5 ms·

You're falling into the same trap the author asserts the NYT has fallen into. You're right, debt to the French didn't help Haiti's situation, but that doesn't m

You're falling into the same trap the author asserts the NYT has fallen into. You're right, debt to the French didn't help Haiti's situation, but that doesn't mean that the debt to France caused Haiti's situation, which is essentially what the NYT article was implying. I think this resonates not because of an emerging culture war against the NYT, but because the NYT has chosen sides in an existing culture war, namely whether or not the imperialist past of Europe and the U.S. can be reconciled with the modern day world.

RC_ITR 4y ago
I'm struggling to parse your definition of causality here. If I have a pre-existing condition that wouldn't have killed me this year, then I get COVID and die, what caused my death? EDIT: And let's be clear here, the author blithely ignores the problems that slavery causes and acts as though the debt and the slavery are unique concepts.
- DANK_YACHT 4y ago
  If a society is poorly structured for economic growth AND has debts that hamper economic growth, how do you say that the later caused the lack of economic growth but not the former? In your COVID example, had you not got COVID, you'd still be alive. In terms of Haiti, had they not had French debt, they may still have been in a similar situation economically. You were alive prior to having covid, so we can assume had you not become infected, you'd still be alive. Haiti wasn't economically prospering before the debt, so we can't assume they would have prospered without the debt. That's not to say it's impossible for Haiti to prosper without the debt, but you can't just definitively state that Haiti would prosper as if it were a fact. There isn't enough evidence to say.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >If a society is poorly structured for economic growth AND has debts that hamper economic growth, how do you say that the later caused the lack of economic growth but not the former? In your COVID example, had you not got COVID, you'd still be alive. In terms of Haiti, had they not had French debt, they may still have been in a similar situation economically. It's sort of wild that we live in a world where Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia in 1965 for being too poor and violent, yet you think that the organizational structure of Haiti's farmland in the 19th Century is what doomed it. I'll concede that they were in bad shape in the 19th Century, but I challenge you to tell me that Haiti in 1890 was significantly worse in organization than Chile at the same time. One of those two countries was able to benefit from its resources and is in the OECD and the other had to pay debt to France and is one of the poorest countries in the world.
    - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
      > yet you think that the organizational structure of Haiti's farmland in the 19th Century is what doomed it. You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say what caused Haiti's lack of economic growth. I was pointing out that there isn't enough evidence to say French debt caused the lack of economic growth. It's totally possible to French debt did in fact cause the lack of economic growth. But it's also possible other issues caused the lack of economic growth. Or perhaps it was a combination. Maybe Haiti could have prospered economically had it been better structured even with French debt, or it could have prospered with poor structure without French debt. I don't mean this to be offensive, but I think you believe that the French debt caused Haiti's issue. I'm not convinced of this by the evidence, and I think you're taking my lack of conviction personally because it contradicts something you believe. Or perhaps we have different thresholds on the amount of evidence needed before we're convinced of something.
