Another Dispatch From The GOP Braintrust
It’s been a pretty depressing week for Democrats, watching their supposed leaders turn into lumps of useless jelly because they are actually supposed to do something instead of just talking about doing something. Then along comes NRO’s Mark Krikorian to remind us that, yes, Republicans are worse.
Today, Krikorian is arguing against the U.S. taking in more refugees because “there are many countries poorer and more screwed-up than Haiti,” despite the fact that he is generally opposed to accepting any refugees from even the most “screwed-up” countries. However, Krikorian hit a new intellectual low yesterday when he suggested that the reason Haiti is “so screwed up” (though apparently not screwed up enough), is because it’s home to a “progress-resistant culture” that simply “wasn’t colonized long enough”:
My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough…But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn’t stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers.
Yes, if only those benevolent slave holders had just stayed longer to give help to the natives…
Tags: Haiti, Mark Krikorian, NRO, racism
They sure seem to relish showing off their stupidity.
Haiti’s colonization of France physically stopped, but was replaced by slavery to France and the first world banks Haiti borrowed from to pay “reparations” to France for the loss of their colony. Add to that the massive borrowing from first world institutions to were a river of money to the Duvalier’s even after it was pretty clear that the money was not being spent on national interests. There is a campaign underway to cancel a bunch of Haiti’s debts to let them start rebuilding with a clean slate, free of the need to pay back their crushing debts.
The facts of Haiti’s impoverishment are well know. The Republicans simply don’t like the fact so they make up their own. Nothing new there.
I hope this tragedy helps get the debts cancelled.
I wonder if people really do know why Haiti is so poor. Their next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic certainly has their struggles but do fare much better on almost every measure.
But I see Krikorian making an argument related to the Southern Strategy which always has some convoluted justification for taking away marks from those who aren’t White Like Them.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Kipling
Lizard,
That poem was going through my head when I was writing this post. That’s exactly what Krikorian meant.
Kipling is urging the US to take up the role of Nation Building in the Philipines after the Spanish American war. He is saying bear the full burden of being a world power, and he doesn’t sugar coat it.
for the racialist left, you will have an easier time understanding the poem if you substitute “the First World’s” or “the West’s” for “the White Man’s”
“Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.”
means new markets for Archer Daniels Midland. It is a classic win/win!
you would have to read Krikorian’s whole article and not just the few lines excerpted to understand what he is trying to say. But no, he is not suggesting the US “take up the white man’s burden”.
He’s saying that the Haitians would have been better off staying slaves of the French. If that’s not what he means, he needs to learn to be a better writer.
I don’t know that I would agree with what he said, but it does raise an interesting sociological question related to the impact of European colonization on societies, and whether that colonization (and the accompanying negatives which we all concede) had any long-term benefits depending upon its length.
But he is advocating that some body like the OAS “colonize” Haiti. But if you read this article, there is worse:
And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers. Sure, their creole language is influenced by French, but they never became black Frenchmen, like the Martiniquais, or “Afro-Saxons,” like the Barbadians. Where a similar creolization took place in Africa, you saw a similar thing — the Cape Coloureds, who are basically black Afrikaaners, and even the Swahili peoples of the east African coast, who are Arabized blacks. A major indicator of how superficial is the overlay of French culture in Haiti is the strength of paganism, in the form of voodoo — the French just weren’t around long enough to suppress it, to the detriment of Haitians.
Apparently, Haitians were not enslaved long enough to take on the culture of their white masters. A culture that still persists in Haiti, BTW — in the form stupid tariffs on Haitian sugar which makes one of the main crops too expensive to import to the US. Because the only markets and producers worth protecting are those that can best afford the competition.
But it still doesn’t take away from the fact that this fool seems to think that Haitians are still too close to the motherland for any real cultural functionality — while ignoring the beating that this country has had from forces internal and external since it won its independence.
Since there is no link to the bit on NR’s Corner blog, here is the link:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTU0MjIyMGVjNjU1ZjIyOTgyZmVhMzdiMmRhM2MwYmI=
Actually, I think what he is saying is much more nuanced than your interpretation cassandra. After all, he starts by noting the host of evils that went with that colonial period.
But for all those evils, he argues, there were some benefits that accrued as well, in the form of a cultural framework that was in the long run beneficial to the peoples of the nations he mentioned. That does not mean that the evils were acceptable (and no where does he imply that they were), but that those nations with a longer history of colonization eventually have become successful because they have followed the template of their more successful colonial powers.
As for your “too close to the motherland” jab, I don’t read it that way. Instead, I think he is asking us to consider that after having been deprived of all the structures and elements of culture that came from their various African tribes Haitians were left with too little of that culture to succeed and did not have enough of any other culture to provide the stability lost with the loss of what they had back in Africa. Could he be right? I don’t know. But unlike some on the Left who have been offended by the question being raised, I’d rather know if he is correct.
As for the long-term solution he offers, might Krikorian be right? Is some special status the ideal for Haiti — the “trust territory” status under the OAS that he proposes, perhaps. Rather than get hung up on the historical issues and the sociological questions in the article, why not look at the much more point, which is what the rest of the world can do to help Haiti to eventually stand on its own two feet.
it’s UI and Cassy who are talking about the benefits of extended slavery. Krikorian is agueing that a longer colonization would have developed a better political and civil society in Haiti and as evidence offers Barbados, Martinique, and South Africa.
