NYTimes Article, is the DR seeing more poor Haitians?

[NALs]

Deelt, I think that what DRscarface. myself, and many others are trying to tell you..

is that we ourselves don't really care (more or less) whether the DR becomes white or black or anything. The problem lies that the DR's survival as a nation is based and depends on the foreign investment and foreign interest in the country. Those interest are attracted to the country by a good margin due to the DR's ethnic composition as well as the DRs economic position in the region ( the largest trader with the U.S., the largest economy in Central America and Caribbean reagion). If the DR wants to maintain its current standards of living or even increase them, it must please the wishes of those that have the means to do so, the rich countries with huge economic potential to make the DR a rich country in the long run. If the DR resembles Haiti in more ways than one (blackening of the culture, etc), the rich white countries will be more reluctant to help out the DR. Its no surprise that Haiti is the least aided country in the hemisphere, considering that Nicaragua, Chile, and many other latin countries have had very very turbulent recent history like Haiti. In short, we must comply with the status quo of the international arena when competing for funds, unfortunately, race and culture are still a huge factor and anything remotely connected to Africa is a minus on the scale of attractiveness for investors. I think this is as clear as it can become for what myself and many other peoples are trying to say.

DRScarface:
I feel some of your comments are way off base. Your comments have an inherent assumption that because it is "africanized..." it is "bad, weak, poor, ugly". Thus, the need to "whiten" or as you say maintain the "mulatto" ratio is key to to attracting tourist, this is "good, strong, rich, attractive". Doesn't this sound wrong to you? Man, to me it is like a slap in the face to our cousins, our grandparents or anyone of color in any of our families.

Here is a comparison check/wake up call. Look at population, per capita rates, life expectancy, debt, etc. of the following.

Take a minute to look at DR Development indicators:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/extern...M&CCODE=DOM&CNAME=Dominican+Republic&PTYPE=CP

Here is a case study for you. South Africa.

article published MArch 10, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2836947.stm

the latest world development indicators
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/zaf_aag.pdf

I see how South Africa is hurting being an africanized nation with a majority black (not mulatto) population...not!

Now if you really want to change things take a minute to sit back and think. Could it possibly be that we hurt ourselves as Dominicans by the way we do business? We hurt ourselves BECAUSE we employ the same flawed thought process that you so genuinely expressed?????

Just a thought
D

 

[NALs]

Here is a site that pin points the difference between the DR and Haiti

http://www.duke.edu/~jds31/Papers/haiti.html

Here is about the Haitian Immigration in the DR over years:

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3806.html

 

[Texas Bill]

Without question. And yet at the same time, Haiti's independence was seen as a threat to the institution of slavery and so they were marginalized when in fact, they should have been supported and even championed as an independent republic. But to have done so at the time, the US would have had to acknowledge that their ongoing participation in "the peculiar institution" was morally and politically reprehensible. :dead:[/QUOTE/]

Read your History of that time without relation to current political thinking relative to 'democracy, independence, etc. You will find that those philosophies were just begining to take hold universally at that time. The countries of France, Great Britain, and other European nations were still in the role of expansionism so why render support to a newly independent nation of former slaves? Better to let them sink or swim on their own, then if they fail, take them over again.

In that light, your comment is without substance, since you are applying today's philosophies to distant past era when they hadn't been developed yet.

Texas Bill

 

[deelt]

The European influences of S.A. and Barbados

Nals, no, Barbados is a completely self-governed country. It is not a British Commonwealth. Both Barbados and South Africa have strong European influences. Which proves my point even more. As you all like to stress, DR has European influences as well. What is keeping DR from also achieving prosperity at the level of a Barbados or S.A.? I am highlighting the relative prosperity in terms of GDP/Population. A bang for buck argument. Barbados and DR are equally dependent on trade and bear enormous trade deficits. Also, further reinforcing my point. To blow it off and look at superficial figures like population is short-sighted. My point is how these countries invested with the little they have is the crux of my argument. No one has convinced me otherwise other than DR keeps sucking up to white countries that treat them like second class citizens rather than targetting monied individuals that spend less time fleecing and more time nation-building.

On the duke posting...fine the stark economic and political differences are explained. I never said the countries were the same. I said there were similaries in the social cultures...I mentioned nothing on issues of economy and politics.
-D

 

[deelt]

Who's fault is Haitian Immigration?

