Context: Napoleon wanted to use Polish Legions to suppress revolution in Haiti. Legionnaires were not exactly interested in crushing anybody’s independence, so they either did fuck all or outright deserted to revolutionaries. Haitians noticed that pretty quickly and treated captured Poles much better than French which just convinced more people to desert.
After the war, quite a lot of them stayed on Haiti and intermarried with locals.
They are whole villages of blue eyed people there that sometimes even speak Polish and use mixed (with large Polish part) culture artifacts till now over 200 years later
A bit more context. One of the thing Napoleon's empire did was spread liberal and nationalistic ideals. And the Poles, whose country was surrounded and getting chipped away at for awhile by Austria, Prussia, and Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions\_of\_Poland), were attracted to the ideals of Napoleon. And liberte egalite and fraternite sound pretty attractive on their own, but especially so when the guy who is spreading agrees to, and does seemingly genuinely want to revive a Polish state, and he did (well kind of, history is complicated). So they fought pretty hard for Napoleon, given that they had reason to hate all their neighbors because earlier partitions. And basically, the Polish soldiers were told they would be quelling unrest, but they weren't told what or why. And once they got on the ground, and found out they were lied to, and that these are slaves who want to be free (seeing parallels to their own story), they basically joined them. And thus, they were spared from the racial violence, because the other White Europeans were either slaveowners, or people who worked with them and benefitted from slavery indirectly. And yes, they were called the "White Negroes of Europe" and that was to point out how they had been subjugated and mistreated systematically for about a hundred years.
It was though, because the country was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Why the person you replied to mentioned Germany in relation to the Napoleonic era is a mystery though.
Pretty easy to sympathize with a colony, when your country literally doesn't exist, because 3 empires split your home country apart. The Polish troops were also lied to, and told it was a prison revolt or w/e.
Disease gets you no matter if you fight or not. Legions were formed with the expectation that Napoleon will help restoring independent Poland in return. At that time Legionnaires were getting pissed off because it was becoming clear that Napoleon does not give a shit about Poland.
Then they were shipped across the world to suppress some people they never heard about, because Napoleon wanted French troops at home for more important things. In situation like this, what is the point of fighting?
Yes, and he met the same fate he bestowed upon these people
>”Disaffected members of Dessalines's administration began a conspiracy to overthrow him. Dessalines was assassinated north of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, at Larnage, on 17 October 1806. His body was dismembered and mutilated.”
What goes around comes around
After a successful revolution, you have to either purge the violent conspirators that put you in power or risk being purged by them when you prove incapable of pulling unicorns out of your asshole
Unfortunately this act led to Haiti becoming a pariah state. No European colonies would trade with it and France demanded repayment. In the long run this act really had long lasting repercussions I don't think anyone expected.
Repeat that with all liberation movements throughout the world except the ones in countries where US was trying to undermine its enemies.
Ffs, the US didn’t even support revolutionary France to overthrow their king even though France had backed its revolution. As soon as a new republican government was in place, America refused to pay its war debts under the premise that they only owed the money to the previous government.
I'm not sure it made that much of a difference. Haiti would've been a pariah state anyway for freeing themselves from slavery and because France continued to claim control over Haiti after 1804, so countries that didn't want to antagonize France by officially recognizing Haiti.
It would have helped however. They could've ransomed the people they butchered and use them as a bargaining chip with France, instead of then allowing France to claim them as savages who are merely rebellious.
By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned; this was the age of the gentleman wars, not the middle ages.
Worth noting the Mughal and Portuguese did the same. Perhaps bizarrely, the EIC picked execution by cannon as more humane than their previous method of lashing the condemned to death. The idea was it would actually as deterrent as it prevented proper burial rites and would put off would be martyrs.
Humans do some pretty horrible things to eachother. I hope we can leave those acts in the past.
Like Saragossa, where civilians and militia fought off French assaults for 3 months, and much of the city was blown up by the retreating French? Or Moscow, where the city burned and the survivors sold their daughters to the French for food? Or the vicious guerilla war across Spain? Or the sack of Badajoz?
But in the article, prominent historians like Girard argue it didn't work. That a revolt was one thing, but the massacre redoubled their social issues by creating a permanent fabric of animosity.
There would have been a permanent fabric of animosity anyway.
Shit, look at America. There's a fabric or animosity towards black people and they didn't even revolt.
Honestly i don't blame the former slaves who had been brutalized and abused for generations for taking their anger out on their former masters who otherwise would have likely gotten away scot free.
This didn't help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_Independence_Debt#:~:text=The%20French%20government%20finally%20acknowledged,about%20%24560%20million%20in%202022.
The slave masters were able to afford safe passage and get smuggled out. All the Haitian rebels did was torture and murder poor white people, women and children included. It wasnt a calculated or proportionate action, it was an orgy of rape and revenge. And it permanently fucked Haitian society. Incredible that some people in this thread are trying to justify it (not contextualize it, justify it).
>By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned; this was the age of the gentleman wars, not the middle ages.
I'm pretty sure mass murder, rape and pillaging was still very much alive in all wars at the time.
"Gentlemen wars?"
Do you hear yourself, dude? Set piece battles is just a fancy way to kill a dude. And don't pretend anyone operating plantations at the level Haiti did was a gentleman.
France did nothing but fuck up their colonies and frankly they could use a little more flak about it.
>By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned;
Probably not if they'd done it to black people tbf.
True. But on the other hand...raping, torturing, and killing civilians en masse because of their skin color is pretty evil regardless of your motivations or circumstance. Especially since much of that took place as a purge after they defeated the slave masters and achieved independence.
They left the Germans (who weren’t involved in the slave trade) alone - as well as the polish.
While I’m sure innocents died - they committed mass murder against the class and people who had been directly involved in their slavery.
I think anyone, especially by the days standards, would be hard pressed to say they didn’t have cause or necessity
>I think anyone, especially by the days standards, would be hard pressed to say they didn’t have cause or necessity.
Black and mixed Haitians of the day were largely opposed to the genocide. It really was one self-appointed dictator and his advisors travelling city to city to ensure his vision of genocide was conducted. It was very much forced upon others to carry out; it wasn't seen as politically necessary and lots of lighter skinned elites and wealthy, foreign elites maintained power anyway.
And in spite of that, Haitians were still forced to work the plantations by threat of death and the profits for their labor were seized by the state, many feeling they never really escaped slavery.
They did not committ mass murder against the class. They killed rich and pooe alike discriminately. They killed mixed race too. They just really hated anyone who had even a bit of french blood in them. Very racist.
Even the first constitution while having a prohibition on any „whiteman” owning land in Haiti, carved out exception for Poles and Germans. So it was not some blind hate
No... I think the motivation of a slave rebellion is different from like regular racism.
I mean you have to root for every Slave Rebellion as a moral person.
