“Where there are Blacks, there is Africa”. Such an idea is racist, and thus taboo. Don’t even think that black countries are a mess because of their black inhabitants. We analyze the example of Haiti.
Dr. William Pierce – A lesson of Haiti
- Dailymotion, vidlii.com, bitchute[2], have the video without disturbing portuguese footnotes
YouTube, of course, deleted the video already as “hate speech”
Haitian History
Today’s topic: the history of Haiti, formerly known as the French colony of Saint-Domingue (or Santo Domingo), on the island of Hispaniola, which it shares with the Dominican Republic, which is… well, a rather different sort of place from Haiti. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but let’s start with a little “compare and contrast.”
From ‘Haiti and the Dominican Republic: A Tale of Two Countries’ (Time, 2010):
The U.N. ranks the Dominican Republic 90th out of 182 countries on its human-development index, which combines a variety of welfare measurements; Haiti comes in at 149th. In the Dominican Republic, average life expectancy is nearly 74 years. In Haiti, it’s 61. You’re substantially more likely to be able to read and write if you live in the eastern two-thirds of Hispaniola, and less likely to live on less than $1.25 a day.
So how can we “explain why Haiti suffers, while the Dominican Republic — which shares the 30,000 sq. mi. of the Caribbean island of Hispaniola — is relatively well-off?” In the wake of Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake, Jared Diamond (who, by the way, thinks New Guineans are “more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American,” which is… interesting…) tiptoed up to the truth in the Guardian:
A second social and political factor is that the Dominican Republic — with its Spanish-speaking population of predominantly European ancestry — was both more receptive and more attractive to European immigrants and investors than was Haiti with its Creole-speaking population composed overwhelmingly of black former slaves. […] Hence European immigration and investment were negligible and restricted by the constitution in Haiti after 1804 but eventually became important in the Dominican Republic. Those Dominican immigrants included many middle-class businesspeople and skilled professionals who contributed to the country’s development.
Continue reading at Haitian History
Neo-Nazi Dr. William Luther Pierce fails to understand the history of Haiti
Lengthy critical debunking of the video at Reddit
For the rest of the video Pierce either goes on about racist stuff or repeats the same falsehoods he stated earlier in the video so there’s no point in debunking them again. However before closing this I’d like to touch on one important aspect of Pierce’s video which is a particularly malicious form of bad history; his narrative. The narrative of Haitian history in Pierce’s video is one of a nation given every opportunity to succeed, and the population’s inherent flaws interfering with that success. This narrative is not only racist, as it pins all the problems Haiti has faced simply on the fact that the population is Black, but also ignores the context surrounding every event in Haitian history in order to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that Haitian history is a history of failure. In a world where knowledge of Haitian history is uncommon at best I find the dissemination of such a malicious narrative disgusting.
Dr Pierce must be wrong because the argumentation is racist. It must not be fault of the Haitians that Haiti was a total violent cesspool of crime, corruption, and poverty ever since the French Whites were genocided in the formerly rich and prosperous Island.
The Lesson of Haiti
An excerpt from the full text of the video. For the full text read the original site
Prichard ends his book with a chapter titled “Can the Negro Rule Himself?” And he answers his question:
“The present condition of Haiti gives the best possible answer to the question, and, considering the experiment has lasted for a century, perhaps also a conclusive one. For a century the answer has been working itself out there in flesh and blood. The Negro has had his chance, a fair field, and no favor. He has had the most beautiful and fertile of the Caribees for his own; he has had the advantage of excellent French laws; he inherited a made country, with Cap Haitien for its Paris . . . . Here was a wide land sown with prosperity, a land of wood, water, towns and plantations, and in the midst of it the Black man was turned loose to work out his own salvation. What has he made of the chances that were given to him?”
Prichard then summarizes the century of Haiti’s independent existence, running through a list of Black rulers and strongmen, of revolutions and massacres and disorders. He winds up his survey with these words:
“Suffice it to say that . . . [Haiti’s] best president was Geffrard, a mulatto, and that the dictatorship of her Black heads of state always has been marked by a redder smear than usual upon the page of history. The better, the wiser, the more enlightened and less brutalized class has always been composed of the mulattos, and the Blacks have recognized the fact and hated the mulatto element accordingly. But to pass from the earlier days of independence to more recent times: we had not long ago the savage rule of President Salomon, a notorious sectary of snake worship, beneath whose iron hand the country groaned for years, and public executions, assassinations, and robbery were the order of the day. And at the present time? Today in Haiti we come to the real crux of the question. At the end of a hundred years of trial how does the Black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none.” […]
This sort of thing has happened over and over again in Haiti. It seems that we would have learned something from it. In the 18th century Haiti, then called Saint-Domingue and ruled by the French, was the most prosperous colony in the New World. Its enormously fertile soil produced a great abundance of crops and drew thousands of White French settlers. Unfortunately, Black slaves from Africa were imported to help with the work. In the late 1700’s the madness of the French Revolution, with its truly nutty doctrine of racial equality, infected many Frenchmen and the Black plantation workers were encouraged to revolt. When they did they brutally murdered every White man, woman, and child in the colony and declared Haiti a republic. What had been the richest and most productive part of the New World promptly sank back to an African level of squalor, misery, and poverty. The roads and cities built by the French fell into ruin. A peculiarly African mixture of anarchy and despotism took the place of French law and order. […]
And in 1994 we tried the same foolishness all over again, claiming that we were “restoring democracy” to Haiti. Why can’t we accept the plain and simple truth that it is as impossible to make democrats out of the Haitians as it is to teach them how to maintain their own roads? Why can’t we understand that the Haitians are fundamentally different from us, that they are Africans, not Europeans like us: that they are Negroes, and that left to themselves they must do things in the way Negroes always have done them, with indolence, corruption, and Voodoo?
I have in front of me a book on Haiti written by a British scholar, a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society, following his extended travels in Haiti at the beginning of this century. The book was published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, with offices in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and New York. The author is Hesketh Prichard, and the title of his book is Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti. Prichard chose his title because he was especially interested in the fact that Haiti was a country ruled entirely by its Black population, without the White colonial domination that was present nearly everywhere else in the non-White world at that time. The only Whites in the country were a few hundred businessmen and their agents in the coastal cities. They were not treated well by the government or people of Haiti. Prichard was basically sympathetic to the Blacks and wanted to see how they lived when they had been introduced to civilization by Whites but were then left completely free to do as they wished, without White control. He writes of Haiti in the first chapter of his book: “There the law of the world is reversed, and the Black man rules. It is one of the few spots on earth where his color sets the Negro upon a pedestal and gives him privileges. The full-blooded African is paramount; even the mulattos and half-breeds are disliked and have been barbarously weeded out as time has passed.”
See also
Haiti buried under trash!