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        Maybe what is different between you and I is that I see the following situation: 1) There were dozens of countries in Latin America that had various levels of disfunction and poor organization 2) One of those countries had to pay a debt to Europe as protection money 3) That one country is by far the poorest in Latin America It is my baseline that the unique thing about Haiti is the reason it had the worst outcome. This article supposes "No, there were plenty of other problems with Haiti" while ignoring that fact that there were plenty of other problems with nearly every Latin American country. The author does this by ignoring other historians' views on the matter (see my other comment) and most importantly doesn't propose alternate reasons why Haiti is different vs. other Latin American countries. Was it the land distribution? Why did Mexico do better in their 1910 campaign then? If not that, then what? At least the NYT makes a cogent argument.
        DANK_YACHT 4y ago
        It's ok to point out that there isn't enough evidence for a particular argument without presenting a counter argument. We should strive to believe the truth. If the truth can't be determined, we should accept that consciously rather than grasp on to an idea that fits our predefined belief system. There are many differences between Haiti and the rest of Latin America. One big one is that Haiti was French, whereas much of Latin America was ruled by Spain and Portugal. We don't really have much evidence on how France's colonies handle independence as they are either still French territory or got absorbed by other countries, e.g. French Louisiana. Perhaps something in the Spanish model led to better outcomes for former colonies. Another difference is that that Haitian revolution was a successful slave revolt that resulted in a purge of the ruling class. Compare this to America where many of the founding fathers were members of the colonial government, meaning they had governing experience. Haiti's government was also unstable after the revolution, further hindering its ability to form a cohesive economic plan. Haiti's primary source of domestic energy is charcoal, which has lead to near total deforestation of the country. Perhaps that played a role. These are just some differences off the top of my head, and I'm not an expert in Haiti. Again, the debt to France certainly didn't help. But to me, it feels a little too convenient of an excuse to lay the blame solely at France's feet.
deanCommie 4y ago
Is anything in history as simple as "Action A CAUSED Outcome B"? What caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor? Was it wanton imperial ambitions? Or was it the US oil blockade. What caused US to bomb Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Was it a desire to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers? Or was it a desire not to have to split the islands with the Soviets who were lining up to invade, and intimidate them with the new weapon the US developed? There are always multiple angles to every historical narrative. Noone is purely good or purely evil. Understand that the NYT isn't writing this in a vacuum. None of the discussions of colonialism are. Discussions of colonialism are responding to DECADES of commonly accepted stereotypes that "Shucks darn, Haiti/Africa are just fundamentally worse at economics, peace and prosperity than the rest of the world. Must be because black people are inherently stupider/more violent/insert other racist justifications". It is only in the last couple of decades that we've openly started to acknowledge that maybe centuries of oppression had something to do with creating the violent/unstable environments we scoff at at the west, AND that the impact didn't end overnight when the colonial powers left - such as in the case of Haiti's ongoing debt repayments to France.
- shakow 4y ago
  > Or was it a desire not to have to split the islands with the Soviets who were lining up to invade I don't think that anyone, the Soviets the first ones, ever seriously envisioned a Soviet invasion of the US mainland; I'm not even aware of serious Soviet plans and/or preparation for it. Which is understandable given (i) their absence of fleet, (ii) their inexistent experience in full-scale amphibious invasions, (iii) the semi-failures that their smaller-scale amphibious operations were along the war, from the Crimea to the Kurils.
  - zuminator 4y ago
    GP is talking about the bombs forestalling a possible Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Hokkaido https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_...
    - 4y ago