Slave rebellion yes, but indiscriminately killing the rich and the poor, men, women, children, French and mixee race. The genocide was very much motivated by racism.
Can't massacre white Europeans*
France wasn't labelled a pariah state for its actions (do you think more people were raped, murdered, and tortured in this massacre than in the entire history of French colonialism?) so to me it seems hard to play the "well what did you expect?" game.
The average lifespan for an african slave arriving in Haiti was 3 years
Even accounting for the massacre, france's actions in haiti were still significantly worse than the other way around and deserve to be compared to the actions of nazi germany in their brutality
Its almost like a slave island was a bad idea. Its not exactly odd that a bunch of slaves that had to brutally fight for their freedom didn’t immediately form lasting and effective government structures directly afterwards.
The Haitians helped to bring about the end of chattel slavery, and they’ve been punished for centuries because of it.
>Unfortunately this act led to Haiti becoming a pariah state.
Anyone who believes this specific act ruined foreign relations with countries is a revisionist.
The very premise of a country that was the result of a slave revolt was a direct threat to any polity where slavery was still practiced, which was still many parts of the Americas including the US at the time. Even during the revolution France was keen to keep slavery in practice overseas to maintain colonial plantations.
Do you really think every other country was going to accept a country of former African slaves given the state of the world at the time? The massacre didn't help, but pretending that Haitians alone are the cause of their own fate is ignoring history.
I did my major work on this a few years ago.
After the Genocide.
They basically destroyed their own future and chance for their children.
Hardly anyone was left to run the schools, hospitals, work the high skilled jobs, design technology and infrastructure etc. The country was on the verge of collapse.
The Haitian King actually reintroduced a "legal form" of slavery and forced workers back onto plantations.
All they had was a big army, small navy and plenty of guns.
So they became Imperialists themselves.
Invaded neighbouring Dominincan Republic until eventually they were driven out.
They spent the next 50 years trying to re-invade, but kept on being defeated by the Dominican army.
> Hardly anyone was left to run the schools, hospitals, work the high skilled jobs, design technology and infrastructure etc.
Sounds like what happened to Zimbabwe after the Bush War
Don't forget the big one.
They decided to normalize relations with France to be internationally recognized. To make this happen they took on debt repayments for France for almost 100 years that crippled their economy until the 50s.
100% Definately.
Didn't so much forget it.
Many comments mentioned that around me.
So I didn't elaborate on that point just to give some fresh information.
> run the schools
LOL. LMAO. LMFAO.
Do you think France built any fucking schools for slaves in colonial Haiti/Saint-Domingue? Yeah, because educating slaves was the number priority of slave owners /s.
Colonial Haiti was an extractive colony based on the model of working slaves to death within 5 or 10 years to produce as much sugar, coffee, and indigo as possible to enrich slave owners and the French government. Then, after the slaves die, bring in more from Africa to replace them. That was the business model. They didn't give 2 fucks about any schools.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from a book:
>Unlike the Spanish or the English, who established colleges and universities in their colonies, the French had a deliberate colonial policy against such institutions... Any talk of public education or higher education [in colonial French-ruled Haiti and other colonies] was dangerous and seditious talk.
(James E. McClellan *Colonialism and Science: Saint-Domingue in the Old Regime.* University of Chicago Press, 2010., p. 103.)
France didn't want public schools or higher education in the colonies because it wanted to keep its colonies dependent on the mother country. Colonial Haiti (Saint-Domingue) did have private secondary boarding schools for teenagers, but they only catered to the children of the elite.
Most of the poorer non-slave owning white colonists were probably illiterate.
Overall, France didn't build any civil society infrastructure in Haiti. There were hardly any schools, hospitals, or anything else not directly related to the production of cash crops for profit.
Their future was already destroyed. Their fate was sealed by those that brought them to the island as slaves, born into servitude as slaves, born to atrocities. They never knew any different. They rebelled for freedom, which I think everyone can understand, its not surprising that after being labelled enemies for demanding their freedom they wouldn’t just transition into successful governance of the island. They weren’t exactly educating them on the important things.
There’s major differences in how the Spaniards treated their slaves and built the surrounding area versus the French…. That pretty much explains why it was vastly different
Dessalines really hated whites, if Louverture was still there it would have never happened, and for that you have to thank Napoleon, general Leclerc, Josephine and her slaver friends.
Nice to see some sanity in the absurdity that is these comments.
To expand upon the element you said: Mixed race individuals weren't just killed alongside whites, but they were forced to participate in the slaughter at the risk of their lives. Literally killing family, friends, lovers, etc, and being killed when they refused, or hid/protected their loved ones. Obviously a lot of whites had already fled, but the government of Toussaint Louverture engaged with those who remained, so it's not like every white remaining was unfriendly or part of the old power structure (although some were, but Louverture understood that a country whose entire economic existence was based on plantations and trade wasn't going to change overnight and needed to tread carefully).
People are acting like genocide was inevitable. It wasn't, and if Napoleon hadn't fucked up and imprisoned Toussaint Louverture, it likely wouldn't have happened.
There is a good podcast on this which gives a bit more context, Dan Carlins one on slavery. It really puts into perspective how this was a backlash against a hundred years of brutal treatment of the slaves. It really is no surprise that it happened.
I mean, how can you expect a population subjected to the brutality of slavery from birth to make good moral decisions later in life?
We are all products of our upbringing. This case obviously more extreme than most.
These actions are inexcusable however they are explainable
By your logic, the slavers should also be forgiven because they are also the product of their upbringings.
Heck, each of us are all products of our own social environment, but that fact alone does not relinquish us from the moral consequences of our actions.
People don't want the truth to spread because it doesn't fit their views. I say how about we acknowledge that people of many backgrounds did all kinds of messed up shit in the past and just be nice to each other from now on?
Yeah the kids should not have been killed. The Haitians also should not have been blocked from developing as a country because they reacted in a way that was unpalatable to the west (and to us now, with a moral standpoint).
The West had no qualms doing business with numerous colonial states which committed far worse atrocities.
The fact that Haiti had to pay the French reparations for the uprising is undeniable proof that the French Govt feels absolutely no remorse for what it did in Haiti. They paid off the debt until 1967, and no reparations have been offered.
Yeah Mike Duncan’s podcast series on the story of the Haitian revolution was so affecting that it literally radicalised him as he told it. Radicalised a lot of people.
What happened on that island is so horrific, and so *repeatedly* horrific, that it really leaves you thinking “sometimes you just have to kill absolutely everyone”. Basically every major actor in the last phase of the revolution, French, Haitian and anyone else, ended up taking that position.
That prompts an interesting question for me; If morality is a creation of humans living in communities with each other, and the Haitians were living in a state where they had absolutely no rights to speak of, did they actually have any obligation to respect any law of the people who owned them? It was the French who brought them to Haiti in chains, it was the French who enriched themselves on the backs of slave labour that they were in no rush to free when the uprising finally happened. It's hard to see how any white people would've died had, at any point in the previous history of their colony, they just gave their slaves freedom.
