whitey must pay
I learned about Ward Churchill's response to being fired on the Angry Indian's Intelligentaindigena Novajoservo, where you can also read this alarming news. (Ward was also on Democracy Now this morning.)
Haiti
“It is very, very clear to those of us who watch our government and its relationship to the small countries in this hemisphere and in the Caribbean, that this administration wishes to get rid of these leaders in these three countries who don’t cry uncle, who are not puppets to our government …”
--US Rep. Maxine Waters
A recent conversation inspired me to post some thoughts on Haiti and the US/UN attacks on Aristide's Lavalas Party supporters.
Aristide, who was truly popularly elected with over 90% of the people's support, was kidnapped and ousted by the US (with help from France, the UN, and the Haitian owning class). US Special Forces took Aristide from his home to a plane, which flew him to the Central African Republic. I remember listening to the extended coverage of the coup in February of 2004 on Flashpoints and feeling overwhelmed by the urgency of the situation. I remember driving to see Carla and Deirdre in the Mission (in San Francisco) and sitting in my car, enraged and weeping.
Perhaps one of the most telling stories from the aftermath of the 2004 coup is that of Radyo Timoun, a youth-led and youth-run radio station.
Why overthrow a truly popularly elected leader? Haiti had no oil. What were the stakes for the US? I think the answers involve the ugliest and most pernicious forms of racism and capitalism.
Haiti has dared to stand up to white supremacy, capitalism, and imperialism. Haiti was the first country where slaves launched an insurgent campaign for liberation, and it was the first country to demand reparations (in the sum of $21 million) from its former colonizer.
Aristide (pictured here with his family) asked France for reparations for the cruel ransom exacted from Haiti in 1825 to "permit" the abolition of slavery there. Haiti suffered under that offensive debt and finally paid off the cost of freedom to France in the 1940s. By the end of Baby Doc Duvalier's rule, Haiti was in debt again, this time because of US predatory "free trade" practices. You can read about how the US has impoverished Haiti too.
Aristide stood strong against the politics of exploitation, resisted "free trade," and sought to make Haiti's economy more autonomous and sustainable. I think the prospect of his continued success was enough to bring down the hammer. After all, the US has been particularly hard on socialist and other left-leaning countries that presented the "threat of a good example." If Haiti could do it, then other countries might try too. (I think, for example, of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, etc., etc.)
Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue dropped the claim Aristide made, of course, making clear his allegiance to the former colonizer by calling the case for reparations "ridiculous." (It's worth noting that about 1,000 French soldiers are fighting Haitians alongside US Marines and other UN forces in Haiti.)
And as if demanding reparations wasn't "uppity" enough, Aristide spoke out against the World Bank and the IMF's structural adjustment programs that decimate Third World countries.
I think even not many progressives know much about Haiti because Haitians are black and because the "spin" on Haiti is harder to make compelling. You really have to suppress a story of an unjust and illegal coup and invasion when the leader you overthrow is incredibly popular and impossible to demonize. It wasn't too hard to demonize Saddam Hussein.
But Aristide, a former priest and tireless advocate for the poor, is pretty much blameless as far as politicians go. The US has led two coups to oust him (in 1991 and again in 2004) and spread stories (which remain completely unfounded) that Aristide (who has lived remarkably simply and without luxury for a politician) had ties to "drug money." I suppose they couldn't think up anything better.
Finally, a word to Fugees' fans: Wyclef is NOT a good source for any info on Haiti. The stuff he said on MTV was nonsense and horrible. I've said this multiple times on this blog, but his family is part of the owning class elites in Haiti, and they benefit from the suffering of poor Haitians. His uncle, Raymond Joseph, is a publisher of the Haiti Observateur, which is a pro-US propaganda newspaper. Joseph was appointed by Gerard Latortue to be the Haitian ambassador to the US.
Haiti
“It is very, very clear to those of us who watch our government and its relationship to the small countries in this hemisphere and in the Caribbean, that this administration wishes to get rid of these leaders in these three countries who don’t cry uncle, who are not puppets to our government …”
--US Rep. Maxine Waters
A recent conversation inspired me to post some thoughts on Haiti and the US/UN attacks on Aristide's Lavalas Party supporters.
Aristide, who was truly popularly elected with over 90% of the people's support, was kidnapped and ousted by the US (with help from France, the UN, and the Haitian owning class). US Special Forces took Aristide from his home to a plane, which flew him to the Central African Republic. I remember listening to the extended coverage of the coup in February of 2004 on Flashpoints and feeling overwhelmed by the urgency of the situation. I remember driving to see Carla and Deirdre in the Mission (in San Francisco) and sitting in my car, enraged and weeping. Perhaps one of the most telling stories from the aftermath of the 2004 coup is that of Radyo Timoun, a youth-led and youth-run radio station.