While the data you cite is dated here is in interesting quote:
"Their presence [meaning, Haitians, ed.] resulted from economic necessity borne of the reluctance of Dominicans to perform the menial task of cane cutting."

My question to you is this: who could have really stopped migration? We need to look within ourselves for the answer not blame Haiti. If we really want to change things we need to be pro-dominican on how we do things even if it does cost us more.

D

http://www.duke.edu/~jds31/Papers/haiti.html

Here is about the Haitian Immigration in the DR over years:

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3806.html

 

[NALs]

That's my point Deelt. We NEED to be pro-Dominican in order to find a solution to this problem. Being pro-Dominican is equivalent to being anti-Haitianism or Haitian Cultural Expansion into the DR as has been stated on the data that I provided which states somewhere in there that "The Dominican Republic was declared independent as an act of anti-Haitianism". That makes it clear, the existence of the Dominican Republic is to be against Haitian influences on the Eastern 2/3 of the island. Also, the data I did provide fail to mention that the idea of importing Haitians to do the cane cutting jobs came after Duvalier offered the Haitians to the Dominican sugar industry in return for cash from Trujillo. Trujillo only accepted when the cocolos (Blacks from the British West Indies -ie. Barbados, St. Lucia, etc) went on strike demanding higher wages in San Pedro de Macoris.

Also, Barbados and South Africa have been heavily influenced by Protestant dominated European nations rather than the Catholic dominated nations that have influenced Latin America. There is a theory of why the white Protestant nations tend to be wealthier than catholic nations. The idea is that Protestantism focuses on democratic values where as Catholicism focuses on authoritarian. It's quite evident in the composition of things in both regions, including the male only clergy ethic of the Catholic church. These two different forms of mentallity built into the spirituality of each country, DOES have an effect on how people view things and accept authority. So in the end, comparing Barbados with the DR is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Completely irrelevant.

While the data you cite is dated here is in interesting quote:
"Their presence [meaning, Haitians, ed.] resulted from economic necessity borne of the reluctance of Dominicans to perform the menial task of cane cutting."

My question to you is this: who could have really stopped migration? We need to look within ourselves for the answer not blame Haiti. If we really want to change things we need to be pro-dominican on how we do things even if it does cost us more.

D

 

[deelt]

Ooohhhh...

Good points, Nals. My point is that being pro-dominican can be done in healthier ways than by strictly being anti-haitian. That's my point. People make consumer choices everyday. They chose who to buy from, where to eat from, who to do business with, etc. There is no need to degrade, humiliate, etc. in the process.

On the history...yes I know this but it doesn't make it any better it just reinforces that this is not a blame issue. Both countries and its leadership have contribute to the state of the current situation. This was a practice also supported post-Truijillo. If Dominicans would DO the cane/construction/__________ work they, the country, and dominicans abroad would be better for it.

V. nice take on the religion issue and sooo right. I have seen this difference in the other islands I have been to as well. I am glad you said it and not I. This further reinforces why I no longer consider myself a Catholic. But that is a WHOLE other thread. And I don't want to see AZB come in on how he gets his groove on to get to heaven! Even, Anna can't handle the heat in that thread.hahahaha Just too much information!

Great convo....can we all make up now?
D

That's my point Deelt. We NEED to be pro-Dominican in order to find a solution to this problem. Being pro-Dominican is equivalent to being anti-Haitianism

Also, Barbados and South Africa have been heavily influenced by Protestant dominated European nations rather than the Catholic dominated nations that have influenced Latin America. There is a theory of why the white Protestant nations tend to be wealthier than catholic nations. The idea is that Protestantism focuses on democratic values where as Catholicism focuses on authoritarian. .

 

[nycVu]

Read your History of that time without relation to current political thinking relative to 'democracy, independence, etc. You will find that those philosophies were just begining to take hold universally at that time. The countries of France, Great Britain, and other European nations were still in the role of expansionism so why render support to a newly independent nation of former slaves? Better to let them sink or swim on their own, then if they fail, take them over again.

In that light, your comment is without substance, since you are applying today's philosophies to distant past era when they hadn't been developed yet.

Texas Bill[/QUOTE]

The "role" that those European powers were engaged in included genocide, mutilation, rape, ethnic cleansing and forced-migration and labor (without pay). Let me guess: you expect me to view those atrocities as "manifest destiny" - and not question the morality of those European savages who wrecked havoc upon people of color throughout the world? I don't think so.

