Haiti: The Hate and the Quake

This article was shared with me and I found it very interesting on two points: (1) I actually studied the history of Haiti while in grade school as part of Caribbean History, which I didn't learn until much later that only folks who lived in the Caribbean studied Caribbean History, and (2) that France has used their power to keep their foot on the neck of the Haitian people for many years and the United States of America played a large role in enforcing and applying more pressure.

Date January 17, 2010
Brief BY SIR HILARY BECKLES

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES is in the process of conceiving how best to deliver a major conference on the theme Rethinking And Rebuilding Haiti.
I am very keen to provide an input into this exercise because for too lo ...


BY SIR HILARY BECKLES

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES is in the process of conceiving how best to deliver a major conference on the theme Rethinking And Rebuilding Haiti.
I am very keen to provide an input into this exercise because for too long there has been a popular perception that somehow the Haitian nation-building project, launched on January 1, 1804, has failed on account of mismanagement, ineptitude, corruption.

Buried beneath the rubble of imperial propaganda, out of both Western Europe and the United States, is the evidence which shows that Haiti's independence was defeated by an aggressive North-Atlantic alliance that could not imagine their world inhabited by a free regime of Africans as representatives of the newly emerging democracy.

The evidence is striking, especially in the context of France.
The Haitians fought for their freedom and won, as did the Americans fifty years earlier. The Americans declared their independence and crafted an extraordinary constitution that set out a clear message about the value of humanity and the right to freedom, justice, and liberty.

In the midst of this brilliant discourse, they chose to retain slavery as the basis of the new nation state. The founding fathers therefore could not see beyond race, as the free state was built on a slavery foundation.
The water was poisoned in the well; the Americans went back to the battlefield a century later to resolve the fact that slavery and freedom could not comfortably co-exist in the same place.

The French, also, declared freedom, fraternity and equality as the new philosophies of their national transformation and gave the modern world a tremendous progressive boost by so doing.

They abolished slavery, but Napoleon Bonaparte could not imagine the republic without slavery and targeted the Haitians for a new, more intense regime of slavery. The British agreed, as did the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese.
All were linked in communion over the 500 000 Blacks in Haiti, the most populous and prosperous Caribbean colony.
As the jewel of the Caribbean, they all wanted to get their hands on it. With a massive slave base, the English, French and Dutch salivated over owning it - and the people.

The people won a ten-year war, the bloodiest in modern history, and declared their independence. Every other country in the Americas was based on slavery.
Haiti was freedom, and proceeded to place in its 1805 Independence Constitution that any person of African descent who arrived on its shores would be declared free, and a citizen of the republic.

For the first time since slavery had commenced, Blacks were the subjects of mass freedom and citizenship in a nation.

The French refused to recognise Haiti's independence and declared it an illegal pariah state. The Americans, whom the Haitians looked to in solidarity as their mentor in independence, refused to recognise them, and offered solidarity instead to the French. The British, who were negotiating with the French to obtain the ownership title to Haiti, also moved in solidarity, as did every other nation-state the Western world.

Haiti was isolated at birth - ostracised and denied access to world trade, finance, and institutional development. It was the most vicious example of national strangulation recorded in modern history.
The Cubans, at least, have had Russia, China, and Vietnam. The Haitians were alone from inception. The crumbling began.
Then came 1825; the moment of full truth. The republic is celebrating its 21st anniversary. There is national euphoria in the streets of Port-au-Prince.

The economy is bankrupt; the political leadership isolated. The cabinet took the decision that the state of affairs could not continue.
The country had to find a way to be inserted back into the world economy. The French government was invited to a summit.

Officials arrived and told the Haitian government that they were willing to recognise the country as a sovereign nation but it would have to pay compensation and reparation in exchange. The Haitians, with backs to the wall, agreed to pay the French.

The French government sent a team of accountants and actuaries into Haiti in order to place a value on all lands, all physical assets, the 500 000 citizens were who formerly enslaved, animals, and all other commercial properties and services.
The sums amounted to 150 million gold francs. Haiti was told to pay this reparation to France in return for national recognition.

The Haitian government agreed; payments began immediately. Members of the Cabinet were also valued because they had been enslaved people before independence.

