Haiti isn’t Haiti but together with the Dominican Republic one island inhabited by indigenious people.
France and Spain split the Island. France imports tons of slaves to their part, setting up a very lucrative plantation economy, practically all Haitians are slaves there’s only owners and owned. Way more erm balanced on the Spanish side.
Revolution, both in Haiti and France.
A quarter century later, the French demand Haitians pay for their freedom, or else. The remnants of that debt were sold to what’s now citibank, who continued to collect, with aid of the US army. That’s what makes the US as a state complicit in this shit.
Haiti finally paid off everything in 1947, leaving a completely barren country behind, not just of an economy because everything was extractive but also literally: Compare the number of trees in Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic, Haiti was deforested to pay debt. Speaking of, relations between the two states are strained at best: More or less directly after France imposed the debt Haiti conquered the Dominicans and squeezed them to pay it.
That debt, and it long-term effects, is why you have two so very disparate states on the same island. France still hasn’t paid reparations. The US at least is doing stuff like bankrolling Kenya’s mission there. Haiti needs, in about this order: 1) material security, 2) internal peace, 3) enough investment in people and economy to make it catch up to the Dominicans. The French should keep out of all of it except for paying the fuck up.
In the sense of this particular period of instability being the intentional design of the US, not as far as I’m aware. In the sense of the historical context behind why Haiti has basically always been extremely poor even compared to it’s neighbors being largely though not entirely a result of the actions of the US, the history is rather horrifying.
Influence? Certainly, basically any major power has the capacity to do that to some extent and the US has been a great power for over a century at this point. It doesn’t even need to be “the globe” in this case anyway though, Haiti isn’t all that far away relatively speaking, and the US has a history of meddling with smaller countries in Central America and the Caribbean going back to not too long after the founding of the country.
I never said nobody else was, just that Haiti in particular has a history that has seen the US act to hinder it’s development on a number of occasions. The same for that matter can be said of France in this case. My point was not that Haiti’s situation is the exclusive fault of the United States, but rather that the US does at least have some responsibility for how it has turned out.
My point was not that Haiti’s situation is the exclusive fault of the United States, but rather that the US does at least have some responsibility for how it has turned out.
Some responsibility is undeniable, but I think saying Haiti’s poverty is ‘largely though not entirely a result of the actions of the US’ is vastly overstating the role of the US in this particular scenario. I don’t think “The US refuses to intervene to buoy the junk debts acquired by US banks in the 1910s-40s” fundamentally changes the trajectory of Haiti’s history.
The US literally took over the country’s central bank, occupied the country for a period of over a decade, and forced it to pay a huge percentage of it’s national income for that period to US banks to repay a debt that it never fairly acquired in the first place (admittedly, one that the US had basically taken over from France, which had forced it on Haiti in the first place, which is one of the reasons I also named France as a contributor in one of these replies). The country was prevented from using this revenue to invest in itself for a significant chunk of time, and that kind of investment has compounding effects that would have made the country at least somewhat better off had it not been basically robbed of it’s income at gunpoint. As things like organized crime thrive under an environment of poverty and desperation, it isn’t that unreasonable to think that the gangs would be less severe a problem had this development been allowed to occur.
That would be much more compelling, except for the fact that Haiti was poor and unstable even before France imposed the debt, and that subsequent regimes, including US-friendly and US-hostile, did nothing to improve the situation. Haiti’s issues are far more fundamental than “The US reduced and redirected investment in the Haitian economy while extracting debts owed to US investors back in the 1910s-1940s”.
Obviously, this is ignoring the moral issue of the occupation of Haiti (which is, of course, an atrocity), as the discussion is currently centered around responsibility for modern Haitian poverty and instability.
Unlike the people of Haiti. Or the Gangs of Haiti. Or the government of Haiti. Or any of Haiti’s neighboring countries. Or any of the other world super powers.
America has been operating under the belief of a “Unipolar world” seince it successfully toppled the USSR in the early 90’s. Before that, the US and the USSR operated as the 2 primary pole of the the then “multipolar world”. America has assisted with inserections against governments on most continents of the globe in order to install leadership that is more ‘friendly’ to its interests.
So yes, America has been the main cause of geopolitical conflict in the modern era. Before that it was England, Germany, France, Netherlands, etc.
The bearer of the Crown of Capital always comes soaked in blood
Maybe if you make this comment for a third time it’ll actually be funny! I will say, Mongols is funnier than Tiananman Square, but I think you can do better.
Four months later, Jovenel Moïse was assassinated and replaced with a U.S.-backed prime minister, fueling suspicion of American involvement.
As The Intercept reported in July, the Colombian mercenaries who carried out the hit were hired by a Florida-based firm. At least seven of them had received training by the U.S. military.
Is the US responsible for Haiti now too?
Yes. As are the French. Quick historical rundown:
Haiti finally paid off everything in 1947, leaving a completely barren country behind, not just of an economy because everything was extractive but also literally: Compare the number of trees in Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic, Haiti was deforested to pay debt. Speaking of, relations between the two states are strained at best: More or less directly after France imposed the debt Haiti conquered the Dominicans and squeezed them to pay it.
