Skip to main content

Halal Soup

Image result for halal Campbell

 The world has too many tempests in too many tea pots, and I don't regret not being able to keep up with all of them. But sometimes when I find that I missed the real-time unfolding of one of the tempests, and the tempest itself seems really bizarre, I do want to revisit, to get a mulligan.

So let's look at the Halal soup controversy. This it appears was a big thing in 2010, when I missed it. 

 Halal in its broadest significance simply means "permissible." Its more specific significance is dietary. It has, for Moslems, much the same ring that "kosher" has for observant Jews. 

 Apparently Campbell's soup, the nice people who did so much for Andy Warhol, decided in late 2010 that they would test market "halal" food. Perfectly cool right? I mean: in a capitalist system, businesses seek out markets to serve. The only reason to brand any soup cans "halal" is if that caters to a market demand that makes the costs of the branding worthwhile. 

 But it kicked up a bit of storm. Including the wonderful lament/warning, "Your kids might be eating halal food without you even realizing it!"

 (And that should concern you because ... it might turn them into Moslems? Not sure how that would work.) 

 Pro tip. Any food that is both vegetarian and non-alcoholic is halal. So, if I had kids, I would hope that they are eating lots of halal foods without realizing it.

 As for Campbell's, the whole point of the marketing exercise is to have some soup cans certified as halal. It's surely right there on the can, just as "kosher" is right there on lots of stuff that gentiles like myself buy at supermarkets. I may not notice it, but of course obliviousness is my privilege. 

 Yeah, capitalism! Peace out.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more