Thus began the systematic destruction of the Republic of Haiti. The French government bled the nation and rendered it a failed state. It was a merciless exploitation that was designed and guaranteed to collapse the Haitian economy and society.

Haiti was forced to pay this sum until 1922 when the last instalment was made. During the long 19th century, the payment to France amounted to up to 70 per cent of the country's foreign exchange earnings.

Jamaica today pays up to 70 per cent in order to service its international and domestic debt. Haiti was crushed by this debt payment. It descended into financial and social chaos.
The republic did not stand a chance. France was enriched and it took pleasure from the fact that having been defeated by Haitians on the battlefield, it had won on the field of finance. In the years when the coffee crops failed, or the sugar yield was down, the Haitian government borrowed on the French money market at double the going interest rate in order to repay the French government.
When the Americans invaded the country in the early 20th century, one of the reasons offered was to assist the French in collecting its reparations.

The collapse of the Haitian nation resides at the feet of France and America, especially. These two nations betrayed, failed, and destroyed the dream that was Haiti; crushed to dust in an effort to destroy the flower of freedom and the seed of justice.

Haiti did not fail. It was destroyed by two of the most powerful nations on earth, both of which continue to have a primary interest in its current condition.
The sudden quake has come in the aftermath of summers of hate. In many ways the quake has been less destructive than the hate.

Human life was snuffed out by the quake, while the hate has been a long and inhumane suffocation - a crime against humanity.

During the 2001 UN Conference on Race in Durban, South Africa, strong representation was made to the French government to repay the 150 million francs.
The value of this amount was estimated by financial actuaries as US$21 billion. This sum of capital could rebuild Haiti and place it in a position to re-engage the modern world. It was illegally extracted from the Haitian people and should be repaid.
It is stolen wealth. In so doing, France could discharge its moral obligation to the Haitian people.

For a nation that prides itself in the celebration of modern diplomacy, France, in order to exist with the moral authority of this diplomacy in this post-modern world, should do the just and legal thing.
Such an act at the outset of this century would open the door for a sophisticated interface of past and present, and set the Haitian nation free at last.

Sir Hilary Beckles is pro-vice-chancellor and Principal of the Cave Hill Campus, UWI.

Here's the link to the article in the Nation News (Barbados newspaper).

Miss USA on gay marriage

She may be ignorant, but at least she was honest!

Student's 'Fat Lips' comment out of line

While it's hard for me to read this type of comment coming from a "future leader of America", it comes as no surprise because I certainly have heard worse at some of Colleges right here in Worcester. Who said higher education educated?

The Chronicle of Higher Education

College Republicans Get Black Eye Over 'Fat Lips' Comment

The executive director of Pennsylvania’s College Republicans resigned last week over a controversy involving his online posting about Barack Obama’s lips, reports The Morning Call, in Allentown, Pa.

Adam LaDuca, a senior at Kutztown University, wrote on his Facebook page that Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, was “nothing more than a dumbass with a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)”

John Morgan, who writes the Pennyslvania Progressive blog, pasted those comments on his Web site in August, as well as Mr. LaDuca’s remarks that the civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was a hypocrite.

On Friday the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans posted a statement announcing that Mr. LaDuca had apologized to the group and had resigned his post.

“We’ve encountered a small bump in the road, and we plan to move forward with tradition and integrity,” said the statement from the co-chairman, Michael Ubbens, a senior at at Susquehanna University.

Here are some of the comments made:

