Journal of Communication Inquiry http://jci.sagepub.

com/

Critical Memories of Crafted Virtues : The Cadbury Chocolate Scandals, Mediated Reputations, and Modern Globalized Slavery
Marouf Hasian, Jr Journal of Communication Inquiry 2008 32: 249 originally published online 31 March 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0196859908316331 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jci.sagepub.com/content/32/3/249

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Cultural and Critical Studies Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

Additional services and information for Journal of Communication Inquiry can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jci.sagepub.com/content/32/3/249.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 6, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 31, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from jci.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 7, 2012

Critical Memories of Crafted Virtues
The Cadbury Chocolate Scandals, Mediated Reputations, and Modern Globalized Slavery
Marouf Hasian Jr.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City

Journal of Communication Inquiry Volume 32 Number 3 July 2008 249-270 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0196859908316331 http://jci.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

This article provides a critical legal analysis of the rhetoric surrounding the “modern slavery” problems associated with the Cadbury Brothers firm during the early 20th century. The Cadbury firm sued The Standard newspaper for libel, alleging that the firm’s directors’ reputations had been damaged. The author argues that critical analysis of this libel trial shows how the crafting of Victorian or Edwardian virtues often involved the defense of imperial reputations, and in this case British liberals and conservatives debated each other as they critiqued Portuguese colonial practices. The author concludes that the work of Henry Nevinson and other investigators continues to influence modern interrogations of contemporary cocoa business practices. Keywords: William Cadbury; civic virtue; legal rhetoric; libel; modern slavery; Henry Nevinson When I hear the word Freedom . . . I see . . . men and women . . . driven . . . toward the misty islands . . . where they will toil until they die, in order that our chocolate creams may be cheap. . . . Henry W. Nevinson, as cited in Davidson, 1963, p. x In Angola and S. Thomé . . . [there is] a brutal system of capture and supply of slave labor by a licensed agent . . . [and] fairly humane treatment on some of the best estates. William Cadbury, 1910, p. xi

During the fall of 1908, William Cadbury, one of the British owners of the familyrun Cadbury Brothers, Limited, should have been ecstatic. His chocolate businesses were flourishing, and he was credited with having introduced innovative labor practices in Bourneville, a model company town (Dellheim, 1987). For centuries his ancestors had been involved in countless antislavery ventures, and he himself had
249

Downloaded from jci.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 7, 2012

p. 2012 . contractual trickery in Angola. Every year approximately 4. Some journalists and other polemicists were circulating revelatory tales that described in lurid detail how thousands of Africans died agonizing deaths under a virtual system of slavery. some 56% of all of the raw cocoa used by the Cadbury chocolate firm came from these Portuguese islands (Nwaka. Photographs of manacled children on “recruitment” ships were taken surreptitiously by essayists who wrote about absentee Lisbon landlords. Cadbury—who believed in the importance of “social efficiency” and paternal benevolence—wanted to defend his firm’s reputation. 4).com at National School of Political on May 7. Anxious Europeans who worried about cocoa slavery used their inventive powers of geographic imagination as they wrote or read about these trials and tribulations. 1980. Downloaded from jci.sagepub.000 men. p. p. he and several members of his family decided to sue one of the British newspapers (The Standard) that they felt needed to be held accountable for this pernicious spread of libelous material.” 1909. 1907.250 Journal of Communication Inquiry contributed to the funding of aborigines-protection societies. and now 24 years later one of the most respected Quaker families in the British empire was thought to be “indirectly employing one third of the slaves” on some Portuguese cocoa islands (Nevinson. and these observers claimed that the Cadburys knew or should have known about these affairs.” 1908. When incredulous British firms paid for their own inquiries. and they focused their attention on two tiny islands off of the West African coast. 782). As early as 1884 Reverend William Bentley warned readers of the London Times that if they supported some Anglo-Portuguese treaties then slavery would be “revived everywhere under specious forms” (p. 1904. and the use of inhumane compounds. as cited in Cadbury. When a growing number of Cadbury’s conservative and radical critics began recirculating stories of his alleged hypocrisy. Yet Cadbury sensed that he had a small problem with the press that might potentially turn into a much bigger conundrum—more than a few journalists were suggesting that his family was profiting from coercive labor systems in Portuguese colonial Africa. 1910. and “none ever” came back (Nevinson. and children were transported from the West coast of Africa to these islands. 3). and he wanted to air out his grievances in an open British courtroom. By 1900. p. 937). 130-131). Cadbury Cross-Examined. one of these investigators explained how “slavery” was the only “word in the England language” that could accurately describe how thousands were taken away to work on “unhealthy islands” under a “servical [sic] system” (Brutt. p. 1907. but his detractors were convinced that these types of arguments could not hide the fact that the Cadburys’ were profiting from the misfortunes of others. 495). 492). women. It did not help matters that British parliamentarians were asking officials pointed questions about the “control of the recruitment of labourers for the cocoa plantations” (“Recruitment. William Cadbury would later say under oath that he worried that “condemning the British cocoa makers meant condemning the British Government” (“Mr. pp. São Tomé and Príncipe.

Cadbury’s case (Cadbury Bros. 3). 2012 . As a general rule. 1994. and in this particular libel case many of the participants have left us discursive clues that evidence how they felt about various imperial goals and policies. or jurisprudence and public ideologies. v. newspaper coverage of the Cadbury v. but it became just a small part of much larger symbolic debates about the efficacy and desirability of contrasting colonial ideologies. 1990. which gets at both the “rhetoricity of language” and the “meaning of justice” that circulate in contested situations (Gale.com at National School of Political on May 7. 2002. Through the use of close textual analyses. These moral arguments are often polysemic in nature and can be used by a host of different commentators and legal actors. A discursive analysis of these cocoa debates provides researchers with a wealth of heuristic materials that help us understand how the “strategic use of humanitarian politics” can be Downloaded from jci. 1997.. Zackodnik. those issues of character that may be just as important as the formalistic logics or pieces of evidence that are persuasive elements of legal cases. scope. the cocoa debates have left us with some rich colonial and imperial archives that are filled with information about how fin-de-siècle audiences dealt with the social. Standard trial can be fruitfully analyzed through close textual analysis. critics get a sense of the recursive nature of legal characterizations and public ideologies. By paying close attention to both the manifest and latent meanings that swirl around controversial libel trials. Lewis. and political contradictions of empire. McDorman.Hasian / Critical Memories 251 For communication scholars. was supposed to focus on the technical laws of libel and the reparation of damaged reputations. these critical scholars can keep track of both the synchronic nature of these debates as various social actors present their views on character and imperialism. For communication scholars who are interested in the ideological dimensions of legal controversies. Ltd. The Standard Newspaper. economic. Ltd. and limits of their interventionist practices. For communication scholars who are interested in the study of critical legal rhetorics (Hasian. 2001).. Most Englanders did not debate the question of whether the world needed their empire—they were simply quibbling about the nature. comparative discursive approaches that look at both the formalistic rules of law and their informal public shadows help us understand the intimate relationship that exists between law and rhetoric. this historical debate about Cadbury’s role in what was then called “modern slavery” provides a fascinating case study that illustrates some of the complexities that attend so many reformist movements. as various imperial audiences sought to openly resolve some of the contradictions that appeared to be an inherent part of the cocoa collection process. p. These imperial debates created a vast reservoir of what Carlson (1991) calls public moral arguments. In this particular case. especially when critics who are demanding social change run up against alliances of patriotic nationalists and commercial interests. and they can assess the diachronic influence of these same arguments as they echo through the ages. Lucaites. 1994.sagepub. the conservatives who controlled the British government before the 1906 election favored expansionist imperial policies. while the liberals promoted more indirect forms of “reluctant” colonial rule. 1909).