If someone was kidnapped and held in someones basement, in the expectation they will be there for the rest of their life living as a slave, and especially if that enslaver's family *knew* that person was down there, does the kidnapped victim have any responsibility for the safety of that family in their escape? If they kill the enslaver's child in a fit of rage, doesn't the enslaver still have responsibility?
Kinda hard to have morals when your culture has been destroyed by centuries of brutal slavery. I bet that if you had to watch your friends and family be tortured and killed for years you probably wouldn't feel as bad about hurting the people who caused it along with anyone they cared about.
I'm not saying they didn't have agency, I'm suggesting that the situation they were in meant that normally repulsive actions were at most morally neutral. They weren't in any real social contract with their masters, nobody asked them if they agreed it was or wasn't OK for white children to be killed on sight. By enjoying the protections of the law we implicitly accept to be restrained by that law and the processes to communally change that law, I give up my natural right to commit murder so I don't have to worry so much about *being* murdered. Slaves do no have these protections, and thus they never gave assent to following these restrictions.
> They weren't in any real social contract with their masters, nobody asked them if they agreed it was or wasn't OK for white children to be killed on sight.
You can always count on redditors to treat certain downtrodden groups as toddlers and excuse their actions no matter what to the point of infantilization, even if those actions are genocide and turturing babies. Especially if against whites.
It’s absolutely fucked, not that an entire orphaned generation, many seeking justified vengeance, have been all that much better. No good decisions to be made when horrors abound.
This contextualizes why the American South feared the specter of what happened in Haiti happening so much and thus was used to "justify" their secession to preserve slavery when they felt the institution was threatened.
Haiti held back a reinvasion by Napoleonic France, which was the premier military on the planet at that time.
The South definitely took note, but leaders were too short sighted to think of a future when slavery would be outlawed and continued to reinforce an economic model where it would perpetually last, rather than to begin diversifying it's economic future like the North had.
Lincoln getting elected proved fears that now there was a President who would sign a federal slavery ban and absolutely destroy the South's economy overnight. So they seceded and started a war they could not win.
True, but my point was that the Confederacy justified itself to non-slaveholding whites and the neutral through the use of horror stories of what happened to Haitian Whites to make many White Southerners believe that emancipation of blacks or them rising up meant they’d suffer the same fate.
Edited it to noting that fear of what happened in Haiti was used by the Confederacy to justify itself to the whites who didn't own slaves (or those who were "fence-sitters" at first).
dudes will really use any niche anecdote to justify being a lost causer
it was part of a long fear but absolutely not anywhere near the driving force for succession. they truly just wanted to own humans forever and were explicit about that.
I am curious which one was their primary motivation. The profit or the power. I suspect power but our modern equivalent would probably chocolate companies and they seem utterly driven by profit so I'm not sure.
Absolutely not. The major reason they rose up was because slavery was becoming obsolete and the southern economy was on the verge of collapse.
Your argument is giving way too much credit to "the cause".
People want to justify colonialism so much they really upvoted confederate propaganda.
**To be clear here,** yes, this was a fear of slaveholders all over the world in general. But in combination with the OP, the way this post is worded is almost as if Confederate fears were justified and that specific, justified fear precipitated secession.
There are no two ways about it. If you don't want to fear slave uprising and reprisal, maybe don't be a fucking slaver. That is the inevitable consequence of horrendously oppressing a group of people for so long.
I apologize for wording it poorly, especially as contextualization and justification are two different things, just pointing out that hardline attitudes and policies towards the question of slavery that Southerners had were strengthened by fears of what happened to the white population of Haiti. Ultimately, nothing justifies slavery at all and the Confederacy is something I condemn 100%.
Interestingly enough, one of the indirect results of this was eliminating Haiti as a part of the sugar trade - which increased demand for Brazilian sugarcane and expanded the size and scope of the slave trade there.
It doesn’t get the same level of international attention but the legacy of slavery in Brazil is quite fascinating. It was a substantially larger destination for African slaves (7x the US) and while it avoided formal segregation like the US or South Africa, the drive to embrace the myth of a true “racial democracy” became a useful tool for those in power.
For background, this was preceded by centuries of slavery of the native population, followed by Africans after the natives were nearly wiped out, including the horrific treatment and deaths of millions that involved. Doesn't make this right, but there was brutality on both sides, with one side's brutality dwarfing the other.
Thanks for putting it into words ,
Reminds me when I found out that “noche triste” (sad night) was when the Aztecs were gaining back tenochtitlan💀 or when “battle of wounded knee” was the massacre of civilians dancing
When talking to my old primary care physcician (he was from Haiti) he always said his home "thought of the afternoon not the next day" this mass murder robbed them of specialist, knowledge etc. that knee capped them. They had a legit reason to rebel but their hatred was too short sited and doomed them long term.
>They killed everyone. Men, women, children. Mixed race and french, rich and poor. Only the poles and germans were spared.
False. They didn't kill the mixed race people in 1804. The mulattoes were helping the blacks to kill the whites in 1804. Why? Because the French tried to genocide both blacks and mulattoes in 1802-1803.
There were massacres of mulattoes later on in Haiti due to political conflicts. But not in 1804.
They basically targeted French colonists who did not explicitly support the "right" side in 1802-1803. They didn't kill foreign white merchants (mostly British and Americans) who were in the country at the time either.
Facts about Haiti:
There’s a lot of really good Haitian people, smart, highly educated (even 4+ languages), professionals, decent mannered, etc.
There’s also a lot of the totally opposite. The poor, uneducated, criminals, etc.
A huge percent of them believe that neightborg country Dominican Republic belongs to them, obviously wrong. Many of them cross the border legally and become fine, decent working citizens. Most of them cross illegaly thru a well know military human traffic scheme that sells the cross thru the border for a hefty amount of money per head, thousands of people daily.
Most of these illegals are “hired” for heavy work, mostly for buildings construction workforce.
A lot of them prove to be pretty savage. Killing local animals (including dogs and cats) to eat them, kidnapping and raping women on the same constructions they are working on, sometimes married/conyugal couple kills their partner, etc.
Back in 2016 i was working on a tech company and we had a Haitian trainer, extremely smart, wise and professional man. During breaks on training sessions, sometimes he would tell stories about how Dominicans should really worry about learning Creole, the Haiti language.
He said that they had no idea how much Haitians are plotting to take over Dominican Republic, how deep they are already infiltrated and how much most of them hate Dominicans to death.
Dominican Republic is a really nice country, aside of the usual things that plage most countries (some govt corruption and so). Technologically advanced, civilized, with a great culture.
Haiti today is beyond a failed state. They currently have no government.
