Hi, I've been looking up novels on Haiti and so far I've only come across one's that blame Haitians for everything or ones that completely absolve Haitians of all blame and how they were completely powerless against western whims? Is this common?
Hello, many thanks for your question. This is indeed a very, very interesting one which could fill libraries, therefore, I will try to be succinct!
As I’ve said many times on this blog, there are (usually) two currents when speaking about Haiti’s failure to become a stable and democratic state: one (mostly associated with people on the right) who would make it seem as if Haitians are absolutely responsible for each and every one of their problems. Authors who abide by this thinking commonly emphasise the numerous episodes of gross violence throughout Haitian history (I am thinking, for instance, of books like Written in Blood: The Story of the Haitian People by Robert Debs Heinl and Nancy Gordon Heinl, although these two are not as far right as others). Then, you have this other tradition (usually attracting people on the left) who make the case that most of Haiti’s problems are the result of direct or indirect Western intervention, historically by France but most lately by the United States and other members of the international community (mainly with mechanisms such as the very controversial MINUSTAH). A good example would be Laurent Dubois’ Haiti: The Aftershocks of History.
At this blog, we are very much aware of both traditions and try to stay away from them because they are deeply flawed in their own ways. I think that, for instance, part of the reason every once in a while someone comes in and asks us (or accuses us really) of being white is because the more liberal explanation for Haiti’s modern instability and poverty is usually explained by Western entanglements in the country, an explanation which we do not completely favour.
As much as I don’t want to suggest that ahistorical (and often grossly racist) explanations for Haiti’s poverty (which are the favourite of the right) should be taken seriously, I find it equally problematic when liberal writers strip Haitians of all their agency by suggesting that only outside forces are responsible for historical movements in the country. (Now, I am not suggesting that this is what Dubois is doing in his book, but he does fall close to this tradition).
I think the central problem is that many individuals cannot hold that two ideas can be true at the same time. I want to stress here that: it is possible that there is such a thing as a political culture of corruption and a tendency for militarism which as been present throughout Haitian history AND that Haiti has been a victim of Western disdain and mistreatment. One does not cancel the other. In fact, it is only when we look at the interaction of those two sets of forces that we began to really understand and outline some of the important features of Haitian history.
A good example of what I mean here would be to look at Toussaint Louverture’s leadership between 1798 and 1801/2 which pre-dates the modern Haitian state (but that sets an important precedent for future leaders). Toussaint Louverture was a brilliant military leader who seemed to have been committed to his goal of general and irrevocable emancipation. Yet, he was also a general who ruled with an iron fist (perhaps less so than Dessalines and Christophe after him but still), who militarised agriculture, re-invited white planters into Saint-Domingue, gave himself (through the 1801 Constitution) the exclusive right to govern until his death and choose his successor and thus made clear that he would not accept any dissidence to his “state” vision. Still, we have to look at Toussaint as this complex figure who had to rule Saint-Domingue in this extraordinary time with two revolutionary movements (soon to be going on opposite directions) raging in the Atlantic. Louverture was a man of his time, with one foot into the ancien régime and another one into modernity. He was both a genius and a despot (and I am not using those words lightly). To paint him as this bloodthirsty leader (as some have done in the past) or as this selfless abolitionist is equally wrong (granted for different reasons). Even though we have much less surviving documents about the Haitian Revolution than say, the American and French revolutions, we have enough to see that Louverture is a far more complex figure than what popular accounts would want to suggest. This is the way in which we have tried to present him throughout this blog’s short existence online.
Now, we have been accused in the past of being “too nuanced” and while I admit that I don’t fully understand why people would view a nuanced analysis negatively, I suppose some of it comes from this attitude (more associated with the “liberal camp”) of thinking that if we admit that the Haitian state, at various moments has turned against its own people, has acted out of self-interest and has ruled with no real popular consent, we are automatically validating what writers towards the right have said about this almost ingrained pathological thirst for violence which is supposedly characteristic of Haitian people and its leaders. There is, of course, a very thin line to walk between the two but this is absolutely not what we believe and we think nuances are important precisely because we have to transcend this way of imagining Haitian history as either the tales of Haitian violence or that of complete victimhood. (Even if victimization is an essential part of Haiti’s history, we should find ways of layering this victimization and not make it seem as if Haitians (the state and the people) have not been central actors in their own history.)
So yes, to go back to your original inquiry, these are very common ways of understanding Haitian history and for the reasons I’ve highlighted above (although many more could have been said) there are many problems associated with imprisoning Haitian history in this binary narrative as opposed to understanding national and supranational forces as existing in a complex dialectic relationship.
I hope you will find this useful, please contact us again if you wish to discuss this further. Good day.
