Hispaniola's great divergence(thefitzwilliam.com)
thefitzwilliam.com
Hispaniola's great divergence
https://www.thefitzwilliam.com/p/hispaniolas-great-divergence
245 comments
And unfortunately, it's not just France
> For decades to come, the United States was the dominant power in Haiti, dissolving parliament at gunpoint, killing thousands and shipping a big portion of Haiti’s earnings to bankers in New York while the farmers who helped generate the profits often lived near starvation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/takeaways-...
> For decades to come, the United States was the dominant power in Haiti, dissolving parliament at gunpoint, killing thousands and shipping a big portion of Haiti’s earnings to bankers in New York while the farmers who helped generate the profits often lived near starvation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/takeaways-...
You say it was a huge amount; the article says it was a small amount. Unfortunately neither of you states the amount, so it is hard for me to assess how big it was.
> After reviewing thousands of pages of archival documents, some centuries old, and consulting with 15 of the world’s leading economists, our correspondents calculated that the payments to France cost Haiti from $21 billion to $115 billion in lost economic growth over time. That is as much as eight times the size of Haiti’s entire economy in 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/takeaways-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/takeaways-...
That's not the actual size of Haiti's reparations to France though - it's completely imaginaary, hypothetical money that the New York Times is claiming Haiti would've made if not for the evil colonialists ruining their economy through reparations. The actual total reparations according to that article were $560 million in today's dollars, or between a fortieth to a two hundreth of how much the NYT is claiming it really cost Haiti. That claim should probably be taken with a massive pinch of salt given the quality of their reporting on race, slavery and colonialism of late.
Just the way they seem to be comparing the supposed cost of those reparations over all time to one year of GDP here seems pretty slimy. The part you quoted is clearly intended to make an inattentive reader think Haiti's GDP would've been eigth times larger if not for reparations, but not only is that not what it actually says, it's impossible to tell how big the supposed loss is compared to the size of their economy - the two are stated in incomparable ways.
Just the way they seem to be comparing the supposed cost of those reparations over all time to one year of GDP here seems pretty slimy. The part you quoted is clearly intended to make an inattentive reader think Haiti's GDP would've been eigth times larger if not for reparations, but not only is that not what it actually says, it's impossible to tell how big the supposed loss is compared to the size of their economy - the two are stated in incomparable ways.
> But the loss to Haiti cannot just be measured by adding up how much was paid to France and to outside lenders over the years.
> Every franc shipped across the Atlantic to an overseas bank vault was a franc not circulating among Haiti’s farmers, laborers and merchants, or not being invested in bridges, schools or factories — the sort of expenditures that help nations become nations, that enable them to prosper.
The cost of reparations versus the impact is different. The impact is a guesstimate, the cost isn’t.
> Every franc shipped across the Atlantic to an overseas bank vault was a franc not circulating among Haiti’s farmers, laborers and merchants, or not being invested in bridges, schools or factories — the sort of expenditures that help nations become nations, that enable them to prosper.
The cost of reparations versus the impact is different. The impact is a guesstimate, the cost isn’t.
In fact, the money not paid to France would be simply stolen by local kleptocrats
The debt with France does not have any explanatory power as to why the DR's and Haiti's economic fates diverged though. Even if the debt held Haiti back from the glory it would have otherwise seen, or stagnated its economic development by many decades, we would still expect Haiti's economy to grow AFTER the debt was paid off to a much greater extent than it did.
There to me, is clearly more afoot here than the evils of France.
There to me, is clearly more afoot here than the evils of France.
It’s not like the entire country worked weekends to pay this off.
The debt skimmed the cream from the country, and the political maneuvering by various parties introduced pliant, corrupt leadership. Haiti has been a failed state for a long time.
The debt skimmed the cream from the country, and the political maneuvering by various parties introduced pliant, corrupt leadership. Haiti has been a failed state for a long time.
No we wouldn't, if the debt caused destruction of the local environment (which it did) there's no way how they could've started making money. Just importing food and other basic goods would starve their resources and give them no room for investment.
Looking into the stats, Haiti had 60% of forest cover in 1923 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Haiti. If the debt made deforestation inevitable, why did Haiti have so many forests far into the servicing of the debt? I feel there MUST be something which happened in the 20th century which really accelerated deforestation aside from the debt.
I just don't buy the "debt destroyed all future economic/agricultural output" angle at all. If you just showed people a bunch of chart of different countries economic information and agricultural output devoid of broader context, nobody would probably EVER come to the conclusion that the debt led to the stagnation in agricultural output in Haiti from the numbers alone. If you compared the debt vs deforestation, again, nobody would conclude the debt caused the deforestation from the actual data. People would only ever conclude that if they're being shown unblinded data.
Let me stress here - I'm not even saying this must all be Haiti's fault, or that debt didn't have a profound impact which have shrunk Haiti's economy many times over. I'm saying the debt doesn't explain what happened. I feel like I'm getting a fraction of the picture here. All sorts of wild shit happened in Haiti in the 20th century, the United States occupied the country for instance and the deforestation correlates MUCH more strongly with this occupation than it does the debt.
I just don't buy the "debt destroyed all future economic/agricultural output" angle at all. If you just showed people a bunch of chart of different countries economic information and agricultural output devoid of broader context, nobody would probably EVER come to the conclusion that the debt led to the stagnation in agricultural output in Haiti from the numbers alone. If you compared the debt vs deforestation, again, nobody would conclude the debt caused the deforestation from the actual data. People would only ever conclude that if they're being shown unblinded data.
Let me stress here - I'm not even saying this must all be Haiti's fault, or that debt didn't have a profound impact which have shrunk Haiti's economy many times over. I'm saying the debt doesn't explain what happened. I feel like I'm getting a fraction of the picture here. All sorts of wild shit happened in Haiti in the 20th century, the United States occupied the country for instance and the deforestation correlates MUCH more strongly with this occupation than it does the debt.
Not only that range is wildly imprecise, it also happens to not answer the question.
I will post here the first paragraph of [1], as it directly provides this bit of information:
"The Haiti indemnity controversy involves an 1825 agreement between Haiti and France that included France demanding a 150 million franc indemnity to be paid by Haiti in claims over property – including Haitian slaves – that was lost through the Haitian Revolution in return for diplomatic recognition, with the debt costing Haiti $21 to 115 billion of economic growth over a period of two centuries and affecting the nation to this day. The payment was later reduced to 90 million francs in 1838, comparable to US$21 billion as of 2004, with Haiti paying about 112 million francs in total.[4] Over the 122 years between 1825 and 1947 the debt severely hampered Haitian economic development as payments of interest and downpayments totaled a significant share of Haitian GDP yearly, constraining the use of domestic financial funds for infrastructure, public services and ultimately making the nation ungovernable."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
"The Haiti indemnity controversy involves an 1825 agreement between Haiti and France that included France demanding a 150 million franc indemnity to be paid by Haiti in claims over property – including Haitian slaves – that was lost through the Haitian Revolution in return for diplomatic recognition, with the debt costing Haiti $21 to 115 billion of economic growth over a period of two centuries and affecting the nation to this day. The payment was later reduced to 90 million francs in 1838, comparable to US$21 billion as of 2004, with Haiti paying about 112 million francs in total.[4] Over the 122 years between 1825 and 1947 the debt severely hampered Haitian economic development as payments of interest and downpayments totaled a significant share of Haitian GDP yearly, constraining the use of domestic financial funds for infrastructure, public services and ultimately making the nation ungovernable."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
[deleted]
[deleted]
It’s not clear they fell behind during the debt period. The timing is off isn’t it. They fell behind later
Aren’t there other crazy divergences out there? Singapore and mylasia or something?
Aren’t there other crazy divergences out there? Singapore and mylasia or something?
Singapore is a compact city-state, Malaysia has almost 500x the land area split across two major land masses to boot.
The classic divergence is North vs South Korea, which were practically identical until the Korean War. Historically the North was richer, now the South is orders of magnitude wealthier.
The classic divergence is North vs South Korea, which were practically identical until the Korean War. Historically the North was richer, now the South is orders of magnitude wealthier.
[deleted]
Obviously two Koreas had different priorities. What you said is true, but on the other hand, North Korea is an independent nuclear power, while South Korea is a kind of corrupt vassal state hosting foreign army on their soil.
