a152: Petit-Goâve: Chamberlain answers Pina (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

> Kevin Pina writes:

> For me that is another false dicotomy  ...  the truth of the 
> matter is that Convergence supporters provoked the attack 
> by attempting to kill Mr. Duverge first.  Instead the event was 
> portrayed as an unprovoked rampage by Lavalas supporters.

It really is chilling when people dabble in such twisted logic.
A man is beaten up, does not die, a mob believes he has died,
so they chop the head off someone else who had nothing to
do with the beating, and so the killers are morally absolved 
because they were "provoked."

You know perfectly well, Kevin, in your desperation to bend 
over backwards to justify your "ideology," that this has little to 
do with that tired old word "provocation" (or an even tireder 
one, "manipulation," which is graven in stone above the 
entrance to the Church of the Perpetual Conspiracy) and 
everything to do with an unfortunate culture of intolerance.

It recalls your earlier contemptuous dismissal here (18 Nov)
of Reporters Without Borders as a "single issue organisation 
(which) we are not sure whence they receive their orders."  
One which you say "appeared overnight on the Haitian 
political scene whose only result has been to add further 
confusion ... I hope we have reached the 15th second of 
their self-generated fame."

It only took a second to gun down Jean Dominique, which is 
why RWB/RSF has been so active recently.  But they have no 
right or reason to speak up about this because it causes 
"confusion," you say...  
RWB has been active in Haiti for several years, by the way, 
working with some of those visa-grabbing liars and crooks
Kathy Grey is telling us about...
.

> (The Petit-Goave murder of Lindor) "was portrayed as an 
> unprovoked rampage by Lavalas supporters."

I'm at a loss, Kevin, to know how to describe, other than as
"a rampage," the action of bunch of people who, on the 
basis of a rumour, chop someone's head off in the street... 

You seem to agree with the argument of Kathy G that anytime 
there's a bunch of thugs in history (the 1991-94 army regime, 
of which we must note Kathy was a victim), then any thugs
who come afterwards have (morally) a free hand, as long as 
they stay _juuust_ short of being quite as brutal as the earlier 
ones. If the army thugs chopped a few heads off, then that's 
OK for their successors to do the same and remain 
morally clean...


> I am not sure what to make of your recent remarks 
> regarding "white men" 

For better or worse, that's you and me, Kevin, with our 
privileges and ability to just drive to the airport and buy 
a ticket out when things get tough.  _You_ can publicly 
dissent from a regime and then can just take off, instead 
of having to wait at home (or somewhere else in Haiti) 
until some guys turn up to beat the shit out of you (or 
worse) because they've been told by someone else 
you "provoked" them.  This aspect just adds a tiny dash
of food-for-thought to your defence of the "provoked" 
mob in Petit-Goave and your dismissal of the misdeeds
of those in power.


> I understand their anger and determination after feeling 
> cheated by the OAS, the US, and the "international 
> community". 

Never by their own rulers, of course...  
Now _that's_ "manipulation" -- deftly redirecting the blame.


>  but seeks to understand the historical roots of the anger 
>  and  determination that is spilling into the streets.

I think we all understand, just as much as you claim you do.  
Some people don't just stay with the foreigner's 'high' of  
"understanding the masses," they (especially if you're Haitian)
try to keep an eye out for the next bunch of tyrants emerging.  
If you want to deal in that kind of violence, nothing much is 
going move forward, even if Haiti was totally sealed off from 
the outside world (to eliminate "provocation" and 
"manipulation" and payments being made to "agents" in Haiti).


        Greg Chamberlain