've always been a nut for learning and for general knowledge. Plus, as a retiree, I'm now living in Central America part of the year. This combination led me to buy the book, "Bananas," by Peter Chapman. I'm glad I did. The book gives you a good deal for your money, not only in the fascinating history of bananas and of the United Fruit Company, but also in its offerings about "free-market" capitalism, with its ups and downs, how the U.S. government has gotten directly involved with Central American "banana republics," and, to boot, the stories of two fascinating characters who are major players in the history of United Fruit.
First the banana part: Turns out that the herb or plant really had not been a staple crop for the natives in the way that it was eventually developed and marketed by United Fruit. No, "Big Mike," as the end product becomes known, was, essentially, "invented" and marketed to be a commodity, not unlike its later cousin, the "Big Mac." The product could only be grown in sandy tropical soil, in some of the most hostile areas on earth to man. The concept was a long shot to work, a real long shot. And that is quite a story, in itself.
But that is just part of the book. More interesting, to me, is the economic story surrounding the bananas and United Fruit, with all the ups and downs of the capitalist system, combined with all the political intrigue that involved the company.
Per the author, who seems to be both an historian and a journalist in this effort, the United Fruit Company "set the template for capitalism, the first of the modern multi-nationals." At its peak, it owned a fleet of ships, land the size of several New England states, hospitals, railroads and more. But it also "owned" people, governments and enormous power, both within the U.S. and abroad. The company thrived in a low-regulation, low-wages, low-taxes environment. The key to its success was to be in total control.
Character number one is Minor Cooper Keith, who, in the late 1800's was charged with overseeing the operations of the construction of a railroad inland from the eastern coast of Costa Rica. In the process, he ended up with huge plantations of bananas, which he continued to collect under the United Fruit Company umbrella throughout Central America and the Caribbean, during a period where the company built the demand for bananas in the U.S., as well as monopolistic, operational supply chain.
Character number two is Sam Zemurry, a Russian Jew immigrant, who gets into the banana business in the New Orleans area at an early age. Later, he would be known as the "Banana Man," who the author likens to Death-of-a-Salesman Willie Loman's brother, Ben, who says, per the play, "I went into the jungle at seventeen, and at age twenty-one, by God, I came out rich." Per the author, Zemurry embodied "the spirit of American enterprise." In 1911, he arranged for a coup in Honduras, after which he was put in charge of the country's finances, and, in the process, established the power and prestige the company wanted in all it's banana republic countries.
So, the formula for United Fruit's success was based on the nasty work of clearing jungles and building banana plantations, plus, when needed, the harvesting of bananas and the loading of ships. Control and manipulation of manpower became the central issue. Wages were set at below-poverty rates. Strikers were quickly replaced by workers brought in from other regions. Meanwhile, the banana was a huge hit with American consumers, plus the company had convinced the American public that it was benevolent in its services to the countries and workers of the "Banana Republics."
But that was not reality. In Columbia, in early 1929, reportedly, as many as 1,000 strikers were shot and killed. United Fruit was part of the cover up of the massacre. Then, decades later in Guatemala, in the early `50's, after a new President was elected, one who promised to improve the lives of Guatemalan peasants, United Fruit declared war. The result was an alliance with the United States CIA to overthrow that President and install another, one who was much more favorable to United Fruit. In the process, the U.S. press was duped and the nation was convinced that the former President had ties to the Communist block. But, in fact, and in parallel to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, despite the CIA having access to all government records after the coup, little to no links to communism were ever found.
Eventually, the roof came crushing down on United Health. Duping reporters in the Guatemalan coup caused a reaction that led to skepticism, and as more and more countries cried for freedom for their masses, the horror stories of United Fruit were center stage. Eventually, U.S. public opinion and government policy came to believe that capitalism based on competition between companies, not monopolies that resisted competition, was the best that American had to offer. Castro's overthrow in Cuba took over huge areas of sugar cane, without compensation, from United Health, which estimated the loss at $60 million. Press stories labeled the founders of the company among "the wildest and greediest men in history." By the late `70's, the stock of the company had crashed, and the government had taken over the books
Says the author, "United Fruit is the reason behind laws regulating the behavior of large companies." But, how does one "regulate" the current multinationals, like AIG, for example? And what about all this talk about the U.S. moving toward socialism? How does that fit into all this?
If there is a weakness of the book, it really does not give the details about the profits of the company along the way. We don't learn anything about that. We don't really understand the business plan.
But the book IS full of tidbits that relate to current events. For example, it says that market crashes came at the rate of one per decade in the late 1800's. And in another section, it says that United Fruit had been born in the "Age of Panics." More insight comes in telling us that United Fruit and a "band of U.S. business moguls" opposed Roosevelt's New Deal. They felt that building bridges in San Francisco and such, as a way to put people back to work, was counter to the prevailing economic theory that it was better to leave "well enough alone." This, of course, sounds familiar in the discussions of the 2009 federal stimulus package.
And how does the story of the rise and fall of United Fruit actually related to the modern multi-nationals and/or companies that are able to achieve competitive advantages? In Central American today, for example, TACA Airlines continues to improve its dominant position in the region, as other airlin
less
0 comments
Post a comment