For several years the purveyors of these competing colonial ideologies could share the intellectual conceit that various publics or British parties were on their side. the treatment of the workers. Standard Ltd. lawyers. a journalist whose arguments were recirculated by some members of the British press.” Yet Cadbury and Nevinson worked from very different rhetorical vantage points. and radical rhetors now publicly disagreed about the complicit nature of Portuguese ownership.252 Journal of Communication Inquiry tied to commercial interests and the principles of those who professed to be performing antislavery protests (Grant. Various conservative. In many ways the jurisprudential debates about Cadbury’s supposed hypocrisy can be thought of as Downloaded from jci. 1994) and potentially impact social and political decision making. 113). it would make sense that they would try to at least publicly acknowledge the relative contributions of the two powerful groups that they represented in British society. unpack. both of these critics of empire had also visited the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe. Moreover. judges. Given the fact that both William Cadbury and Henry Nevinson shared a hatred of slavery that passed as legalized coercive labor. p. Some of his contemporaries have left us portraits of a swashbuckling radical. 1906/1963). 2005. While Cadbury trusted the Portuguese overseers and accepted incremental imperial progress. journalists. v. and laypersons invited a host of Anglo-American and European audiences to think about the nexus that existed between the limits of libel laws. Through the uses of critical legal approaches to the law. and the sinfulness of some of their sweetest pleasures. For almost a century Nevinson would be a forgotten figure. and the timeliness of certain boycotts. the Cadburys’ real nemesis in these cocoa affairs was one Henry Nevinson. and explain how these various legal and public commentaries interanimate each other (Hasian. 2012 . the magnitude of the modern slavery problem.sagepub. but the filing of the Cadbury Ltd. scholars can interpret. and the reports of deaths of the “natives. Along the way. the origins of imperial profits. Cadbury’s legal challenges created a situation where certain moral characterizations migrated back and forth between the porous boundaries of the courtroom and the broader rhetorical culture. an intrepid journalist who braved the dangers of the tropics so that he could bring back empirical proof of Portuguese atrocities. During 1904 and 1905 he traveled to Angola and some of the cocoa islands. and they saw some of the same shackles. and they disagreed about the specifics of imperial policy formation. A close analysis of key texts that were used in this salient controversy shows us that in many ways. but during the first decade of the 20th century he was considered to be an iconoclastic gadfly who wrote feverishly about the horrors of “modern slavery” (Nevinson. liberal.com at National School of Political on May 7. libel case (1909) threatened this uneasy truce. Nevinson was more confrontational and wanted revolutionary colonial change. and he was one of the travelers who put together a lot of the journalistic ammunition that would be picked up by some of the writers who worked for London’s Standard. the philanthropists who paid for costly overseas investigations and the journalists who wrote about these revelations.

2006)—tells us other tales. 7).Hasian / Critical Memories 253 metonymic fragments that refracted and reflected some of the ideological concerns that were drifting in Anglo-American and European imperial mainstreams during this first decade of the 20th century. and eventually these cocoa debates did help bring about some substantive social change. we have a plethora of letters to the editor that supply us with ample proof of the rhetoricity of their arguments. and international chocolate industrialization (Razdan. as we hear echoes of the past in our own century’s debates about child labor. I argue that the Birmingham court became the scene of a struggle over both individual and colonial reputations. The first portion of the essay explains why the Standard’s owners and editors decided to engage in some risky behavior and publish some potentially libelous material. As I argue below. 2002). Many of their audiences read some of their work and shared many of their anxieties. With this in mind I have organized this essay into four major sections. and these in turn have impacted the ways that we comment on globalization and modern cocoa industries. Many of the legal arguments that circled in these courtrooms were based on pragmatic arguments about preferred colonial policies and reasonable decision making. Trevor Parry-Giles (2006) has argued that the study of legal characterology provides us with rhetorical evidence of how various communities think about leadership. the Cadbury and antislavery archives contain letters from readers who wanted to tell these writers about their own personal participation in the boycotting of chocolate goods—especially after 1909—and they wanted to thank various investigators for their efforts. Standard case shows us that the arguments and issues that surfaced during the early 20th century are still percolating today. courtroom disputation about British libel law and individual reputation was inextricably tied to political conversations about imperial virtues. and politics (p. A critical review of the competing legal and public ideologies that swirled around the Cadbury v. 2012 . The second part of the article illustrates how the Cadburys and their supporters talked about individual and imperial reputations as they prepared for their courtroom battles. The third segment takes us into the courtroom itself. For example. While nihilists or cynics might push the envelope and claim that neither Cadbury nor Nevinson really believed in their own rhetorics of empire. as the lawyers for the Cadburys and the Standard newspapers blurred the line between the personal and the public.sagepub. Moreover. where we gain a sense of Downloaded from jci. power. Robbins. and in this essay I will extend Condit’s (1987) arguments about the public crafting of civic virtue.com at National School of Political on May 7. global exploitation. The decoding of the Cadbury and Standard texts and contexts is thus more than a matter of academic debate because some of these commentaries on Portuguese or British imperialism helped construct some of the generic templates that frame the ways that we think about the nature and scope of postcolonial humanitarian intervention. which meant that commentaries about libel law could be used as vehicles for imperial critiques. 2006. I would argue that a close textual analysis of their words and deeds—what some have called a comparative study of their discourse and their quotidian practices (West.

a host of nations had signed treaties that banned the slave trade. and even boycott the sale of “slave” goods. journal articles. 9)? During the first decade of the 20th century. consuls. On the African mainland. more settlements. 2001) contemplated more drastic courses of action in the wars that were waged against the scourge of slavery. send letters off to the Foreign Office. there were other Europeans who worked on the extirpation of Muslim slave trades. understood some of the challenges that confronted the Cadburys. I comment on the heuristic value of these types of characterological analyses of legal controversies. The Standard. Photographs of children on the way to the cocoa islands adorned some of the books. 1908). “Unseen Hands. but they still could demand that the less fortunate denizens on this earth deserved to be treated as human beings. Cadburys’. and other critics of Portuguese labor practices who traveled to Africa came from many walks of life. This last activity was viewed as a drastic step. did not need to know about Downloaded from jci. and British Critiques of “Portuguese” Slave Policies The missionaries. in the concluding sections. p. for example. By the end of the 19th century. after all. there were a whole range of possible actions that could be taken by these abolitionists—they could sign Parliamentary petitions. Nevinson. or annexation. Shann. & Catt. a place that provided a haven for abused or impoverished Birmingham women (Cadbury. others wanted military intervention. and there were times when those who believed in “muscular Christianity” (Kuenz. journalists. but this writer pointedly noted that it seemed a pity “that a few of the comforts of Bourneville were not from time to time imparted to the workers in San Thomé and Princípe” (“Mssrs. While moderates patiently worked at encouraging peaceful dialogue. so why were the Cadburys not willing to keep “open eyes” on the African “journey of slave gangs or caravans” that treated “miserable women” as if “they were” cattle (p.” 1909. Who. given the fact that the opening up of free trade between different parts of the empire was considered to be conducive to consciousness raising and the spread of commerce.” Henry W. An editorialist for the London Times. Finally. and essays that were written about ending the last vestiges of African slavery.254 Journal of Communication Inquiry how various rhetors and audiences felt about cocoa and modern slavery.com at National School of Political on May 7. Matheson. and this meant that European naval vessels could board vessels that they believed were transporting slaves. 9). correspond with Portuguese friends. Bourneville at that time was known as a company town that looked after its workers.sagepub. These abolitionists did not always promote egalitarian ideas about the inherent equality of different races or classes. 2012 . but they often shared an antipathy toward slavery. Fin-de-siècle legal debates about corporate reputations were thus inextricably intertwined with political wrangling about the best forms of imperialism or the social evils of cocoa slavery. Yet there are always exceptional circumstances.