There is no risk of Haiti trying to invade Dominican Republic, beyond what a bunch of criminals can or ocationally do.
ITT: Two groups of people with non-mutually-exclusive positions thinking that they disagree with each other. It is possible for the two statements to be true; that it's immoral that the Haitians murdered innocent people, and, that their actions were made inevitable by the circumstances surrounding them.
Of course, these two statements will seem mutually exclusive if you think that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility, which most people do because most people think that in order to be responsible for an action you must have carried it out "of your own free will."
...after the French unsuccessfully tried to genocide all the blacks and mulattoes in the country. The French succeeded in killing most of the black and mulatto soldiers, officers who stayed loyal to France until the end (or didn't defect to the rebels fast enough), and the wives and children of their black/mulatto soldiers and officers.
In the last year or 2 of the Haitian Revolution, the French commanders had dogs eating black people alive, and were mass killing blacks and mulattoes and their families by drowning them in the harbor of Cap Haitian (so that lots of corpses were washing up on the beaches) and mass suffocating them in ships with sulfur. And the French commander Rochambeau held a dance for French officers and mulatto women that ended with him showcasing the murdered bodies of their mulatto male relatives to the women.
That set the stage for:
(a) The French to lose the war, because all of their black/mulatto soldiers were either being killed or defected to the rebels to avoid being killed by their own French commanders. At the same time the European troops were dying from tropical disease and no reinforcements were coming because of the British blockade and Napoleon being preoccupied with renewed war in Europe, and
(b) The French massacres of blacks and mulattoes in 1802/1803 united the blacks and mulattoes in a common sense of hatred towards the French and led to support for the extermination of the remaining French colonists immediately after independence.
And then the Haitians came for the mulattoes as well. They were entirely motivated by hate and targeted anyone of the chosen ethncities indicriminantly.
This post is honestly just kind of in bad taste— the person who posted it no doubt only did so because there is currently a political and economic crisis unfolding in Haiti and with that has come talk about whether the U.S. or some other wealthy white western nation should step up to help stabilize the country (which is a discussion that occurs every time there is a similar unstable political situation happening anywhere in the world but in especially in the Western Hemisphere aka: Americas backyard) that conversation is not new, and neither is the fact that there are problems in Haiti.
OP is just bringing up what essentially amounts to a historical footnote and framing it as some secret bombshell factoid to suggest to uninformed readers that this is information which should inform our opinions about present day Haiti and influence our decision to care or not to care about the people who are living there today.
Yes this is a thing that happened in history, no it does not mean that Haiti or modern day Haitians deserve to live in destitution. There have been factors outside of Haiti and Haitians control that have worked against the prosperity and stability of the nation (earthquakes, foreign debt payments, etc) and there are things internal to Haiti that have also contributed (corruption, deforestation, etc.)— regardless of where you judge the “balance” of blame to lie for the current crisis— it is a crisis nonetheless that most of the people suffering through had nothing to do with creating. They did nothing to deserve what’s happening to them except being born in a difficult place.
Any attempt to scour back through history for some gruesome crime that people who have been dead for generations committed against another people long gone (many of whom arguably did deserve their fate) is just an excuse not to exercise empathy because you don’t see the Haitians as humans worthy of dignity and protection who need help today. To me making this post at the present moment reeks of bad faith. IMO if there’s something we can do to help them then we ought to do it.
TIL Dessalines referred to the Poles as “The White Negroes of Europe” and granted them the status of “Noir.”
Context: Napoleon wanted to use Polish Legions to suppress revolution in Haiti. Legionnaires were not exactly interested in crushing anybody’s independence, so they either did fuck all or outright deserted to revolutionaries. Haitians noticed that pretty quickly and treated captured Poles much better than French which just convinced more people to desert. After the war, quite a lot of them stayed on Haiti and intermarried with locals.
They are whole villages of blue eyed people there that sometimes even speak Polish and use mixed (with large Polish part) culture artifacts till now over 200 years later
[удалено]
...so, they hate the Polish?
A bit more context. One of the thing Napoleon's empire did was spread liberal and nationalistic ideals. And the Poles, whose country was surrounded and getting chipped away at for awhile by Austria, Prussia, and Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions\_of\_Poland), were attracted to the ideals of Napoleon. And liberte egalite and fraternite sound pretty attractive on their own, but especially so when the guy who is spreading agrees to, and does seemingly genuinely want to revive a Polish state, and he did (well kind of, history is complicated). So they fought pretty hard for Napoleon, given that they had reason to hate all their neighbors because earlier partitions. And basically, the Polish soldiers were told they would be quelling unrest, but they weren't told what or why. And once they got on the ground, and found out they were lied to, and that these are slaves who want to be free (seeing parallels to their own story), they basically joined them. And thus, they were spared from the racial violence, because the other White Europeans were either slaveowners, or people who worked with them and benefitted from slavery indirectly. And yes, they were called the "White Negroes of Europe" and that was to point out how they had been subjugated and mistreated systematically for about a hundred years.
I think you mean Austria, Prussia and Russia. Germany later annexed Poland under the Nazi regime, but that wasn't a partition.
Soviet Union also annexed Polish land with Nazi Germany during WW2, and never gave it back.
you realize Poland has been annexed and partitioned more than once ?
Yes that's exactly what he's saying, read again.
It was though, because the country was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Why the person you replied to mentioned Germany in relation to the Napoleonic era is a mystery though.
And a bit of proof that the killing of whites wasn’t indiscriminate.
Huh, so does that mean that as a Polish guy, I’m auto-invited to bbq?
Literally “you aight white boy”
Pretty easy to sympathize with a colony, when your country literally doesn't exist, because 3 empires split your home country apart. The Polish troops were also lied to, and told it was a prison revolt or w/e.
That what the legend says. In reality they were not eager to fight due to disease and tropical climate.
Disease gets you no matter if you fight or not. Legions were formed with the expectation that Napoleon will help restoring independent Poland in return. At that time Legionnaires were getting pissed off because it was becoming clear that Napoleon does not give a shit about Poland. Then they were shipped across the world to suppress some people they never heard about, because Napoleon wanted French troops at home for more important things. In situation like this, what is the point of fighting?
Poles have the official N word pass confirmed
I’m not going to push it. I may speak French, but I’m not a Frog, just a tad Pole…
I...damn..that's just...wow.
Nice
Wonderful
The Chinese in South Africa were regarded as black and the Japanese as white. There’s no logic to politicised racism.
You are on this continent but we do not grant you the rank of Whiter
It's treason, then...
Strangely accurate
Assassinated by Alexandre Pétion and others, who would later help Bolivar continue Venezuela's war of independence.
“Y’all invited to the bbq”
Does that mean Polish people officially have the n word pass?
Yes
[удалено]
My good friend JJ won't like to hear about what his namesake was up to. Oh but he will...