Comments

1. I hope this story opens the eyes of a handful of you who claim to be conservatives or Republicans but who post silly, immature, or illiterate comments here. Especially in this overwhelmingly liberal community, you have a responsibility to represent opposition views carefully and with integrity and respect.
   — S. Britchky Sep 8, 03:13 PM #
2. Where on earth could this guy have picked up the idea that Republicans would tolerate the politics of disparagement and smear?
   — BertW Sep 8, 03:53 PM #
3. I hope this opens the eyes of more than a handful that many who hide among the ranks of conservative republicans are simply thinly veiled racists.
   Sad to think that this young man is more than halfway to a university degree and yet remains so ignorant and closed-minded. Criticize Obama if you like, but do it intelligently and with an understanding that he most certainly is no “dumbass” – I cringe at the prospect of this young man (and tens of thousands like him) voting to select our next leader!
   — rbuck Sep 8, 03:53 PM #
4. While no conservative, I hardly think this student is representative of conservatives. Let’s not wag the finger too quickly around the room.
   — not all conservatives are ... whatever. Sep 8, 04:09 PM #
5. Perhaps not. But it is almost equally disturbing that another Republican student leader, Mr. Ubbens, thinks that such a flagrantly racist and ignorant comment was merely “a small bump in the road.” I guess it depends on your road.
   — Rob Sep 8, 04:20 PM #
6. There may be plenty wrong with Obama, but he is hardly dumb. Admission to Harvard Law School is as competitive as it gets, the work is extremely demanding, and Obama was first (or close to it) in the large class.
   — Californian Sep 8, 04:21 PM #
7. LaDuca’s comments are blatantly racist and unacceptable. However, I do not believe this incident should be used as an attack on the character of all members of the Pennsylvania College Republicans. Such an accusation is sure to arise soon enough in the liberal media. Clearly though, the executive board of the PA College Republicans find these racist remarks just as deplorable as others at any point on the political and social spectrum. To discredit the executive board and other members of the PA College Republicans based on the remarks of one chauvinistic individual associated with the group seems to imply an ulterior political motive against the Republican Party as a whole. In such a case, those making the argument merely seek to gain political ground whereas the racist comments of LaDuca become nothing more than a secondary concern. Such is the downfall of the “sticking-up-for-the-little-guy” mentality when these instances of prejudice are used as a means to some political end.
   — E. Nancy Sep 8, 04:27 PM #
8. As much as I read this story with glee because the conservative author of a racist comment was appropriately chastised, I must admit that “stupid” is not a characteristic reserved for either political persuasion.
   — Al Sep 8, 04:38 PM #
9. Consider the source — Kudzutown University! Poor kid must have been tired of climbing the vines and being irrelevant.
   — Nokeke Sep 8, 04:40 PM #
10. Of course, not all Republicans are bigots, but with the steady realignment that has been occurring since about 1960, virtually all bigots are Republicans, and they form a significant share of that party’s base. Did anyone observe this year’s Republican National Convention? That a College Republican would be caught exhibiting such bigotry and poor taste is not earth shaking.
    — case hardened Sep 8, 04:44 PM #
11. I believe one who makes a statement that “virtually all bigots are Republicans” is surely out of touch. There is only one demographic I am aware of that is voting over 95% for one of this year’s presidential candidates because of his race, and they’re not in the Republican party. I’m afraid there are bad apples in both baskets.
    — OJ Sep 8, 04:53 PM #
12. What’s that OJ? You can document that whites have never voted for whites in this or any other election?
    — perplexed Sep 8, 05:06 PM #
13. If Mr. Obama is a “dumbass,” that doesn’t put a flattering light on Mr. McCain, who graduated from the US Naval Academy fourth from the bottom of his class, not to mention Ms. Palin, who attended five colleges in six years to obtain her degree. So, I think we can leave estimations of intellect out of the discussion and concentrate on the candidates’ proposed policies.
    — heavyd in sc Sep 8, 05:14 PM #
14. OJ-so it’s safe to infer from your comments that blacks are bad apples because they are voting for Obama, or they are bigots because they are voting for him. You should be more prudent in making this argument in public—your own bigotry is oozing like pussing sore
    — zing Sep 8, 05:14 PM #
15. I once had a professor who referred to Jesse Helms as having horns and a pointed tail. Did all Democrats think of him (Helms) in such a manner? Of course, nothing could or did happen to the tenured prof. Yep, it happens on both sides.
    Also, OJ is correct and it it is a given that African Americans vote 90% for Democratic candidates.
    — Cicero Sep 8, 05:28 PM #
16. LaDuca’s comments are deplorable. Absolutely. And I’m glad to see them being roundly condemned.
    It is telling, however, that the condemnation of bias was hard to find last week when it was Sarah Palin who was its victim right here in these blogs.

Dick Cheney Ignorance

Many folks were amazed and confused by Vice President Cheney's comments about his family and the fact that, "We have Cheney's on both sides of the family.....and we don't even live in West Virginia."

How can the Vice President of the United States be so callous and disrespectful?

Talk about a joke not even being a joke!