physiology. 1980). Downloaded from jci. many of the same Europeans who worried about the troubles of the natives also believed that the use of coercive labor was both necessary and efficacious. climate. If a Victorian or Edwardian wanted more culturally oriented explanations for the widespread existence of involuntary servitude. or racial aptitude might play in these situations.sagepub.” who were “responsible for the atrocities committed by savages”? Within this particular colonial narrative. books about everything from cannibalism to the influence of Muslim culture could supply needed information about the difficulties that attended abolitionism. where the African deaths could be configured as the natural result of sleeping sickness. 2012 . Regimented work supposedly provided a part of the antidote that would cure the poison of slavery. If imperial ethnologists. brown. Given the stereotyping of the times. or knowledgeable diplomats wanted to study the natural causes of slavery. say in Barcelona or Madrid” (Wyllie. or other colonial accoutrements that would help control the uncivilized who were working their way up social Darwinian ladders (Brantlinger. 1909. 1907. 492). Given the horrific death rates of the Portuguese contract laborers (most accounts indicated between 10% and 22% of them died within a matter of a few years). or the inability to acclimate. Nwaka. given these facts. This meant that Anglo-Americans or Europeans who wanted to shield the Portuguese officials from blame could simply argue that the radical humanitarians were either exaggerating the magnitude of the cocoa problems or focusing on the wrong causative factors. 1985. A close analysis of one of the texts (Wyllie. reformist schemes needed to work with nature—only fools suffering from tropical heat or utopian dreamers believed in the totally equality of all humanity. equivocations. These types of rhetorics were therefore filled with plenty of denials. or trivializations. black. or white.Hasian / Critical Memories 255 the travails of the “contract” laborer who arrived at the coastal towns of Batumbella or Novo Redondo? These melancholy creatures—who were destined to live short and desolate lives—swore before a “Curador” that they voluntarily assented to 5 years of servitude on the cocoa islands (Nevinson.com at National School of Political on May 7. were these sentimentalists not going after the “savages.” Why. how could rational human beings explain these colonial conditions? Sadly. royal geographers.” Nevinson and other ignorant observers were said to be lumping together the Angolan interior and island colonies and unfairly maligning the “planters of St. p. local taxes. Thomé. 16). many imperialists were convinced that efficient imperialism required the use of vagrancy laws. tropical disease. blaming the planters made about as much sense as making “an Oxford-street tradesman [sic] answerable” for the “personal misdeeds of some customer of anarchist leanings.” who were “as kindly a body of men as can well be found. p. Imperialists often argued that in order to be effective. heat. 1909) produced by an influential participant in these cocoa debates illustrates how some were convinced that the British press was zealously taking up the “cause of the black man [sic]” and forgetting to do “justice to the white. Pragmatic imperialists thus worked within horizons of meanings that were filled with all sorts of creative ways of differentiating between the use and abuse of native labor. they could highlight the role that population density.

C. This relativizing effort tried to underscore the loss of African lives while mining in South Africa. then everyone could enjoy their sweets without having a guilty conscience. and happy servants (Montero. were worrying about their personal reputations. 1980. but the staff of The Standard may have believed that they had advanced some truthful or justifiable claims. The Standard’s owner. p. those who signed “voluntary” labor contracts were said to be flocking to the cocoa islands so that they could flee the poverty and degeneration of their primitive precolonial pasts. If observant stewards protected the natives in the same way that the Cadburys managed the White Bourneville workers. Other newspapers—including the Manchester Guardian and The Evening Standard—had previously backed down and provided retractions and apologies when threatened with possible lawsuits (Satre. By 1903. readers could see how these Quakers were supporting the British Liberal Party as they chastised those who needed to do something about the “Great Diamond Robbery” in Africa or the “Tottering Tyranny of King Leopold’s Inferno” (Nwaka. the modern slave trade continued to exist because of the corrupt acts of Europeans or Africans who disobeyed Portuguese laws or the tenets of the “new” imperialism. 1910/1969). Those radical publicists who did not understand the practical wisdom of these incremental reformist plans could be configured as interlopers who hurt the truly effective abolitionist causes. 127). free trade. 782). it appears that these Quaker chocolate manufacturers had agreed among themselves that they could no longer sit idly by as they read the “contemptuous” claims of those who would impugn their motives. but they themselves participated in debates about the desirability of expansionism. Those who defended the Portuguese planters circulated books and articles that were filled with pictures of White missionary buildings. 2005. and these crusaders joined the lists when they complained about Congolese or South African labor practices (“Our Modern Knights-Errant.256 Journal of Communication Inquiry Within some of the more moderate imperial scenarios. the chocolate makers were walking into this prefigured world. These workers could be characterized as African elites who were trying to mimetically follow their European betters. When George Cadbury purchased the Daily News in 1901. Conservative and liberal defenders of British imperial rule were convinced that the cocoa problems did not stem from imperialism per se. The Cadburys. The Cadburys could be credited with overseas labor reformation if they convinced enlightened plantations owners or members of the Foreign Office that abusive practices needed to end. The Cadburys would later complain about the slanderous accusations that were hurled their way. p. p. 2012 . 125). 491). clean schools. p. or the British use of Chinese “coolie” labor (Satre.” 1909. In some of the more ingenious imperial tales that were told about the benefits of European colonial practices.com at National School of Political on May 7. but from the unregulated management of colonial schemes. and the synchronic allusion to King Leopold of Belgium referred to the deaths that occurred during rubber collection in what was then called the Congo Free State. however. 2005. By 1908. Arthur Downloaded from jci.sagepub.

