• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -2
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    In this case, I can believe that Chiquita didn’t set out to finance the AUC, but was unfortunate in that their banana plantations fell into AUC-controlled territory, and therefore were extorted for protection money.

    It’s like if I owned an Italian restaurant, the mafia comes in and extorts me for protection money, then the feds come and arrest me for financing the mafia. What was I supposed to do?

    edit: I didn’t know about Chiquita. Thanks for the replies and info!

    • @JacksonLamb
      link
      English
      216 months ago

      No, it’s like if you owned a massive chain of Italian restaurants that notoriously exploited people, and you were actively paying the mafia to intimidate your workers and to bust unions.

      The judge saw through Chiquita’s ridiculous fabrication, I’m disappointed to see you parroting it here.

    • goldenbug
      link
      fedilink
      106 months ago

      There is enough proof in the trials to show they were not unhappily contributing to paramilitary groups.

    • @WhatIsThePointAnyway
      link
      English
      106 months ago

      Chiquita / United Fruit have long been involved in oppressing and destabilizing south America for profit.

    • @chiliedogg
      link
      English
      66 months ago

      Chiquita has been bad for a long, long time. Even among the banana companies, they’re famously evil.

    • @Stovetop
      link
      English
      46 months ago

      Not pay the thugs?