Regardless of the specificity of how some conceived of Incas originating in the Caribbean, the parallels in the experiences of African slaves and indigenous peoples of the Americas were obvious and of some meaning to many of African descent. Thus, the naming of Haiti and the declaration of Dessalines as the "Avenger of the Americas" indicates interracial solidarity and an interesting case study for African-Native relations in the hemisphere. Moreover, since a few decades before the 1791 slave revolt initiated the Haitian Revolution, Tupac Amaru and other indigenes led rebellions against colonial rule in South America. It would be interesting to see the intersections of indigenous anti-colonial resistance and that of enslaved peoples of African descent in the Caribbean. For instance, we know of the alliances between runaway slave communities and Seminoles in Florida, or the Garifuna communities' links to African slaves and Caribs, but what about ideological solidarity, something that appears to be the case in early Haiti. Moreover, we know that by the time Haiti became a French colony in the 1600s, very few indigenous people were left, and many people of Indian backgrounds were likely captives and slaves from other parts of the circum-Caribbean region. What I would like to know is if the news of indigenous rebellions in Peru or Bolivia somehow reached back into the French Caribbean's Afro-descendants, or, if perhaps the general knowledge of European colonial genocide and racism against indigenous peoples was the main motive for the naming of Haiti and the self-proclaimed "Avenger of the Americas" Dessalines.
I believe that Dessalines also referred to his partisans as "sons of the sun" and "the Inca army". Geggus' research struck me as fanciful sense he seems to ascribe the name Haiti to a desire on the part of mulattoes not to be associated with a more African name. I doubt that claim for the simple fact that the decision to rename the place was mostly Dessalines'.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it's more mixed. I have read from him and some other sources (maybe Dash? Fischer?) that some of the mixed-race people of color wanted to identify as "Indian" and there was a literary movement of "indigenism" where indigenous cultures were celebrated in 19th century poetry, if I remember correctly. But it's definitely more of a mixed bag, or to state it more clearly, Dessalines and many black Haitians desired to identify themselves with the indigenous past and wanted the name Haiti to reflect that. If I remember correctly, lots of Haitian constitutions from this period recognized indigenous people from all over the Americas as welcome Haitians with citizenship rights in a year or something, the same offer standing for people of African descent who chose to settle in Haiti, so I think Haitian officials always leaned toward pro-indigenous/Indian attitudes.
DeleteWhat are your thoughts on Geggus overall, if you don't mind me asking? Somehow he seems to be the internationally recognized 'expert' on the Haitian Revolution and Saint Domingue, which is disturbing since he's not Haitian and most Haitian scholars on the subject are probably still on the backburner for most readers on the subject. But anyway, I was slightly disturbed by this video lecture of his about why Haiti is poor, available on youtube.
Why would you be disturbed that white people would anoint one of their own as the "expert". Until somebody white says it an idea has no right to be. I don't I found him superior to Madison Smartt-Bell who's no historian but is also deemed an "authority" even by Haitians, on Toussaint. The Indian has been adopted by all educated Haitians because school books start the history of the place with their struggle against Spanish domination.
ReplyDeleteTrue, white folks tend to monopolize the 'expert' position on topics relating to people of color regardless of the presence of qualified and talented black scholars. Smartt-Bell's trilogy on the Haitian Revolution sounded interesting, but, I read elsewhere that he attributes the slave revolt of 1791 to French or other white European agents inciting slaves rather than slave agency itself, since apparently black slaves are too stupid to realize they can and should push for their own liberty.
ReplyDeleteGegggus and others have also written about the effects of the Haitian Revolution in colonial Jamaica. According to Geggus, Toussaint actually reported two European agents to the British when the former were radicals attempting to push for a slave revolt in Jamaica, an instance of Toussaint's anti-slavery politics being curtailed by realpolitik and the necessary lack of strife with the British he desired.