JJ Frankie JJ?
Yes, and he met the same fate he bestowed upon these people >”Disaffected members of Dessalines's administration began a conspiracy to overthrow him. Dessalines was assassinated north of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, at Larnage, on 17 October 1806. His body was dismembered and mutilated.” What goes around comes around
After a successful revolution, you have to either purge the violent conspirators that put you in power or risk being purged by them when you prove incapable of pulling unicorns out of your asshole
That’s cuz nobody is opposed to the boot, they just want to be the ones wearing the boot instead of being under the boot.
"Fighting" lol
He misspelled genocide, oopsie.
Unfortunately this act led to Haiti becoming a pariah state. No European colonies would trade with it and France demanded repayment. In the long run this act really had long lasting repercussions I don't think anyone expected.
Haiti would have probably become a pariah state anyway, its existance was a fundamental threat to most of the European colonies in the Caribbean.
And a fundamental threat to the new nation of the USA. Plantation owners were scared shitless that slaves might rebel.
[удалено]
Repeat that with all liberation movements throughout the world except the ones in countries where US was trying to undermine its enemies. Ffs, the US didn’t even support revolutionary France to overthrow their king even though France had backed its revolution. As soon as a new republican government was in place, America refused to pay its war debts under the premise that they only owed the money to the previous government.
I'm not sure it made that much of a difference. Haiti would've been a pariah state anyway for freeing themselves from slavery and because France continued to claim control over Haiti after 1804, so countries that didn't want to antagonize France by officially recognizing Haiti.
It would have helped however. They could've ransomed the people they butchered and use them as a bargaining chip with France, instead of then allowing France to claim them as savages who are merely rebellious. By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned; this was the age of the gentleman wars, not the middle ages.
It was an age of "gentleman wars" if you were a gentleman. Other than that it was a age of wars.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they didn't consider the former slaves to be gentleman.
Why won't my human livestock won't engage in fair gentlemanly wars?? 😤
"Such heathens. Anyway, get back to making my shoes out of their discarded skins, and bring me one of their young ones for pleasure."
So rude for them to kill us all, they should have asked us nicely if they wanted to be treated like people!
Worth noting the Mughal and Portuguese did the same. Perhaps bizarrely, the EIC picked execution by cannon as more humane than their previous method of lashing the condemned to death. The idea was it would actually as deterrent as it prevented proper burial rites and would put off would be martyrs. Humans do some pretty horrible things to eachother. I hope we can leave those acts in the past.
Like Saragossa, where civilians and militia fought off French assaults for 3 months, and much of the city was blown up by the retreating French? Or Moscow, where the city burned and the survivors sold their daughters to the French for food? Or the vicious guerilla war across Spain? Or the sack of Badajoz?
No it's only OK if white people do it.
Ask the Indian rebels executed by shooting a cannonball through them if they were considered ‘gentlemen’ by the Whites
This was the only successful slave revolt like this in history. It worked. They were upset about the whole generations of slavery thing.
But in the article, prominent historians like Girard argue it didn't work. That a revolt was one thing, but the massacre redoubled their social issues by creating a permanent fabric of animosity.
Yeah, 'cause slavery didn't cause animosity at all.
There would have been a permanent fabric of animosity anyway. Shit, look at America. There's a fabric or animosity towards black people and they didn't even revolt.
Honestly i don't blame the former slaves who had been brutalized and abused for generations for taking their anger out on their former masters who otherwise would have likely gotten away scot free.
and look at Haiti now
This didn't help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_Independence_Debt#:~:text=The%20French%20government%20finally%20acknowledged,about%20%24560%20million%20in%202022.
The slave masters were able to afford safe passage and get smuggled out. All the Haitian rebels did was torture and murder poor white people, women and children included. It wasnt a calculated or proportionate action, it was an orgy of rape and revenge. And it permanently fucked Haitian society. Incredible that some people in this thread are trying to justify it (not contextualize it, justify it).
Most slave masters didn't face any repercussions. The people they killed were ordinary humans, some of which had participated in the revolt.
The war was won by this point. It was a revenge massacre of the civilians left behind, not a woke uprising lol
>woke uprising What?
>By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned; this was the age of the gentleman wars, not the middle ages. I'm pretty sure mass murder, rape and pillaging was still very much alive in all wars at the time.
Well the slaves of Haiti were not treated in any way that could be regarded as gentle, dying and being brutally punished routinely.
Gentleman wars is a concept that has nothing to do with one being a gentleman.
"Gentlemen wars?" Do you hear yourself, dude? Set piece battles is just a fancy way to kill a dude. And don't pretend anyone operating plantations at the level Haiti did was a gentleman. France did nothing but fuck up their colonies and frankly they could use a little more flak about it.
Google what gengleman wars were before typing what you just did please.
French colonies have the statistically worst outcomes of all colonized nations. The French did basically nothing except rape and murder.
>By the way, at the time of this happening, if any nation pulled something like this, they would have been shunned; Probably not if they'd done it to black people tbf.
I mean it’s not really unfortunate committing genocide is typically agreed to deserve repercussions.
[удалено]
I mean it was a brutal slave state. Its not like the rebellion happened in a vacuum.
"from my point of view the younglings were evil!"
Your new empire??
True. But on the other hand...raping, torturing, and killing civilians en masse because of their skin color is pretty evil regardless of your motivations or circumstance. Especially since much of that took place as a purge after they defeated the slave masters and achieved independence.
They left the Germans (who weren’t involved in the slave trade) alone - as well as the polish. While I’m sure innocents died - they committed mass murder against the class and people who had been directly involved in their slavery. I think anyone, especially by the days standards, would be hard pressed to say they didn’t have cause or necessity
>I think anyone, especially by the days standards, would be hard pressed to say they didn’t have cause or necessity. Black and mixed Haitians of the day were largely opposed to the genocide. It really was one self-appointed dictator and his advisors travelling city to city to ensure his vision of genocide was conducted. It was very much forced upon others to carry out; it wasn't seen as politically necessary and lots of lighter skinned elites and wealthy, foreign elites maintained power anyway. And in spite of that, Haitians were still forced to work the plantations by threat of death and the profits for their labor were seized by the state, many feeling they never really escaped slavery.
They did not committ mass murder against the class. They killed rich and pooe alike discriminately. They killed mixed race too. They just really hated anyone who had even a bit of french blood in them. Very racist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even the first constitution while having a prohibition on any „whiteman” owning land in Haiti, carved out exception for Poles and Germans. So it was not some blind hate
[удалено]
pretty sure this post is wrong. They killed the French most exclusively who were their oppressors, polish and Germans were left alone
No... I think the motivation of a slave rebellion is different from like regular racism. I mean you have to root for every Slave Rebellion as a moral person.
Nobility lies in deeds not the cause. A moral person would condemn evil deeds regardless of context.
