The Haitian people have made up the heart of the Caribbean's resistance to Western banks and corporations for over two centuries. In this century, Haiti's long fight for independence is connected with America's and the world's fight for independence. We must not let Haiti's devastation be taken advantage of by criminal sympathizers like Clinton and Bush who serve very crooked and inhuman interests. Haiti's liberty must survive above all, because as we are finding out very tragically, a society without freedom and real political leadership cannot manage for long.
Although it is incredibly hopeful to see that humanity is capable of coming together at such a critical time, we are doing ourselves an unfortunate disservice by failing to see that our leaders are corrupt and criminal who do not deserve to lead any recovery of the beautiful country that is Haiti.
Below, Professor Carolyn Cooper tells the story of Haiti's fight for freedom, which is far from over. In the wake of this recent tragedy, a new chapter will be written by its people. Hopefully the whole world will join them this time in helping them write it.
Carolyn Cooper (The Gleaner): Haiti - the price of freedom
In the days when BWIA used to fly to Haiti, I once sat next to a man who asked me to fill out his immigration form. François' occupation was painter, and as he was about to get off the flight, he gave me an unexpected gift - one of his paintings. I'd mistakenly assumed he was a house painter. To be honest, I thought the painting rather touristy. It was a landscape, with clouds, birds, trees and houses all lined up symmetrically. Only the people were out of order.
All the same, I was touched by the gesture. The painter's generosity far exceeded the small service I had rendered. It took me more than a decade to frame the painting which I'd dismissively set aside. I was amazed to see how the defining border transformed into vibrant art what I'd thought of as paint-by-numbers work. By investing in a frame, I'd decided that the painting was art. It makes you wonder about how perception is altered by the ways in which we frame reality.
Take, for instance, Pat Robertson's lunatic perspective on the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti. Founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Robertson, a former Republican candidate for the US presidency, makes Sarah Palin look like a 'bonafide' intellectual. In an interview on January 13, Robertson made a preposterous declaration:
"You know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti and the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Ah, you know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And ah they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by by one thing after the other."
Where do you start to unravel the knots of confusion? First of all, I just love that eloquent 'whatever.' Wikipedia defines the slang word as "an expression of (reluctant) agreement, indifference, or begrudging compliance." As used here by Robertson, 'whatever' signifies a total suspension of thought. The brutality of enslavement by the French is reduced to mindless indifference.
In Robertson's 'true story', the devil and the Haitian freedom fighters become one. The devil agrees to liberate the people. But in the next sentence, Robertson uses 'they': "and ah they kicked the French out." Is this 'they' the combined forces of the devil and the Haitian people? Or is Robertson unconsciously conceding that the people, moreso than the devil, had a hand (and a foot) in their emancipation? He does go on to say that "the Haitians revolted and got themselves free." But that rather peculiar turn of phrase, "got themselves free", takes us right back to the claim that freedom was a gift of the devil.
Furthermore, Robertson asserts that the price of devilish freedom is a curse. Here, this simple-minded Christian minister edges away from the lunatic fringe and right into the arms of more 'mainstream' analysts of the plight of the Haitian people: Had Haiti remained a colony of France, like the overseas departments of Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana, how blessed the people would now be! But, no. The Haitian people dared to declare their independence. And just look at how pauperised they are.
It is still not widely known that Haiti was forced to pay 90 million gold francs in reparations to France for freedom. This vast sum is equivalent to more than US$21 billion today. Haiti had to borrow the money from French banks. Repayment of the reparations debt stretched out over decades and had a devastating impact on the Haitian economy. By the end of the 19th century, 80 per cent of Haiti's national budget was being spent on debt repayment and interest. Sounds like an IMF agreement, a truly devilish pact.
Haitians in Portmore
The US refused to recognise the new Haitian republic and imposed an embargo that lasted until 1862. In 1915, the US invaded Haiti to protect its economic interests and remained in occupation until 1934. Local Haitian leaders were no less predatory than foreign forces, as demonstrated in the truly terrifying reign of Papa and Baby Doc. But there was also the redemptive Aristide who affirmed social justice as an essential Christian principle. He was deposed in a military coup.
Crazy as Pat Robertson's explanation for last week's earthquake is, it's not that different from the account I got from a man who works in construction in my neighbourhood: "Is because of all a di gun dem weh di Haitian dem a bring inna Jamaica. Whole heap a AK47. Dem exchange di gun fi ganja." My attempt to reason with this man was in vain: "A through you don't know. Nuff Haitian inna Portmore."
