4 ms·

I think you are confusing the politeness of the author with agreement. For example: > Did Citibank see an opportunity for profit in Haiti? Yes. Was that suffi

I think you are confusing the politeness of the author with agreement. For example: > Did Citibank see an opportunity for profit in Haiti? Yes. Was that sufficient to commit the US to a full-scale invasion? Not a chance. That is a flat out refutation of the NYT's article entitled "Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged". > the title [of another NYT article] reveals the central thesis. The Root of Haiti's Misery. The argument is that the indemnity not only contributed to Haiti's poverty; it's the cause. > Since that all started before the 1825 indemnity, it was unaffected by the debt and is therefore one really big reason why Haiti would not have grown like the rest of Latin America. > Maybe without the indemnity, Haiti could have formed coalitions that ended the instability. But that's imagining a counterfactual that we have no evidence for. In other words, another refutation: the NYT is making strong, evidence free claims of a causal link between indemnity and Haiti's relative historical poverty. > both existing is healthy / ok. Were all readers of the NYT's Haiti series to read this article, I would agree. But that's not the case. The NYT will reach millions, this article will reach thousands. As such, the NYT should adhere to a higher standard or just get out of this business of history.

duxup 4y ago
I feel like like we're into the weeds of "is this the only reason" or not and that's the dividing line. As even the NYT article notes there are other reasons too. I find that the farther you go down the rabbit hole it is more about emphasis, and I'm certainly happy to agree the NTY's emphasis seems off / not entirely supported. Having said that I'm always skeptical about "real reasons for war" as even in modern times that's up for debate.
RC_ITR 4y ago
It's weird people are taking this substack at face value. Here's Millet's take from his well-regarded history of the Marines [0]: This instability was of great concern to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately, no one in Wilson's State Department knew much about Haiti. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan relied for information upon Roger L. Farnham, head of the National City Bank's interests in Haiti. This was bad because Farnham was unsympathetic toward the Haitians and was determined to bring about U.S. intervention in the republic. He was even able to convince Bryan that Germany and France, who were then at war, were working together to gain control of Mole St. Nicholas.1° It's good this economist wants to make a debate, but he seems more opinionated than fact-driven. [0] https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S.%20Marines%20and%20Irregular%20Warfare,%201898-2007_Anthology%20and%20Selected%20Bibliography%20%20PCN%2016000000500_4.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S.%20Marine...
yunohn 4y ago
> In other words, another refutation: the NYT is making strong, evidence free claims of a causal link between indemnity and Haiti's relative historical poverty. Sure, you can believe what you want just because you want a smoking gun amidst a complicated reality. But it’s not much of a stretch to say that a colonised enslaved country was in poverty and driven to more poverty due to the coloniser’s forced “reparations” from their slaves.
colinmhayes 4y ago
> That is a flat out refutation of the NYT's article entitled "Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged". Is it? Did citibank not push for an invasion? Did that invasion not happen? The title certainly omits nuance, but it wasn't flat out refuted.
- hiram112 4y ago
  It was refuted by showing that there were several more compelling reasons that the United States invaded, including WWI i.e. Germany controlled the majority of Haiti's economy and would have been able to seize the island, thus the US preempted them, similar to e.g. the British and US invading Iceland in WW2.
- knorker 4y ago
  "Vote out Trump in 2020, <my name> said, and the US voters obliged". This is not a matter of nuance.

duxup 4y ago

I feel like like we're into the weeds of "is this the only reason" or not and that's the dividing line. As even the NYT article notes there are other reasons too. I find that the farther you go down the rabbit hole it is more about emphasis, and I'm certainly happy to agree the NTY's emphasis seems off / not entirely supported. Having said that I'm always skeptical about "real reasons for war" as even in modern times that's up for debate.

RC_ITR 4y ago

It's weird people are taking this substack at face value. Here's Millet's take from his well-regarded history of the Marines [0]: This instability was of great concern to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately, no one in Wilson's State Department knew much about Haiti. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan relied for information upon Roger L. Farnham, head of the National City Bank's interests in Haiti. This was bad because Farnham was unsympathetic toward the Haitians and was determined to bring about U.S. intervention in the republic. He was even able to convince Bryan that Germany and France, who were then at war, were working together to gain control of Mole St. Nicholas.1° It's good this economist wants to make a debate, but he seems more opinionated than fact-driven. [0] https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S.%20Marines%20and%20Irregular%20Warfare,%201898-2007_Anthology%20and%20Selected%20Bibliography%20%20PCN%2016000000500_4.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S.%20Marine...

yunohn 4y ago

> In other words, another refutation: the NYT is making strong, evidence free claims of a causal link between indemnity and Haiti's relative historical poverty. Sure, you can believe what you want just because you want a smoking gun amidst a complicated reality. But it’s not much of a stretch to say that a colonised enslaved country was in poverty and driven to more poverty due to the coloniser’s forced “reparations” from their slaves.

colinmhayes 4y ago

> That is a flat out refutation of the NYT's article entitled "Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged". Is it? Did citibank not push for an invasion? Did that invasion not happen? The title certainly omits nuance, but it wasn't flat out refuted.

hiram112 4y ago
It was refuted by showing that there were several more compelling reasons that the United States invaded, including WWI i.e. Germany controlled the majority of Haiti's economy and would have been able to seize the island, thus the US preempted them, similar to e.g. the British and US invading Iceland in WW2.
knorker 4y ago
"Vote out Trump in 2020, <my name> said, and the US voters obliged". This is not a matter of nuance.