You can use the pc term "expansionism", or "age of discovery" or any other self-serving term all you want, the bottom line remains - their "discoveries" created an overwhelming need for human labor which fueled that horrible machine and I don't care what historical light, era or prism you view the situation thru, the facts remain the same: by the 19th century, there were few new discoveries to be made and Europeans had far less cooperation from Africans who finally fought and eventually cut off the human supply.

And once again, you make my point - Yes, European nations were turning away from the slave trade. But don't puff your chest out just yet... it didn't have jack to do with Europeans suddenly "discovering" they had a conscience - 'cause clearly they lacked one. Europeans/US couldn't spell benevolence if their lives depended on it. Any gains made to abolish slavery and its inherent injustices were made because (a) people of color FOUGHT AND DIED for their freedom and/or (b) Europeans and Americans realized that they were quickly becoming minorities in these new territories and feared for their lives!!

To suggest that I not use a critical - 21st or 19th century - eye when examining the history of the Middle Passage and its consequences is insulting. :angry:

 

[NALs]

Finally!!! We both touched some common ground!!

You and I were or have a mentallity that is more alike than previously seen on this thread. I'll leave everything at that, simply because we have kind of agreed on some aspects of this situation.

And about the religion thing, I still consider myself a Catholic, but I'm a very reserved Catholic, meaning that I still pray the same way I used to and I still believe in God and Mary and all those things, but I don't put alot of emphasis on anything the church has to say about society or anything, because historically the Church itself has been a mess. That's why I think the Cardinal in Santo Domingo should just focus on saving the souls of the Dominican people rather than criticizing the politicians. After all, all people tend to do is criticize (me included), but hardly anyone give options or ideas on how to solve the problems, which leads me to believe that if the people criticizing the government were to be in power, they would not be much different than those that are in power today. Let's not expand this, at least not on this thread, so the sake of not taking this thread on a tale spin.

 

[Texas Bill]

Read your History of that time without relation to current political thinking relative to 'democracy, independence, etc. You will find that those philosophies were just begining to take hold universally at that time. The countries of France, Great Britain, and other European nations were still in the role of expansionism so why render support to a newly independent nation of former slaves? Better to let them sink or swim on their own, then if they fail, take them over again.

In that light, your comment is without substance, since you are applying today's philosophies to distant past era when they hadn't been developed yet.

Texas Bill

The "role" that those European powers were engaged in included genocide, mutilation, rape, ethnic cleansing and forced-migration and labor (without pay). Let me guess: you expect me to view those atrocities as "manifest destiny" - and not question the morality of those European savages who wrecked havoc upon people of color throughout the world? I don't think so.

You can use the pc term "expansionism", or "age of discovery" or any other self-serving term all you want, the bottom line remains - their "discoveries" created an overwhelming need for human labor which fueled that horrible machine and I don't care what historical light, era or prism you view the situation thru, the facts remain the same: by the 19th century, there were few new discoveries to be made and Europeans had far less cooperation from Africans who finally fought and eventually cut off the human supply.

And once again, you make my point - Yes, European nations were turning away from the slave trade. But don't puff your chest out just yet... it didn't have jack to do with Europeans suddenly "discovering" they had a conscience - 'cause clearly they lacked one. Europeans/US couldn't spell benevolence if their lives depended on it. Any gains made to abolish slavery and its inherent injustices were made because (a) people of color FOUGHT AND DIED for their freedom and/or (b) Europeans and Americans realized that they were quickly becoming minorities in these new territories and feared for their lives!!