Toussaint had worked out a deal with Maitland regulating trade between the British and St-Domingue, the French navy was a joke so he opted for trade rather than "revolutionary" agitation. He also continued trade with the USA when it was at war with France.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Geggus video and I found it pretty accurate. Which part did you find disturbing? His claim that Haiti at the end of the 19th century was no worse off than other nations in latin america is in accord with what I know. My take on Haiti's poverty is that the Haitian bourgeoisie failed to develop the country because their orientation was toward foreign countries such as France, etc. That tendency was so strong that Price-Mars called it Bovarism after Flaubert's heroine Emma Bovary. A perfect example of the type, because he was so damn successful, is Sylla Volsant Laraque. He became very rich as a coffee exporter and brilliant investor. By the time he quit Haiti he had amassed a fortune estimated at 100 million gold Francs or $20 million. He spent that money investing in a successful resort in Brittany,two huge estates in the French colony of Tunisia and something like 20 plus mansions in France. When I hear Haitians claim that foreigners alone are to blame for the present state of that territory, I think of Boyer destroying Christophe's education plans and looting the treasury of his kingdom, giving French business advantages in the Haitian market that was detrimental to local capitalists, and Duvalier's persecution of Thomas Desulme, the Haitian industrialist who started plastic manufacturing in Jamaica. People take advantage only if you let them. Some Haitians make the claim that France was so overwhelmingly powerful that Boyer had no choice but to saddle the nation with the debt France demanded, what they forget was that the idea of paying French colons was Petion's suggestion. Here is a joke for you, the money Laraque made ended up financing a tractor manufacturer, meanwhile, the Haitian peasant is still eking out a living using the same tools his ancestors used in 1804. I think that the moral of this story is that private enterprise alone can't develop a country.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothered me about the film was a suggestion on Geggus's part that if Haiti had remained a French colony, the living standards would be higher today (like Martinique and Guadeloupe), which I find rather specious since, without the Haitian Revolution, the entire history of the French Caribbean (the world in general, really) would be vastly different, so counterfactuals are not necessarily very useful for studying the poverty of modern Haiti. It just seemed like a snide suggestion that Haiti would have been better off had the majority of the population remained slaves. But I should re-watch the lecture, perhaps I am exaggerating that.
DeleteAlso, I came across an interesting dissertation on Henri Christophe's relations with Clarkson and Wilberforce, which was quite interesting, especially since Christophe tried to introduce more modern agricultural technology (plow, I think?), but, unfortunately, not enough French-speaking English came to teach those skills to the majority of the population.
Since I agreed with his overall description of the situation I overlooked that comment. You are right that the Haitian revolution was necessary to put an end to the transatlantic slave trade. You correct to say that poverty in Haiti can't be ascribed to the revolution. I pointed out to you, in my comments on Carpentier's novel, that in 1811 Christophe's kingdom was wealthy enough to undertake a number of projects that required substantial resources. I'll say it again, Haiti would have been better off following his development program. In our discussion of "El reino de esto mundo por Alejo Carpentier" you made the following claim "But then the problem would then center on how would Christophe's kingdom survive without exploited, cheap labor from the new peasants? I don't know...but I will try to find that book by Cole." Can you tell me where you got the information that the kingdom was based on cheap labor from exploited peasants? It's my understanding that Christophe required his subjects to be clothed and shod, 200 years later Haitians are in rags and bare feet. I maintain that Haiti's current poverty is due to the Petion/Boyer crowd's fecklessness. From 1804 to 1825 Haitians claimed they would live free or die but that changed to whatever you say boss after that.
