But let's not blame France for stealing all of Haiti's money when there are Haitians we can blame...

[bcholmes]

The history is a tale of much misery, shot through with flashes of hope and bravery. Both the United States and the colonial powers in Europe were profoundly threatened by the specter of slaves who had successfully battled for their freedom; the United States didn’t even recognize Haiti for over 50 years. Still worse, France in 1825 insisted that Haiti pay compensation for the plantations taken from French owners. In case the Haitians did not agree, French warships lay offshore. The sum the French demanded was so big that a dozen years later, paying off this exorbitant ransom, and paying the interest on loans taken out for that purpose, was consuming 30 percent of Haiti’s national budget. The ruinous cycle of debt continued into the next century.

Seldom, however, can outsiders be blamed for all a country’s troubles. More disastrous than foreign interference was that Haiti’s birth was such a violent one. Democracy is a fragile, slow-growing plant to begin with, and the early Haitians had experienced none of it, not as subjects of the African kingdoms where many of them were born, not as slaves and not as soldiers under draconian military discipline for over a decade of desperate war. In Haiti’s succession of constitutions over its first hundred years, the president sometimes held his post for life, and it’s no surprise that one leader began calling himself king and another emperor.

— "Haiti’s Tragic History", The New York Times

Yeesh. I like how the article goes from pointing out that France's imposition of compensation (not just for lost property like plantations, but lost property like slaves) devastated the country's finances, to quickly suggesting that we can't really put the onus on foreign interference. Because, y'know, you just can't. That would be bad. No, it's better to point the finger at Haiti's unfamiliarity with democracy.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that Haiti's early years are troubled. But I think it's a bit rich for the New York Times to suggest that a revolution and country that brought about complete emancipation without exception is somehow oblivious of democracy compared to, say, a country that allowed a bunch of moneyed white dudes the exclusive opportunity to decide who gets to govern while slavery was still entrenched in law.

I just think it's a bit of a lie to say that the early days of the United States (or Canada) were really democratic when so many people couldn't take part in those allegedly democratic institutions (I mean, jeez, Native Canadians couldn't vote freely until 1960).

P.S. - while we're on the topic, hey France, don't you think it's time you repaid that money you stole from Haiti?