Slave rebellion yes, but indiscriminately killing the rich and the poor, men, women, children, French and mixee race. The genocide was very much motivated by racism.
I and the public know/what every schoolboy learns Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return Auden
Lmao
..... what do you think the French were doing in Haiti? Take your time
Evil doesn't justify evil.
It's a drop in the ocean of horror of haiti's colonial history
We know why these people are losing their shit at a couple thousand whites killed vs millions of enslaved blacks. It's not even subtle.
Is it because people in this thread are trying to say the Haitians were justified in mass raping and killing innocent white women and children?
Can't massacre white Europeans* France wasn't labelled a pariah state for its actions (do you think more people were raped, murdered, and tortured in this massacre than in the entire history of French colonialism?) so to me it seems hard to play the "well what did you expect?" game.
The average lifespan for an african slave arriving in Haiti was 3 years Even accounting for the massacre, france's actions in haiti were still significantly worse than the other way around and deserve to be compared to the actions of nazi germany in their brutality
Most of Europe declared war on them during the French Revolution.
That had very little to do with their treatment of slaves in Haiti or elsewhere.
The hypocrisy in your statement is astounding.
Its almost like a slave island was a bad idea. Its not exactly odd that a bunch of slaves that had to brutally fight for their freedom didn’t immediately form lasting and effective government structures directly afterwards. The Haitians helped to bring about the end of chattel slavery, and they’ve been punished for centuries because of it.
>Unfortunately this act led to Haiti becoming a pariah state. Anyone who believes this specific act ruined foreign relations with countries is a revisionist. The very premise of a country that was the result of a slave revolt was a direct threat to any polity where slavery was still practiced, which was still many parts of the Americas including the US at the time. Even during the revolution France was keen to keep slavery in practice overseas to maintain colonial plantations. Do you really think every other country was going to accept a country of former African slaves given the state of the world at the time? The massacre didn't help, but pretending that Haitians alone are the cause of their own fate is ignoring history.
I did my major work on this a few years ago. After the Genocide. They basically destroyed their own future and chance for their children. Hardly anyone was left to run the schools, hospitals, work the high skilled jobs, design technology and infrastructure etc. The country was on the verge of collapse. The Haitian King actually reintroduced a "legal form" of slavery and forced workers back onto plantations. All they had was a big army, small navy and plenty of guns. So they became Imperialists themselves. Invaded neighbouring Dominincan Republic until eventually they were driven out. They spent the next 50 years trying to re-invade, but kept on being defeated by the Dominican army.
> Hardly anyone was left to run the schools, hospitals, work the high skilled jobs, design technology and infrastructure etc. Sounds like what happened to Zimbabwe after the Bush War
Don't forget the big one. They decided to normalize relations with France to be internationally recognized. To make this happen they took on debt repayments for France for almost 100 years that crippled their economy until the 50s.
If only they had previously had something that the french might find valuable they could've bargained with.
100% Definately. Didn't so much forget it. Many comments mentioned that around me. So I didn't elaborate on that point just to give some fresh information.
> run the schools LOL. LMAO. LMFAO. Do you think France built any fucking schools for slaves in colonial Haiti/Saint-Domingue? Yeah, because educating slaves was the number priority of slave owners /s. Colonial Haiti was an extractive colony based on the model of working slaves to death within 5 or 10 years to produce as much sugar, coffee, and indigo as possible to enrich slave owners and the French government. Then, after the slaves die, bring in more from Africa to replace them. That was the business model. They didn't give 2 fucks about any schools. But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from a book: >Unlike the Spanish or the English, who established colleges and universities in their colonies, the French had a deliberate colonial policy against such institutions... Any talk of public education or higher education [in colonial French-ruled Haiti and other colonies] was dangerous and seditious talk. (James E. McClellan *Colonialism and Science: Saint-Domingue in the Old Regime.* University of Chicago Press, 2010., p. 103.) France didn't want public schools or higher education in the colonies because it wanted to keep its colonies dependent on the mother country. Colonial Haiti (Saint-Domingue) did have private secondary boarding schools for teenagers, but they only catered to the children of the elite. Most of the poorer non-slave owning white colonists were probably illiterate. Overall, France didn't build any civil society infrastructure in Haiti. There were hardly any schools, hospitals, or anything else not directly related to the production of cash crops for profit.
Their future was already destroyed. Their fate was sealed by those that brought them to the island as slaves, born into servitude as slaves, born to atrocities. They never knew any different. They rebelled for freedom, which I think everyone can understand, its not surprising that after being labelled enemies for demanding their freedom they wouldn’t just transition into successful governance of the island. They weren’t exactly educating them on the important things.
[удалено]
Not fully the same with different colonizers.
There’s major differences in how the Spaniards treated their slaves and built the surrounding area versus the French…. That pretty much explains why it was vastly different
Dessalines really hated whites, if Louverture was still there it would have never happened, and for that you have to thank Napoleon, general Leclerc, Josephine and her slaver friends.
[удалено]
Nice to see some sanity in the absurdity that is these comments. To expand upon the element you said: Mixed race individuals weren't just killed alongside whites, but they were forced to participate in the slaughter at the risk of their lives. Literally killing family, friends, lovers, etc, and being killed when they refused, or hid/protected their loved ones. Obviously a lot of whites had already fled, but the government of Toussaint Louverture engaged with those who remained, so it's not like every white remaining was unfriendly or part of the old power structure (although some were, but Louverture understood that a country whose entire economic existence was based on plantations and trade wasn't going to change overnight and needed to tread carefully). People are acting like genocide was inevitable. It wasn't, and if Napoleon hadn't fucked up and imprisoned Toussaint Louverture, it likely wouldn't have happened.
There is a good podcast on this which gives a bit more context, Dan Carlins one on slavery. It really puts into perspective how this was a backlash against a hundred years of brutal treatment of the slaves. It really is no surprise that it happened.
[удалено]
Most of the people killed had nothing to do with the slave owners either
I mean, how can you expect a population subjected to the brutality of slavery from birth to make good moral decisions later in life? We are all products of our upbringing. This case obviously more extreme than most. These actions are inexcusable however they are explainable
By your logic, the slavers should also be forgiven because they are also the product of their upbringings. Heck, each of us are all products of our own social environment, but that fact alone does not relinquish us from the moral consequences of our actions.
Good portion of serial killers are a product of their upbringing. That doesn't excuse their actions.
As above, I'm specifically not excusing them. It's just not surprising that such a violent upbringing leads to such a violent response.
Just good honest folks vacationing on slave island.
People don't want the truth to spread because it doesn't fit their views. I say how about we acknowledge that people of many backgrounds did all kinds of messed up shit in the past and just be nice to each other from now on?