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely sure where I got the information from I guess, probably that Alejo Carpentier novel and a few other sources (maybe Fischer's book?). However, Carpentier is definitely biased and almost tries to paint post-revolutionary Haiti as something like the Soviet Union in Orwell's Animal Farm. I think a few others have asserted that Christophe's support for an export-oriented plantation model was tied to a quasi-feudal monarchical society where Christophe appointed people with titles. Also, Toussaint established a precedent for future leaders to try to maintain the plantation system, although you and others have pointed out that the ex-slaves were given wages and some power (assemblies, etc.). It definitely seems likely, however, that Haiti would have been better off under Christophe rather than the Petion/Boyer period, although some people think highly of Petion because of the flourishing independence of the peasants/ex-slaves. Someone (cannot remember who asserted this) claimed that Petion had to redistribute land to his supporters (soldiers and others) partly because of his mulatto background, which meant he could not take the risk of trying to maintain the plantation system. I don't know how accurate that is, but Petion seems to be highly regarded by many Haitians, today. I have also read of certain scenarios and situations where radical anti-slavery of Petion and Boyer did include intercepting slave ships (Christophe did this, too), maintaining Haiti as a land where all slaves were forever freed (and Petion had a confrontation with a Jamaican white planter whose slaves fled to Haiti, and in this case Petion stood up to the British and stood by the ex-slaves from Jamaica. Also, Fischer and a few others stood by the constitutions of Petion and Boyer, even though these men didn't live up to the democratic ideals within those constitutions. Apparently they were in some way based on the modern, liberal constitutions and legal codes of France, the US, etc, and abolished slavery in the Spanish-speaking east, Santo Domingo. And I believe the constitutions of Petion and Boyer retained some aspects of that of Dessalines, which banned whites from owning land in Haiti, I believe. I would stand by them for also being secular constitutions that did not pay obeisance to the Catholic Church in Santo Domingo.
DeleteBut yeah, overwhelmingly Petion and Boyer were anti-democratic, tampered and controlled the other branches of government, and were essentially military rulers who inhibited the development of civil institutions. Have you read about Felix Darfour, an African-born Haitian who was executed by Boyer for criticizing his rule? And of course the unpopular Code Rural, though similar to similar laws passed under Toussaint, Christophe, and Dessalines, attempted to revive the plantation model in Haiti to help pay the indemnity that Boyer agreed to for France. So, yes, overwhelmingly Boyer was the worst thing to happen to Haiti. His rule and successors seem to have caused a serious of disasters in succession, losing the Spanish-speaking east forever, and continued to do a great job to retain formal political power largely among the elites. I think I agree with you, Christophe's model would've likely been much better given his interest in education, agricultural innovation, and the general welfare of the Haitian people, something seeming to be largely absent in folks such as Boyer.
DeleteI know that some say French warships were in the harbor of Port-au-Prince before Boyer agreed to the recognition deal with France, but that's highly disturbing and disappointing if he did indeed suggest the the indemnity. However, given the hostile environment the state found itself in, struggling to achieve recognition from the great powers of the day and the US, I always found it likely that his agreement to the deal saved Haiti from a genocidal war that some former French colons of Saint-Domingue wanted. Of course, one should rather die fighting and free instead of capitulating to slaveholding, imperialist powers, but given the times, I suppose it's easy to see why Petion conceded. French recognition of Haitian independence paved the way for British and other states to recognize Haiti.
"And I believe the constitutions of Petion and Boyer retained some aspects of that of Dessalines, which banned whites from owning land in Haiti, I believe. I would stand by them for also being secular constitutions that did not pay obeisance to the Catholic Church in Santo Domingo." Haiti's first secular constitution was Dessalines' 1805 constitution. " I am not entirely sure where I got the information from I guess, probably that Alejo Carpentier novel and a few other sources (maybe Fischer's book? )." That damned book should be thrown in the garbage where it belongs. It's funny how, when it comes to Haitian history, any story even one clearly indicating that it's fiction, is given the status of historical accuracy. "I think a few others have asserted that Christophe's support for an export-oriented plantation model was tied to a quasi-feudal monarchical society where Christophe appointed people with titles. Also, Toussaint established a precedent for future leaders to try to maintain the plantation system, although you and others have pointed out that the ex-slaves were given wages and some power (assemblies, etc.)." Neither Toussaint, Dessalines nor Christophe can lay claim to the title of originating the system you describe, that system was the creation of Sonthonax and Polverel the French commissioners originally sent to maintain slavery in the colony, who ended up declaring emancipation in order to keep the French flag flying over the place. Toussaint and his lieutenants only tried to maintain it. The historians who criticize them never say one negative word about Sonthonax et al. I wonder why? Apparently the same system can be labeled quasi-feudal monarchical when run by a black man and an emancipatory act when associated with white administrators. I'm surprised that you didn't catch that double standard. "Someone (cannot remember who asserted this) claimed that Petion had to redistribute land to his supporters (soldiers and others) partly because of his mulatto background, which meant he could not take the risk of trying to maintain the plantation system." Robert, you must be joking? You found that argument convincing? The man's mulatto background had nothing to do with it, the fact that his treasury was empty and he paid for the service of his troops with land explains his actions. You should give up such irrational explanations for perfectly rational ones like lack of funds. "I don't know how accurate that is, but Petion seems to be highly regarded by many Haitians, today." You are quite accurate. I hope you haven't taken my harsh comments about the man to mean that I don't respect him or even Boyer. None of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were democrats in my opinion, that doesn't mean that after the event a certain consensus wasn't established such as the death of slavery from the place forever. That consensus was the crowning achievement of the revolution. I get very angry when ignorant and/or malicious people claim that restaveks are slaves, such assertions are attacks on the essence of Haitian identity. All Haitian leaders, before the Yankee invasion, tried with varying degrees of competence, to uphold the ideal of that revolution.