This is a classic example of how other Caribbean people still demonise Haitians. We forget about our shared history. It was a Jamaican, Boukman Dutty, who spearheaded the Haitian Revolution. In August 1791, Boukman/Book Man, so named because he was literate, conducted a religious ceremony at Bois Caiman in which a freedom covenant was affirmed: Pat Robertson's 'pact to the devil.' Whatever.
When I think of Haiti, it's not poverty that first comes to mind. It's the magnificent art created by these resilient people. I know that out of the rubble of this earthquake, the Haitian people will rise yet again. And they don't need the help of the devil.
Carolyn Cooper is professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Also, Chris Floyd goes over the irony of Obama selecting two men to spearhead American aid who did all they could do to undermine and obstruct Haitian democracy while serving as president. It is truly a bizarre sight to watch two uncontested war criminals put on a grave face after turning a blind eye to the people of Haiti for so long. There can be no redemption for war criminals except in telling the truth, and until that day comes, expecting genuine help from Clinton and Bush is expecting the impossible.
Floyd - Fractured Narrative: Haitian Calm, American Cynicism
One can almost feel the disappointment amongst Western media mavens that earthquake-stricken Haitians have not, in fact, degenerated into packs of feral animals tearing each other to pieces. Day after day, every single possible isolated incident of panic, anger, "looting" (as the removal of provisions from ruined stores by starving people is called) and vigilantism has been highlighted -- and often headlined -- by the most "respectable" news sources. [As you can imagine, Britain's truly vile -- but eminently "respectable" and politically pampered -- Daily Mail is a leader in this odious field, with stories about "slum warlords" leading gangs of violent "pillagers."]
And yet the prophesied riots never seem to materialize. Outlets such as the New York Times are moved to remark, with seeming wonder, "Amid Desperation, Mood Stays Calm," as the paper noted in one sub-headline on its website on Monday. Astonishingly, the Haitians are acting almost like real human beings in any vast disaster: trying to stay alive, trying to care for loved ones, trying to help strangers, trying to get through the worst and reach a place where they can begin to rebuild their lives and communities. The media have sought strenuously to revive the bogus narrative that they foisted on the destruction of New Orleans: "Black Folk Gone Wild!" But thus far, they have been palpably disappointed.
Of course, there is anger among the stricken populace. Anger at the slowness of relief efforts, and anger at the utter collapse of the "government" which was installed by the American-backed coup in 2004. The "president" of this regime has been conspicuous by his absence in the crisis, neither speaking to the people by radio nor appearing among them. This may change now that sufficient American troops have arrived to bolster his confidence, but it has been a striking example of the vast disconnection between the implanted government and the people. The anger now submerged by the need for immediate relief and recovery may emerge with strong force later -- especially if the American-led restoration efforts simply return the nation to the strangulation of the pre-quake status quo.
Barack Obama's cynicism in placing George W. Bush, of all people, as a figurehead of America's "abiding commitment" to Haiti is jaw-dropping. Not only did Bush preside over one of the most colossally inept and destructive responses to a natural disaster in modern times -- while also inflicting the unnatural disaster of mass murder in Iraq -- it was his administration that engineered the latest coup in Haiti, saddling it with an unpopular, powerless government that simply collapsed in the earthquake. Choosing Bush to spearhead relief for Haiti is like hiring Ted Bundy as a grief counselor for murder victims.
Bush's co-figurehead, Bill Clinton, is hardly a better choice, of course. As we noted here earlier this week, it was Clinton who imposed a brutal economic and political stranglehold on Haiti as his "condition" for restoring the democratically elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1996 -- after Aristide had been ousted earlier in a coup engineered by the first President George Bush.
Both of these ex-presidents bear great responsibility for creating the conditions of dire poverty, ill health, corruption and political instability that have made the effects of this natural disaster so much worse. Yet these are the men whom Obama has made the public face of America's humanitarian mission.
In the short run, I suppose it doesn't matter. Obama was bound to pick some hidebound Establishment figure anyway, so why not these two? Maybe Bush and Clinton can squeeze a few extra relief dollars out of the bloated plutocrats they run with -- and Clinton can also work the celebs who still like to bask in the afterglow of his former imperial power. If the prominence they have gained by immoral means can provide immediate relief to those whom they have so grievously afflicted, then so be it.
But in the long run, their selection as the symbols of America's altruistic concern for Haiti's wellbeing certainly does not augur well for any genuine reconfiguration of Haiti's crippling political and economic arrangements. On the contrary; it signals pretty clearly that the imperial gaming of Haiti will go on.
