3 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >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. Just to restate 'It feels too convenient to blame the country that forced these people into slavery, cut them off from the world economic system and then forced them to pay a tax to remain free?' Damn just say what you mean at a certain point (I won't put the words in your mouth but...)
  - hitekker 4y ago
    This thread reminds me of high school. A kid tries and fails to argue with a teacher, so they resort to trolling in order to "win". Meanwhile the rest of the students are just rolling their eyes and hoping the kid gets over their fragile ego.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      Listen, fragile ego or not, it's probably worth examining why you think your high school teachers were universally correct, especially on the topic of colonialism.
Spooky23 4y ago
You’re trying to speak as some sort of dealer of fact about a topic, which with due respect, you don’t really understand. “French debt” wasn’t just some unpaid loan. Haiti went through a variety of trevails through a long an vicious period of fighting for independence. At the end, they ended up where they were not diplomatically recognized by the US or Europe - Haiti went from a land of plenty to a pariah, unable to trade, and the only way out was to pay a steep indemnity, helpfully financed by the French on usurious terms. Debt was used as an implement of control. I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but those are not conditions that will allow a nation or a economy to flourish.

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.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >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. Just to restate 'It feels too convenient to blame the country that forced these people into slavery, cut them off from the world economic system and then forced them to pay a tax to remain free?' Damn just say what you mean at a certain point (I won't put the words in your mouth but...)
- hitekker 4y ago
  This thread reminds me of high school. A kid tries and fails to argue with a teacher, so they resort to trolling in order to "win". Meanwhile the rest of the students are just rolling their eyes and hoping the kid gets over their fragile ego.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Listen, fragile ego or not, it's probably worth examining why you think your high school teachers were universally correct, especially on the topic of colonialism.

Spooky23 4y ago

You’re trying to speak as some sort of dealer of fact about a topic, which with due respect, you don’t really understand. “French debt” wasn’t just some unpaid loan. Haiti went through a variety of trevails through a long an vicious period of fighting for independence. At the end, they ended up where they were not diplomatically recognized by the US or Europe - Haiti went from a land of plenty to a pariah, unable to trade, and the only way out was to pay a steep indemnity, helpfully financed by the French on usurious terms. Debt was used as an implement of control. I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but those are not conditions that will allow a nation or a economy to flourish.