Oh how I pine for the days when Republicans only exposed themselves as racists idiots in the privacy of the country club card room.
when it comes from the mouth of a libtard, “racist” really has lost all it’s sting.
Colonization = slavery.
But it is always fun when these wingnuts try to trot out some “nuance” on the obliteration of other peoples’ — usually black and brown ones — freedoms.
Besides, the South Africans went through a long Truth and Reconciliation process to talk about the wrongs committed by whites on the native South Africans. If they has truly taken on the “culturizing” by their white colonizers, Africaaners would have been subject to deportation or perhaps the death penalty. Because forgiveness is not a natural trait of white nationalists.
the problem with arueing with the Red Queen is that words mean what she wants them to mean when she says them.
so Ghandi was a slave prior to Indian independance…
No, cassandra. No one is defending what happened — not me, not Lizard, and not Krikorian.
On the other hand, Krikorian is asking the question of whether there was some long-term positive that came in some places.
But maybe you are right. Perhaps the people of Mexico, for example, would be so much better off had the Spanish never come to their land and they were still ruled by a blood-drenched priest class that ripped the still-beating hearts out of the chests of living victims. Damn those greedy imperialist white Christians who laid that civilization low!
The problem with Humpty Dumpty is that he never remembers that he’s always falling off that damn wall.
But I suppose that we should be grateful for these upfront and personal demonstrations of the delusions of white people. A delusion that seems to think that these black and brown people could not possibly evolve a culture of their own that they would be happy with. Those Mexicans were Indian natives, who were conquered by the Spanish, forced into Christianity and forced into helping those Spaniards remove the county’s natural resources solely to enrich the Spaniards. And it isn’t as if these Spaniards left a wholly functioning country, either — otherwise we wouldn’t have the immigration problem we do, right?
cassies underlying arguement is:
The Devil is a rich white man.
Rich white men are the source of all pain and suffering in the world.
I cannot help but note the racism of cassandra’s own reply — these upfront and personal demonstrations of the delusions of white people.
What would you have to say if some conservative writer, say Krikorian, were to include such a statement about “these upfront and personal demonstrations of the delusions of black (or brown or gay) people?
No, don’t answer, because we already know.
RAAAAACIST!
Lol. You guys are a hoot.
Gotta love the stupid high-fiving of white guys defending colonialism and slavery.
who are you calling white?
I think the socially awkward use blogs to get full on anti-social. This is just a game to them and that is fine. Engaging them probably keeps them from smacking the kids around so much.
as a white man, i totally agree with cass.
Krikorian’s argument is that the lowly people of the world need the superior white race to bring them out of ther terrible lives but enslaving them and probably forcing jesus down their throats. It is the European… and eventually American arrogance. It is why conservatives cant handle Obama as president…. one of the “lessers” is their leader.
And who is defending either?
You are defending an argument that posits that cultures that endure a loss of their own freedom, autonomy, culture and resources at the hands of white colonizers is a necessary prerequisite to “civilization”. This would constitute the upfront and personal demonstrations of the delusions of white people.
And the fact that all you can critique is this — these upfront and personal demonstrations of the delusions of white people — instead of my actual argument is always and everywhere a sign that you are no longer confident in your own argument. Whatever that is.
No, it is a sign that I am looking at Krikorian’s argument (which I don’t like) to see if there is some truth in it. I’m trying to apply the social sciences to see if there might be some element of truth there.
Oh, yeah, and I’m wondering if doing something other than throwing money at Haiti (which has failed in the past) might help that troubled nation — and whether ,for all his arguments I dislike, Krikorian might have found a solution for that would work.
But Krikorian’s “solution” involves extended colonization — denying Haitians their freedom, autonomy, culture and resources. And if you can find a way to provide assistance to the Haitians that doesn’t respect any of those then you haven’t provided a solution at all — you’ve just voted for more of the same.
lets start with a blank sheet, what plan for Haiti do you support or thinks merrits discussion? Obviosly direct aid of $70 Million a year for the last 20 years hasn’t made things better.
What whould the US Gov due?
We could follow a libertarian path: when we are finished bandaging the injured and burrying the dead, we return to our ships and sail away. “so long, your on your own. PS we have waived the sugar quota for Haiti, good luck”
Right now it’s a LONG leap from emotion to policy. But given the totality of devastation there, this can be a clean slate to redo/re-enact/revamp/restructure policies towards that nation. I’m all for a forgiveness of debt, but I will not get behind one program I heard being floated by a mercy group “to pay the Haitians to dig thru this rubble, recover, and restore”..that was 3 days post earthquake–and that offends me as a human being we would have to do that, or even suggest doing that. We should ALL be in humanitarian mode towards this nation for the immediate future, during these emergent needs.
South Africa? Did someone just defend South Africa as an example of a well-integrated culture?
The mind reels.
You dems have the right idea. After all Haiti would be a beautiful vacation destination without the poor Haitians. Maybe after they get settled here in the U.S they could return home for a round of golf some day.