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

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.