To suggest that I not use a critical - 21st or 19th century - eye when examining the history of the Middle Passage and its consequences is insulting. :angry:

nycVu-- I did NOT intend to intend to insult you, but merely to state that you are making the same mistake that we all are guilty of; that is, of Monday Morning Quarterbacking over past events, which when we place them out of context, become abhorent under present day philosophies. No mention was made, I might add, of the "manifest destiny" (the politisizing of mid-19th century US politics relative to expansion within the now CONUS). Those are your words and incorrectly used in this instance.
If you wish to speak to the elements of "ethnic cleansing", genocide, mutilation, rape, etc., etc., then look at the historic facts surrounding the ORIGINAL conquest of Hispaniola, the Bahamas, Mexico, the present Central and South American countries by Spain. I think you will find MANY more incidents of such during the 300 years leading up to the 19th century than all that has been attributed to other European countries AND the US since then.
Also, bear in mind that those sent into slavery were sent by their OWN LEADERS who sold them to begin with. So, let's keep such remarks in proper context and relative to the discussion instead of trying to direct thinking into another mileau altogether.
I agree that we must look to history for guidance if we are to make the proper decisions about correcting those wrongs (as we view them today) which beset today's societies. History is a teacher, not a platform for proving one's current thinking based solely on events of the past.
we, of the world have not learned our lessons completely is an admission I freely make. But, we ARE learning that, if we apply the past to the present, then we can make decisions that are much more effective in the long run.
We can't do that by continually bemoaning those past events and not offering substantive solutions.
And, in light of the economic aid rendered to the third world by Europe and the US, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON, your comment of "Europeans/US couldn't spell benevolence if their lives depended on it", is in very poor taste, to say the least. You might, just might, try to take your dark glasses of for a time and take a good look at the world's benefits which have resulted from that aid. I'm speaking here about the billions of dollars, marks, francs and pounds that have been spent for food, medicines, clothing, etc., etc. on those same third world countries, not to mention the loans and grants of monies to support them and their own endeavors both socially and economically.
I don't say all this from a position of arrogance, but from a position of clarification of my previous remarks.
Don't allow your obvious hate for all things "white" get in the way of your logic nor your good sense. Be fair.

Texas Bill :tired:

 

[nycVu]

nycVu-- Don't allow your obvious hate for all things "white" get in the way of your logic nor your good sense. Be fair.

Texas Bill :tired:

For the record, I don't "hate" whites or any other particular racial group for that matter. And yet again by suggesting that my statements on historical injustices reflect hatred for all things white is insulting. But, what can I say Tex? I know. Let's just agree to disagree. THAT'S fair.



22 days and... I think I should go focus on my vacation.

 

[Rattus_Rattus]

For the record, I don't "hate" whites or any other particular racial group for that matter. And yet again by suggesting that my statements on historical injustices reflect hatred for all things white is insulting. But, what can I say Tex? I know. Let's just agree to disagree. THAT'S fair

There are good and bad people all over the world, no matter what their skincolour is. :cheeky:

Hope you have a good vacation... Have a cold presidente for me as well :knockedou

 

[Texas Bill]

For the record, I don't "hate" whites or any other particular racial group for that matter. And yet again by suggesting that my statements on historical injustices reflect hatred for all things white is insulting. But, what can I say Tex? I know. Let's just agree to disagree. THAT'S fair.



22 days and... I think I should go focus on my vacation.

In that case, you should keep the slurring innuendos and references out of your postings and more clearly define your stand!

Also, if you are to continue posting, may I suggest that you increase the thickness of your body armor so that you don't consider remarks such as mine as insulting.

I agree you should focus on your vacation, since you are in dire need of a mental rest.

Texas Bill

 

[ltsnyder]

Texas Bill, please wake up and smell the cow chips . . .

Texas Bill you can only be described as hatefull against the Haitians.

We all want the Truth. That is why I ask for proof.

CES posted nothing of any significance. There will always be types who will blame the CIA for everything.

The problem is that some people only want the truth that agrees with them.
Personally If I was shown proof that the US assisted the Haitian rebels in the DR who then removed a murderous Dictator then I will be the first to accept it. I will accept it with pride because it will just be another of President Bush's foreign policy Triumphs.
As of now I am satisfied with the knowledge that the US is setting up a true democracy in Haiti! -Texas Bill

But I know I was harsh here, I know what I just said was not the truth. As we speak Texas Bill is writing to his Senator and the letter probably looks something like this . . . .