> North Korea is an independent nuclear power
South Korea, like Japan, is a "latent" nuclear power - meaning they have the ability to quickly (likely a matter of months) produce nuclear weapons given current resources and expertise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
South Korea, like Japan, is a "latent" nuclear power - meaning they have the ability to quickly (likely a matter of months) produce nuclear weapons given current resources and expertise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
“Independent” if we pretend China doesn’t exist.
> vassal state hosting foreign army on their soil.
By that criterion, Japan and Germany are likewise "vassal states".
By that criterion, Japan and Germany are likewise "vassal states".
Of course they are. When was the last time Germany actually did something against the interest of the Empire?
When they decided to rely on Russia for their energy security?
They did not really decide. What was the reasonable alternative?
Not shutting down their nuclear power plants is an easy first step. Building more nuclear, developing local fossil fuel sources, and building LNG offload terminals would all be good second steps, though of course also more expensive.
That's not a reasonable alternative.
More nuclear - after Fukushima not a realistic option.
LNG - would be useleff today, since the Empire decided to limit LNG exports. And even if the Germany could claim complete LNG world export capacities all for itself, it would still not be enough.
local fossil fuel sources - there are none that are not already in use
More nuclear - after Fukushima not a realistic option.
LNG - would be useleff today, since the Empire decided to limit LNG exports. And even if the Germany could claim complete LNG world export capacities all for itself, it would still not be enough.
local fossil fuel sources - there are none that are not already in use
Fukushima may have been bad (this is debatable, it was bad in public opinion more than anything else), but viewed in comparison to "not having enough power leading to industry shutting down (happening now) or people freezing to death (this winter)" or "not being able to oppose Russia" perhaps it's not quite so unrealistic.
As far as I know the USA has not restricted LNG exports. LNG is still very cheap in the USA in comparison to the rest of the world because our export terminals are operating at capacity. (To be fully effective, more global LNG export capacity may need to be developed - this is very possible as the US has excess capacity, but it is of course more expensive than just importing from Russia)
There are local fossil fuel sources! Lots of coal, for instance. Yes, this option sucks, and releases a ton of pollution! But you can still do it!
As far as I know the USA has not restricted LNG exports. LNG is still very cheap in the USA in comparison to the rest of the world because our export terminals are operating at capacity. (To be fully effective, more global LNG export capacity may need to be developed - this is very possible as the US has excess capacity, but it is of course more expensive than just importing from Russia)
There are local fossil fuel sources! Lots of coal, for instance. Yes, this option sucks, and releases a ton of pollution! But you can still do it!
Isn’t this just path dependence in action (a least in part). If Haiti hadn’t paid reparations to France for a century plus, they would have had more resources to invest in building their own industries/capacity.
That France could extract this high a price really puts the concept of “independence” into perspective.
I think it rather puts the competency of Haiti's government into perspective... if needed be.
Do you have a source for your claim that the imposition of reparations was motivated by a desire for "revenge"?
south korea also paid huge amounts of money to developed nations in exchange they applied policies that were favoring those countries. they are now one of the most developed countries on earth.
sure, the power of fascism. as long as you engage in fascist politics, you will be rich.
in Haiti the US ensured that nothing much changed in the last century. this article is the typical mouthpiece of such propaganda
in Haiti the US ensured that nothing much changed in the last century. this article is the typical mouthpiece of such propaganda
France is used as a scapegoat. The situation of Haiti today has nothing to do with France.
Haiti has, and has had, an utterly corrupt and incompetent government/state. That's why they are in the situation they are in.
Haiti has, and has had, an utterly corrupt and incompetent government/state. That's why they are in the situation they are in.
>Haiti has, and has had, an utterly corrupt and incompetent government/state. That's why they are in the situation they are in.
So does the Dominican Republic government.
So does the Dominican Republic government.
There are different levels in everything and you'd be hard-pressed to find worse than Haiti.
According to Wikipedia, the Dominican Republic has the fastest growing economy of the Americas while Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas (And neither has anything to do with France, and since the US meddled in both and even occupied both they probably have little to do with either as well)
According to Wikipedia, the Dominican Republic has the fastest growing economy of the Americas while Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas (And neither has anything to do with France, and since the US meddled in both and even occupied both they probably have little to do with either as well)
The difference is not that Dominicans are smarter Hatians (which I think is what you are dancing around). The DR has enjoyed more political stability due to the amount of foreign investments in the country which would have never happened if the DR was stuck in a precarious developmental stage, as it was the case with Haiti.
Please don't be disingenuous and accuse others of racism when you run out of arguments.
[deleted]
>Haiti has, and has had, an utterly corrupt and incompetent government/state. That's why they are in the situation they are in.
Relevant Reddit post: TIL that Haiti has had 23 constitutions since 1801, with the most recent being enacted in 2012. At least two have declared the country to be an empire.
<https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3t5wzt/til_th...>
Relevant Reddit post: TIL that Haiti has had 23 constitutions since 1801, with the most recent being enacted in 2012. At least two have declared the country to be an empire.
<https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3t5wzt/til_th...>
> deforestation ... in turn led to a decrease in agricultural output
Can you explain your theory here?
Deforestation happened all over the world and usually increased agricultural output (by creating more farmland). Why do you think deforestation led to a different outcome in Haiti?
Can you explain your theory here?
Deforestation happened all over the world and usually increased agricultural output (by creating more farmland). Why do you think deforestation led to a different outcome in Haiti?
This was excessive deforestation due to the pressures of the debt. Which led to desertification. This excessive deforestation didn't happen in the Dominican Republic, which explains the difference. If you visit Haiti and the Dominican Republic you would be able to tell the difference in climate and soil.
"To the west of the island of Hispaniola is Haiti, only 3% of which now has forest coverage. Although the Dominican Republic that makes up the east of the island still has 23%. At least 90% of Haiti’s soils have been severely degraded by deforestation and inappropriate cultivation as compared to 40% for the Dominican Republic." [1]
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269670285_A_Case_St...
"To the west of the island of Hispaniola is Haiti, only 3% of which now has forest coverage. Although the Dominican Republic that makes up the east of the island still has 23%. At least 90% of Haiti’s soils have been severely degraded by deforestation and inappropriate cultivation as compared to 40% for the Dominican Republic." [1]
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269670285_A_Case_St...
Not sure if desertification is the right word for "all the fertile topsoil washed off the hills in the rains, and without trees to moderate drainage, river flood more often, and those floods cover productive land downstream in infertile silt".
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Did you take from what I said to mean that the entire country turned into a desert?
Haiti has become more desertic in some parts due to the deforestation and that causes a number of things to happen that affect soil quality including floods.
Haiti has become more desertic in some parts due to the deforestation and that causes a number of things to happen that affect soil quality including floods.
Perhaps try googling “Haiti deforestation” at a bare minimum.
tl;dr, they needed cash crops, the forests were cut down to grow coffee.
tl;dr, they needed cash crops, the forests were cut down to grow coffee.
Might also be worth stating, that it was a restored French Monarchy, in conjunction with other European Monarchies that extorted this money with a threat of invasion.
Since they were basically doing the same all across Europe in the same period, putting down the first tentative steps into modern European democracy, we don't really need to frame it as Haitians Vs French, but (literally) right-wing vs democracy.
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/how-did-the-political-labe...
Which also would appear to be the basis for the current split in opinion too.
Since they were basically doing the same all across Europe in the same period, putting down the first tentative steps into modern European democracy, we don't really need to frame it as Haitians Vs French, but (literally) right-wing vs democracy.
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/how-did-the-political-labe...
Which also would appear to be the basis for the current split in opinion too.
zajio1am(5)
_9xrb(3)
The reparations were not for independence, but for the genocide the revolting slaves committed against every white person they could find in Haiti.
There is a fascinating list of other examples like that, even within the same country or just a few decades apart.
Southern India vs. Northern India, Southern Italy vs. Northern Italy (in the other direction), Estonia or Poland in 1990 vs. Estonia or Poland in 2022 (the very same ethnicity in a single generation, so cannot be blamed on genetics), Rwanda vs. Congo, Lebanon pre-1973 vs. post-1973. Somaliland vs. Somalia.
Greece and Italy were countries with very low levels of governmental debt as late as 1975...
In cases of obviously broken countries, people tend to search for a guilty external party, most often the colonialists, but even though they may be sometimes right, this is a lazy pattern; plenty of colonies have grown obscenely rich (cough Hong Kong, cough Singapore) and plenty of colonial countries stayed relatively poor (Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, Russia).