D. The tone changes abruptly as readers get to see some sardonic commentary on the way that “Mr.” 1908).com at National School of Political on May 7. It is no coincidence that Gwynne was also a friend of die-hard imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner. Gwynne. para. 3) who were profiting from the misery of others. 2012 . and international antislavery campaigns—from Fox Bourne’s Aborigines Associations to E. Both Pearson and Gwynne had their own imperial creeds. Pearson was a well-known conservative proprietor of several newspapers. Their lawyers claimed that damages should be awarded because this chocolate firm’s officials “have been and will be injured in their credit and reputation” (“Writ. This short essay begins with a disarming congratulatory remark that thanks William Cadbury for his proposed 1908 trip to Africa that he would include a tour of Angola and São Tomé. and there is no shortage of invective as the unnamed author makes fun of “those virtuous people” of England (“We Learn. could the chocolate makers’ critics not claim that all of this spending on other campaigns simply masked the fact that these British philanthropists profited from other ventures. but in many ways this editorial seemed to be a text that brought to the surface some of the latent contradictions that were glossed over in their defenses of their cocoa activities. national. Cadbury’s reputation stands as high as his renown for the sale of cocoa” (“We Learn. and editor. so this must have violated their sense of fair play. This Standard shard was saturated with innuendo. Howell A. helps us understand just why the Cadburys might have felt troubled when they read this particular critique. 1993)? A close textual analysis of the Standard editorial of September 26. decided that they were going to hold the line. Scholars today have no shortage of evidence that documents how the Cadburys and other chocolate manufacturers did indeed spend small fortunes on hundreds of local.” 1908). Morel’s Congo Reform Association—but this did not automatically mean that they could control the spin that was placed on those activities. in the same way that the Northern “Lords of the Loom” helped fund the efforts of the America Southerners who were the “Lords of the Lash” (Holden-Smith.sagepub. Ironically. After all. the more that this documented the existence of facts that helped build the defendant’s legal case. the more that William Cadbury could show he cared about the natives. 1996)—in political ways that appeared to be closing off public debate about liberal politics and economic practices. and they stood by the claims that they presented in their controversial editorial. Conservative defenders of the British Empire fumed at the idea that selfrighteous crusaders were now using libel laws—which were technically supposed to take into account both private and public interests (Vick & MacPherson. while Gwynne was a former correspondent for Reuters who had covered the Boer War for Reuters.” 1908.Hasian / Critical Memories 257 Pearson. Veiled allusions to class and ethnic differences are used as framing devices as the editorial focuses on the “studied” Downloaded from jci. and they realized that the Cadbury’s Daily News was filled with similar lurid tales of South African mining abuses. 1908.

” and “Mr. and they have prayers every morning before beginning their honourable task of supplying the British public with wholesome food. but this “alert conscience” seemed to be concerned only about the Chinese laborers. Within this imaginary community.com at National School of Political on May 7.” 1908. para. or hauling loads through swamp and forest. a wealthy factory owner who stood behind the misguided Liberal Party.” 1908. William Cadbury could be treated as some naïve and bumbling busybody. 2012 . black and brown hands. made. this type of reasoning created discursive gestures that framed William Cadbury’s own belated investigations as superfluous and self-interested. by a writer of high character and reputation on the evidence of his own eyesight.” In many ways. In the plentitude of his solicitude for his fellow-creatures Mr. 2) This editorialist for The Standard was thus implying that liberals like Cadbury were really bystanders who read these revelatory accounts and received them with some “strange tranquility.” 1908). The addressee is then told that none of these workers were repatriated and that many died within a matter of years. the islands which feed the mills and presses of Bournville! Such is the terrible indictment.258 Journal of Communication Inquiry English model factories of Bourneville and the high “quality” of their manufactured goods. the young ladies in the firm’s employ visit the swimming bath weekly. or the universal horrors of the Portuguese slave trade. But in this latter useful process they are not the only agents. they could Downloaded from jci. (“We Learn. The essay gets more caustic as audiences then learn that There are lecture-rooms and gymnasia. 1) Now this author of this Standard editorial goes on to admit that William Cadbury has been concerned about the well-being of some members of other races. toiling in plantations. Geographic distance is then discursively traversed as readers are told in no uncertain terms about who directly profits from this modern slavery: And the worst of this slavery and slave-driving and slave-dealing is brought about by the necessity of providing a sufficient number of hands to grow and pick cocoa on the islands of Princípe and São Tomé. and no public-houses. The white hands of the Bourneville chocolate makers are helped by other unseen hands some thousands of miles away.sagepub. Cadbury” is addressed as the party who needs to think about the purchase of boys and girls. as we have said. the “manacled and shackled” slaves who were taken to the West African coast. If The Standard had simply provided an editorial that commented on the cocoa trade in general. and the “compounds” that were used to sort out these groups as they prepared to embark on their island voyage (“We Learn. para. Cadbury might have been expected to take some interest in the owners of those same grimed African hands. Entire paragraphs are used to document the extensive abuse of cocoa island “contract labour.” The Cadburys are thus characterized as liberal imperialists who have picked the wrong quarrel. who are configured by this Standard contributor as voluntary laborers protected by the “precautions of the British and the Chinese governments. (“We Learn.

sagepub. if individuals were injured they could ask courts for damages. Yet there are times when winning a libel case may provide pyrrhic victories. 2012 . The Cadburys’ legal staff could puncture the defense’s justifications by showing that their clients were acting reasonably when they followed the advice of those who told them “it would be best not to make a scandal of the past.” 1909. British Libel Law. the solicitors who worked with Isaacs. 1877). a readily identifiable plaintiff. both the Cadbury Brothers firm and The Standard spend an immense amount of money collecting information about Downloaded from jci. Rufus Isaacs could therefore argue that the defendants were forgetting that under British law reasonable Englanders could disagree about the politics and the methods that were used to rectify the cocoa labor situation. William Cadbury was ridiculed for his masquerading as some “philanthropist and friend of humanity. Yet in the process they consciously or unconsciously stitched together an attack that was also filled with all of the elements that were needed to construct a prima facie libel case under British law at the time— publication. but this particular editorial named names and identified specific practices that were allegedly hypocritical. and this meant that if a reasonable person would think worse of the Cadburys they had a potential cause of action.” 1908). 1877).com at National School of Political on May 7. 4). 1996). but to wait for promised reforms” (“Messrs. English law complicated matters for defendants because during this period of time one’s reputation and character were so important that the burden of proof was placed on defendants to show that they had not damaged the plaintiff’s good name (Vick & MacPherson. and participants in these types of judicial affairs may not always get what they ask for. After the filing of the plaintiff’s statement. Isaacs went on the offensive and argued that this should be a libel trial that reviewed the question of whether the Cadburys were “fit objects for odium and contempt” (“Writ. Under British laws that covered libel and slander (see Townshend. Wragge & Company. even if the defendants could prove that the chocolate firms had not joined the early boycott movements. this did not mean that the Cadburys were necessarily acting in bad faith or in hypocritical ways. Cadburys’ Libel Action. As far as these plaintiffs’ lawyers were concerned. and allegations that could damage the reputation of both a named individual and the company that he worked for (Townshend. and the Liberal Responses to the Cocoa Slavery Question During the first parts of this 1909 libel trial. Travers Buxton of the Anti-Slavery Society was asked to document the Cadburys’ involvement in abolitionist affairs.” The editors of The Standard did indeed put together a witty and interesting critique of William Cadbury’s activities. p.Hasian / Critical Memories 259 have potentially avoided a lawsuit. The Cadburys. made sure that Foreign Secretary Edward Grey would be able to present the court with a deposition that explained the Liberal government’s position on these affairs.