Yeah the kids should not have been killed. The Haitians also should not have been blocked from developing as a country because they reacted in a way that was unpalatable to the west (and to us now, with a moral standpoint). The West had no qualms doing business with numerous colonial states which committed far worse atrocities. The fact that Haiti had to pay the French reparations for the uprising is undeniable proof that the French Govt feels absolutely no remorse for what it did in Haiti. They paid off the debt until 1967, and no reparations have been offered.
Yeah Mike Duncan’s podcast series on the story of the Haitian revolution was so affecting that it literally radicalised him as he told it. Radicalised a lot of people. What happened on that island is so horrific, and so *repeatedly* horrific, that it really leaves you thinking “sometimes you just have to kill absolutely everyone”. Basically every major actor in the last phase of the revolution, French, Haitian and anyone else, ended up taking that position.
That prompts an interesting question for me; If morality is a creation of humans living in communities with each other, and the Haitians were living in a state where they had absolutely no rights to speak of, did they actually have any obligation to respect any law of the people who owned them? It was the French who brought them to Haiti in chains, it was the French who enriched themselves on the backs of slave labour that they were in no rush to free when the uprising finally happened. It's hard to see how any white people would've died had, at any point in the previous history of their colony, they just gave their slaves freedom. If someone was kidnapped and held in someones basement, in the expectation they will be there for the rest of their life living as a slave, and especially if that enslaver's family *knew* that person was down there, does the kidnapped victim have any responsibility for the safety of that family in their escape? If they kill the enslaver's child in a fit of rage, doesn't the enslaver still have responsibility?
[удалено]
Kinda hard to have morals when your culture has been destroyed by centuries of brutal slavery. I bet that if you had to watch your friends and family be tortured and killed for years you probably wouldn't feel as bad about hurting the people who caused it along with anyone they cared about.
I'm not saying they didn't have agency, I'm suggesting that the situation they were in meant that normally repulsive actions were at most morally neutral. They weren't in any real social contract with their masters, nobody asked them if they agreed it was or wasn't OK for white children to be killed on sight. By enjoying the protections of the law we implicitly accept to be restrained by that law and the processes to communally change that law, I give up my natural right to commit murder so I don't have to worry so much about *being* murdered. Slaves do no have these protections, and thus they never gave assent to following these restrictions.
> They weren't in any real social contract with their masters, nobody asked them if they agreed it was or wasn't OK for white children to be killed on sight. You can always count on redditors to treat certain downtrodden groups as toddlers and excuse their actions no matter what to the point of infantilization, even if those actions are genocide and turturing babies. Especially if against whites.
Not every revolution ended with the rape, murder and torture of babies.
Do you consider the capacity to emphasize a natural or nurtured trait? Are human better or worse than cetaceans in this particular aspect?
This is what inevitably happens when we treat each other like animals.
It’s absolutely fucked, not that an entire orphaned generation, many seeking justified vengeance, have been all that much better. No good decisions to be made when horrors abound.
This contextualizes why the American South feared the specter of what happened in Haiti happening so much and thus was used to "justify" their secession to preserve slavery when they felt the institution was threatened.
Haiti held back a reinvasion by Napoleonic France, which was the premier military on the planet at that time. The South definitely took note, but leaders were too short sighted to think of a future when slavery would be outlawed and continued to reinforce an economic model where it would perpetually last, rather than to begin diversifying it's economic future like the North had. Lincoln getting elected proved fears that now there was a President who would sign a federal slavery ban and absolutely destroy the South's economy overnight. So they seceded and started a war they could not win.
True, but my point was that the Confederacy justified itself to non-slaveholding whites and the neutral through the use of horror stories of what happened to Haitian Whites to make many White Southerners believe that emancipation of blacks or them rising up meant they’d suffer the same fate.
you really think that was the major reason
Fear is the main emotion driving white supremacists
Economics is the main driving emotion for slavery.
Edited it to noting that fear of what happened in Haiti was used by the Confederacy to justify itself to the whites who didn't own slaves (or those who were "fence-sitters" at first).
dudes will really use any niche anecdote to justify being a lost causer it was part of a long fear but absolutely not anywhere near the driving force for succession. they truly just wanted to own humans forever and were explicit about that.
I am curious which one was their primary motivation. The profit or the power. I suspect power but our modern equivalent would probably chocolate companies and they seem utterly driven by profit so I'm not sure.
They were driven by profit, and built the other justifications around that. Who wants to give up completely unpaid labor?
Absolutely not. The major reason they rose up was because slavery was becoming obsolete and the southern economy was on the verge of collapse. Your argument is giving way too much credit to "the cause".
Well, yes - they feared that blacks would do to them what they did every day to their slaves.
And what happened in Haiti "proved" such a narrative to be "correct" from the perspective of Southern Whites.
It added to the fear - but the fear predated Haiti. It was not the first slave uprising, just the most successful.
People want to justify colonialism so much they really upvoted confederate propaganda. **To be clear here,** yes, this was a fear of slaveholders all over the world in general. But in combination with the OP, the way this post is worded is almost as if Confederate fears were justified and that specific, justified fear precipitated secession. There are no two ways about it. If you don't want to fear slave uprising and reprisal, maybe don't be a fucking slaver. That is the inevitable consequence of horrendously oppressing a group of people for so long.
I apologize for wording it poorly, especially as contextualization and justification are two different things, just pointing out that hardline attitudes and policies towards the question of slavery that Southerners had were strengthened by fears of what happened to the white population of Haiti. Ultimately, nothing justifies slavery at all and the Confederacy is something I condemn 100%.
"Oh no! The people I kill and rape might one day want vengeance, so it is only right that I do it even more."
Two centuries later and not much as changed, huh
Haiti also invaded the Dominican Republic when they wanted to become independent
While I think we all know the slavery the Haitians went through were terrible we should agree genocide isn’t the right response
Interestingly enough, one of the indirect results of this was eliminating Haiti as a part of the sugar trade - which increased demand for Brazilian sugarcane and expanded the size and scope of the slave trade there. It doesn’t get the same level of international attention but the legacy of slavery in Brazil is quite fascinating. It was a substantially larger destination for African slaves (7x the US) and while it avoided formal segregation like the US or South Africa, the drive to embrace the myth of a true “racial democracy” became a useful tool for those in power.
And Haiti’s been a thriving, developed economy ever since
For background, this was preceded by centuries of slavery of the native population, followed by Africans after the natives were nearly wiped out, including the horrific treatment and deaths of millions that involved. Doesn't make this right, but there was brutality on both sides, with one side's brutality dwarfing the other.
Thanks for putting it into words , Reminds me when I found out that “noche triste” (sad night) was when the Aztecs were gaining back tenochtitlan💀 or when “battle of wounded knee” was the massacre of civilians dancing
“Night of Sorrows”
It’s horrible that this happened, but this horrible chain of events wouldn’t have happened had the French not been Frenching in Haiti.
btw I'd like to thank Indonesia for buying Rafale from the French, you also will be able to do some "frenching" as you said
>Doesn't make this right, BUT 🤫
Context is not an excuse, it leads to a fuller understanding.
