Reaction to Svenonius’ ‘The Bloody Latte’

Ian Svenonius is an American vocalist for various Washington, D.C. rock groups including The Make-Up, Nation of Ulysses, Weird War, and Chain and The Gang. Svenonius is also a published author and an online talk show host known for his outspoken political agendas.
In ‘The Psychic Soviet’, comprising of nineteen essays, the preface of the book instructs that it "should clear up much of the confusion regarding events of the last millennium"[1] and encourages the reader to "refer to the book in case of ethical quandaries, arguments, and social feuds"[2] .
In the text, Svenonius makes a compelling argument that all cultures chose a certain beverage for their epoch, and that this drink represents the “blood of their vanquished foe”[3].

The entire book is written in a loose, informal manner with no use of footnotes or references, which increases the readability but makes some of his connections and related conclusions questionable. His mode of thought, at least on this subject, remains subjective, yet he relies on a range of historical examples to prove his point. In the reading, imperialism and all accompanying drinks are reassessed as “mass hysteria for the imbibing of a particular beverage or substance”. More importantly, it is pointed out in numerous instances that these products were instrumental in the continuation of the illustrated empire and in the servitude of the people of the newly conquered land that produces the necessary ingredients. Thus, Svenonius hints that the “taste still reflects the power imparted by the struggle”[4] and so the subconscious fratricide is embedded in a nation’s penchant for a respective product.

Though I find Svenonius’ concept interesting, and agree that it may well have been true for certain nations and time, the comparison to modern day, multi-national companies such as Coca-cola, does not abide to this view. Although certain products such as Starbucks coffee and Coke may well represent American empiralization in other countries, their spread across the globe, and their imitations, causes doubt as to whether new consumers are really metaphorically drinking the blood of their enemies.

Mass hysteria leads to embellishment and popularization of folklore legends, but arguably there must be some type of event to cause such rumors. Because Svenonius uses Vampirism in his chapter title, it is important to remember that the modern concept of such a creature was largely created in 1819 with the publication of ‘The Vampyre’ by John Polidori. This was then solidified by Bram Stoker's 1897 novel ‘Dracula’ that is remembered as the quintessential vampire novel and established the genre. But tales of supernatural beings consuming the blood of the living have been found in nearly every nation around the world, and is largely due to the fact that this did actually occur in most cultures. Yet, almost every nation has associated blood drinking with some kind of revenant, demon, or deity; such as the Indian Goddess Kali, or the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet. In any case, blood drinking and cannibalism has existed within humankind for millennia, and the notion of it (which includes inventing a malevolent presence who is primarily known for this, and which is made to disgust the cultured person) continues into contemporary settings. Thus, the cultured public is removed from this act, because it refers to a less civilized, gorier history. By attributing these deeds to an evil creature or a fearsome divine being, the culture positions itself away from such barbarous acts as being acceptable by that society.
“...while Stoker’s Dracula per se addresses the genetic concerns of the European upper classes, vampirism - an ancient legend shared by many different cultures - is also a mass movement, enjoyed by every conquering race.”[5]
What Svenonius compels the reader to realize, is that although humankind has largely purged this practice and given the literal act a sinister name, the instinct resides within popular culture and is acted out through an array of products that carry this residual urge. In much the same way that the legends of vampires became so pervasive, so too have certain beverages been adopted by cultures as a reflection of their identity, and by extension, their superiority over their acquired territories.

Starbucks has managed to make dark-roasted beans fashionable, though it sweetens its brew with steamed milk, blended ice, and various flavors to please American palates.
Several Starbuck cafes were vandalized during the WTO meeting held in Seattle in late 1999, and were due to the activist groups that actively criticize the company for their fair-trade policies, labor relations, and environmental impact. These groups perceive this company as a prime example of U.S. cultural and economic imperialism. Starbucks maintains their dominant market position by buying out competitors' leases, operating at a loss intentionally, and assembling several locations in one area. It is also alleged that Starbucks sends part of its profits to the Israeli military, and although Starbucks refutes this, these allegations began when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was awarded "The Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award"[6] for "playing a key role in promoting a close alliance between the United States and Israel."[7] In response to these allegations Starbucks issued a statement saying “Neither Chairman Howard Schultz nor Starbucks fund or support the Israeli Army. Starbucks is a non-political organization and does not support individual political causes.”[8]
In January 9, 2009, Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi accused Starbucks of supporting Israeli education and the Israeli Army on Al Jazeera television. Then, on January 25th 2009, Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi claimed that the Starbucks's "siren" logo is a depiction of an ancient Jewish queen Esther, and then called for Muslims to boycott all Starbucks coffee shops in the Arab world.
Whether these allegations are true does not deter from the fact that Starbucks is an American multi-national corporation, and has the perceived notion of contributing to neocolonialism. By replacing existing food or traditional beverages with a new franchise, America is using their food and brands to not drink the blood of their enemies so much as perform a ‘blood diffusion procedure’ via food.
“The importance of food to the history of the early empire is incontestable. The English, and later British, penchant for sweet, hot beverages helped to fuel the empire’s expansion into Asia, transformed the ecosystems of large swathes of the Americas and doomed millions of Africans and their descendants to slavery.”[9]