His courtroom testimony seemed to underscore the point that the British government was not going to get involved in a case that might threaten Anglo-Portuguese relations.sagepub. and that The Standard had unfairly characterized William Cadbury’s overseas investigations. that the defendants failed to take into account the fact that chocolate firms were following the suggestions of the British Foreign Office. 4). The second cluster of arguments. 152-153). p. posed a number of challenges for the plaintiffs because Sir Edward Grey’s deposition was filled with equivocations. Some members of the Foreign Office did comply with the court’s request for some needed documents. 129). For example. asked him questions about governmental negotiations with the Portuguese. The plaintiff’s barristers must have been stunned when they heard Grey testify under oath that he could not recall having advised the Cadburys to continue purchasing cocoa from São Tomé and Príncípe. but Rufus Isaacs could not find any written document that showed that the Foreign Office had given any direct guidance on the purchase of cocoa beans or the maintenance of cordial relations with Portuguese planters. while The Standard’s lawyers tried to chronicle a competing narrative filled with tales of half-hearted reformist efforts. all of this energy was now being directed away from the prudential task of materially improving the conditions of the serviçais and toward the legal debates about commercial “virtue” (p. as Satre (2005) astutely observes. Cadbury. When Edward Carson. Close textual analysis of dozens of newspaper articles discloses that during December of 1909 the presses were filled with commentaries on “slave cocoa. The Wragge firm apparently decided that they did not need to call that many witnesses to prove that their clients were dedicated philanthropists.” 1909). which focused attention on the correspondence that came from the British Foreign Office. but Isaacs and his staff still had one Downloaded from jci. it was argued that during the 1880s some members of the Cadbury families had willingly supported England’s Anti-Slavery Society (“Messrs.com at National School of Political on May 7. These Foreign Office positions complicated matters for the prosecutors who were focusing on the Cadburys’ virtuous reputations. Sadly. William Cadbury tried to present the court with some of his own written memos that summarized his conversations that he allegedly had with Grey in October of 1906. 2005. and each side tried to gain some insight into the motives of their adversaries. pp. Cadburys’ Libel Action. but they redacted many parts of these statements in the name of national security (Satre.” By then Isaacs and his legal staff had advanced three major contentions—they claimed that the defendants knew or should have known about the Cadbury’s unswerving dedication to ending slave practices. Grey backtracked and told the Birmingham courtroom that this was not really a Foreign Office matter because the Portuguese government had suspended recruiting in their colonies altogether (“Libel Action by Messrs. The Cadburys tried to amass evidence that definitively proved that they had consistently fought modern slavery on the African continent. 2012 .260 Journal of Communication Inquiry prior knowledge of cocoa slavery. the lead defense attorney.” 1909.

but The Standard newspaper had hired an equally powerful defender— Edward Carson. and then he started what some have regarded as one of the most devastating cross-examinations in the annals of British libel law. British Chocolate Trials and Tribulations: Ideological Drift and the Rhetoric Surrounding Cadbury Bros. Ltd. Too many competitive imperialists wanted the prestige and power that was linked with the most virtuous of colonial characterizations (MacIntyre. 2012 . and this blurring of personal and political characterizations created the impression that Grey’s forgetfulness was of no consequence. The British owners of these chocolate factories may have sincerely believed that they were not hypocrites and that they had much to gain from the airing of their grievances in one of England’s courtrooms. and at the same time that these barristers highlighted William Cadbury’s philanthropy. The politicized nature of the crafting of virtue (Condit.. Carson asked Cadbury if he was still waiting for a “postcard” from Sir Edward Grey that would Downloaded from jci. of course. or honorable action. Isaacs and his staff crafted courtroom narratives that were filled with liberal imperial pictures of a caring philanthropist who understood the real meaning of colonial duties and civilizing missions. but these plaintiffs could not control the rhetorical trajectory of some of these imperial claims. By 1909 Cadbury had visited the cocoa islands. and this symbolic alignment helped underscore the importance of incremental colonial change. v.com at National School of Political on May 7. involved the question of whether audiences would accept these glowing accounts of the Cadburys and the government’s liberal policies. Carson listened attentively to William Cadbury’s chronology of his firm’s involvement in various humanitarian ventures. Ltd. 1981). Searle (1983) notes how both the Cadburys and Rufus Isaacs were considered to be leaders of the “New Liberalism” of this period. and he was portrayed as a thorough and objective researcher who avoided journalistic excesses. the speed of reform. Rufus Isaacs was an excellent barrister and a dedicated promoter of many liberal causes. A major issue. The Standard Newspaper.Hasian / Critical Memories 261 major argument that could be advanced—the Cadburys were acting like typical liberal reformers when they paid out of their pockets for new investigations of the cocoa islands. 1987) creates situations where motivated audiences may or may not accept some of the negotiated compromises that come out of these legal debates about slavery. During one of these December judicial proceedings. MacIntyre (1981) has explained how Victorian notions of virtue needed to be publicly performed as evidence of good character. In many ways he was configured as a typical moderate who was concerned about the Portuguese recruits. they also linked these positions to the views of the reasonable imperialists who believed in the tenets of modern reformation.sagepub.

2012 . Carson: You did not look upon that as anything immoral? W. This seasoned veteran knew how to ask similar questions in different ways.” 1909. This barrister carefully rephrased questions that repetitively highlighted the misery of those who toiled on the cocoa islands. (“Libel Action by Messrs. until the plaintiff seemed to stand there as defendant in all but name. Cadbury: Not under the circumstances. 4). Cadbury: No. Downloaded from jci. no. p. and he managed to weather the usual storm of objections that came from the lips of Rufus Isaacs. During a key part of these legal proceedings.” 1909. 4) Carson’s legal presentation was as graphic as the discursive and photographic material that appeared in Nevinson’s books and essays.” 1909. Majoriebanks (1932) would later recall how Carson used material from Cadbury’s own reports to incrementally gain “an admission of mere slavery and passing from cruelty to atrocity. that workers were whipped for trying to escape from the planters. How. and shared responsibility for the sorrows of the world” (p. Carson read to the court a portion of a letter that Cadbury sent the Planters’ Committee in London that indicated that the British public might refuse at any time to take cocoa made from the pods that came from slave labor. Cadbury: Yes.com at National School of Political on May 7. and that the Cadbury firm had paid more than a million pounds for the cocoa that came from these islands. and the Birmingham schoolchildren and law students who attended this particular trial heard Cadbury acknowledge that the children born on Tomé and Príncípe were considered to be slaves. 395). Cadbury. for a period of some years. and his cross-examination of William Cadbury took several days. you took the main portion of your supply of cocoa for the profit of your business from the islands conducted under this system? W. This implied that William Cadbury knew beforehand that boycotts were effective business tools. and that this Quaker was taking contradictory positions on the question of economic leverage. after all. p. could William Cadbury continue to defend his firm’s belated interventionist practices when he himself had recognized the potential power that came from strong boycotts? Carson was in no hurry. For example. (“The Libel Action.262 Journal of Communication Inquiry indicate that the Foreign Office wanted the chocolate firm “to do anything” (“The Libel Action. and from atrocity to licensed murder on a large scale. 4) The next day Carson continued his barrage and got this fateful answer to one of his queries: Carson: Have you formed any estimate of the number of slaves who lost their lives in preparing your cocoa during those eight years? W. p. William Cadbury and Carson had this following exchange of cross-examination questions and answers: Carson: Knowing that it [slavery] was atrocious.sagepub.

