16650: Racine125@aol.com - More on why Haiti is "stuck", with particular reference to Simidor (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Racine125@aol.com

I am going to go on with my discussion on this topic of why Haiti seems to be "stuck", as it were, in it's misery.  I am going to talk a little bit in general terms first, and then I will apply my analysis to Haiti in particular.

Simidor puts words in my mouth when he writes that "to insist as Mambo Racine does, time after time, that Haitian culture is the reason why Haiti is so screwed up, is not that much different than saying that the West is on top of the world because of its inherent superiority, culturally and otherwise.  This line of reasoning smacks of racism and the peculiar blindness associated with white skin privilege.  Even more importantly, it lets the real culprits off the hook."

Let's stop right there.  First on the program, it is not automatically "racist" for a "white" person to criticize a "black" person, or for an American to criticize a Haitian.  Any person or society has flaws, and any other person can identify them.

The intellectual laziness involved in characterizing "white" people as "peculiarly blind" is simply a move to invalidate anything a "white" person says on the grounds that... guess what?  They're "white"!  It's in and of itself a racist characterization.  And who are those "real culprits" supposed to be?  Why, "white" people, of course!

I am going to shock some people I suppose, when I state that some cultures are indeed superior to others!  A society with a superior culture, in general terms, affords it's members longer life, better health, a higher standard of living, more open access to education, more freedom of creative expression, a functioning judicial system, a non-violent method of choosing leaders and spokespeople.

A society with an inferior culture affords it's members a shorter life, poorer health, a lower standard of living, reduced access to eduation, restriction of creative expression, a corrupt judicial system, and violence associated with the selection of leaders and spokespeople.

This does not mean that a superior culture is perfect, or even that it is superior in every way to any other culture.  Furthermore functional cultures have a way of reinventing themselves in ways that improve such cultures still further, while dysfunctional cultures are strongly resistant to change for the better.

For example, American culture, as pluralistic, diverse and hard to define as it may be, was revolutionized for the better by two major social movements in the past half-century - the black liberation movement and the women's liberation movement.  This revolution was accomplished for the most part non-violently, which is also highly significant.  The culture which we enjoy now is superior to the culture we had before.  This does not mean that there is no more work to do, but it does mean that such work as has been done, has been done in a way that resulted in the betterment of life for all people in our society.

To give another example in one word - Mao.  Mao Tse-Tung revolutionized Chinese culture, and in so doing made himself one of the most significant people of the millennium!  I could go on for paragraph after paragraph about the enormous changes precipitated by his "Cultural Revolution", their historical significance, and their probably consequences for the future of the world.

If Mats Lundhal gives three reasons for Haiti's impoverisment, two of which are essentially biological - the "carrying capacity" of the land (the number of people it can feed), the presence or absence of agricultural technology (which actually is merely a means for increasing carrying capacity and not a separate issue), and the third as the "predatory nature of the governments which have ruled the country", he's absolutely right!  And it is the cultural values of Haitian society that promote kleptocracies and predatory governments, not "imperialists".  "Imperialists" can take advantage of a culture's flaws, but they can't create those flaws in the first place.

If "imperialists" were in the main French, German and American, if the cultures of those countries favored predatory behavior, then how is it that people in these countries have what I have described above - longer life expectancies, better health, and so on?  How come they are not predators upon one another, reducing one another to poverty, as people so often are in Haiti?  Does Simidor imagine that "white" people sign pledge to be mean only to people who aren't "white"?  It's nonsense.

Simidor's suggestion that, "I know this is just an Internet opinion group, but there should be a limit to the kind of cheap generalizations about the Haitian people that goes on here," is all but a call for censorship!

And it is a sleazy jibe to state, "Some of the new Haiti experts hold as a badge of honor the time they spent with one US/UN mission or another in Haiti after 1994.  The salaries were good, I understand.  But other that that, you've been bamboozled, folks. Serving Uncle Sam or one of its front operations had little to do with helping the Haitian people."

First of all, NO amount of money could pay (yes, that's right, I do indeed consider an honor to have served with the UN / OAS Joint Civilian Mission in Haiti) for what I and other observers went through - we were in peril of our lives on many occasions, we had to examine cadavers and conduct interviews with torture survivors and then be shot at by the same people who created the cadavers and tortured the people we interviewed!  We worked very hard under extremely difficult conditions.  I think it is fair to say that almost every person I met in the Civilian Mission was motivated by moral considerations as much as or more than by financial gains.  To imply that we were merely greasy grabbers after money is a revolting insult.

Secondly, we did not work for the United States government, and I wish some people would get that fact straight in their heads.  We worked for the United Nations or the Organization of American States.  Often, in fact, our reports were highly critical of United States government policy!

I do not agree with Simidor that Haiti is "much worse off" today.  The rate of politically motivated violence has slowed for the time being.  What I do say is that from a social, economic, and cultural standpoint, it is *no better*.  And I will go further, and repeat the inescapable conclusion that it will get no better as long as Haitians do not take the responsibility to identify the damning flaws in their culture, and correct them!  Just as the Chinese people led by Chairman Mao did, just as the American people led by Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and Medgar Evers and Gloria Steinem and Kate Millet et. al. did!

This is the reason that everyone had such high hopes for Aristide!  He seemed to be a progressive person, a charismatic leader who like Mao or King could move for social change, and by force of personal popularity revolutionize Haitian society for the better.  But alas... no.

And that is where things stand today.  Whether they will change tomorrow depends not on the "imperialists", but on Haitians!

Peace and love,

Bon Mambo Racine Sans Bout Sa Te La Daginen

"Se bon ki ra" - Good is rare
     Haitian Proverb

The VODOU Page - http://members.aol.com/racine125/index.html

(Posting from Jacmel, Haiti)