That debt, and it long-term effects, is why you have two so very disparate states on the same island. France still hasn’t paid reparations. The US at least is doing stuff like bankrolling Kenya’s mission there. Haiti needs, in about this order: 1) material security, 2) internal peace, 3) enough investment in people and economy to make it catch up to the Dominicans. The French should keep out of all of it except for paying the fuck up.
Related video: https://youtu.be/WpWb3MTV9bg
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/WpWb3MTV9bg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
In the sense of this particular period of instability being the intentional design of the US, not as far as I’m aware. In the sense of the historical context behind why Haiti has basically always been extremely poor even compared to it’s neighbors being largely though not entirely a result of the actions of the US, the history is rather horrifying.
America is somehow powerful enough to control all nations on the globe at the same time.
Incredible.
Control? No
Influence? Certainly, basically any major power has the capacity to do that to some extent and the US has been a great power for over a century at this point. It doesn’t even need to be “the globe” in this case anyway though, Haiti isn’t all that far away relatively speaking, and the US has a history of meddling with smaller countries in Central America and the Caribbean going back to not too long after the founding of the country.
And as we all know, nobody else on the planet is influencing anything ever. It’s all a result of American influence.
Nazi Germany only happened because America didn’t conquer Germany in the 1890’s.
Russia invading Ukraine? Also, America. Gang violence in Haiti? America.
Tianamen Square? Believe it or not. America.
I never said nobody else was, just that Haiti in particular has a history that has seen the US act to hinder it’s development on a number of occasions. The same for that matter can be said of France in this case. My point was not that Haiti’s situation is the exclusive fault of the United States, but rather that the US does at least have some responsibility for how it has turned out.
Some responsibility is undeniable, but I think saying Haiti’s poverty is ‘largely though not entirely a result of the actions of the US’ is vastly overstating the role of the US in this particular scenario. I don’t think “The US refuses to intervene to buoy the junk debts acquired by US banks in the 1910s-40s” fundamentally changes the trajectory of Haiti’s history.
The US literally took over the country’s central bank, occupied the country for a period of over a decade, and forced it to pay a huge percentage of it’s national income for that period to US banks to repay a debt that it never fairly acquired in the first place (admittedly, one that the US had basically taken over from France, which had forced it on Haiti in the first place, which is one of the reasons I also named France as a contributor in one of these replies). The country was prevented from using this revenue to invest in itself for a significant chunk of time, and that kind of investment has compounding effects that would have made the country at least somewhat better off had it not been basically robbed of it’s income at gunpoint. As things like organized crime thrive under an environment of poverty and desperation, it isn’t that unreasonable to think that the gangs would be less severe a problem had this development been allowed to occur.
That would be much more compelling, except for the fact that Haiti was poor and unstable even before France imposed the debt, and that subsequent regimes, including US-friendly and US-hostile, did nothing to improve the situation. Haiti’s issues are far more fundamental than “The US reduced and redirected investment in the Haitian economy while extracting debts owed to US investors back in the 1910s-1940s”.
Obviously, this is ignoring the moral issue of the occupation of Haiti (which is, of course, an atrocity), as the discussion is currently centered around responsibility for modern Haitian poverty and instability.
Unlike the people of Haiti. Or the Gangs of Haiti. Or the government of Haiti. Or any of Haiti’s neighboring countries. Or any of the other world super powers.
America is the primary operator in Haiti.
Where did i suggest that none of this contributes? A thing can have more than one contributing cause.
Your very first comment where you cry its all America’s fault.
Removed by mod
America has been operating under the belief of a “Unipolar world” seince it successfully toppled the USSR in the early 90’s. Before that, the US and the USSR operated as the 2 primary pole of the the then “multipolar world”. America has assisted with inserections against governments on most continents of the globe in order to install leadership that is more ‘friendly’ to its interests.
So yes, America has been the main cause of geopolitical conflict in the modern era. Before that it was England, Germany, France, Netherlands, etc.
The bearer of the Crown of Capital always comes soaked in blood
Lord.
The Wikipedia article about US-backed regime change is so long that it has the following disclaimer at the top
Removed by mod
Maybe if you make this comment for a third time it’ll actually be funny! I will say, Mongols is funnier than Tiananman Square, but I think you can do better.
The truth was, they could not do better.
Wow, with humor this good, I see I was outclassed.
Sorry yall my B.
What?
We generally regard increasing chaos on the international scene as undesirable in a post-Cold War world.
Except in Ukraine and Israel.
Given the US removed a democratically elected president in 2004, not entirely wrong.
Didn’t the last guy get assassinated though?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jovenel_Moïse
I’m talking about this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Oh, yeah, but that’s AGES ago now… like 6 Haitian presidents ago…
I mean yes but dictatorships are very subject to the butterfly effect. Even a temporary regime change can keep a country down for decades.
Former Ambassador on Haitian President in March: “Put Him Aside” and Embrace “Prime Minister Option”
For the curious this is where Haiti is on the map
No, Kenya is because of skin color.
US is responsible for Ukraine, Israel, and some people in South Africa.