Southern India vs. Northern India, Southern Italy vs. Northern Italy (in the other direction), Estonia or Poland in 1990 vs. Estonia or Poland in 2022 (the very same ethnicity in a single generation, so cannot be blamed on genetics), Rwanda vs. Congo, Lebanon pre-1973 vs. post-1973. Somaliland vs. Somalia.
Greece and Italy were countries with very low levels of governmental debt as late as 1975...
In cases of obviously broken countries, people tend to search for a guilty external party, most often the colonialists, but even though they may be sometimes right, this is a lazy pattern; plenty of colonies have grown obscenely rich (cough Hong Kong, cough Singapore) and plenty of colonial countries stayed relatively poor (Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, Russia).
> Estonia or Poland in 1990 vs. Estonia or Poland in 2022 (the very same ethnicity in a single generation, so cannot be blamed on genetics)
Are you suggesting that Poles and Estonians are the same ethnicity?
Are you suggesting that Poles and Estonians are the same ethnicity?
Poland was particioned between Germany, Russia and Austria. Eastern part fell under Russia and it is visible many years later. Things were slowly changing, but now PIS party won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B
Old imperial divisions are also very visible in Romania. The former Austro-Hungarian part is visibly more prosperous than the old Ottoman part, even though the capital Bucharest is located in the latter.
I would add Austria and Czechia since 1945. They had about the same GDP/capita after WW2, but after the end of communist rule in Czechoslovakia in 1989, It was about 2-3 times higher in Austria.
Lebanon was a French protectorate. It was never deeply indebted to French banks as Haiti was ..
The NYT piece has a thesis which this author doesn't really engage with. To simplify, the Times says that Haiti agreed to pay a huge fee to France to indemnify it for having lost a profitable colony. The debt was then transferred to private markets: Haiti took out loans to pay France from French bankers who then conducted predatory repayment practices.
This article seems to try to hand wave the "double debt," as the NYT calls it, away but that seems irresponsible. The two reasons given don't make a lot of sense either:
(1) Debt payments were small. It seems likely that the government was negotiating the lenders into the smallest payments possible, so this isn't a surprise. This only meant that Haiti was in debt longer and paid out more. Besides, it seems like the relevant consideration should be the economic effect of the payment on government policy, rather than the size of the payment on a balance sheet. A poor country should be hurt more by having to pay out a small fraction of GDP than a rich one.
(2) Economic divergence with DR happened after debt was paid. So what? Economic impacts have many reasons to lag behind the factors which cause them, especially here where the argument seems to be that destruction of natural resources is an underlying cause.
This article seems to try to hand wave the "double debt," as the NYT calls it, away but that seems irresponsible. The two reasons given don't make a lot of sense either:
(1) Debt payments were small. It seems likely that the government was negotiating the lenders into the smallest payments possible, so this isn't a surprise. This only meant that Haiti was in debt longer and paid out more. Besides, it seems like the relevant consideration should be the economic effect of the payment on government policy, rather than the size of the payment on a balance sheet. A poor country should be hurt more by having to pay out a small fraction of GDP than a rich one.
(2) Economic divergence with DR happened after debt was paid. So what? Economic impacts have many reasons to lag behind the factors which cause them, especially here where the argument seems to be that destruction of natural resources is an underlying cause.
"One popular theory is that Haiti’s poverty is a result of its indemnity to France. Although Haiti declared independence in 1804, France refused to formally recognise it. In 1825, Haiti and France struck a deal: France would recognise Haiti’s independence in exchange for an indemnity for the lost plantations and slaves. Haiti paid millions of dollars every year to France until the debt was finally paid off in 1947. Interest in this explanation has been reignited with recent attention from the New York Times. But the debt payments were a fraction of customs revenues, which were themselves a small fraction of the Haitian economy. Furthermore, the most significant divergence came long after the debt was paid off.
Indeed, Mats Lundahl, the leading economic historian of Haiti, does not even include the indemnity in his list of decisive events in Haiti’s economic history."
Can you explain how this is not addressing it, or "hand waving it away"? It addresses it explicitly and criticizes it. Seems like a reasonable criticism if in fact that NYT article ignored those two big problems with its thesis. Also, how did the NYT article address Lundahl's work which it disputes?
Indeed, Mats Lundahl, the leading economic historian of Haiti, does not even include the indemnity in his list of decisive events in Haiti’s economic history."
Can you explain how this is not addressing it, or "hand waving it away"? It addresses it explicitly and criticizes it. Seems like a reasonable criticism if in fact that NYT article ignored those two big problems with its thesis. Also, how did the NYT article address Lundahl's work which it disputes?
The same NYT reporting was also given a treatment in The Daily[0]. I did explain in numbered items above how I think the history is not adequately accounted for. My comment wasn't that they didn't address it, but that they didn't give it due weight. It's also worth mentioning that the absence of an event from a putatively authoritative history can say more about the historian than the event. For example, the bombing of Black Wall Street has not been taught in US history classes, but it is still quite important in explaining the modern order of American society. We don't teach it because we don't like what it says about us.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-...
I don't think your (1) and (2) adequately dismiss these two major problems that the article apparently does not deal with. Nor did they address the literature or opinions of recognized expert in the field, apparently.
In any case, you might disagree but you're wrong that this article does not address it or fails to give it due attention.
In any case, you might disagree but you're wrong that this article does not address it or fails to give it due attention.
It is explained here in French: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/ameriques/haiti-le-poids-d...
The price was 150 millions francs, or one year of revenue. They took private loans to pay it. Later the debt was lowered to 90 millions and was paid in full in 1883. The private loans however were paid back in 1947.
The price was 150 millions francs, or one year of revenue. They took private loans to pay it. Later the debt was lowered to 90 millions and was paid in full in 1883. The private loans however were paid back in 1947.
What everyone here that focuses on the French debt is missing is the other part of the equation - what Haiti gained from the deal and why they signed it. France wanted compensation in exchange for recognition, and Haiti (correctly) presumed that others will follow in recognising Haiti's independence (nobody had recognised them years after independence). Basically, Haiti paid for recognition and normalisation of trade and diplomatic relations with most of the world. Did they overpay for that? Maybe, but i think the lost economic growth and opportunities from not being recognised and not being able to do normal trade would have been far higher than the payments to France. Should France have been nicer and recognised them for free? Of course, but it had every incentive not to.
The debt wasn't really for recognition, it was to even be able to participate in the world economy.
in the wikipedia page it seems like this was left as a small detail:
"The French managed to capture Louverture, transporting him to France for trial. He was imprisoned at Fort de Joux, where he died in 1803 of exposure and possibly tuberculosis.[63][79]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti#Haitian_Revolution_(1791...
But what actually happened is Louverture was captured under false pretenses of signing a peace treaty after the French were still actively attempting to stymie efforts from the Hatian government which essentially led to the Hatians paying the debt under unsavory terms:
"Leclerc's army had some initial success and Louverture was captured after signing a peace treaty with the French general, later dying in unclear circumstances in a French prison.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Saint-Domingue
Unfortunately this a good example of the quote "When you strike at a king, you must kill him" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Haiti was able to rise out of chattel slavery but still suffered under a form of financial slavery.
in the wikipedia page it seems like this was left as a small detail:
"The French managed to capture Louverture, transporting him to France for trial. He was imprisoned at Fort de Joux, where he died in 1803 of exposure and possibly tuberculosis.[63][79]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti#Haitian_Revolution_(1791...
But what actually happened is Louverture was captured under false pretenses of signing a peace treaty after the French were still actively attempting to stymie efforts from the Hatian government which essentially led to the Hatians paying the debt under unsavory terms:
"Leclerc's army had some initial success and Louverture was captured after signing a peace treaty with the French general, later dying in unclear circumstances in a French prison.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Saint-Domingue
Unfortunately this a good example of the quote "When you strike at a king, you must kill him" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Haiti was able to rise out of chattel slavery but still suffered under a form of financial slavery.
> The debt wasn't really for recognition, it was to even be able to participate in the world economy.
The two went hand in hand. Haiti wasn't recognised as independent but as a colony in rebellion, and thus embargoed by anyone of relevance (because they all had their own slaves and colonies and were afraid for their future). The French recognition paved the way for further worldwide recognition and thus normalisation of trade relations.
