3 ms·

The NYT piece has a thesis which this author doesn't really engage with. To simplify, the Times says that Haiti agreed to pay a huge fee to France to indemnify

The NYT piece has a thesis which this author doesn't really engage with. To simplify, the Times says that Haiti agreed to pay a huge fee to France to indemnify it for having lost a profitable colony. The debt was then transferred to private markets: Haiti took out loans to pay France from French bankers who then conducted predatory repayment practices. This article seems to try to hand wave the "double debt," as the NYT calls it, away but that seems irresponsible. The two reasons given don't make a lot of sense either: (1) Debt payments were small. It seems likely that the government was negotiating the lenders into the smallest payments possible, so this isn't a surprise. This only meant that Haiti was in debt longer and paid out more. Besides, it seems like the relevant consideration should be the economic effect of the payment on government policy, rather than the size of the payment on a balance sheet. A poor country should be hurt more by having to pay out a small fraction of GDP than a rich one. (2) Economic divergence with DR happened after debt was paid. So what? Economic impacts have many reasons to lag behind the factors which cause them, especially here where the argument seems to be that destruction of natural resources is an underlying cause.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
"One popular theory is that Haiti’s poverty is a result of its indemnity to France. Although Haiti declared independence in 1804, France refused to formally recognise it. In 1825, Haiti and France struck a deal: France would recognise Haiti’s independence in exchange for an indemnity for the lost plantations and slaves. Haiti paid millions of dollars every year to France until the debt was finally paid off in 1947. Interest in this explanation has been reignited with recent attention from the New York Times. But the debt payments were a fraction of customs revenues, which were themselves a small fraction of the Haitian economy. Furthermore, the most significant divergence came long after the debt was paid off. Indeed, Mats Lundahl, the leading economic historian of Haiti, does not even include the indemnity in his list of decisive events in Haiti’s economic history." Can you explain how this is not addressing it, or "hand waving it away"? It addresses it explicitly and criticizes it. Seems like a reasonable criticism if in fact that NYT article ignored those two big problems with its thesis. Also, how did the NYT article address Lundahl's work which it disputes?
- public_defender 4y ago
  The same NYT reporting was also given a treatment in The Daily[0]. I did explain in numbered items above how I think the history is not adequately accounted for. My comment wasn't that they didn't address it, but that they didn't give it due weight. It's also worth mentioning that the absence of an event from a putatively authoritative history can say more about the historian than the event. For example, the bombing of Black Wall Street has not been taught in US history classes, but it is still quite important in explaining the modern order of American society. We don't teach it because we don't like what it says about us. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-revolt-france-payments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-...
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I don't think your (1) and (2) adequately dismiss these two major problems that the article apparently does not deal with. Nor did they address the literature or opinions of recognized expert in the field, apparently. In any case, you might disagree but you're wrong that this article does not address it or fails to give it due attention.
Glawen 4y ago
It is explained here in French: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/ameriques/haiti-le-poids-d-une-dette-vieille-de-200-ans_3073211.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/ameriques/haiti-le-poids-d... The price was 150 millions francs, or one year of revenue. They took private loans to pay it. Later the debt was lowered to 90 millions and was paid in full in 1883. The private loans however were paid back in 1947.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

"One popular theory is that Haiti’s poverty is a result of its indemnity to France. Although Haiti declared independence in 1804, France refused to formally recognise it. In 1825, Haiti and France struck a deal: France would recognise Haiti’s independence in exchange for an indemnity for the lost plantations and slaves. Haiti paid millions of dollars every year to France until the debt was finally paid off in 1947. Interest in this explanation has been reignited with recent attention from the New York Times. But the debt payments were a fraction of customs revenues, which were themselves a small fraction of the Haitian economy. Furthermore, the most significant divergence came long after the debt was paid off. Indeed, Mats Lundahl, the leading economic historian of Haiti, does not even include the indemnity in his list of decisive events in Haiti’s economic history." Can you explain how this is not addressing it, or "hand waving it away"? It addresses it explicitly and criticizes it. Seems like a reasonable criticism if in fact that NYT article ignored those two big problems with its thesis. Also, how did the NYT article address Lundahl's work which it disputes?

public_defender 4y ago
The same NYT reporting was also given a treatment in The Daily[0]. I did explain in numbered items above how I think the history is not adequately accounted for. My comment wasn't that they didn't address it, but that they didn't give it due weight. It's also worth mentioning that the absence of an event from a putatively authoritative history can say more about the historian than the event. For example, the bombing of Black Wall Street has not been taught in US history classes, but it is still quite important in explaining the modern order of American society. We don't teach it because we don't like what it says about us. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-revolt-france-payments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/podcasts/the-daily/haiti-...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I don't think your (1) and (2) adequately dismiss these two major problems that the article apparently does not deal with. Nor did they address the literature or opinions of recognized expert in the field, apparently. In any case, you might disagree but you're wrong that this article does not address it or fails to give it due attention.

Glawen 4y ago

It is explained here in French: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/ameriques/haiti-le-poids-d-une-dette-vieille-de-200-ans_3073211.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/ameriques/haiti-le-poids-d... The price was 150 millions francs, or one year of revenue. They took private loans to pay it. Later the debt was lowered to 90 millions and was paid in full in 1883. The private loans however were paid back in 1947.