When talking to my old primary care physcician (he was from Haiti) he always said his home "thought of the afternoon not the next day" this mass murder robbed them of specialist, knowledge etc. that knee capped them. They had a legit reason to rebel but their hatred was too short sited and doomed them long term.
and they have been punished for this ever since
They also killed the ''métis'', women and children. Evil
They killed everyone. Men, women, children. Mixed race and french, rich and poor. Only the poles and germans were spared. Very evil.
>They killed everyone. Men, women, children. Mixed race and french, rich and poor. Only the poles and germans were spared. False. They didn't kill the mixed race people in 1804. The mulattoes were helping the blacks to kill the whites in 1804. Why? Because the French tried to genocide both blacks and mulattoes in 1802-1803. There were massacres of mulattoes later on in Haiti due to political conflicts. But not in 1804. They basically targeted French colonists who did not explicitly support the "right" side in 1802-1803. They didn't kill foreign white merchants (mostly British and Americans) who were in the country at the time either.
Facts about Haiti: There’s a lot of really good Haitian people, smart, highly educated (even 4+ languages), professionals, decent mannered, etc. There’s also a lot of the totally opposite. The poor, uneducated, criminals, etc. A huge percent of them believe that neightborg country Dominican Republic belongs to them, obviously wrong. Many of them cross the border legally and become fine, decent working citizens. Most of them cross illegaly thru a well know military human traffic scheme that sells the cross thru the border for a hefty amount of money per head, thousands of people daily. Most of these illegals are “hired” for heavy work, mostly for buildings construction workforce. A lot of them prove to be pretty savage. Killing local animals (including dogs and cats) to eat them, kidnapping and raping women on the same constructions they are working on, sometimes married/conyugal couple kills their partner, etc. Back in 2016 i was working on a tech company and we had a Haitian trainer, extremely smart, wise and professional man. During breaks on training sessions, sometimes he would tell stories about how Dominicans should really worry about learning Creole, the Haiti language. He said that they had no idea how much Haitians are plotting to take over Dominican Republic, how deep they are already infiltrated and how much most of them hate Dominicans to death. Dominican Republic is a really nice country, aside of the usual things that plage most countries (some govt corruption and so). Technologically advanced, civilized, with a great culture.
Haiti today is beyond a failed state. They currently have no government. There is no risk of Haiti trying to invade Dominican Republic, beyond what a bunch of criminals can or ocationally do.
And Haiti is still a complete dump 😂😂.
They are doing great now...
ITT: Two groups of people with non-mutually-exclusive positions thinking that they disagree with each other. It is possible for the two statements to be true; that it's immoral that the Haitians murdered innocent people, and, that their actions were made inevitable by the circumstances surrounding them. Of course, these two statements will seem mutually exclusive if you think that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility, which most people do because most people think that in order to be responsible for an action you must have carried it out "of your own free will."
You're so based for this
And that fixed, right? Right?
Let’s see if that had any long-lasting implications… *checks today’s news about Haiti* Ah.
...after the French unsuccessfully tried to genocide all the blacks and mulattoes in the country. The French succeeded in killing most of the black and mulatto soldiers, officers who stayed loyal to France until the end (or didn't defect to the rebels fast enough), and the wives and children of their black/mulatto soldiers and officers. In the last year or 2 of the Haitian Revolution, the French commanders had dogs eating black people alive, and were mass killing blacks and mulattoes and their families by drowning them in the harbor of Cap Haitian (so that lots of corpses were washing up on the beaches) and mass suffocating them in ships with sulfur. And the French commander Rochambeau held a dance for French officers and mulatto women that ended with him showcasing the murdered bodies of their mulatto male relatives to the women. That set the stage for: (a) The French to lose the war, because all of their black/mulatto soldiers were either being killed or defected to the rebels to avoid being killed by their own French commanders. At the same time the European troops were dying from tropical disease and no reinforcements were coming because of the British blockade and Napoleon being preoccupied with renewed war in Europe, and (b) The French massacres of blacks and mulattoes in 1802/1803 united the blacks and mulattoes in a common sense of hatred towards the French and led to support for the extermination of the remaining French colonists immediately after independence.
And then the Haitians came for the mulattoes as well. They were entirely motivated by hate and targeted anyone of the chosen ethncities indicriminantly.
And now they're eating each other in the street.
Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast had an episode about this show 68 called “Blitz”.
Don’t worry though, it wasn’t racist - this was simply racial discrimination.
ITT, tons of redditors who probably couldn’t even locate Haiti on a map are suddenly experts on Haitian history after skimming 1 Wikipedia article.
wait till you hear what the former slave owners did to them to deserve it!
This went really well for them didn't it?
Mmmmm. They did horrible things to the slaves there. That place has a fucking dark and evil history.
This post is honestly just kind of in bad taste— the person who posted it no doubt only did so because there is currently a political and economic crisis unfolding in Haiti and with that has come talk about whether the U.S. or some other wealthy white western nation should step up to help stabilize the country (which is a discussion that occurs every time there is a similar unstable political situation happening anywhere in the world but in especially in the Western Hemisphere aka: Americas backyard) that conversation is not new, and neither is the fact that there are problems in Haiti. OP is just bringing up what essentially amounts to a historical footnote and framing it as some secret bombshell factoid to suggest to uninformed readers that this is information which should inform our opinions about present day Haiti and influence our decision to care or not to care about the people who are living there today. Yes this is a thing that happened in history, no it does not mean that Haiti or modern day Haitians deserve to live in destitution. There have been factors outside of Haiti and Haitians control that have worked against the prosperity and stability of the nation (earthquakes, foreign debt payments, etc) and there are things internal to Haiti that have also contributed (corruption, deforestation, etc.)— regardless of where you judge the “balance” of blame to lie for the current crisis— it is a crisis nonetheless that most of the people suffering through had nothing to do with creating. They did nothing to deserve what’s happening to them except being born in a difficult place. Any attempt to scour back through history for some gruesome crime that people who have been dead for generations committed against another people long gone (many of whom arguably did deserve their fate) is just an excuse not to exercise empathy because you don’t see the Haitians as humans worthy of dignity and protection who need help today. To me making this post at the present moment reeks of bad faith. IMO if there’s something we can do to help them then we ought to do it.
At any rate Haiti was never going to be allowed to prosper. A state ruled by former slaves in the middle of the Americas was extremely problematic.
Not us Poles ŁÓŁ
And the country has gone from strength to strength since
So 220 years later and nothing has changed?
What were the Whites doing there again? Except enslaving blacks and owning a huge portion of of the economy?
Bad karma for Haiti