But yes, the French drastically misplayed their hand. Even Napoleon himself later admitted he should have used Toussaint Louverture and his troops against Jamaica and similar instead of wasting 60k soldiers to mosquitos trying to force the unenforceable.
The two went hand in hand. Haiti wasn't recognised as independent but as a colony in rebellion, and thus embargoed by anyone of relevance (because they all had their own slaves and colonies and were afraid for their future). The French recognition paved the way for further worldwide recognition and thus normalisation of trade relations.
But yes, the French drastically misplayed their hand. Even Napoleon himself later admitted he should have used Toussaint Louverture and his troops against Jamaica and similar instead of wasting 60k soldiers to mosquitos trying to force the unenforceable.
A very similar previous article:
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/haiti-vs-the-dominican-rep...
Discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27916733
Discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27916733
To me, this article reads like one where there is an elephant in the room and it is not being identified. And I don't think the article can give enough of the rich detail of what is going on in Haiti to give us useful clues about what the elephant is.
But those satellite photos look like the North-South Korea divide, and that is due mainly to unworkable political philosophies in the North. So I lean towards assuming ineffective leadership philosophies here too. There are some hints of that in the article, but not enough to draw conclusions.
But those satellite photos look like the North-South Korea divide, and that is due mainly to unworkable political philosophies in the North. So I lean towards assuming ineffective leadership philosophies here too. There are some hints of that in the article, but not enough to draw conclusions.
To an extent, all historical/geopolitical/megapolitical/etc analysis suffers from this.
The process is (a) observe a bunch of facts about history, geography, economic policies, politics or whatnot (b) explain the present (or future) state as a consequence of these facts. If you're inclined to observe certain facts or emphasize certain fields (say history), then your conclusions reflect that.
The "method" of analysis is hopelessly prone to biases, from professional biases to ideological or chauvinistic. As the article shows, ideological (anti slavery) can affect the geographic (soil erosion/smallholdings) affecting and being affected by other things.
"Why is Haiti Poor?" isn't, perhaps, as important to answer as "How can Haiti become wealthy." You need a less comprehensive theory for that. If our theory-building practices are free-style and bias prone, IMO it's better to minimize theory zize.
The process is (a) observe a bunch of facts about history, geography, economic policies, politics or whatnot (b) explain the present (or future) state as a consequence of these facts. If you're inclined to observe certain facts or emphasize certain fields (say history), then your conclusions reflect that.
The "method" of analysis is hopelessly prone to biases, from professional biases to ideological or chauvinistic. As the article shows, ideological (anti slavery) can affect the geographic (soil erosion/smallholdings) affecting and being affected by other things.
"Why is Haiti Poor?" isn't, perhaps, as important to answer as "How can Haiti become wealthy." You need a less comprehensive theory for that. If our theory-building practices are free-style and bias prone, IMO it's better to minimize theory zize.
I read the elephant as being:
banning foreign ownership and handing over a state's land to a presumably largely uneducated populace of freed slaves
banning foreign ownership and handing over a state's land to a presumably largely uneducated populace of freed slaves
> In contrast to South America, where agricultural land was divided into large-scale farms called ‘latifundios’, Haiti began independence with widespread land ownership where nearly every household claimed a few acres.
Isn't this just a complicated way of saying that the other countries still had slavery?
> Latifundios relied mainly on peonage, which is a form of unfree labour or wage labor in which a laborer (peon) has little control over employment conditions, with features of feudal serfdom.[2]
Fits with this theory mentioned later too:
> Lundahl thinks this failure is related to the land redistribution: since everyone had land, there were no landless laborers to exploit, so the elite’s only chance at rent extraction was through overthrowing the government. Given the dearth of business opportunities, one of the only ways to get rich in Haiti was to back a coup in exchange for special treatment from the new government.
Isn't this just a complicated way of saying that the other countries still had slavery?
> Latifundios relied mainly on peonage, which is a form of unfree labour or wage labor in which a laborer (peon) has little control over employment conditions, with features of feudal serfdom.[2]
Fits with this theory mentioned later too:
> Lundahl thinks this failure is related to the land redistribution: since everyone had land, there were no landless laborers to exploit, so the elite’s only chance at rent extraction was through overthrowing the government. Given the dearth of business opportunities, one of the only ways to get rich in Haiti was to back a coup in exchange for special treatment from the new government.
It's not just that slavery continued on the Dominican side.
I think the key is that at independence Europeans in Haiti (and thus all land owners) pretty much disappeared, so there was redistribution among former slaves, although this wasn't fully carried out.
I think the key is that at independence Europeans in Haiti (and thus all land owners) pretty much disappeared, so there was redistribution among former slaves, although this wasn't fully carried out.
Zimbabwe had a similar land redistribution- went from breadbasket to a tough spot
Yes, Zimbabwe came to mind to me too. Recent history of Zimbabwe <http://imgur.com/a/VdQdD>
Disappeared feels like a euphemism here
> The DR is seen as a pioneer in SEZs, which give special tax and regulatory treatment to foreign capital.
This also feels like an even more complicated way of saying slavery.
This also feels like an even more complicated way of saying slavery.
In 1970 my parents, sister and I went on a cruise which had a stop in Haiti; we rented a cab to drive through the town (I think Port-au-Prince) and I can admit I have never seen such poverty, as a child it was beyond shocking. There were also AK-47 toting men everywhere. My parents had no idea what they had gotten us into (no way to know much ahead of time back then). We eventually got outside town, and found a culture of mahogany carving and really amazing people. Sad to think that despite how depressing the town was (garbage dumped in streets for people to pick over, cardboard box houses) it's only gotten worse, and most of the trees are gone. The countryside was very beautiful but the poverty and terrible leadership and disasters eventually destroyed it all. As a child it made a powerful impression on me as to what people are capable of doing (or not doing) to each other.
Funny how everyone says Haiti is worse off because of colonialism, yet the Dominican Republic was also a colony of Spain, had civil wars for over 100 years after independence, then US occupation, then another civil war.
Not like the DR had an easy time either.
Not like the DR had an easy time either.
The answer will get you downvoted into oblivion.
After the revolution (1791), Napoleon sent an Army of 60,000 Europeans (French and Polish) to reconquer Haiti, that Army was defeated. The shock of this loss and the shock of the subsequent defeat cannot be overstated,
France humiliated, and the United States panicked by this huge slave revolt-imposed trade blockades and sanction's on Haiti
Haiti (1825) was compelled to pay France reparations (equivalent of 32 billion in 2022) for the loss of the slaves... this was an extreme national debt.
Haiti of course had no immediate ability to pay the debt, after decades of isolation. The first payments required taking further loans from French banks and American banks causing the debt to only increase, these loans were backed by giving control over natural resources and monopolies to foreign entities.
(This is a pattern well known and understood today)
Haiti is simply the first country in the world to enter the debt-trap spiral, and of course the longest to be in a debt trap spiral. A wholesale transfer of wealth from Haiti to the USA/France.
The result of all of this is that Haiti entered the modern world with very small and weak governments, with very low infrastructure, and educational support, with most of what ever remained of an economy controlled by foreigners and foreign interests.
It is difficult to see how any nation in this situation, can turn it around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy#In...
France humiliated, and the United States panicked by this huge slave revolt-imposed trade blockades and sanction's on Haiti
Haiti (1825) was compelled to pay France reparations (equivalent of 32 billion in 2022) for the loss of the slaves... this was an extreme national debt.
Haiti of course had no immediate ability to pay the debt, after decades of isolation. The first payments required taking further loans from French banks and American banks causing the debt to only increase, these loans were backed by giving control over natural resources and monopolies to foreign entities.
(This is a pattern well known and understood today)
Haiti is simply the first country in the world to enter the debt-trap spiral, and of course the longest to be in a debt trap spiral. A wholesale transfer of wealth from Haiti to the USA/France.
The result of all of this is that Haiti entered the modern world with very small and weak governments, with very low infrastructure, and educational support, with most of what ever remained of an economy controlled by foreigners and foreign interests.
It is difficult to see how any nation in this situation, can turn it around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy#In...
Article says they paid off the debt in 1947 and most of the divergence with DR is after.
Surely the historical context is important in understanding how things came to be? If an export-based economy is cut off from international trade because it isn't recognized as a nation, and also forced to pay off a massive debt, surely that influences the way it develops? Surely it discourages the evolution of sustainable systems and encourages unsustainable ones, similarly to how poverty creates those issues for individuals?