Why overthrow a truly popularly elected leader? Haiti had no oil. What were the stakes for the US? I think the answers involve the ugliest and most pernicious forms of racism and capitalism.
Haiti has dared to stand up to white supremacy, capitalism, and imperialism. Haiti was the first country where slaves launched an insurgent campaign for liberation, and it was the first country to demand reparations (in the sum of $21 million) from its former colonizer.
Aristide (pictured here with his family) asked France for reparations for the cruel ransom exacted from Haiti in 1825 to "permit" the abolition of slavery there. Haiti suffered under that offensive debt and finally paid off the cost of freedom to France in the 1940s. By the end of Baby Doc Duvalier's rule, Haiti was in debt again, this time because of US predatory "free trade" practices. You can read about how the US has impoverished Haiti too. Aristide stood strong against the politics of exploitation, resisted "free trade," and sought to make Haiti's economy more autonomous and sustainable. I think the prospect of his continued success was enough to bring down the hammer. After all, the US has been particularly hard on socialist and other left-leaning countries that presented the "threat of a good example." If Haiti could do it, then other countries might try too. (I think, for example, of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, etc., etc.)
Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue dropped the claim Aristide made, of course, making clear his allegiance to the former colonizer by calling the case for reparations "ridiculous." (It's worth noting that about 1,000 French soldiers are fighting Haitians alongside US Marines and other UN forces in Haiti.)
And as if demanding reparations wasn't "uppity" enough, Aristide spoke out against the World Bank and the IMF's structural adjustment programs that decimate Third World countries.
I think even not many progressives know much about Haiti because Haitians are black and because the "spin" on Haiti is harder to make compelling. You really have to suppress a story of an unjust and illegal coup and invasion when the leader you overthrow is incredibly popular and impossible to demonize. It wasn't too hard to demonize Saddam Hussein.
But Aristide, a former priest and tireless advocate for the poor, is pretty much blameless as far as politicians go. The US has led two coups to oust him (in 1991 and again in 2004) and spread stories (which remain completely unfounded) that Aristide (who has lived remarkably simply and without luxury for a politician) had ties to "drug money." I suppose they couldn't think up anything better.Finally, a word to Fugees' fans: Wyclef is NOT a good source for any info on Haiti. The stuff he said on MTV was nonsense and horrible. I've said this multiple times on this blog, but his family is part of the owning class elites in Haiti, and they benefit from the suffering of poor Haitians. His uncle, Raymond Joseph, is a publisher of the Haiti Observateur, which is a pro-US propaganda newspaper. Joseph was appointed by Gerard Latortue to be the Haitian ambassador to the US.
Labels: academic, capitalism, Haiti, imperialism, racism, SF Bay View, white supremacy
posted by adrienne at 11:09 AM
5 Comments:
Learning of what Ward Churchill said of the WTC victims and now seeing his response to being fired on this webpage along with one finger raised under the caption "Whitey must pay" is a very sobering experience. I am wondering if you also believe that "Whitey must pay". If so, should this involve anything along the lines of flying a 747 into the side of a building or is monetary payment sufficient?
Do I believe France owes reparations to Haiti? Yes. Absolutely. Do I endorse or encourage violence? No. Absolutely not.
Then I don't understand the feature of Ward Churchill on your website in it's current context if you don't advocate violence. Didn't he more or less say the WTC victims "had it coming" or "provoked" it or something along those lines?
Looking into Churchill's "Eichmann" essay further I see he says:
"In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.
Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."
It looks to me like Churchill is advocating something more than just "waving signs". Apparently non-violent protesters are wrongfully preventing others from "breaking windows" and whatever else and thus playing a "systematically useful" role in the war effort.
Are you a follower of Churchill's ideas? If so, do you think anti-war protesters should engage in violent protest?
You have my word of honor I am not affiliated with any federal nor state agencies, just a curious passer-by, in fact I'm unemployed at the moment. I was laid off from the real estate industry a month ago.
I'm not a follower of Churchill's ideas, and I don't think anyone should engage in "violent protest." If you are interested, I know there are many people who can provide analyses of Churchill's essay and other writings. I'm sure you can find some online or at your local library. I'm sorry to learn of your lay-off and wish you the best.
Post a Comment
<< Home