These fact finders eventually decided that the Cadburys should technically win this libel case. Ironically. p. a Portuguese civil servant working on São Tomé. a bevy of other writers put together their own fragments that explained how the Portuguese planters on São Tomé and Príncipe were improving the lives of the contractual laborers! After all. but what about the trials and tribulations of those Whites who traveled to perilous tropic regions? These victimage tales had their own villains—the Blacks who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery or the native Downloaded from jci. These Portuguese writers or their supporters must have sensed that they were playing the part of the villains in these other British tales of Victorian or Edwardian virtue. p. 2012 . the size of the damage award clearly indicated that many members of the jury seemed to have accepted at least some of the claims of the defendants. The British lawyers and public boycotters kept writing about the misfortunes of the poor natives. 138).Hasian / Critical Memories 263 Forty years later.sagepub. Although neither party was totally satisfied with the decision. de Almada Negreiros. and they supplied their own counternarratives that heaped praise on the sacrifices of the early colonizers of these islands. but after listening to all of these weeklong arguments the jury needed only 55 minutes to reach their verdict. 2005. Negreiros claimed that William Cadbury’s efforts had dishonored the Portuguese (Satre. Simon would aver that Carson’s cross-examination of William Cadbury was one of “the most devastating” things that “he had ever heard” (Hyde. wrote an essay for the Anti-Slavery Society in March of 1909 that suggested that British humanitarians did not understand that the plantation owners were providing the Africans with exemplary treatment. it seemed as though the Cadburys and their detractors were assuming that the Portuguese were slavers. we should not be surprised to find that there were lurkers outside of the confines of this Birmingham courtroom who did not completely identify with the liberal arguments of Rufus Isaacs or the more conservative positions of Sir Edward Carson. 1993) into the public mainstream. Throughout 1909. or about one quarter of a penny. A. when more sympathetic audiences could treat their workers as voluntary laborers. Given the polysemic and polyvalent nature of the legal texts that are used in judicial trials. but they could barely hide their contempt when they also announced the amount of damages that needed to be paid by The Standard— one farthing. As these legal arguments ideologically drifted (Balkin. various audiences could present their own reconfigurations of these tales of imperial virtue. He thought that if Portugal’s critics really wanted to help the plight of their less fortunate wards. 250). and the British needed to remember that they were not the only benevolent imperialists. The defense barristers perhaps shocked some of their colleagues when they decided that they were not going to call any of their own witnesses to the stand.com at National School of Political on May 7. 1953/1974. then they needed to lavish attention on the mistreatment of Indian workers in South Africa or the Africans who left Mozambique so that they could work on British projects. Another European nation’s honor was a stake.

Fry. in January 1909 the Chronicle of the London Missionary Society averred that the “moral suasion” of the Cadbury. and Rowntree firms had led to “no improvement in the lot of the natives. 2012 . a critic could argue that this libel case raised the stature of the arguments that were presented by Nevinson and other journalists. and unlike many of the participants in the Cadbury v. housing. were these liberal or conservative crusaders not interested in boycotting the rice that came from Burma? If Cadbury or Nevinson were really that concerned about the welfare of the serviçias. Wyllie personally believed that the Union victory over the South in the American Civil War was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Western civilization. 16). repatriation. the beneficence of the Portuguese rulers. Nevinson (who was frustrated by the fact that he was not allowed to testify Downloaded from jci. perhaps the most eloquent defender of Portuguese colonialism was a Scotsman who once attended the Royal Military College at Sandhurst— Lieutenant Colonel John Alfred Wyllie. but lack of substantive action spoke volumes about efficacious reform. Were these Portuguese apologists providing the British with any firm evidence that they understood the importance of fair wages.com at National School of Political on May 7. British audiences may have given the Portuguese the benefit of the doubt. then why they were they ignoring the racial superiority of the planters.” and these writers called for a boycott of island cocoa (Satre. For example.264 Journal of Communication Inquiry traders who lived pagan lives untouched by the healing balms of Portuguese Catholicism. This former British soldier had helped several of the São Tomé planters with their translations of manuscripts. These brazen textual defenses of Portuguese labor practices seemed to provide the type of public commentaries that corroborated the legal evidence that was prominently displayed by Carson in his cross-examination of William Cadbury. Interestingly enough. a plantation owner and secretary of the Planters’ Association. or the regulation of labor recruitment? If we think about these debates in ideological terms. At the turn of the century. and other forms of colonial beneficence. 2005. and the civilizing power of European control of Angola? Did these idealists not understand that the Africans who lived in their native lands were suffering from alcoholism and other diseases? “The islands. religious instruction. after all. and it created a situation where many Anglo-American publics could reject the extremist rhetorics of writers like Wyllie. the Cadburys’ admonitions about the need to maintain cordial relations with the planters seemed to fall on deaf ears as they lost their persuasiveness. Standard trial he simply did not understand why other Whites were in such a hurry to join the boycotting movements. Why. Francisco Montero (1910/1969).sagepub. 125). and he was convinced that these accusations also deflected attention away from British colonial problems. and he sent several letters to the London Times that detailed just why Nevinson and the other liberals were spreading falsehoods about Portuguese labor policies. Moreover.” argued Wyllie (1909). He argued that all of this talk of island labor problems hurt Anglo-Portuguese relations. p. were “a veritable paradise for the blacks” (p. produced three volumes that were filled with pictures and commentaries that explained to readers the steps that were being taken by planters and Portuguese officials as they worked on tropical medicine.

” and the Celebrated “End” of Modern Slavery Did any of these legal and public debates about libel.” but this misses the constitutive nature of abolitionist argumentation. or the movement of human beings into containment pens. 2012 . When the jury awarded the Cadburys a mere farthing. African “Repatriation. Satre may be following the traditional scholarly decoupling of “rhetoric” and “reality. Granted.com at National School of Political on May 7. 132). 1913). but the open shackling of human beings. Conclusion: Public Boycotts. Standard libel trial. if they had not heard the respective conservative.sagepub. The British kept track of the Portuguese repatriation practices (see Harris. Diplomatic Negotiations. the shortened lives of the serviçais. Critics could conceivably argue that we still have not learned Nevinson’s lessons. was something that raised the hackles of many imperialists. the virtue of the Cadburys. or radical arguments that circulated between 1900 and 1909. liberal. Satre is right when he claims that these rhetorics did not end many colonial problematics.Hasian / Critical Memories 265 in this libel case on a topic where he was widely regarded as an acknowledged expert) later told readers that this was not a question of good or bad treatment. or radical imperial audiences who now demanded drastic and substantive cocoa reforms. and they could think about the moral or ethical costs of their own consumptive practices.” there “was no appreciable change in the lot of slaves in Angola or on the islands” before the boycotts of 1909 (p. All of these European defenses of the need for “native labour” would be around until the decolonization of the 1960s. Changes in discursive practices were reflected in the material alienation of slavers. may have underestimated the impact of all of this public and legal argumentation. but they did help ameliorate at least some of the suffering of the colonized. They may have also undervalued the symbolic capital of the consciousness raising that came out of the Cadbury v. but rather the sale of human beings. nor would they have supported the boycotts. The older arguments about the necessity of coercive labor simply did not resonate in the same way that they had before these decadelong debates and revelations. 1907) at least Downloaded from jci. and they did try to quantify just how many Africans who worked on the islands lived to tell about their experiences. In this particular case a legal forum provided various transatlantic publics with an arena where audiences could hear contentious debates about individual and national reputations. Satre. liberal. or the efforts of the Portuguese government help alter imperial practices? Satre (2005) contends that after years of “Western rhetoric. Yet I would argue that this ignores the fact that audiences around the world would never have learned about the need for this boycott. they were not only making a statement about the actual damaging of the reputation of four owners of a chocolate firm—they were also potentially representing the views of many conservative. like Nevinson before him. I would argue that many of the Anglo-Americans or Europeans who heard about the fin-de-siècle perils of modern slavery (Nevinson.

