Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by AntonioR Are you saying its ok when one group does it but not when another?
The Haitian Revolution marked a before and after situation, especially in Cuba where the influences arrived directly from the emigrants from Haiti. :
Your statement proves your total ignorance about the history of the area. The Haitian Revolution (at the end of the 18th Century) and the arrival of white French settlers in Cuba, provoked a wake of fear and terror among whites and the urgent desire to "decimate" them by killing a lot of slaves accusing them of conspiracy ("la conspiración de la escalera") or the "ladder conspiracy" in which blacks were tied to a ladder and whipped to death.
Terror of blacks was the fact that kept Cuba as a Spanish possesion until 1898. Many whites believed that if the Spanish pulled out, blacks would kill everybody, as in Haiti.
Are you saying its ok when one group does it but not when another?
The Haitian Revolution marked a before and after situation, especially in Cuba where the influences arrived directly from the emigrants from Haiti. This is what you keep ignoring. What the Cubans learn from the escaped French emigres didn't stay in Cuba, it spread through out the continent. It became clear that having a white elite with a mass of people that are not even mixed can have disastrous consequences. Until then, what happened during the Haitian Revolution was thought to be impossible and then it happened.
You need to stop believing everything you read in Wikipedia. The Haitian situation in the DR is due to the abuses the Haitians committed against the Dominicans for more than half the 19th century. Trujillo is simply a modern scapegoat that has been used to divert attention away from the true source of the issue, which lies in the effects of the Haitian Revolution (and the subsequent Haitian desire to annex the Dominican territory and wipe out the Dominican population) in the Spanish side of the island. Ever since the Haitians invaded 8 times the Spanish side, burn the Dominican people's houses and towns, destroyed their rural farms; murdered many of their civilians and raped their women, etc; the Dominicans don't want anything to do with Haiti or with Haitians and resent anything that reminds them of the Haitians.
This was published in 1871 in The New York Times (20 years before Trujillo was even born):
The eyewitness stories of the horrors that the French experienced in Haiti during the Haitian Revolution and the Dominicans experienced on their side of the island at the hands of the Haitians during the revolution and for more than half the 19th century spread throughout Spanish America. Dominicans also emigrated in large numbers to Puerto Rico, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia. They migrated there with the stories of the horrors they witnessed. They often migrated back to the DR whenever the Haitian menace was put under control and pushed back to the western part of the island, only to re-emigrate when the Haitians invaded once again. This back and forth repeated itself multiple times in the 19th century and its not something that remained known only among the people directly affected by the Haitian threat.
Haiti became of symbol of everything that went wrong and a warning for other areas where similar social situations existed.
I will paraphrase what Thomas Jefferson once said:
"Lets make sure the problems stay on that island."
Before the Haitian Revolution the case was often made to increase the black populations in order to advance the economic development. After the Haitian Revolution the case became to reduce the black population in order to avoid a repeat of Haiti anywhere else in the Americas. In Cuba the issue was with the increasing sugar industry, developed at first by the French emigres from Haiti, and as a consequence they witnessed the increasing black population. This, in addition to the fact that Haiti was a day's boat ride away from the desolate eastern tip of Cuba which would had allowed any secret Haitian infiltration into Cuba to cause trouble, caused the Cuban authorities to attempt to keep things under control in order to avoid another Haiti.
The Hispanic influence in northern Haiti has more to do with many Spaniards that settled there, especially in Cap Haitien, when Haiti was a colony of France. Also, a huge area of modern Haiti was Dominican territory until 1929 when the border was redrawn and Haiti got some 5,000 square kilometers of land (basically the Centre department in its entirety and parts of the Artibonite/Nord/Nord-Ouest departments was Dominican territory.) A Haitian hero of Hinche by the last name Peralte (originally Peralta) was one of the original Spanish/Dominican families that had been in Hinche since the times it was a Spanish/Dominican town.
No I'm not saying that, but you just contradicted yourself, as you should look at the Dominican situation, whether it was later or not, with the same lens.
Keep in mind, you are talking about an enslaved people and the Spanish were doing the same on the Dominican side of the island in terms of slavery. So, there needs to be attention given to the European aspect as well.
So here you are peddling a vicious lie that some how the bad treatment of slaves had something to do with the Haitian Revolution. They very reason why the slaves revolted in Haiti was against the cruelty of their white AND MULATTO slave masters. The notion was work a slave as hard as possible with the notion that they would last 7 years, and then be replaced by a fresh import from Africa.
Slavery in the USA GREW after the Haitian Revolution as the cotton industry became very lucrative. Slavery GREW in Cuba and Brazil, with the exit of Haiti, and the significant reduction of British West Indian sugar, this at a time when sugar consumption increased as it became accessible to the masses, and not just the wealthy elites.
It only reflects YOUR OWN deep seated biases against black people why you ignore the violence and brutalities perpetuated by whites against each other, and against blacks and Native Americans.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but the Irish indentures to the USA were treated even WORSE than were the African slaves, because their owners wanted to ensure that they were worked to death before their period of indenture ended.
So why your focus on the behavior of the Haitian government, using biased sources from the NY Times and the Dominicans as evidence. Haiti was a country founded by slaves. In an era when even poor whites lacked the right to vote, such a concept was seen as a huge threat which had to be destroyed. Indeed the very sources which you cite, would have also described blacks as savage brutes who deserved to be enslaved. And it was through this lens that Haiti was perceived.
Good points and many indentured servants were of Irish descent. There had been issues between the British and Irish for centuries. So, that is a long history that can explain that treatment, which goes back before arrival in what is the US.
Uh no...The burden should not be on blacks to eliminate racism..Whites need to come to terms with certain things on a global
level among themselves as blacks did not create the global White Supremacy System.