Note that I am not claiming to know anything about Haiti's history, I've listened to the Revolutions podcast series on it and read a bit but I know very little. I am just pointing out that the "this didn't happen until later" doesn't necessarily explain away the impact of the way foreign countries treated Haiti.
Note that I am not claiming to know anything about Haiti's history, I've listened to the Revolutions podcast series on it and read a bit but I know very little. I am just pointing out that the "this didn't happen until later" doesn't necessarily explain away the impact of the way foreign countries treated Haiti.
If you look at Noah Smith’s substack linked above in another comment he links to another post at the end contesting his somewhat and claiming if you look at the price data differently the divergence is quite manifest before.
Wikipedia is, at best, a starting point for further discovery. The tell is how definitively they summarize things in such a brief space. I'm sure the authors there think they are telling you what is important, but they end up leaving out other things.
If it's important for you to know, dig deeper.
For something more in-depth, but still very accessible, check out Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. He does a series on Haiti. He has his own obvious biases, but is much more in-depth than wikipedia, and gives a much better sense of things.
If it's important for you to know, dig deeper.
For something more in-depth, but still very accessible, check out Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. He does a series on Haiti. He has his own obvious biases, but is much more in-depth than wikipedia, and gives a much better sense of things.
He only does a bit on post-revolution Haiti though
> [... ... ... ...] What can we do about it?
Might be better off (for Haiti) not doing something about it, if there's any truth to things I've read previously that blame US aid/intervention.
e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-...
Might be better off (for Haiti) not doing something about it, if there's any truth to things I've read previously that blame US aid/intervention.
e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-...
It sounds like a lot of projects did complete successfully, but that this article only focuses in detail, on the failed one(s).
One interesting point, is that Haiti was charging more than any other port in the region, for docking fees. People went elsewhere due to cost.
The US may have stopped building the dock, if they discovered this highly counter-productive practice might continue.
Speculation, but regardless, Haiti seems to be the problem, not those helping.
One interesting point, is that Haiti was charging more than any other port in the region, for docking fees. People went elsewhere due to cost.
The US may have stopped building the dock, if they discovered this highly counter-productive practice might continue.
Speculation, but regardless, Haiti seems to be the problem, not those helping.
The economic divergence is shocking -- although not as shocking as that of South versus North Korea. The Dominican Republic's GDP (PPP) per capita is ~10x larger than Haiti's, whereas South Korea's is ~25x larger than North Korea's.
The author is right that soil erosion, caused by overuse of land without replenishment, is one of the most important factors. Consider: So much land in Haiti is in such poor shape that for decades the country has not been able to produce enough food, in sufficient variety, to feed its own population. The DR, in contrast, is a lush paradise full of greenery everywhere, capable of feeding itself well, whereas Haiti is full of deforested, eroded land, much of it unfit for agriculture. You can see the difference in satellite pictures from space.[a]
However, the author mentions only one of the root causes of soil erosion: ideological government efforts preventing the emergence of large-scale agriculture in Haiti. There are at least two other root causes contributing to the poor state of land, as Jared Diamond points out in his book Collapse[b]:
* The DR's soil is naturally more frequently replenished by storm systems continually coming from the Atlantic, bumping against the island's central mountain range, and causing nutrients and minerals to flow down large rivers to the DR's valleys at a much greater rate than in Haiti.
* From early on, the DR government has actively defended the country's natural greenery against deforestation -- with armed forces who would shoot and kill illegal tree loggers!
Surely there are many other factors at play (including the fact that many Western governments had a de-facto policy of ostracizing Haiti in international trade throughout the 19th century and for much of the 20th century), but Haiti's inability to feed itself well, decade after decade, due to overuse of land without replenishment, is possibly the most significant factor.
[a] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
[b] https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Jared-Diamond/dp/0143057189
The author is right that soil erosion, caused by overuse of land without replenishment, is one of the most important factors. Consider: So much land in Haiti is in such poor shape that for decades the country has not been able to produce enough food, in sufficient variety, to feed its own population. The DR, in contrast, is a lush paradise full of greenery everywhere, capable of feeding itself well, whereas Haiti is full of deforested, eroded land, much of it unfit for agriculture. You can see the difference in satellite pictures from space.[a]
However, the author mentions only one of the root causes of soil erosion: ideological government efforts preventing the emergence of large-scale agriculture in Haiti. There are at least two other root causes contributing to the poor state of land, as Jared Diamond points out in his book Collapse[b]:
* The DR's soil is naturally more frequently replenished by storm systems continually coming from the Atlantic, bumping against the island's central mountain range, and causing nutrients and minerals to flow down large rivers to the DR's valleys at a much greater rate than in Haiti.
* From early on, the DR government has actively defended the country's natural greenery against deforestation -- with armed forces who would shoot and kill illegal tree loggers!
Surely there are many other factors at play (including the fact that many Western governments had a de-facto policy of ostracizing Haiti in international trade throughout the 19th century and for much of the 20th century), but Haiti's inability to feed itself well, decade after decade, due to overuse of land without replenishment, is possibly the most significant factor.
[a] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
[b] https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Jared-Diamond/dp/0143057189
Just so you're aware: in that image, the border is not the prominent river. It's somewhat to the west of it.
Looking at the rough area on the satellite view in Google Maps [1] suggests that there's not all that much difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Indeed, in your [a] link, you can see a decent swath of the Dominican Republic that looks as bad as the Haiti side in the picture... were you to continue a little southeast, the Dominican side would open up to an area just as large and just as deforested as that Haiti side. For most of the Haiti-Dominican border, it's actually challenging to distinguish the Haitian side from the Dominican side.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/yP9fnL2vCUCpLxBc9
Looking at the rough area on the satellite view in Google Maps [1] suggests that there's not all that much difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Indeed, in your [a] link, you can see a decent swath of the Dominican Republic that looks as bad as the Haiti side in the picture... were you to continue a little southeast, the Dominican side would open up to an area just as large and just as deforested as that Haiti side. For most of the Haiti-Dominican border, it's actually challenging to distinguish the Haitian side from the Dominican side.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/yP9fnL2vCUCpLxBc9
FYI, I didn't choose that image; it's coming straight from the OP.
If you're interested in some of the history of the Haitian revolution, one accessible way to learn more is Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast.
http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~jwp/revolutions-episode-index.html
He covers a number of revolutions in detail, with his own spin, but is entertaining and educational.
The Haitian revolution and the French revolution are both covered.
http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~jwp/revolutions-episode-index.html
He covers a number of revolutions in detail, with his own spin, but is entertaining and educational.
The Haitian revolution and the French revolution are both covered.
In these cases like Haiti, or (much of central America) I'm more interested in how to possibly fix things now. It just seems to get worse every year. How to build success and stabilty? USA has resources to fix things but rarely seems to be good at developing poorer countries. Europe has had more success but still has countries falling apart in North Africa.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/haiti-hist...
^Great article on the same topic
^Great article on the same topic
> We found that Haitians paid about $560 million in today’s dollars. But that doesn’t nearly capture the true loss. If that money had simply stayed in the Haitian economy and grown at the nation’s actual pace over the last two centuries — rather than being shipped off to France, without any goods or services being provided in return — it would have added a staggering $21 billion to Haiti over time, even accounting for its notorious corruption and waste.
Strange that the hundred of millions of debt to France is considered by some as a reason of missed opportunities for the country, but no one take into account as "true loss" the money that was embezzled by the presidents and co not so long after:
It’s believed that Papa Doc pocketed $150 million during his presidency, which is a pittance compared to the $1.6 billion his son grabbed$21B is 150% of today's GDP. Doesn't seem that large when spread out over 100+ years
That comes out to foreign debt consisting of something like 2-3% of GDP. In the US, in the present day, foreign debt is like 6% of GDP.
By contrast, for what it's worth, France's payment to Germany after the Franco-Prussian War was about 22% of GDP. Paid over 3 years, so the payments themselves would have constituted like 7% of GDP.
By contrast, for what it's worth, France's payment to Germany after the Franco-Prussian War was about 22% of GDP. Paid over 3 years, so the payments themselves would have constituted like 7% of GDP.
Germany imposed another massive financial penalty on France after defeat in June 1940, too. I don't have the exact figures on me, but it was a) stupendously large and b) accumulated daily and paid monthly.