ReplyDelete"I know that some say French warships were in the harbor of Port-au-Prince before Boyer agreed to the recognition deal with France, but that's highly disturbing and disappointing if he did indeed suggest the the indemnity. However, given the hostile environment the state found itself in, struggling to achieve recognition from the great powers of the day and the US, I always found it likely that his agreement to the deal saved Haiti from a genocidal war that some former French colons of Saint-Domingue wanted." Please tell me what great military innovations occured between 1804 and 1825 that would have given France a better than 50-50 chance of carrying out her military plans with success? I don't really think that the Bourbon monarchy would have lasted the report of the first military reversal in such adventure. Five years after extorting the money from Haiti it was swept away by the July 1830 revolution, known as Les Trois Glorieuses. Again, it was Petion not Boyer who suggested Haiti indemnify former colons. "French recognition of Haitian independence paved the way for British and other states to recognize Haiti." Yes, they all recognized that the place was ripe to be picked apart, that's why demands upon demands were made on Haiti for the least trivial incident. All Haiti got was gunboat diplomacy for her efforts to be recognized as a civilized nation. "Have you read about Felix Darfour, an African-born Haitian who was executed by Boyer for criticizing his rule? " I've heard of him but not enough to say anything worthwhile about him. I hope I'll soon have the opportunity to read your take on Christophe's kingdom in light of our correspondence.
ReplyDeleteYes, the chances of successful French reconquest of Haiti is unlikely, so Boyer should've stood up to the French, like Christophe. Felix Darfour, in addition to other criticisms of Boyer's authoritarian rule, also criticized him for selling Haitian independence to whites. I am going to write a post about Christophe, but I got sidelined with some other readings. Currently, I am reading Laurent Dubois's Haiti: The Aftershocks of History and I may write about Boyer and some other folks first, as well as a review of Dubois's book.
DeleteThis ebook might be of some use to you.
ReplyDeletehttp://archive.org/details/notesonhaitimade02mack
Thanks, though I believe I found this a few years ago via Google books. I don't think I ever finished reading it, though I should if I want to write more specifically or with greater detail about the Boyer regime. I just finished Dubois's Haiti: The Aftershocks of History and wrote a short review and with greater detail, based on his text, wrote about Boyer, Petion, and Christophe. Dubois would seem to agree with you, Christophe's government was probably much better for the average Haitian based on his support for education than the Petion/Boyer republic, despite land reforms under Petion.
ReplyDeleteOn 7/1/2013, you wrote the following: "What bothered me about the film was a suggestion on Geggus's part that if Haiti had remained a French colony, the living standards would be higher today (like Martinique and Guadeloupe), which I find rather specious since, without the Haitian Revolution, the entire history of the French Caribbean (the world in general, really) would be vastly different, so counterfactuals are not necessarily very useful for studying the poverty of modern Haiti." The problem with Geggus's statement isn't that it was false because the French would have invested in infrastructure that the country lacks. What he omitted is the simple fact that, in order for Haiti to have remained French the following would have had to happen. Here it is in the words of Charles Leclerc, Captain General of the French expedition to Saint-Domingue “Since terror is the sole resource left me, I employ it”, and, “We must destroy all the mountain negroes, men and women, sparing only children under twelve years of age. We must destroy half the negroes of the plains…” Needless to say that your ancestors and mine would have perished in this French holocaust.
ReplyDelete