The so-called new prime minister of Haiti is one monsieur Latortue, who has a lot of chat for someone without a mandate from anyone except the US ambassador and his bosses. He is, he says, going to unite Haiti, so he has begun by boldly leaving out of his ‘government’ any representative of the people of Haiti. I give him three weeks. #

The world should know that the United States and France bear the major responsibility for the predicaments in which Haiti now finds itself. It is a savage irony, that two of the three nations founded at the end of the 18th century on the ideals of the Brotherhood of Man should continue to hypocritically dismiss the third on no other visible basis but that Haiti is black. #

Racism is Racism is Racism. To describe Haiti as a ‘failed state”, to say that Aristide misgoverned his country, to allege that the mulatto elite in Haiti are capable of operating a democracy are sick jokes. The mulatto elite and the military have been the junior partners in the franchised predation of Haiti for most of its history. #

Aristide was not perfect. Nobody ever claimed that he was. But is George W Bush perfect? or Jacques Chirac? The money misappropriated when Chirac was mayor of Paris could feed a great many Haitians. Does that make Chirac unfit to lead France?
Does the fact that Ken Lay of Enron was the largest contributor to President George Bush, or the fact that Vice-President Cheney’s company is accused of overcharging the US army for food make either Mr Bush or Cheney unfit to govern the United States and the world?? #

The behaviour of Kofi Annan and the UN Security Council was barbaric. They refused to help a UN member in good standing when his country was threatened by the most disreputable, bloodthirsty assassins. Yet, two days later, when Aristide had been overthrown, kidnapped or whatever, the same group felt impelled to send a ‘peace-keeping’ force to Haiti. And a few days ago, the World Bank held a donors meeting to consider aid for Haiti. The hypocrisy runs like blood in an abattoir. #

• No Related Post

Click here: If the US ambassador is right. – JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM #

• No Related Post

Yahoo! News – Aristide Leaves Haiti to ‘Avoid Bloodshed’ #

By Jim Loney and Alistair Scrutton #

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (Reuters) – Haiti’s President Jean-Bertrand Aristide left his chaotic Caribbean country on Sunday, driven out by a bloody revolt that put rebels near the capital and by pressure from the United States and France. #

Aristide said he departed to avert bloodshed but turmoil persisted in the capital Port-au-Prince, where shooting rang out as armed Aristide supporters roamed the streets and looters ransacked a police station. #

• No Related Post

chiefwiggles.blog-city.com Back in the USA, Plea, Our Role, Why not ask us? 02/26/04 #

“We are the sole remaining world power. We are the richest nation on earth in the history of the world. We have been blessed with much as we have the abundance of the Promised Land at our fingertips. We have the means and the where with all to make a difference in the world we are a part of. We can be a force for much good influencing generations of people by demonstrating, through small acts of kindness, our compassion and love for all mankind. And we can do this one child at a time. #

• No Related Post

• No Related Post

Dominion Weblog: Letter to Government and Corp. Media About Haiti #

Letter to Government and Corp. Media About Haiti #

Though often futile, speaking truth to power can be therapeutic. Here’s a copy of a letter I sent out to about 200 corporate lackeys regarding the crisis in Haiti. #

• No Related Post

The Caricom/OAS minstrel show – JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM #

Last week, Haitians in the United States were asked for their opinions on what should happen in Haiti. A poll among Haitians across the United States was done by the New California Media Coalition, an association of ethnic media companies . #

Surprise! More than half (52 per cent) of those polled said they believed President Aristide should stay in office ‘in the interest of democracy’. Just over one-third (35 per cent) believed he should resign. More than half – 55 per cent – felt the Haitian Opposition was fighting for “power”; only 22 per cent believed it was fighting for “democracy”.
Given these figures and the facts reported elsewhere, it would seem a little crazy for Caricom/OAS and the US to be putting pressure on Aristide to dismantle his Government to give power to an Opposition which refuses even to discuss its differences with Aristide. #

• No Related Post

Why ironic? Read up on Haitian history at my other blog, The Louverture Project. But also, Haiti is in the US’s back yard, yet we have to depend on France to intervene! Shame on us. #

• No Related Post

You can see the new site, The Louverture Project, at http://www.stumax.com/tlp/. #

I’m making plans to promote the site to the Haiti List. I’d like to invite historians, formal and otherwise, to comment and add to my discoveries. Hopefully, this will accelerate the pace of my learning. #

• No Related Post

Trouillot is describing a theory of history much like the philosophy of art. In art, one learns that the negative spaces have value; what is left out describes the ultimate image as much as the impressions that the artist leaves. Trouillot is arguing that the same holds for historical silences, and that if we can understand the reasons such silences show up in a particular historical narrative, we’ll gain insight into the complete history. Indeed, he seems to be saying that one cannot consider history without considering the silences also. #

On page 26, Trouillot writes:
“Silences enter the process of historical production at four crucial moments: the moment of fact creation (the making of sources); the moment of fact assembly (the making of archives); the moment of fact retrieval (the making of narratives); and the moment of retrospective significance (the making of history in the final instance).” #

Using the example of a broadcast of a baseball game, Trouillot points out that an audience relies on a sportscaster to leave certain things out of the description. Vin Scully, for instance, wouldn’t generally describe for us the actions of the fans in the stands, the inactive players on the field, the players in the bullpen or dugout, and so on. On p 50 Trouillot writes, “If the account was indeed fully comprehensive of all facts, it would be incomprehensible. Further, the selection of what matters, the dual creation of mentions and silences, is premised on the understanding of the rules of the game by broadcaster and audience alike.” #

Without silence there is no meaning. For human beings to make sense of our world, we must leave parts of it out. #

We do this elegantly well. Human beings are living filters. We constantly decide what is or is not important, what we pay attention to and what we ignore. We could not survive without this skill. Our brains are not built to process every bit of information at a conscious level. #

In fact, our bodies are physical filters. Our eyes and ears only experience a limited range of the available spectrum, the range that evolution has deemed most useful for our species. We do not have unlimited physical capacities. Speed, range of motion, temperature tolerance, memory… any number of limits define the outer edges of who we are and what we are capable of. In fact, we celebrate and revere the rare humans who can push the boundaries of these limits to the extremes. #

When I put on a pair of colored lenses, my view of the world changes. At first I notice the change, but in time I adapt and accept the view as normal. To experience a “true” view of the world, I must either mentally correct for the tint of the lens, or physically remove it. Trouillot seems to say we need to do the same when we read history. He writes, “...any historical narrative is a particular bundle of silences, the result of a unique process, and the operation required to deconstruct these silences will vary accordingly.”
———————————————————————————————
A bit of mental spittle:
While I can understand the fear that kept the Haitian revolution from being widely reported 200 years ago, I can not understand why we should have any reason to fear this history today. I do think that we in the United States have a bit of insecurity about our place in the world. After all, representative democracy was a grand experiment when the US was founded. We have jealously guarded our place in the world since. We have fought to undermine or destroy socialist and communist regimes, especially close to home. We still boycott Cuba, the lone communist holdout in our hemisphere. Yet, who could make a serious claim these days that recognition of the Cuban government might encourage communism to take root elsewhere? When the American system has proven to be so powerful as an economic and political force and communism has been so thoroughly tarnished as a means of government, why would we have the slightest fear that anyone would chose another form? And if other countries did choose another form of government, why should we care as long as it works for them and human rights are generally protected? Why does it matter? We are like the reformed alcoholic or the born-again Christian who wants to convert everybody to our cause, whether they desire it or not, and whether it’s good for them or not. #

• No Related Post