What was the GDP during that time?
Liberty that leads to decomplexification, leads to poor, aka less complex societies. All are farming, all are producing linearly for a exponential thirsty humanity.
The disaster is within liberty without bounds and mistaking societal complexity (division of labor) for enslavement. It has also repeated in other locations (ruanda, zimbabwe come to mind).
The disaster is within liberty without bounds and mistaking societal complexity (division of labor) for enslavement. It has also repeated in other locations (ruanda, zimbabwe come to mind).
what this article is dancing around is that when Haiti gained its independence, it distributed its land amongst the freed slaves, and then, given the understandable lack of agricultural knowledge, over-farmed them to the point where today each plot of land produces about a quarter of the same plot in the DR
it's not "dancing around it" - it states it outright
it does not. the article essentially says that the width of the distribution of land caused over-farming. too many people with little bits of land. it makes no direct mention of the brain drain that heavily enforced decolonisation will have brought about
For people who think the problem is not enough fertilizer I would think overuse of pesticides or poor drainage practices might be the culprit? I think there are some comments on Noah Smith’s substack to that effect.
Insightful short documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WvKeYuwifc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WvKeYuwifc
The article speaks of economies of scale, but agriculture generally does have a diseconomy of scale in regards to land use.
The Haiti vs. Dominican Republic comparison is interesting, but I think the Cuba vs. Haiti comparison is equally valuable - although I imagine it gets neglected in the USA because it makes Cuban socialism/communism look a lot better than free-trade-philanthropic-democratic-capitalism system that was applied in Haiti. Of course, if you include the Dominican Republic, the situation gets more complex.
However, the article's central claim (small farms destroy arable land, so large foreign-owned plantations are more sustainable) is invalidated by comparison to Cuba:
> "The reason why this does not occur in all countries is that larger farms benefit from economies of scale. Haiti’s small farms were too small to justify investments in labour-saving technologies. They were also too small for basic investments in soil fertility, like leaving land fallow. It’s hard to leave land uncultivated when your family must eat from a small plot. Finally, small farms create erosion through a tragedy of the commons. Erosion does not just affect your farm, it affects neighbouring farms. Investing in erosion prevention for your own land has little effect if your neighbours do nothing. Farmers on small plots, therefore, have an incentive to ignore the erosion problem and overfarm their own land."
So, why has Cuba been successful when it broke up the plantations and distributed the land to small farmers?
However, the article's central claim (small farms destroy arable land, so large foreign-owned plantations are more sustainable) is invalidated by comparison to Cuba:
> "The reason why this does not occur in all countries is that larger farms benefit from economies of scale. Haiti’s small farms were too small to justify investments in labour-saving technologies. They were also too small for basic investments in soil fertility, like leaving land fallow. It’s hard to leave land uncultivated when your family must eat from a small plot. Finally, small farms create erosion through a tragedy of the commons. Erosion does not just affect your farm, it affects neighbouring farms. Investing in erosion prevention for your own land has little effect if your neighbours do nothing. Farmers on small plots, therefore, have an incentive to ignore the erosion problem and overfarm their own land."
So, why has Cuba been successful when it broke up the plantations and distributed the land to small farmers?
How is the border between Haiti and DR? Is it strongly policed/ heavily militarized?
It is pretty laidback: https://youtu.be/tdJhklBq5F4
There is a strange obsession with Haiti among the American elites.
Ranging from the Clintons to Hollywood, also the music industry and the oil industry. They all seem very interested in that place.
I wonder why, there is no shortage of poor countries in Latin Americas. Bitcoiners for example chose El Salvador
Ranging from the Clintons to Hollywood, also the music industry and the oil industry. They all seem very interested in that place.
I wonder why, there is no shortage of poor countries in Latin Americas. Bitcoiners for example chose El Salvador
Quite a gloomy article. :(
The article implies that slaves in Haiti were "ripped from Benin" (known then as the Kingdom of Dahomey) by the French. In fact, chattel slavery was a long-established practice in Dahomey which made noble families there very rich. It was practiced in tandem with ritual torture and murder. These practices continued until around 1900 when the French, in response to slave raids conducted into French protectorates, finally fought and deposed the last King of Dahomey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin#Pre-colonial
>The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery. They had a practice of killing war captives in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. By about 1750, the King of Dahomey was earning an estimated £250,000 per year by selling African captives to European slave-traders. The area was named the "Slave Coast" because of a flourishing slave trade. Court protocols which demanded that a portion of war captives from the kingdom's battles be decapitated, decreased the number of enslaved people exported from the area.
This history's still a very sensitive subject in Benin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-count...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin#Pre-colonial
>The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery. They had a practice of killing war captives in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. By about 1750, the King of Dahomey was earning an estimated £250,000 per year by selling African captives to European slave-traders. The area was named the "Slave Coast" because of a flourishing slave trade. Court protocols which demanded that a portion of war captives from the kingdom's battles be decapitated, decreased the number of enslaved people exported from the area.
This history's still a very sensitive subject in Benin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-count...
I don't see your point. The quote in question in no way implies slavery didn't exist in Africa at the time, and the fact that slavery did exist in Africa in no way alleviates the immorality of the transatlantic slave trade. (I guess you could make an argument that capturing slaves is morally different from transporting and owning them, but I don't think it is substantially.) The article also doesn't say who ripped them away from Benin. Certainly political systems in existence in Benin at the time were involved. But that doesn't mean the horror or impact to the slaves was lessened. So, overall, I don't see what the purpose of your comment is unless it's an attempt as European slave trade apologia.
> So, overall, I don't see what the purpose of your comment is unless it's an attempt as European slave trade apologia.
I am not OP but I take issue with this. I feel like this is the whole thing. Why did you feel the need to write “European”. That’s wrong and denigrates entire ethnic groups in a very ignorant way. The poles for example surely you would agree are european but did not participate in the slave trade. But, this is not my main point.
My main point is, the slave trade was a multicultural, multiethnic affair. In different periods of times, different peoples were enslaved by different other peoples.
Just so you don’t mistake my comment, this is not an apologia of slavery. It was a horrible institution worthy of condemnation and I am happy it was ended.
I just find it very annoying when I see this automatic assumption “europeans were slavers”. No, not all of them practiced slave trading, some of them were enslaved as well, the ones that did practice slavery collaborated with non europeans to create the supply chain and there were other non european peoples also actively engaged in the slave trade.
Slavery is not the sin of Europe, it’s the sin of all man kind.
I am not OP but I take issue with this. I feel like this is the whole thing. Why did you feel the need to write “European”. That’s wrong and denigrates entire ethnic groups in a very ignorant way. The poles for example surely you would agree are european but did not participate in the slave trade. But, this is not my main point.
My main point is, the slave trade was a multicultural, multiethnic affair. In different periods of times, different peoples were enslaved by different other peoples.
Just so you don’t mistake my comment, this is not an apologia of slavery. It was a horrible institution worthy of condemnation and I am happy it was ended.
I just find it very annoying when I see this automatic assumption “europeans were slavers”. No, not all of them practiced slave trading, some of them were enslaved as well, the ones that did practice slavery collaborated with non europeans to create the supply chain and there were other non european peoples also actively engaged in the slave trade.
Slavery is not the sin of Europe, it’s the sin of all man kind.
Are you really going off just on the words "European slave trade?". How did the slaves get to Haiti? Who steered the boat? Who profited from their transportation? It's the European slave trade because it was Europeans who bought slaves in Africa and sold them in America. Yes, Africans participated in the slave trade. Yes, Africans did terrible things. No, not all Europeans participated in the slave trade directly. In fact the vast majority didn't. There were also (and terrifying still are) lots of other forms of slavery. I never said anything different from that, neither does the article. The evils of one group of people doesn't lessen the evils of another group of people. We aren't having an argument about morals here, we're having an argument about discourse. If every time you talked about slavery, you had to include all of the sins of all of the individuals involved in that trade, discourse would become so burdensome as to be impossible. The post I was replying was setting this as a standard that must be met without thought about the implications of such a requirement.
The only possible outcome of advocating such a position is that destruction of our ability to discuss the issue at all. The only type of person that would want that outcome is an apologist who simply wants the topic dropped, even when talked about tangentially, such as occurs in this article.