Though Svenonius notes that “the drinks at this juncture of American history are indisputably coffee from Starbucks and the vodka of Absolut”[10] there is no denying the impact of Coca-cola. Infact, it is more interesting to realize it is has established itself more as an international drink than strictly American, even in ‘developing’ countries. Responses to Starbucks and Coca-cola are caused because of residual hatred toward similar products in former empires. Though they may not directly support the American government or the armies of its allies, they do rely on natural resources from other ‘periphery’ regions where labor costs are low, and sell these products to both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations that actually rely on this behavior.
Dependency theory assists in describing the concept of economic neocolonialism. This social science theory is based on the notion that there is a center of wealthy states and a periphery of underdeveloped states that provide the raw materials / resources and cheap labor. The profit from these products flow towards the center in order to sustain their wealth and economic growth. Also, the wealthy states restrict their peripheries access to advanced production techniques that could develop their own economies, thus remaining dependent.
"Underdevelopment', or distorted development, brings a dangerous specialization in raw materials, inherent in which is the threat of hunger for all our peoples. We, the 'underdeveloped', are also those with the single crop, the single product, the single market. A single product whose uncertain sale depends on a single market imposing and fixing conditions. That is the great formula for imperialist economic domination."
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1961 [11]

Coca-cola is the top global brand. Of the top ten, seven are based in the United States; of the twenty-five biggest companies, thirteen are American[12] . Coca-cola is viewed as a symbol of American dominance and influence, like fast-food restaurant chains or cafes. More than any other artifact, coke has blended modern, popular culture with an emblematic, commercial product. The resonance of emotional significance coke has for Americans is comparable to their Bill of Rights: “Would it be rewrite the constitution? The Bible? To me, changing the Coke formula is of such a serious nature.” (Pendergrast, 2000: 356)[13]
Coca-cola is often referred to as an example of a ‘universally standardized global product’[14] in contrast to products that are tailored to specific market. But is it really ‘universally standardized’ if it contains different sweeteners in the countries where it is produced? The answer is that it is more brand than ingredients. What the brand represents is the same pillar to the North American empire that tobacco once held.
But if Svenonius is to believe that Starbucks coffee and Coca-cola really represent “the blood of their vanquished foe” from “recent conquests”, the model becomes problematic when strict enemies of that empire drink also from this “war booty”. Although it is obvious that this is advantageous to the empire in question, the spread of consumers for these markets could arguably be categorized as part of that empire. This of course has not gone unnoticed, and anti-American sentiment has led to what Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Like all world societies, Muslim societies have lived in an evermore co modified community since American products having entered the Middle East after the Second World War and various oil ventures in the area.
Boycotting of American brands, motioned by influential religious leaders such as Safwat Higazi, is a response to imperialism. The creation of a competing product, like Mecca-cola is a much more complex response than that of refraining; (ironically a common theme in Muslim religion). Upon realizing the impact of supporting a product such as Coca-cola, but admitting that it fills a niche market in certain growing cities (Dubai), Mecca-cola has created as a zeitgeist to the ‘McDonaldization’ of the region. Mecca-cola is an unabashed imitation of coke in taste and appearance, “fraught with Muslim symbolism yet encased in the insignia of American capitalism”[15] , but its real appeal is its political opposition. Ten percent of its profit goes toward charities in Palestinian territories, and another ten percent are dedicated to international peace-orientated non-government organization in Europe. The label reads: “Don’t drink stupid, drink committed”. Thus, the beverage distances itself from the ‘stupid’ authentic, imperialistic coke, while existing as both a substitution and a gesture. More importantly than anything else, by mentioning the causes it supports, it infers that Coca-cola represent and cause those very concerns.

This example does not fit well into Svenonius’ concept mentioned in ‘The Bloody Latté’ although it does apply to and explain other more socially scientific models such as Dependency Theory. Although Starbucks and Coca-cola represent cultural imperialism to many, and Muslim religious leaders believe they support military action too, the analogy that Svenonius makes only really conforms in a world before world-wide franchises, global markets and air freighted products. However, his concept does shed light on the distance all cultures have made from the vampirism, yet the substitution of this residual instinct is carried out by nation specific products. However, when these products spread, as Western dominance has in the past fifty years, to encroach on most of the globe, and when these products are infact more dominant than the culture they represent and originate from, the blood analogy must be reassessed. The spread of Starbucks and Coca-cola has been perceived as merely the repackaging of cultural imperialism, and so a challenging civilization defies its power by creating a proudly un-American product to replace it or at least draw attention to the politics surrounding the primary from what it is based. If Coke really is the blood of the enemies of the empire, these enemies have made every attempt to maintain the look and flavor of their own blood to defiantly drink.
But it is more likely that these products are no longer blood but their brands are infact symbols to denote faith, commitment and consciousness of the very concepts that Svenonious mentions that had more relevance in a former age.


[1] Svenonius, Ian The Psychic Soviet New York: Drag City Inc., 2006, p 1
[2] ibid, p 1
[3] ibid, p 35
[4] ibid, p 38
[5] Svenonius, p 43
[6] http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20010502093522/www.starbucks.com/aboutus/recognition.asp?cookie_test=1
[8] http://musliminsuffer.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/starbucks-ceo-calls-himself-%E2%80%98an-active-zionist%E2%80%99-but-can-you-find-it-anywhere-on-the-web/
[9] Bickham, Troy Past and Present, no 198 (Feb. 2008) Oxford: Past and Present Society Publishing, 2008, p 2
[10] Svenonius, p 35
[11] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
[12] http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx Best Global Brands, 2008 Ranking
[13] Ram, Uri “Liquid Identities: Mecca Cola versus Coca-Cola” European Journal of Cultural Studies 2007; 10; 465, p 471
[14] ed., Bonanno, Alessandro; Busch, Lawrence; Friedland, William H.; Gouveia, Lourdes; Mingione, Enzo, eds. From Columbus to ConAgra: The Globalization of Agriculture and Food Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994, p 11
[15] Ram, p 468