3 ms·
That's not the actual size of Haiti's reparations to France though - it's completely imaginaary, hypothetical money that the New York Times is claiming Haiti wo
by makomk 4y ago
That's not the actual size of Haiti's reparations to France though - it's completely imaginaary, hypothetical money that the New York Times is claiming Haiti would've made if not for the evil colonialists ruining their economy through reparations. The actual total reparations according to that article were $560 million in today's dollars, or between a fortieth to a two hundreth of how much the NYT is claiming it really cost Haiti. That claim should probably be taken with a massive pinch of salt given the quality of their reporting on race, slavery and colonialism of late.
Just the way they seem to be comparing the supposed cost of those reparations over all time to one year of GDP here seems pretty slimy. The part you quoted is clearly intended to make an inattentive reader think Haiti's GDP would've been eigth times larger if not for reparations, but not only is that not what it actually says, it's impossible to tell how big the supposed loss is compared to the size of their economy - the two are stated in incomparable ways.
- tchalla 4y ago> But the loss to Haiti cannot just be measured by adding up how much was paid to France and to outside lenders over the years. > Every franc shipped across the Atlantic to an overseas bank vault was a franc not circulating among Haiti’s farmers, laborers and merchants, or not being invested in bridges, schools or factories — the sort of expenditures that help nations become nations, that enable them to prosper. The cost of reparations versus the impact is different. The impact is a guesstimate, the cost isn’t.
- booblik 4y agoIn fact, the money not paid to France would be simply stolen by local kleptocrats