Yet this would not be the case. p. 843). could have rested on his laurels and stopped his attacks on Angolan slave practices. 851). Standard trial still echo through the ages: How. After reviewing statistical information that came from British consuls.sagepub. they concluded that over a 22-year period of time at least 67. and they avoided grappling with all of the dimensions of the Portuguese labor problems. D. He could have stopped harping on the lax nature of official enforcement of Portuguese laws. could virtuous and beneficent leaders of Victorian or Edwardian empires morally profit from a capitalist system that was supposed to reward both industriousness and moral rectitude? In the aftermath of the Cadbury v. Cadbury coauthored an essay with E.” and these writers complained about the pace of reforms on both São Tomé and the African mainland. embarrassed and contrite following the Standard judgment. Standard libel trial. after all. for example. After hearing all of this rhetoric. and this did not include the minors under 12 or the infants who accompanied their parents. some of the participants in this proceeding continued their consciousness-raising efforts and they tried to force the hand of the British Foreign Office. William Cadbury. They heard about the social. Morel on the “West African Slave Traffic.266 Journal of Communication Inquiry recognized some of the difficulties that attended the use of certain colonial nomenclatures. Downloaded from jci.com at National School of Political on May 7. Some of the questions that were raised in the Cadbury v. Cadbury and Morel were now making arguments that looked a lot like the claims that once circulated in the essays of Nevinson or The Standard as they wrote about how “a very large portion” of Angolan slaves were “condemned to rapid death in order that private enterprise may profit from their labour” (1912. In 1912.000 Angolans had been shipped to the islands. the virtue of the Cadburys was inextricably tied to the contradictions and the alleged beneficence of new imperial projects of many nations. While these authors were still unwilling to believe that the Portuguese administrators’ “grave maladministration” could be linked to any purposive “cruelty for cruelty’s sake. 1912.” they did believe that their patriarchal practices and their lack of money created situations where other nations needed to think about active intervention in Portuguese affairs. and it seems as though he used some of the material that came out of the libel trial in new diatribes that provided some harsher critiques of island practices. They averred that notions of “repatriation” were still a “hollow mockery. 2012 . political. Defenders of colonial practices could not always hide behind the euphemisms that they deployed.” and they pushed for more radical reform (Cadbury & Morel. and economic conditions of both the planters and their workers. p. This at least acknowledged the systematic nature of these labor problems. The officials who worked for that powerful office were equally adept at using the powers of deflection and strategic silence. Critics of abusive cocoa policies were helping educate publics about the symbolic and material impact of seemingly nominal changes in semantic designations. and Nevinson and Cadbury were just some of those who put together revelatory reports that showed how legal phrases could be used to justify governmental noninvolvement in the internal affairs of the Portuguese.

110). A year later. Nwaka (1980) surmised that the “conflicting roles” of these chocolate producers forced them into embarrassingly inconsistent arguments that ended up “indirectly subsidizing a system of slavery” (pp. Clarence-Smith (1979) argues that the moderate liberal policies that were formed after listening to the arguments of both the British antislavery slavers and the Portuguese plantation owners “generated its own momentum. 111). 2005. and laypersons have provided different answers when they have been asked about the confluence of globalized profits and national morality. we should not be surprised to find that over the years politicians. While many historical audiences have been bothered by allegations of hypocrisy and the conditions of the serviçais. there was no shortage of observers who defended the Cadburys and their imperial decision making. 1990. If a critical legal analysis (Hasian. 1979. 1997) of some Downloaded from jci. Grant (2005) later claimed that by “1906 the Cadburys had established themselves as public critics of imperialist exploitation and specifically of new slaveries of imperial regimes in Africa” (p. Henderson. pp. but he questioned why it took some 8 years before William Cadbury and several other Anglo-American chocolate firms were willing to join in the boycotting of plantation goods. Satre (2005) wrote eloquently about the philanthropic efforts of the Cadburys. Other critics have been less charitable.” where these negotiated compromises encouraged the perpetuation of the slave trade on the African continent and hurt the cause of those who demanded African compensation or repatriation (pp. I argue in this essay that all of this focus on the individual social agency of Cadbury or some of the other British chocolate makers tells us only a part of some complex stories. but that they were selective in their criticism. 781-782). These detractors have argued that the ambiguous policies of the Cadburys and their supporters created myriad problems for the reformers who wanted immediate amelioration of the cocoa slavery problem.sagepub. 115-116).” the Cadbury family seemed to provide exemplary illustrations of how Christians “can succeed in commerce” (Wilson. Their own cocoa revelations also showed that William Cadbury “deftly exploited” other humanitarian campaigns “to distract attention from his company’s own slavery scandal in West Africa” (Grant. p. Several historians of Angola’s political past wax eloquently about a William Cadbury who relentlessly attacked the systematic nature of human exploitation in Portuguese West Africa (Egerton.com at National School of Political on May 7. 95-96. Wilson elaborated by explaining that some members of the Cadbury family had spent years of their lives campaigning for liberal causes as they labored to end human exploitation and world wars (1924. BR-20). 1957.” This author was convinced that apart “from this incident. and they have provided us with less hagiographic portrayals of some of the owners of England’s major chocolate factories.Hasian / Critical Memories 267 Given the volatile nature of these controversies. pp. For example. scholars. For example. Lucaites. 2012 . BR-10). McDorman. 169-170). p. in 1924 Wilson admitted that it may have been ironic that “one of the Cadburys [William] had exposed the evil” of “slavery grown cocoa” and yet found that the “firm had to defend itself by an action for libel. 1924. p. 1994. business leaders.