The only possible outcome of advocating such a position is that destruction of our ability to discuss the issue at all. The only type of person that would want that outcome is an apologist who simply wants the topic dropped, even when talked about tangentially, such as occurs in this article.
I don’t know if it’s worth replying because you appear to be an ideologue who doesn’t actually want to discuss the subject, you appear to only want to denigrate europeans.
Eh, I’ll give it a try on the off chance you are actually writing in good faith.
Assuming good faith on your part, I believe we have a different understanding of what the standard of discourse should be. While I understand the concern around scope creep, which is valid, I hope you can also see my concern about context.
When discussing a complex subject like slavery, I think it’s counter productive to focus on a niche. Let me give you an example. Would it make sense to talk about world war two focusing only on France for example? Could a meaningful discussion on world war two happen if the discussion was limited to France?
It feels to me the issue is like this. Continuing the analogy with world war two, I don’t think you need to mention absolutely all countries that participated in world war two in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. At the same time, I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the subject by talking about literally one country.
You appear to be asking us to talk specifically about one country. This to me seems to be actively harmful. I cannot see what good ( unless you count painting european people in an unduly bad light to be good ) can come from ignoring critical context.
My purpose is not to stifle discussion by burdening it with unnecessary context, my purpose is to elevate the standard of discourse by including critical context.
Eh, I’ll give it a try on the off chance you are actually writing in good faith.
Assuming good faith on your part, I believe we have a different understanding of what the standard of discourse should be. While I understand the concern around scope creep, which is valid, I hope you can also see my concern about context.
When discussing a complex subject like slavery, I think it’s counter productive to focus on a niche. Let me give you an example. Would it make sense to talk about world war two focusing only on France for example? Could a meaningful discussion on world war two happen if the discussion was limited to France?
It feels to me the issue is like this. Continuing the analogy with world war two, I don’t think you need to mention absolutely all countries that participated in world war two in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. At the same time, I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the subject by talking about literally one country.
You appear to be asking us to talk specifically about one country. This to me seems to be actively harmful. I cannot see what good ( unless you count painting european people in an unduly bad light to be good ) can come from ignoring critical context.
My purpose is not to stifle discussion by burdening it with unnecessary context, my purpose is to elevate the standard of discourse by including critical context.
Show me in my comments where I am an ideologue or encourage a specific ideology. Where do I denigrate Europeans? Give me the specific quote of what I wrote. Don't say " you appear to be," give me the actual text and tell me how that is either being an ideologue or denigrating to Europeans.
Btw, I have nothing against modern day Europeans. All of my ancestors came from Europe. I do think a lot ( not all ) of Europeans in the 18th century behaved immorally when it came to their colonies. If you don't think that, you need to study some actual history. (I also think that a lot of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders behaved immorally too, but that doesn't seem to offend you for some reason)
Btw, I have nothing against modern day Europeans. All of my ancestors came from Europe. I do think a lot ( not all ) of Europeans in the 18th century behaved immorally when it came to their colonies. If you don't think that, you need to study some actual history. (I also think that a lot of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders behaved immorally too, but that doesn't seem to offend you for some reason)
The Nation of Islam published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews which describes this relationship. Naturally, this work is highly critiqued by Jews as being misinformation. So you will have to be the judge yourself as to whether or not it's actually an honest description of what happened.
Introduction:
An accurate accounting of the history of Blacks and Jews from the Columbian era to the Civil War, including the extensive record of Jewish slave trading in the western hemisphere.
This study is structured as a presentation of historical evidence regarding the relationship of one people with another. The facts, as established by highly respected scholars of the Jewish community, are here exposed and linked by as sparse a narrative as is journalistically permitted for review by those interested in the subject..
The subject at hand is a controversial one and should be approached with great sensitivity. Those who would use this material as a basis for the violation of the human rights of another are abusing the knowledge herein. The wise will benefit to see this as an opportunity to develop a more equitable relationship between the families of man.
Introduction:
An accurate accounting of the history of Blacks and Jews from the Columbian era to the Civil War, including the extensive record of Jewish slave trading in the western hemisphere.
This study is structured as a presentation of historical evidence regarding the relationship of one people with another. The facts, as established by highly respected scholars of the Jewish community, are here exposed and linked by as sparse a narrative as is journalistically permitted for review by those interested in the subject..
The subject at hand is a controversial one and should be approached with great sensitivity. Those who would use this material as a basis for the violation of the human rights of another are abusing the knowledge herein. The wise will benefit to see this as an opportunity to develop a more equitable relationship between the families of man.
Given the wrong things I read about both kosher and halal in How To Eat To Live I’ll refrain from holding my breath.
If Spartacus wouldn't have been enslaved there is a good chance that he might have ended up with Slaves on his own at one point or another in his life.
The involvement of Africans in the slave trade is conspicuous in its absence from the article. Whenever that fact is obscured, we promote the false perception that slavery is the fault of one race in particular. This feeds into modern attitudes, especially in the US, of innate racial good or evil and inherited guilt or grievance based on skin color. Teaching the full history of slavery, i.e. it was practiced with all its cruelties by every race of people who ever lived, is a necessary building block to healthy race relations. I think it is important to share this knowledge wherever it is clearly absent.
Slavery is a not a major part of the discussion in the article, almost all of which is post-revolutionary times. The word slave only appears in a few paragraphs.
And they were ripped from their homes — referred to in passing without saying by whom.
I feel your comment tries to inject something not relevant to the article.
And they were ripped from their homes — referred to in passing without saying by whom.
I feel your comment tries to inject something not relevant to the article.
"The involvement of Africans in the slave trade is conspicuous in its absence from the article."
Because it is completely irrelevant to the article.
"Whenever that fact is obscured, we promote the false perception that slavery is the fault of one race in particular."
This is untrue, and it is ridiculous thing to say. You do yourself no credit, trying to drag racial politics into a situation where they do not add explanatory power.
Because it is completely irrelevant to the article.
"Whenever that fact is obscured, we promote the false perception that slavery is the fault of one race in particular."
This is untrue, and it is ridiculous thing to say. You do yourself no credit, trying to drag racial politics into a situation where they do not add explanatory power.
Racial politics are central to the article because they are central to Haiti's history and development. Discussing racial politics in a wilfully blindered manner has serious harmful side-effects.
You are bringing up the racial in a way that is irrelevant to the political. The Kingdom of Dahomey did not profit from the Republic of Haiti via reparations post-independence. They do not have any relation to the continued immiseration of Haiti, unlike France did.
It sounds like you didn’t read the article. The discussion of slavery is just brief context for the majority of the article, which is about the post-slavery period.
Central? Can you point to an example, apart from one of imagery wrt refugees crossing the US border?
It’s not really relevant. If you’re worried about attitudes and racial grievance, whitewashing the events that took place in Haiti with whataboutism probably isn’t the way to go. If anything saying “what about Africa” distracts from the fact that slaves were being slaughtered like abused donkeys faster than they could reproduce. That by itself speaks to the horrors of this period.
The reality is that Haiti demonstrated how racism drove policy and actions of the colonial power. French colonial society was different than the US and evolved differently. France was distracted by its own problems and wasn’t able to maintain the dehumanizing regime necessary to maintain the slave system.
The whole thing is gross and disgusting. It’s a scar on society, and was no better in antiquity.
The reality is that Haiti demonstrated how racism drove policy and actions of the colonial power. French colonial society was different than the US and evolved differently. France was distracted by its own problems and wasn’t able to maintain the dehumanizing regime necessary to maintain the slave system.
The whole thing is gross and disgusting. It’s a scar on society, and was no better in antiquity.
rayiner(1)
[deleted]
It is sort-of like writing an article about the horrors of totalitarian concentration camps, spending a lot of time on Nazi Germany, meanwhile quickly mentioning the Soviet Union as a country next door, but studiously avoiding any mention of the gulags or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
In that situation, one does not have to be a Nazi whitewasher to be somewhat suspicious about the author's agenda. Not every story can cover every detail, but some omissions are glaring.
In that situation, one does not have to be a Nazi whitewasher to be somewhat suspicious about the author's agenda. Not every story can cover every detail, but some omissions are glaring.
By this chain of logic, no article is complete unless it mentions all of the other related topics that it could have mentioned, if it didn't mind being infinitely long. When writing a book about the Holocaust, one could also mention genocide in the USSR, or in Turkey, against the Armenians, or the Italian brutality in Ethiopia, or the mistreatment of Africans under British rule, or the widespread massacres that occurred in the Philippines when it was initially conquered by the USA. One could go on and on, mentioning more and more genocides.
