You must log in or register to comment.
And the white-controlled nations of the world continue to punish them to this day for their defiance.
More that France saddled them with a massive debt in return for no longer threatening to invade, and that debt utterly obliterated Haiti’s economy for the next 150 years.
Now that’s some spiteful shit
Utterly insane spite. It wasn’t even some great boon to France; a year or two of the French government’s income gouged out from Haiti over the course of 50 years. But it was crushing to Haiti.
That’s just so sad and unnecessary. Some Netanyahu type level of spite.
Netanyahu would be celebrated if he was born 200 years ago as a European colonizer. Knowing that it probably part of what keeps him motivated to commit mass murder.
It wouldn’t have mattered if all the other colonizer nations hadn’t backed up France. That’s why the parent comment was accurate.
Which colonizer nations ‘backed up’ France? Short of declaring that Haiti had no right to make deals with another sovereign state, itself a violation of Haiti’s sovereignty, what were other countries supposed to do at the time, exactly? Threaten war with France?
Britain refused to recognize Haiti’s sovereignty until 1833, and the US refused until 1862. French, US, and German banks lent Haiti the money to repay the debt at usurious rates (which means those countries enforced the validity of the unjust debt). The US invaded and occupied the country between 1915-1934. Do I need to go on?
Britain refused to recognize Haiti’s sovereignty until 1833, and the US refused until 1862.
How is that ‘backing up’ France?
French, US, and German banks lent Haiti the money to repay the debt at usurious rates (which means those countries enforced the validity of the unjust debt).
“Allowing another country to take out loans is enforcement”
You’re absolutely right, in order to respect Haiti’s sovereignty, the US and Germany should have forbidden Haiti to make deals with financial institutions in the country. /s
The US invaded and occupied the country between 1915-1934. Do I need to go on?
Short of declaring that Haiti had no right to make deals with another sovereign state, itself a violation of Haiti’s sovereignty, what were other countries supposed to do at the time, exactly? Threaten war with France?
How is that ‘backing up’ France?
How is taking France’s side and agreeing with it that it deserved reparations for its slaves having freed themselves ‘backing up’ France? Really? You’re actually confused on that point??
Do you just not understand what ‘backing up’ means?
what were other countries supposed to do at the time, exactly?
They were supposed to normalize relations without recognizing the validity of France’s bullshit punitive debt, so that Haiti could be allowed to economically develop and trade (with countries other than France, at least) without that yoke around its neck. Obviously.
Why are you playing dumb? Are you trying to troll me? You’re usually not like this.
How is taking France’s side and agreeing with it that it deserved reparations for its slaves having freed themselves ‘backing up’ France?
How is it agreeing that France deserved reparations for its slaves? After the ‘reparations’ agreement was made, neither the UK nor the US immediately recognized Haiti.
Do you just not understand what ‘backing up’ means?
Typically it means to support a side or initiative, not ‘do nothing’.
They were supposed to normalize relations without recognizing the validity of France’s bullshit punitive debt, so that Haiti could be allowed to economically develop and trade (with countries other than France, at least) without that yoke around its neck. Obviously.
… okay, first, the US had trade relations with Haiti since 1799, what was lacking was formal diplomatic recognition.
Second, the normalization of relations from both the US and the UK did not address the validity or invalidity of France’s debt. It was irrelevant to the issue of recognition.
Third, you don’t seem to understand that an agreement between two sovereign states is not affected by the stance of any other countries on it. The US and the UK saying “We don’t recognize Haiti’s right to make agreements with France >:(” would not have invalidated that agreement with France; only Haiti or France had the ability to modify that agreement.
Why are you playing dumb? Are you trying to troll me? You’re usually not like this.
I’m not playing dumb, I’m astounded that you’re regarding an unjust agreement between two sovereign nations as something that other countries have some sort of say in. Even today, with the UN, incredibly interlinked economies, and strong conceptions of international law, this argument would be difficult.
The more you read about modern history the more you realize the Western world has essentially been the world’s mafia for the past 500 years. Colonialism is essentially showing up on peoples shores and demanding a shake down. Followed by embedding yourself within a community and demanding a cut of every transaction while providing little of meaningful value. What an extractionary legacy.
Forever favorite revolution
If you think Haiti won that conflict…