IF blacks mated with whites..THEN..which would mean EVERYONE is BROWN...THEREFORE whites would have DISAPPEARED??
SO could racism be the expression of whites primordial fear of disappearing? and blacks as a race have the most melanin to
make that happen? so they have historically caught the most racial flack???...A minority on a global scale with recessive
genes: light skin, eyes and hair?...just wondering..
Brazil is interesting, I think I would enjoy visiting there one day...they seem like a fun people..
So in the Latin System the idea is: "If we mate with black we can bleach it away"
In the Anglo System the idea is : "We have to separate black to keep ourselves pure"
So the bottom-line is in both cases: "Let's get rid of the black" aka that which is African...
Good points and many indentured servants were of Irish descent. There had been issues between the British and Irish for centuries. So, that is a long history that can explain that treatment, which goes back before arrival in what is the US.
Many Irish still have issues with the British and the latter often make 'ethnic' jokes about the former. I have a few Irish and Irish-Americans as acquaintances, and during my school days one of my great friends was from there. Also a similar situation exist between the Koreans and the Japanese, but I get the impression that its worse than the Irish/British dilemma. This is expected though. The Japanese abused the Koreans on their own land and the British did the same to the Irish, and in both instances it lasted for years, even generations. Such experiences always leave a mark in the subsequent generations.
I don't know to what extent the Scottish have issues with the English, but late last year I met a Scottish couple at the airport. They were headed for Scotland and the guy said they were going home with a layover in Dublin, which is the capital of Ireland. I asked him why the layover in Dublin and not in London, considering that Heathrow is the biggest airport in those islands and has the most connections and possibly the cheaper flights; his response was "to avoid England" and when I asked him what was the problem with England, he said "the English!" I thought he was joking but he wasn't.
There was a genetic study last year that for the first time discovered that the memory of traumatic experiences can be passed down to future generations because it gets embedded in the genes.
A few quotes from one of the articles:
Quote:
'Memories' pass between generations
Experiments showed that a traumatic event could affect the DNA in sperm and alter the brains and behaviour of subsequent generations.
...
"The experiences of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations," the report concluded.
...
The findings provide evidence of "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" - that the environment can affect an individual's genetics, which can in turn be passed on.
One of the researchers Dr Brian Dias told the BBC: "This might be one mechanism that descendants show imprints of their ancestor.
"There is absolutely no doubt that what happens to the sperm and egg will affect subsequent generations."
Prof Marcus Pembrey, from University College London, said the findings were "highly relevant to phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders" and provided "compelling evidence" that a form of memory could be passed between generations.
So the bottom-line is in both cases: "Let's get rid of the black" aka that which is African...
Not really. The "black" is much more dominant. In the end Africa wins and everybody in the world will be African once again. The same way it was when the black Eve gave birth to the entire human race.
If everybody is African discrimination based on race will be quite hard.
The world will be boring with everybody looking the same, but there will be no racism. To eliminate racism everybody has to look the same.
So in the Latin System the idea is: "If we mate with black we can bleach it away"
Not quite. Its quite known that homogeneous societies can't have racial frictions and the reason is obvious. They can have other frictions though, but it would be hard to whip up racial resentments in societies where most people are quite homogeneous. Keeping racial resentments under control became of paramount importance after it was known of the excesses that were committed in the Haitian Revolution.
Thomas Sowell basically says the same thing:
Even today the whole notion of racial diversity and multiculturalism, which is very much an Anglo-American concept, can be considered a lingering effect from the original British thought, which I explain in the next response below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agbor
In the Anglo System the idea is : "We have to separate black to keep ourselves pure"
Sort of, but the British believed that the blacks were so inferior that mixing with them would degrade society as a whole. The Spanish/Portuguese didn't think that and that's the main reason they were never against racial mixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agbor
So the bottom-line is in both cases: "Let's get rid of the black" aka that which is African...
In the case of the Spanish/Portuguese it was more of a lets assimilate them genetically, the British would had committed mass genocide if they knew they could get away with it. Also, lets not forget that it was ex-British colonies that once proposed deporting the ex-slaves back to Africa, and the USA went as far as creating a whole new country in western Africa for this sole purpose (Liberia.) This wasn't the case in Latin America. And there were other marked differences in which the Spanish showed a much greater level of humanism than the British ever did.
This is what the British William Walton said about slavery in Spanish America. He published this book in 1810.
This is what Moreau de Saint-Mery, a French, said about racial treatments in the Spanish province of Santo Domingo (modern Dominican Republic) in 1798.
There are many more sources from colonial times that attest to the marked difference between how racial relations were in Spanish America compared to British or French America, with the former being much more humane in every way imaginable. Even after the Haitian Revolution took place and the effect this had in the entire continent, the reaction of the Spanish was of assimilating the black population while the British, and to an extent the French, reacted by segregating and even deporting back to Africa. In essence, the British would had committed a mass genocide if they knew they could get away with it, while the Spanish couldn't accept racial segregation as a possible solution.
It can be said that the Spanish didn't hate the black, they simply wanted to avoid unnecessary frictions by incorporating them or assimilating them into a new mixed society. The British despised the black to the degree that assimilating them genetically or culturally was considered to be repulsive.
In fact, in the Spanish Constitution of 1812 they made no color or racial distinction in defining who was to be considered a Spanish national.
1. All free men that are born and live in the Spanish dominions, and their offsprings.
4. All freedmen from the moment they are granted their freedom in the Spanish dominions."
It makes no racial or color distinction to confer Spanish nationality. Such a situation didn't quite happened in the British colonies.
Last edited by AntonioR; 07-06-2014 at 01:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
