23868: (reply) kathleen - It has been written here before Re: 23859: (discuss) Hyppolite Pierre; Re Haiti as a Proetctorate (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Kathleen <kathleenmb@adelphia.net>

Dear Hyppolite Pierre:
    It has been written here before!!!!
    Several times, I have written that, FROM MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND
EXPERIENCE WHILE LIVING IN HAITI,  Haitians do not need the Americans to
teach them dirty tricks; they are quite capable of coming up with them on
their own.  Usually, I directed this to Esser, who along with Pina and some
others, always blames the U.S.  This is, I maintain, unconsciously rascist,
to aver that the poor Haitian needs outside help for corruption and lofty
misdeeds. Other Haitian writers on this list, like Daniel Simidor, Morse
(yes, I know he is 1/2 white american, but he LIVES there) Marassa, and
Marina, have pointed out the wrongdoings that were clearly homegrown and
flourishing.
It would be good if the self-analysis continued - there are reasons within
themselves that Haitians fail, and the country will continue to be a
disaster so long as the rallying cry of "se pa fot mwen" resounds.  Kathleen
Burke

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Corbett" <corbetre@webster.edu>
To: "Bob Corbett's Haiti list" <haiti@lists.webster.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 6:55 AM
Subject: 23859: (discuss) Hyppolite Pierre; Re Haiti as a Proetctorate (fwd)


>
>
> From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>
>
> There have been lately a couple of well-known American editorialists who,
> perhaps out of despair for Haiti, have suggested that Haiti should
basically
> become a Protectorate. I empathize with their good will as so many others
> do. But I respectfully disagree for some very simple and also basic
reasons.
>
> The idea came from the fact that Haiti is both a weak and failed state.
But
> if we consider the suggestion from a historical perspective, we can even
> argue successfully that the first American Occupation (1915-1934) was due
to
> the very fact that Haiti was both a weak and failed state.
>
> Aside from all the exactions, as reported by Roger Gaillard, The Nation
> newspaper at the time, and others, the occupiers had nevertheless left us
> with a state much better structured than when they came. However, rather
> than building on the good deeds (few they were many will say), the
> politicians reverted right back to their old habits quickly and
efficiently.
>
> Sténio Vincent reinvented the wheels of a repressive machine and tried
once
> more, successfully at that, to control the military and use it against the
> opposition. The US managed to get him out of the way but even before that
> could happen, it was under his watch that we had the Trujillo massacre.
> Thus, Haiti was already becoming once more at least a weak state.
>
> He was succeeded by one more traditionalist, Elie Lescot who by all
account
> was even worse than his predecessor. He thus further weakened the state.
> Overthrown by popular sentiment and student strikes, he was succeeded
after
> an election by little known Estimé (the so-called 1946 revolution)
>
> Although Estimé was a decent leader by most accounts, he too was trying to
> hold onto power by amending if not simply changing the Constitution in
1949,
> just so he could be reelected. So in 1950, he was simply victim of a coup
by
> Magloire, partly because the traditionalists from the elite could not deal
> with his call for the inclusion of Vodou in the debate about the future of
> the nation.
>
> We know the rest. By 1957, Duvalier became president and did even worse.
He
> not only weakened the state but also even to many extent, the spirit of
the
> nation.
>
> Fast-forward to 1994. Aristide is brought back to power thanks to a short
> occupation spearheaded by the US. What did he do? He tried to combine good
> sense with the old style of governing by relying more and more on "popular
> organization". And now he is gone once more, and we have a third
occupation
> in less than a century.
>
> That shows something even more interesting. There are certain patterns in
> Haitian politics that need to be dealt with first. Only Haitians can dig
> deep enough and figure it out. They have to assess and reassess their
> actions and so forth.
>
> So if for instance, Haiti falls once more under the Protectorate of the UN
> or whichever nation or nations, it is almost a guarantee that within not
> more than 10 years, the moment the systemic changes had been put in place
> and they feel comfortable, the traditional politicians will ask for the
> "recovery of our national dignity". In other words, they will want to be
> prezidan again. After less than 5 years of that "recovery" of our national
> dignity, the cycle will begin again. No doubt about it.
>
> The truth is, the problem is much more simple to resolve, yet much more
> complicated as well to resolve. It's a difficult yet easy paradox. But in
> fact, in fact, only Haitians can resolve this problem. Only they, can.
They
> have to figure it out by looking within their collective selves to find
> their own sources of strengths and weaknesses in order to do that. Thus
far,
> I haven't heard anyone debating this more crucial issue. That to me, is
the
> real problem; not the poverty or the killings and all else. The most
> important issue is for Haitians to start thinking about their deeds and
> misdeds, the historical faux-pas, the country's inherent characters
> (strenghs and flaws) in order to build a modern nation based on modern
> governing principles.
>
> I hope I wasn't to long.
>
> Best regards,
> Hyppolite Pierre
> IRSP
> http://www.irsp.org
>
>