plans to ensure Cadbury’s promise to keep and expand Fairtrade is honoured.

Your support is greatly appreciated and highly valuable. We will keep you up to date on this matter.

What is Australia Day? What exactly are we celebrating? Well, officially, the day commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788; it marks the beginning of British colonisation of Australia. But can I ask a question? At the risk of being burned at the stake for sounding unpatriotic, is it possible not to be proud of the history of one’s country? Particularly when that history involves the story of brutal exploitation, murder, oppression and forced resettlement. The history of European colonisation the world over is a bloody stain tainting the story of Africa, South America, North America, and Australasia.

Let me give you a short history of Australia…

Dutch explorers first “discovered” the northern shores of Cape York in 1606, but never made claim to the land. In 1770, the British (led by James Cook) claimed most of the Eastern seaboard and by 1778 the First Fleet had arrived in Botany Bay to establish a penal colony. For thousands of years before the European settlement, the Australian mainland and Tasmania were inhabited by around 250 individual nations of indigenous Australians. It is estimated that the Indigenous Australian population was around 350,000 at the time of settlement. This number declined steeply for 150 years following settlement for numerous reasons.

The first was the introduction of infectious diseases like chickenpox, smallpox, influenza and measles, which spread rapidly throughout the indigenous populations. Smallpox alone was responsible for killing more than 50% of the Aboriginal population. Proximity to settlers also brought venereal disease, to which Indigenous Australians had no tolerance and which greatly reduced indigenous fertility and birth rates. Settlers also introduced alcohol, opium and tobacco to Indigenous populations, and substance abuse has remained a chronic problem for indigenous communities ever since.

The second reason was the appropriation (theft) by the British settlers of land and water resources. They drove Aboriginals off land wanted for farming or grazing. This resulted in the loss of traditional lands, food sources and water resources, which was usually fatal, particularly to communities already weakened by disease. Cultural practices and social cohesion also became severely disrupted.

The third reason for declining population was direct violence. Tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians were killed indiscriminately and cruelly as a result of massacres, poisoning, raids, wars and intermittent conflict. Many of these acts have been described as genocide.

The combination of disease, loss of land and direct violence reduced the Aboriginal population by an estimated 90% between 1788 and 1900. Entire communities in parts of the continent simply vanished without a trace, often before European settlers arrived or recorded their existence. The Indigenous Australians experienced colossal human loss and cultural disintegration at the hands of the British settlers.

You may think that this is just a story of the past, but as Thomas Pogge points out, we are quick to relinquish responsibility for these crimes and claim that we should not be held to account for the sins of our forefathers. And, well, rightly so! But if we cannot inherit our ancestors’ sins, then why can we inherit the fruits of those sins, the huge economic superiority prevailing at the end of the colonial period? Most Indigenous workers were trapped in virtual slave labour, working to build much of the British settlements. Furthermore, the effects of mass-murder, destruction of culture, forced resettlement, disease, the stolen generation, and substance abuse continue to affect indigenous populations Australia-wide.

Lets look at some recent statistics:

Aboriginal people are 15 times more likely to be in prison than non-Aboriginal people, they make up 22% of prisoner population, while only making up 2% of the general population. Babies of Indigenous mothers continue to be twice as likely to be of low birth weight as babies born to non-Indigenous mothers and in the NT, the Indigenous infant mortality rate is three to four times the national rate. Aboriginal people are up to 10 times more likely to suffer from chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer, diabetes), up to 8 times more likely to suffer from communicable diseases (TB, Hep A + B), and Aboriginal life expectancy is around 20 years lower than for other Australians. The unemployment rate for Aborigines is about three times higher than that of the non-Aboriginal population, Aboriginal households on average earn about $200 less per week than non-Aboriginal households, and they are half as likely to have completed schooling.

I could go on.

One thing is clear; somebody got the raw end of the deal. The history of British colonialism and its effect on the Indigenous population of this country was severe, but the consequences still play out today. Although we may not be directly responsible for the crimes committed, we are responsible for understanding our history and helping to right the still-felt wrongs of the past. Progress is slow. Tradition ownership of land has only begun to be recognised since 1992, with the High Court Mabo case. Also, only in 2008, after much anticipation, the Prime Minister finally made a formal apology to the Aboriginal people as a step towards acknowledging the crimes inflicted upon Australia’s indigenous population over the past two centuries by government policy.

So what does all this mean? Should we still celebrate Australia Day? Yes, we should. But as Australians, lets be very careful about what we define as “Australian.” Before we make ardent defences of what we arbitrarily define as “Australian culture” against the intrusion of non-white, non-English speaking, non-Christian minorities, lets consider for a moment that a little over 200 years ago, our culture was once a fatal intrusion on the rich culture of the first Australians.

I’m proud to call myself Australian. I love this country, its my home, I was born and raised here. But one thing is for sure, I’m not proud of its history. Today I’ll celebrate the fact that I live in a wonderfully beautiful country that affords me the freedoms that others around the world may never experience. But I’ll remember those that paid a hefty price and those that continue to bear the sin of British colonisation. Maybe today we should have the courage and tenacity that Kathy Freeman once had and wave both flags. I know I will.

From the Global Poverty Project:

Before Kraft’s take-over bid, Cadbury had made one of the largest Fairtrade commitments – their whole Dairy Milk range would go Fairtrade by Easter 2010.

Cadbury estimate that by 2018 their Fairtrade partnership and Cadbury Cocoa Partnership will make a demonstrable difference to the lives of around half a million cocoa farmers.

We need your help to hold Kraft to Cadbury’s important commitments.

On Tuesday 19 January 2010, the Cadbury board agreed to recommend a $19.6 billion bid by Kraft to shareholders, paving the way for a takeover.

In 2009, Cadbury launched its commitment to ensuring that more and more of their cocoa is ethically sourced through its partnership with Fairtrade.

The Fairtrade commitments made by Cadbury are already assisting cocoa farmers, their families and their communities to secure their livelihoods and tackle poverty, and will assist more cocoa farmers into the future.

Tuesday’s take-over bid raises concerns over the future of Cadbury’s commitment to Fairtrade products.

Kraft currently do not subscribe to sourcing their products from Fairtrade. If Kraft renege on Cadbury’s promises it will be a huge backwards step for the world’s poor.

So…
Will Kraft keep Cadbury Dairy Milk as a Fairtrade product?
Will they keep Cadbury’s future commitments to introduce Fairtrade to other products?

Keep Kraft to Cadbury’s Commitments

It is important that Kraft maintain Cadbury’s commitment to providing secure and sustainable livelihoods to cocoa farmers that will enable them to tackle poverty in their communities.

Send your words of encouragement to Kraft’s CEO, Irene Rosenfeld

And we will present everyone’s views to the CEO of Kraft, demonstrating the global support for Cadbury’s Fairtrade commitment and encourage Kraft to maintain and extend these commitments.

Thanks,
The Global Poverty Project

‘JP Morgan Chase Bank‘, through ‘Chase Community Giving‘ is donating $1 Million to the charity that receives the most votes on their Facebook page in the next 24 hours.

Vote here for Invisible Children: http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/charities/598099