Skip to main content

The colors of coffee bean culture

Green is the true color of the coffee bean. The bean is harvested in Central and South America, Eastern Africa and Southern Asia. Green is the only natural color of the coffee bean, since What comes next is human-inflicted.

Gold is the coffee bean's color after a little bit of heat. It is poured into closed heating tubs, and after about 5 minutes, the coffee bean is roasting at around 150 degrees celcius. Here, the it is transforming into something it is not familiar with.

Brown. This is the color of the coffee bean after about half an hour of roasting, in the same heating tubs, now churning at over 200 degrees celcius. Brown is when the coffee bean has no green left in it. What comes next is variable and unknown to the bean. All it knows is that it is getting hotter and it is being churned around and around and if it doesn't keep up it'll probably end up in a scraps pile away from the other beans it looks similar to.

Darkened brown. How brown will depend on how much longer the coffee bean sits in the heating tubs. The longer it is kept inside, the darker it becomes, and the stronger its eventual taste. Soon the coffee bean will be packaged for export, darkened to match preferred tastes in household and coffee houses somewhat globally.

Of course, the packagers will leave a small valve open on the packages before they are sent away, otherwise they would explode due to the still self-roasting coffee bean releasing gases.

And as the coffee bean sits with its counterparts in its package, quietely roasting away, it acknowledges that it is among other beans just like itself. It cannot acknowledge which kind of green this bean used to be, and which kind of green that bean used to be. It cannot even acknowledge how green it was in comparision to all the other beans. All it knows is that it is know in a package with other look-a-like beans, and they are all heading for the same place.

From a green birth to a gold childhood, into a brown adulthood and a finally darker old age, how are we humans different from the culture of coffee beans? Today more than ever we seem to collide into eachother in heated circumstances, one often clueless of the other, and we claim to grow from our collective experience. How much are we growing if we are simply repeating eachothers stories without learning from them?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov...

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or...