RC_ITR 4y ago

I'm struggling to parse your definition of causality here. If I have a pre-existing condition that wouldn't have killed me this year, then I get COVID and die, what caused my death? EDIT: And let's be clear here, the author blithely ignores the problems that slavery causes and acts as though the debt and the slavery are unique concepts.

DANK_YACHT 4y ago
If a society is poorly structured for economic growth AND has debts that hamper economic growth, how do you say that the later caused the lack of economic growth but not the former? In your COVID example, had you not got COVID, you'd still be alive. In terms of Haiti, had they not had French debt, they may still have been in a similar situation economically. You were alive prior to having covid, so we can assume had you not become infected, you'd still be alive. Haiti wasn't economically prospering before the debt, so we can't assume they would have prospered without the debt. That's not to say it's impossible for Haiti to prosper without the debt, but you can't just definitively state that Haiti would prosper as if it were a fact. There isn't enough evidence to say.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >If a society is poorly structured for economic growth AND has debts that hamper economic growth, how do you say that the later caused the lack of economic growth but not the former? In your COVID example, had you not got COVID, you'd still be alive. In terms of Haiti, had they not had French debt, they may still have been in a similar situation economically. It's sort of wild that we live in a world where Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia in 1965 for being too poor and violent, yet you think that the organizational structure of Haiti's farmland in the 19th Century is what doomed it. I'll concede that they were in bad shape in the 19th Century, but I challenge you to tell me that Haiti in 1890 was significantly worse in organization than Chile at the same time. One of those two countries was able to benefit from its resources and is in the OECD and the other had to pay debt to France and is one of the poorest countries in the world.
  - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
    > yet you think that the organizational structure of Haiti's farmland in the 19th Century is what doomed it. You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say what caused Haiti's lack of economic growth. I was pointing out that there isn't enough evidence to say French debt caused the lack of economic growth. It's totally possible to French debt did in fact cause the lack of economic growth. But it's also possible other issues caused the lack of economic growth. Or perhaps it was a combination. Maybe Haiti could have prospered economically had it been better structured even with French debt, or it could have prospered with poor structure without French debt. I don't mean this to be offensive, but I think you believe that the French debt caused Haiti's issue. I'm not convinced of this by the evidence, and I think you're taking my lack of conviction personally because it contradicts something you believe. Or perhaps we have different thresholds on the amount of evidence needed before we're convinced of something.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      Maybe what is different between you and I is that I see the following situation: 1) There were dozens of countries in Latin America that had various levels of disfunction and poor organization 2) One of those countries had to pay a debt to Europe as protection money 3) That one country is by far the poorest in Latin America It is my baseline that the unique thing about Haiti is the reason it had the worst outcome. This article supposes "No, there were plenty of other problems with Haiti" while ignoring that fact that there were plenty of other problems with nearly every Latin American country. The author does this by ignoring other historians' views on the matter (see my other comment) and most importantly doesn't propose alternate reasons why Haiti is different vs. other Latin American countries. Was it the land distribution? Why did Mexico do better in their 1910 campaign then? If not that, then what? At least the NYT makes a cogent argument.
      - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
        It's ok to point out that there isn't enough evidence for a particular argument without presenting a counter argument. We should strive to believe the truth. If the truth can't be determined, we should accept that consciously rather than grasp on to an idea that fits our predefined belief system. There are many differences between Haiti and the rest of Latin America. One big one is that Haiti was French, whereas much of Latin America was ruled by Spain and Portugal. We don't really have much evidence on how France's colonies handle independence as they are either still French territory or got absorbed by other countries, e.g. French Louisiana. Perhaps something in the Spanish model led to better outcomes for former colonies. Another difference is that that Haitian revolution was a successful slave revolt that resulted in a purge of the ruling class. Compare this to America where many of the founding fathers were members of the colonial government, meaning they had governing experience. Haiti's government was also unstable after the revolution, further hindering its ability to form a cohesive economic plan. Haiti's primary source of domestic energy is charcoal, which has lead to near total deforestation of the country. Perhaps that played a role. These are just some differences off the top of my head, and I'm not an expert in Haiti. Again, the debt to France certainly didn't help. But to me, it feels a little too convenient of an excuse to lay the blame solely at France's feet.

deanCommie 4y ago

Is anything in history as simple as "Action A CAUSED Outcome B"? What caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor? Was it wanton imperial ambitions? Or was it the US oil blockade. What caused US to bomb Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Was it a desire to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers? Or was it a desire not to have to split the islands with the Soviets who were lining up to invade, and intimidate them with the new weapon the US developed? There are always multiple angles to every historical narrative. Noone is purely good or purely evil. Understand that the NYT isn't writing this in a vacuum. None of the discussions of colonialism are. Discussions of colonialism are responding to DECADES of commonly accepted stereotypes that "Shucks darn, Haiti/Africa are just fundamentally worse at economics, peace and prosperity than the rest of the world. Must be because black people are inherently stupider/more violent/insert other racist justifications". It is only in the last couple of decades that we've openly started to acknowledge that maybe centuries of oppression had something to do with creating the violent/unstable environments we scoff at at the west, AND that the impact didn't end overnight when the colonial powers left - such as in the case of Haiti's ongoing debt repayments to France.

shakow 4y ago
> Or was it a desire not to have to split the islands with the Soviets who were lining up to invade I don't think that anyone, the Soviets the first ones, ever seriously envisioned a Soviet invasion of the US mainland; I'm not even aware of serious Soviet plans and/or preparation for it. Which is understandable given (i) their absence of fleet, (ii) their inexistent experience in full-scale amphibious invasions, (iii) the semi-failures that their smaller-scale amphibious operations were along the war, from the Crimea to the Kurils.
- zuminator 4y ago
  GP is talking about the bombs forestalling a possible Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Hokkaido https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_...
  - 4y ago