Some human rights organizations are now suing Nestlé. Quarterly Journal of Speech. Carlson. (1908). (1910). and there are some 600. E. Perhaps Nevinson would be proud of the fact that his work is now being revived as it rhetorically drifts on the World Wide Web. Unfortunately. C. A. Bentley. H.. Davidson. p. At least I can report that some of these giant conglomerates are trying to put together systems that certify that the cocoa beans that are used in some of these products are free of slave labor (Razdan. (1987). 92.S. 3. These purchasers of large supplies of cocoa also want to tell us about their support of dairy farmers in Latin America or their passing out of HIV medication in Africa. 25. C. London: T. Downloaded from jci. ideology.. Gale. C. Albany: State University of New York Press. Toga. 2006). American Historical Review. The myth of uneconomic imperialism: The Portuguese in Angola. Robbins (2002) has recently argued that West Africa’s Ivory Coast now supplies almost half of the world’s supply of cocoa beans. (1979). 2012 . Women’s work and wages: A phase of life in an industrial city. C. G. (1912). Ideological drift and the struggle over meaning. and other places so that they can be shipped out to work on the Ivory Coast cocoa farms.. Introduction. 869-891. J. ix-xvii). The Congo Treaty. Clarence-Smith. W. 12. Journal of Southern African Studies. Shann. (1985). informing new generations of the hazards of “modern” cocoa slavery. Cadbury. 13-44.com at National School of Political on May 7. (1994). Cadbury. The Standard trial tells us anything. C. Angola in perspective. April 14). Condit.268 Journal of Communication Inquiry of the micro and macro dimensions of the Cadbury Bros. Unwin. F. & Morel. 166-203. C. (1963). Connecticut Law Review. C. In A modern slavery (pp. 1861-1931. W. Burkina Faso. & Catt. Labour in Portuguese West India. A. A. Victorians and Africans: The genealogy of the myth of the Dark Continent. Quarterly Journal of Speech. New York: Background Books. 38-52. The [London] Times. M. P. it is that these personal debates about individual reputations can be tethered to much larger ideological imperial structures. and other companies for having violated some U.sagepub. Egerton. Political literacy: Rhetoric. (1991). B. Cadbury. The past becomes prologue as some of these giant food conglomerates complain that they need more time or that that they are dealing with escalating civil wars. Cargill. (1884. 836-851. London: Routledge. v. M. 79-97. D. G. F. 165-180. References Balkin. state codes that are supposed to protect the public from false claims that are allegedly made about the resolution of the problem of slave labor on cocoa farms (Orr. Critical Inquiry.. F. The Nineteenth Century. (1957). M.000 farms that have become an important part of that nation’s economy. and the possibility of justice. London: George Routledge. Matheson. 77. the BBC and other news outlets are now reporting that hundreds of thousands of children may be a part of a huge slave market that moves youngsters from Mali. E. 5. The creation of a company culture: Cadburys. 73. The role of character in public moral argument: Henry Ward Beecher and the Brooklyn scandal. W. Dellheim. 1836-1926. G. (1993). The West African slave traffic. Crafting virtue: The rhetorical construction of public morality. 2006). Brantlinger. (1987).

December 1). 4. Critical legal rhetorics: The theory and practice of law in a postmodern world. (1909. December 2). The cowboy businessman and “the course of empire”: Owen Wister’s The Virginian. 159-177.. London: Wyman. Holden-Smith. (1974). Hasian. 78. (2005). H. New York: Baker. The Spectator. R. Athens: Ohio University Press. Hyde. (2002). 9-10. 435-449. Anglicizing defamation law in the European Union. Carson the advocate. Lucaites. 82. (1908. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire. Cadbury. Earth Island Journal. The [London] Times. p. The good. The [London] Times. The [London] Times. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (2006). (1908. The Angola slave trade. L. (Original work published 1906) Nevinson. 192-209. 491-492. 5. p. J. NY: Cornell University Press. New York: Background Books. A. 36. Hot cocoa. Rhetoric and Public Affairs. Libel action by Messrs. Downloaded from jci. p. Quarterly Journal of Speech. Our modern knights-errant. 488-497. (1877). (1907). Majoriebanks. (1909. J. W. New York: Negro Universities Press. Manual labor in S. December 3). A treatise on the wrongs called slander and libel. 60. Chocolate on trial: Slavery. G. (1909. Portuguese slavery: Britain’s dilemma. (2005). M. slavery. Between rhetoric and ‘The Law’: Power. W. H. L. Cadbury. Cadbury cross-examined. T. K. Challenging constitutional authority: African American responses to Scott v. the bad and the savory. L. Fortnightly Review. J. Lewis. Razdan. and social change. 30-31. 933-998. (2006). Lansing: Michigan State University Press. 1086-1151. New York: Octagon Books. (1909. A civilized savagery: Britain and the new slaveries in Africa. The [London] Times. “In a field of pain and death”: Law/rhetoric/history/culture. Searle. March 27). & MacPherson. 96-101. pp. Nwaka. Robbins. The Standard. December 7). Libel action by Messrs. D. A modern slavery. 4. and politics in the Supreme Court confirmation process.. (1969). T. (1909. The libel action by Messrs. Henderson. December 11). Lords of lash. A. (1997). Carson. English Historical Review. Slave chocolate? Forbes. H. 4. (1983). Jr. (1994). (1981). London: Methuen. J. 56-50. 83. 780-793. 4. 1910-1910. Notre Dame. J. 48. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 2012 . (1993). Satre. The Edwardian liberal party and business. G. (1909. (1980). Utne. Orr. Midland and Oxford Circuits. Southern Communication Journal.com at National School of Political on May 7. New York: Routledge. D. W. (2006). law. 1884-1926. B. Thomé and Príncipe. 177(9). The [London] Times. (1990). J. 28-60. New York: Macmillan. MacIntyre. Cadburys’ libel action: A farthing. E. 98-128. We learn with profound interest [Editorial]. Voorhis & Company. Recruitment of labour for cocoa plantations at San Thome and Principe. Pennsylvania. Cornell Law Review. Harris. December 7). p. December 3). and law. Cadburys and the dilemma of colonial trade in Africa. McDorman. F. Parry-Giles. 76. (1913). Angola: Five centuries of conflict.Hasian / Critical Memories 269 Grant. The Parliamentary Debates. legitimacy. Sandford. Virginia Journal of International Law. 133. Justice Story. September 26). The [London] Times. (2002). loom. Townshend. W. Cadbury. (2001). politics. (Original work published 1953) Kuenz. Messrs. 4. 42. 44-56. (1963). Messrs. The character of justice: Rhetoric.sagepub. and Prigg v. 4th Series. Montero. (1996). Cultural Critique. p. (Original work published 1910) Mr. 17(2). Ithaca. (1932). I. Nevinson. (1909. F. Vick. (1979). After virtue: A study in moral theory. M. pp. Cadburys’ actions [Editorial]. L. and the ethics of business. 98.

A. King’s Bench Division. The New York Times.. Ltd. BR-10. Wilson. Cadbury Bros. is a professor in the Communication Department at the University of Utah. Ltd. v. pp. Alleged slavery in St. September 28). 3211. Debbie Mayne’s legal trans/scripts: Critical legal rhetorics and the possibilities for agency. T. (1909. January 20). law and rhetoric.. W. No. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Doctoral Honors Conference. p. Thomé.270 Journal of Communication Inquiry West. (1908. He is currently working on several book projects that involve the study of visuality and remembrances of international atrocities. (2006. American Quarterly. In the High Court of Justice. The [London] Times. Zackodnik. (2001). The Standard Newspaper. I. Downloaded from jci. F. 420-451. J. His areas of interest include postcolonial studies. 16. Summer). Fixing the color line: The mulatto. critical memory studies. Writ and Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.com at National School of Political on May 7. (1924. 53. October 5). and genocide studies. Wyllie. 2012 . Marouf Hasian Jr. A rich man and his money. Purdue University. southern courts.sagepub. and racial identity. 20.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful