In case you're interested, you may remember my references to the ongoing U.S. military investigation of the "rogue" platoon in Afghanistan, with numerous members being charged with war crimes. These criminal accusations include the premeditated murder of civilians, the planting of weapons on bodies to make them appear to be insurgents, the photographing of "trophy" kills, and the actual taking of body parts as trophies. "Rolling Stone" magazine finally published their investigative article on the war crimes and the cover-up. It's definitely worth reading, especially as we consider these wide-ranging issues of colonial violence, the notion of empire corrupting the morality of Americans overseas, and the public reaction to such revelations. Be advised though, the article, its images, and video are incredibly graphic.
I think the “The Haitian People” of all the articles stands out. By stating the beauty of this place, their culture and language, and that this place is more than it has’ revolutions, the writer states where improvements could have been made. The other writers provide what the U.S. Government has failed to do and what they created by use of force. Each seems to offer his own opinions as to why the U.S. venture into Haiti has failed. They also used different techniques to shed light on the brutality and corruption of U.S. occupation. One of them is military domination by marines who are from the south which have racial biases embedded in American Slavery. Soldiers see Haitians same as Negroes in the U.S. The military used brutalities to subdue those who think are below the white man. Another is the control of the National City Bank and its’ control over U.S. policies regarding Haiti. The American interests were protected by locking down the Haitian assembly until they complied. All these writers state that decisions made there were done by brute force.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through "The Conquest of Haiti," I was reminded of a documentary on North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4 31:00), in which a defecting NK soldier related how concentration camp guards are taught not to think of their captives as people and are lethally ruthless to them. The article offers similar picture. U.S. soldiers, no doubt high on American Exceptionalism, were able to abuse their positions of authority. Having had the primitive/savage status of these people drilled into their heads throughout their lives (they have a history of political unrest, they usually carry their wares to market on their heads instead of by truck or animal, they are black, etc.) made it easy for soldiers to think of these people as little more than animals. By distancing themselves from the humanity of those under their authority, soldiers found it easy and even humorous to exploit them in any way they saw fit.
ReplyDeleteI found that one of the main reasons that the U.S. intervention into Haiti failed is the "prevailing attitude is of contempt for men of dark skins." Arguing that many innocent Haitians have been murdered, including women and children, while only a few American lives have been lost helps shed light on the reality of the occupation. In the article about 'Self-Determining Haiti" the issue of American attitude arises again as "Americans have carried American hatred to Haiti (26)." Haiti offers a place for the U.S. Marines to take out their aggression and hatred almost without consequence. With everything being censored, the American public was not initially aware of the brutality occurring. They only saw the effects of the National City Bank which enable Americans to take control of many areas of Haiti and gain wealth.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the article "The Haitian People" stands out as contrasting from the others. To describe the people as cultured, educated, kind-hearted, hospitable, "seldom stupid but rather, quick-witted and imaginative," seems surprising when Americans detested others of dark skins.
I think the structure of the article helps to "shed light on the brutality and corruption of the occupation". The opening paragraph uses strong language to express the outline of the article and what will be discussed. In the first paragraph it states that the U.S. is part of those "Powers in whose international dealings democracy and freedom are mere words, and human lives negligible in face of racial snobbery, political chicane, and money". The article continues by saying the U.S. is "aggressively" going after "weaker" states. The article is then broken down it sections. It discusses the brutality the U.S. Marines used against the natives. What they did to the Haitians. It discusses the National Bank of New York, stating that it is "constantly working to bring about a condition more suitable and profitable to itself". The banks profit for the "control of Haiti". I think have the structure of this article and using this type of language makes it visible to it's audience why the occupation was corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article “What The United States Has Accomplished” stood out the most. It addresses some of the American justifications for intervention in Haiti. The apologists attempted to show that material improvements, such as the enforcement of certain sanitary regulations and the building of a great highway, justified American intervention. After reading the article, it seems that the improvements were of limited benefit though. The enforcement of sanitary regulations was not very important in Haiti which had been “a remarkably healthy country and had never suffered from such epidemics as used to sweep across Cub and the Panama Canal region.” In contrast, the Filipinos benefited from the American efforts to enforce sanitary regulations because they did not live in a sanitary environment. Also, the military seemed to benefit more than the Haitians from the new highway. It posed a serious problem for natives, who relied more on walking, since there were no speed limits. Even though they had not built a great highway by themselves, Haitians did maintain well-paved and well-kept streets even before the American Occupation. The author of this article made a good point at the end of the article that the American Occupation did not even try to improve the one thing that needed to be improved which was public education.
ReplyDeleteThe occupation in Haiti dealt a lot with the issue of racism. There were multiple parts in the reading that describes the murder of "black" Haitians by the "white" Marines. This is different from pervious anti-imperialist arguments we have heard about in class because these authors are concerned for the well being of the Haitians. They attribute this racism to American racist practices being brought over to Haiti, it even talks about the enslavement of the Haitians.
ReplyDeleteThis occupation is different from the Philippines and Panama. While there were racial problems in the Philippines especially, the United States at least attempted to improve the country with sanitation and public health initiatives. Like when the U.S. sent scientist to Panama to stop the spread of malaria. None of these actions were attempted in Haiti. They U.S. didn't even build a school according to the reading. I would have to guess these public works projects were not implemented because there were no American families in Haiti, it was mostly a military presence.
Side note, Mark Boal, the author of the Rolling Stone article, was the high school debate partner of Adrienne Brovero, the debate coach here at Mary Washington.
Haiti has a long history of racism that was caused from violence by Whites. From 1915 to 1920, White Americans destroyed Haitians lives from left to right. According to Herbert J. Seligmann, "Black men have been driven to resist to the hills from actual slavery imposed upon them by White Americans, and to resist the armed invader with fantastic arsenals of ancient horse pistols, Spanish cutlasses, Napoleonic sabres, French carbines, and even flintlocks" (Seligmann, 5). This exemplifies Jim Crow style segregation in Haiti. Segregation and harsh rules created by Americans had left Haiti in turmoil for many years.
ReplyDeleteWhen we study various conflicts and conquests in history, money remains the common factor as an attributing cause in almost every case. In the case of Haiti, the article states that “one thing to know, that is necessary among other things, is to know that the National City Bank of New York is very interested in Haiti”. I found this to be an interesting piece of information, thus allowing the reader to understand that the occupation had monetary motive, versus the notion of just helping the Haitians out.
ReplyDelete“American’s have carried American hatred to Haiti. They have planted the feeling of caste and color prejudice where it never before existed.” During the U.S. occupation of Haiti, there were various reports of American soldiers brutally killing and maiming Haitian citizens, including women and children. According to the article, some women were even raped, and many Haitians were forced into slavery. The article’s author states several examples of discussions that took place with marines boasting of their unfair treatment of the natives. During this point in time in the United States, Jim Crow segregation was prevalent and many whites were not accustomed to treating blacks with any kind of respect due to their color. Race riots, lynchings, public beatings, etc. were all common things in the United States at this time and racial prejudice ever increasing, so when the U.S. soldiers were sent over to Haiti, soldiers took their racism and anger out on the Haitian people. Many of them believed in their own “American Exceptionalism” and believed they were better and far more superior then any of a different race or creed.
In other occupations that we have studied, such as the Philippines and Cuba, there were racist elements but not as much as there is with Haiti. At least in the Philippines, the Americans tried to make improvements, such as education and sanitary reform. In the case of Haiti, the school system was the most in need of reform, yet it was never acted upon. I think part of the reason why the case of Haiti seems to be different from the cases of Cuba and the Philippines is the element of skin color. Citizens of Haiti are dark skinned, like that of the African Americans in the United States at the time. I believe the marines took advantage of this because they felt they could get away with the mistreatment and brutality towards them whereas back home, they may be judged more harshly for it.
“The occupation points with pride to military roads. These roads were in large part built by Haitian slaves – I mean the word literally – under American taskmasters”
ReplyDeleteThis quote from page 8 of the Nation’s article “The occupation points with pride to military roads “ spoke volumes to me about how the military (presuming perhaps that old experiments in the Philippines would work indefinitely) was using methods of promoting their infrastructure projects as a means to appeal to the American public. Though, unlike the imperialistic viewpoint, the Nation fundamentally rejects the pretense that this is a signal that roads and infrastructure are a step toward progressive civilization. Instead, its argument that these projects are extremely harmful to the local inhabitants and only hurts their interests and impedes their progress, are a swift rebuttal to other sources this course has addressed thus far. Would imperialists just say that the author was looking at the short-term effects of this steady progression to eventual self-government rather than seeing this as a necessary evil toward eventual statehood? I personally do not know but from class’s previous discussions, this may indeed be their answer.
I think it is really interesting that some people thought the article "The Haitian People" was a contrast to the other articles. I on the surface levels, I agree it certainly takes a different tone than the others as not so blatantly racist. However, I think often times when ideologies from a certain time period seem to contradict each other, they in fact reinforce each other. Although the author of the article didn't call the people savage, he seemed surprised that they were kind-hearted. The other "nice" things he had to say struck the same tone with me. In my mind, this fits right into the ideology of the time because it illustrates the Haitian people as EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Thus, for this author, the rule of racism still exists, and the Haitians just surprised him. Therefore, I'm not really impressed by his description of the Haitian people, because to me it is still rooted in the same racist attitude that the other articles expressed. Only this one is more dangerous because the racism is so hidden behind "compliments."
ReplyDeleteSeligmann makes no mistake in pointing out the atrocities committed by U.S. troops during the occupation. He describes murders, torture, and theft carried out by U.S. troops on the native population. He also makes it clear that the majority of the troops feel no remorse for their actions due to the long history of U.S. racist beliefs of having "contempt for men of dark skins."
ReplyDeleteThere is also the section discussing public works. The writer vehemently states that the paved roads that were created during the occupation had absolutely nothing to do with U.S. occupation involvement, and that they were being planned well before the occupation. The fact that the U.S. did nothing to promote education in Haiti is also pointed out. From reading the articles, it is hard to pick out anything positive that the U.S. occupation brought.
As to why there is such a difference between these anti-imperial articles and others that we have come across, all I can do is point out that The Nation was founded by liberal abolitionists in 1865. It's not hard to imagine these articles being written from the point of view of a liberal abolitionist.
I found interesting was the National City Bank interest in Haiti. The article pointed out that money was a main motive in America’s time in Haiti. Rather than what most Americans would want to believe the motive of the US was to help the Haitian people, money was the driving force. The control of the National City Bank and its’ control over U.S. policies regarding Haiti was driven by monetary potential. The American interests were now protected, primarily by force. The time spent with the Haitians has shades of the US time in the Philippines. American soldiers used brutal tactics to enforce their will during the time in the Philippines and as years passed I would of thought that those tactics wouldn’t be the same, but apparently I thought wrong.
ReplyDeleteI fount it was pretty cool that the United States Banks had interests in Haiti. The United States was pretty chill with looking for interests in other nations to help them make a profit. Haiti was no different. By placing a bank in the nation, the United States could control how Haiti moved it money and in turn directly affect the US economy. However, this is not to say that time in Haiti was necessary productively brilliant for the Haitian peoples. The US was brutal when enforcing their rules, and like the Philippines, they viewed the people as inferior, something that always hurts when it comes to American History.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, I was extremely disgusted to read “The Conquest of Haiti” as it portrayed the truths about the conditions the United States marines brought to Haiti. To solely hear in passing of these atrocious acts of is entirely different than reading the accounts that really paint the picture of what it was really like. This is one way Herbert Seligman expertly sheds light on the corruption and brutality of the occupations. Yes, we learn that the United States was awful to the Haitian people, but this article truly showed it.
ReplyDeleteNumerous times, Seligman discusses acts of violence done to the Haitians with more than just simple statistics. On page 21, the article reads, “But the Occupation seized men wherever it could find them, and no able-bodied Haitian was safe from such raids, which clearly resembled the African slave raids of past centuries. And slavery it was—though temporary. By day or by night, from the bosom of their families, from their little farms or while trudging peacefully on the country roads, Haitians were seized and forcibly taken to toil for months in far sections of the country. Those who protested or resisted were beaten into submission. At night, after long hours of unremitting labor under armed taskmasters, who swiftly discouraged any slackening of effort with boot or rifle butt, the victims were herded in compounds. Those attempting to escape were shot. Their terror-stricken families meanwhile were often in total ignorance of the fate of their husbands, fathers, brothers.” The use of using tales such as this one really gives perspective to the reader. It gives me pity for the Haitians I never met.
Another way this use of imagery serves to shed the truth is to show the true beauty of Hair (P 36 to 39). It teaches one that the Haitians were not “dirty”, but were just people trying to live their lives.
It is not shocking that US troops would commit these atrocities to the Haitian people. We have seen it time and time before with the Philippines and Cuba. What is amazing to me is that Seligman tells us what is going on. Many times these actions are covered up or ignored, to put into print the real situation in Haiti was a great act to help bring to light what was going on. The soldiers who see first hand the Jim Crow laws at home are not going to be any different away from home. In fact many of the racial problems only seem to double when they are sent out of the US.
ReplyDeleteAlso I agree with Lindsey that money played a big role in our being in Haiti. Again this is nothing new to us. Even in war we find a way to profit. As with others I agree that the one improvement needed the American's failed to provide and that was help in the educational sector. It all comes back to race, we see these people and pledge to help when all we want is there money and to find a way to turn them into a nation more like the United States