[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#2271: On Dr. Francois Duvalier : Part I (fwd)

From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>

[Corbett comments:  some time ago Jean Poincy posted Part II of this
analysis.  I had not gottent his part I and just assumed that by part
I he had meant some of the discussion going on in the days before.
But, here is the part I he had sent me then, but which I hadn't gotten.


Folks, this is my longest ever. Not wanting to tire any one of you, I
embrace Mario Delatour's effective method to partition long comments.  

                             PART I: A WAY OF DISCUSSING AND AN

Antoine you asked me not to discourse and present simply facts. However,
I deeply regret that I cannot satisfy your request. I underline facts
and go beyond them to
make objective analysis by asking questions such as WHY? HOW? WHAT IF?
WHAT WILL? I am a man of ideas who analyzes facts. Next time, please ask
me to elaborate rather. 

I guess I put my fingers very deep in the wound and cause recurring
pains that most of us learned how to live with. I am sorry to offend
some of you who have been victimized by Dr. Francois Duvalier and I
truly sympathize with your pleas. However, you will never hear from me
things that you want to hear to appease your sufferings, while I mean
otherwise. I am not defending the wrongs Dr. Francois Duvalier has done.
I acknowledged and condemned them. 

However, I went on and asked WHY did he do all these wrongs after
spending most of his life as a doctor caring for rural peasants
abandoned/forgotten for a century and a half long in dark/pit holes of
rural areas? One must recognize that he helped them overcome death
stricken infections and enable them to live a little longer. We are
talking about the savings of lives of more and more than those that he
eliminated, if we make a simple geometrical calculation. This aspect of
the man cannot go down the drain; it is unfair to flush it. One can
point out his wrongs, but highlighting also the positive makes the
judgment or evaluation objective. A good analysis would determine which
one outweighs the other and the final judgment would be more objective
and less emotional.

Unfortunately, in thick walls of emotions, rarely rational thinking
breaks through. Whenever, rational thinking is making headway by poking
some holes, all that comes out is just dust of anger. Where anger
dominates analytical discussion looses its meaning.  I have come to let
down my emotions and anger as a resolution in order to see clearer in
what has been an impediment to Ayiti's progress. I am not asking anyone
to do the same, however allowing oneself to ask the question WHAT IF to
look at the other side of the coin can help Ayiti budge greatly. 

Antoine, much to your satisfaction or disappointment, I have no
quantitative list of achievements upheld by Dr. Francois Duvalier, I
need not neither to run down a list of very close people that I know or
don't know who have been victimized by Dr. Francois Duvalier's regime. I
just learned how to let go negative emotions. At this point, we must
note one thing: I did not call the man an achiever. My specific
attribution to him was that he had a grand vision, a term that
necessitates some clarification. How can I disarm myself from discourse
when what I said is re-said a different way to bring to light different
meaning which was not my intended meaning?  

                                        DREAMER VS. ACHIEVER

To continue and set things straight, let's go down to semantic now: a
man with a grand vision is a "visionary". This is not equal to
"achiever". Through the former, one sees dream of becoming and through
the latter, the concrete realization of being. Fusing the two makes a
true "achiever". Nonetheless, let's not forget that an achiever is
always a dreamer and Duvalier was a dreamer. Here the syllogism, which
would lead one to say that since Duvalier was a dreamer and a dreamer is
an achiever, therefore Duvalier who was a dreamer was an achiever,
fails. Indeed, Dr. Francois Duvalier was not an achiever, and again it
depends on what is considered and where one is coming from.

1) There are dreamers who do not have the skills or ability to make a
dream come true.
2) There are dreamers who have the skills to make a dream come true, but
minor mistakes along the way fail them.
3) There are dreamers who have the skills to make a dream come true, but
are stopped by others with divergent interests.
4) There are dreamers who have the skills and know how to go through the
hurdles and make a dream come true.
5) Finally, there are dreamers who do not have the appropriate skills
and are stopped by others rather than being helped to make a dream come

Dr. Francois Duvalier was among the last category of dreamers with
no appropriate administrative and economic skills to turn Ayiti around
and was being stopped, boycotted and isolated by both the economic and
intellectual elites. He was regarded with contempt because of his
dedication to the health cause of the rural peasants. He was tagged the
little rural doctor. His devotion, good heart toward the masses got him
the hatred of the elites, but great affection from the masses whence his
nickname Papa Doc.

                                See PART II: A DREAMER THAT BECAME

Ayiti has lived, lives and will live