> 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.

> 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.