Or one could simply stick to the subject that one is writing about.
Or one could simply stick to the subject that one is writing about.
The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind.
When writing, there is always a question of where the related references stop. There is no clear criterion. But the word "ripped" here indicates a certain unwillingness to address the fact that slavery was, until fairly recently, a rather widespread phenomenon in Africa.
Ignoring this fact does not make European slavery worse and acknowledging it does not make European slavery better. The only thing it would do would be a certain refinement of currently politically popular stereotypes.
History should be told as it was, not as we want it to look like. And slavery existed because it was immensely profitable to all sorts of people, from native kings in Africa to the white (and sometimes Native American) slavers in America.
Only by understanding this can you prevent reemergence of slavery in the future. Arguably, sexual slavery works on a similar background.
When writing, there is always a question of where the related references stop. There is no clear criterion. But the word "ripped" here indicates a certain unwillingness to address the fact that slavery was, until fairly recently, a rather widespread phenomenon in Africa.
Ignoring this fact does not make European slavery worse and acknowledging it does not make European slavery better. The only thing it would do would be a certain refinement of currently politically popular stereotypes.
History should be told as it was, not as we want it to look like. And slavery existed because it was immensely profitable to all sorts of people, from native kings in Africa to the white (and sometimes Native American) slavers in America.
Only by understanding this can you prevent reemergence of slavery in the future. Arguably, sexual slavery works on a similar background.
>The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind.
Agreed.
I estimate that 90% of Americans/Europeans would, if asked "how slaves were caught", would describe some variant of "white people sail to Africa, catch unwary Africans in giant nets, and sail away when the ship is full".
Agreed.
I estimate that 90% of Americans/Europeans would, if asked "how slaves were caught", would describe some variant of "white people sail to Africa, catch unwary Africans in giant nets, and sail away when the ship is full".
I do not know a single person who thinks that, but I know a very large number of people who like emphasize that most slave catching was done by Africans. When I lived in North Carolina and Virginia this fact was offered by someone in the group every time the subject came up.
If you had a bit more self awareness you might realize how you look when invent imaginary statistics like “90% of Americans”.
If you had a bit more self awareness you might realize how you look when invent imaginary statistics like “90% of Americans”.
Ironically, that would be fairly close to the reality of the North African Barbary Pirate raids on European shores as far as Iceland, which resulted in more than a million Europeans being enslaved. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
Good point.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the average American SJW/Redditor sincerely believes that slavery has existed in only one country in the world's history: in the United States, involving Africans. The etymology of the word "slav"? Brazil? Haiti? Guadeloupe? North Africans (as you note) enslaving Europeans? Vikings taking thralls? Feudalism? Never heard of 'em.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the average American SJW/Redditor sincerely believes that slavery has existed in only one country in the world's history: in the United States, involving Africans. The etymology of the word "slav"? Brazil? Haiti? Guadeloupe? North Africans (as you note) enslaving Europeans? Vikings taking thralls? Feudalism? Never heard of 'em.
I see the reasoning you have and I mostly agree. Actually, scratch that, let me say I agree entirely. You are right. If an author decides on a particular subject, he should guard against scope creep least he produces a rambling screed that tries to touch on everything but fails at being meaningful even for one idea.
But, to play a bit of devils advocate here. In the case of the USSR, it did paint it’s self as a liberator, claiming left right and centre how they’re freeing the prisoners. But, at the same time, they had their own camps where they were sending their own prisoners. I feel this by it’s self warrants some mention at least in a treatment of the holocaust. We’re not talking about a separate genocide in another time and place. We’re talking about a genocide perpetrated at the same time by a county that was beating it’s chest about stopping a genocide.
Just my two cents. But, yeah, I agree with you on the scope creep issue.
But, to play a bit of devils advocate here. In the case of the USSR, it did paint it’s self as a liberator, claiming left right and centre how they’re freeing the prisoners. But, at the same time, they had their own camps where they were sending their own prisoners. I feel this by it’s self warrants some mention at least in a treatment of the holocaust. We’re not talking about a separate genocide in another time and place. We’re talking about a genocide perpetrated at the same time by a county that was beating it’s chest about stopping a genocide.
Just my two cents. But, yeah, I agree with you on the scope creep issue.
Would you then agree that such an article should include Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine of 1943, or the internment of Japanese-Americans, or the Italian Empire’s massacres in conquered Ethiopia, not to mention all of Japan’s policies in Asia at the time?
This article isn't about the horrors of slavery. It's about economic history. It makes reference to slavery in that context without discussing it in detail. A better analogy would be an article about why Israel is an economic success mentioning the concentration camps from Nazi Germany (without much detail) and then not mentioning the gulags of the Soviet Union.
Also not mentioned in this article: - the genocide of the native Americans that allowed Haiti to be a thing in the first place - the continuing oppression of women at the time - the oppression of LGBT+ that was a constant reality of society in a Catholic country
And yet these comments seem to only care about calling out oppression that happened a continent away. Slavery isn't even really that big of an piece of the article. The majority of the article is about what happened after slavery ended in the 1790s.
Also not mentioned in this article: - the genocide of the native Americans that allowed Haiti to be a thing in the first place - the continuing oppression of women at the time - the oppression of LGBT+ that was a constant reality of society in a Catholic country
And yet these comments seem to only care about calling out oppression that happened a continent away. Slavery isn't even really that big of an piece of the article. The majority of the article is about what happened after slavery ended in the 1790s.
It depends on the context.
If you’re looking at the evolution of concentration camps, you’d probably want to also include the evolution from the British camps during the Boer War to the Imperial Germans in Southwest Africa or the Ottoman Turks in Armenia.
The Nazis evolved the tactic into a mass killing factory. The Soviets were more about political oppression; they went about the business of mass murder in other ways.
If you’re looking at the evolution of concentration camps, you’d probably want to also include the evolution from the British camps during the Boer War to the Imperial Germans in Southwest Africa or the Ottoman Turks in Armenia.
The Nazis evolved the tactic into a mass killing factory. The Soviets were more about political oppression; they went about the business of mass murder in other ways.
The Soviets outsourced a lot of the killing to the Siberian nature. A gulag in the taiga didn't even have to have any walls. The snow and the frost in combination with semi-starvation were as reliable killers as a bullet to the head, and cheaper.
Like I said, other ways. The Nazis built a death factory. The Soviets were fans of starvation and Siberia.
Weren’t Soviet gulags a continuation of the tsarist variety?
"Ripped" would infer they were taken by force.
I think "purchased from Benin slave traders" would be more accurate.
I think "purchased from Benin slave traders" would be more accurate.
The article doesn’t care who took them by force.
It's not accurate.
The exact quote from the article is "In fact, many Haitians are descendants of slaves ripped from Benin...". That statement makes me think they were citizens of Benin who were taken into slavery.
But they weren't. They were slaves owned by the Kingdom of Benin and sold to the French.
The exact quote from the article is "In fact, many Haitians are descendants of slaves ripped from Benin...". That statement makes me think they were citizens of Benin who were taken into slavery.
But they weren't. They were slaves owned by the Kingdom of Benin and sold to the French.
Benin wasn't a political entity at this point, so the only possible reading is they are talking about the location, not the polity.
OK, but if they were purchased as slaves, they weren't ripped from Benin. They were ripped from somewhere else, and sold in Benin.
Pedantic, but hey, it's important to be precise.
Pedantic, but hey, it's important to be precise.
Do you think the slaves were willing participants in this exchange?
[deleted]
hgazx(1)
I stopped reading in the first paragraph.
Haiti had to be punished for its successful slave revolt and overthrow of its colonial master. Not just by that spurned overlord, but others who feared their own subjects looking at Haiti as a success and learning from it.
Yes, this is boiling down a lot of elements and caveats that can (and should!) Be made but at the core this is what happened.
Yes, this is boiling down a lot of elements and caveats that can (and should!) Be made but at the core this is what happened.
It has been essential for the development of almost every country in a similar situation, to initially rely heavily on agriculture. If you remove that, then that's a recipe for disaster.
There wasn't knowledge/investment in the country to jump to an industrial economy so they got stuck in their developmental phase, because of the massive deforestation.