Dear US Senator,

Aristeed should be put back in power, because, if we and other organizations can't distribute food properly (or can't afford to) to the Haitian people and Aristeed could, it is better in the end that he is in power because he will save more lives, and that is what it is all about, and the bottum line, if the Haitians can take care of them selves better with out our meddling, although I did not like Aristeed either, we should have considered the human cost of our actions, even if we only verbally support his ousting, and use our troops to stablize and secure his ousting don't we in some respect then take responsibility for the wealfare of the Haitian people?, maybe we should try to help put it back the way it was. Because most of all, I care about the lives and welfare of the average Haitian. Evidently Haitians and a governement of Haitians are superior than any outside organization at providing for the needs of Haiti. We sould realize thier superiority in tending to thier needs and step back and try to undo what we help happen by landing troops the day after he left, and most of all, we should make a public announcement that we desire and would welcome the disposed , democratically elected leader of Haiti to return. Hell, we provided a private plane to fly him to TimBukTu, do you think Senator that we could afford to buy him a commercial flight ticket from Jamaca to Haiti to fly him back in?

-Lee

 

[nycVu]

In that case, you should keep the slurring innuendos and references out of your postings and more clearly define your stand!

Also, if you are to continue posting, may I suggest that you increase the thickness of your body armor so that you don't consider remarks such as mine as insulting.

I agree you should focus on your vacation, since you are in dire need of a mental rest.

Texas Bill

Whatever...

I haven't the time nor the interest to continue with this pettiness. Have a good "life", Tex. :tired:

 

[nycVu]

There are good and bad people all over the world, no matter what their skincolour is. :cheeky:

Hope you have a good vacation... Have a cold presidente for me as well :knockedou

I certainly agree with that. And thanks! I'll have several cold Presidentes with you in mind...

 

[Texas Bill]

Whatever...

I haven't the time nor the interest to continue with this pettiness. Have a good "life", Tex. :tired:

Bravo!!!!

I have enjoyed the "good life" of my own making for quite a few years now. :lick: :ermm: :laugh: :bunny:

BTW, I give out a grand total of RD$5000.00 each month to the "Haitian beggars" in Dajabon. What do you give???

Texas Bill

 

[Texas Bill]

Read your History of that time without relation to current political thinking relative to 'democracy, independence, etc. You will find that those philosophies were just begining to take hold universally at that time. The countries of France, Great Britain, and other European nations were still in the role of expansionism so why render support to a newly independent nation of former slaves? Better to let them sink or swim on their own, then if they fail, take them over again.

In that light, your comment is without substance, since you are applying today's philosophies to distant past era when they hadn't been developed yet.

Texas Bill

The "role" that those European powers were engaged in included genocide, mutilation, rape, ethnic cleansing and forced-migration and labor (without pay). Let me guess: you expect me to view those atrocities as "manifest destiny" - and not question the morality of those European savages who wrecked havoc upon people of color throughout the world? I don't think so.

You can use the pc term "expansionism", or "age of discovery" or any other self-serving term all you want, the bottom line remains - their "discoveries" created an overwhelming need for human labor which fueled that horrible machine and I don't care what historical light, era or prism you view the situation thru, the facts remain the same: by the 19th century, there were few new discoveries to be made and Europeans had far less cooperation from Africans who finally fought and eventually cut off the human supply.

And once again, you make my point - Yes, European nations were turning away from the slave trade. But don't puff your chest out just yet... it didn't have jack to do with Europeans suddenly "discovering" they had a conscience - 'cause clearly they lacked one. Europeans/US couldn't spell benevolence if their lives depended on it. Any gains made to abolish slavery and its inherent injustices were made because (a) people of color FOUGHT AND DIED for their freedom and/or (b) Europeans and Americans realized that they were quickly becoming minorities in these new territories and feared for their lives!!

To suggest that I not use a critical - 21st or 19th century - eye when examining the history of the Middle Passage and its consequences is insulting. :angry:[/QUOTE]


Perhaps then, you should go back a few thousand years to the begining of the institution of "slavery" by the African, Persian, Greek, Arab, Roman, Carthiginian, etc., "civilizations" which promulgated the industry to begin with if you are to place "blame" upon anyone. And upon the fact, that those same "slaves" were sold into that state by their own chiefs and leaders! That fact you can't escape, nor skew with any amount of fallacious reasoning such as you have tried.
It is admirable that the Haitians fought and died for their "freedom", but deplorable that they allowed themselves to be led into other forms of subjugation that were just as demeaning. Who was responsible for that? Certainly not Europe nor the US!
Your "examination of the history of the Middle Passage" is a bit faulty, or else you have failed to explore fully the "facts" leading up to the events you allude to.

Texas Bill

 

[Guillermo P?rez]

To the original question Will it affect the DR?

Well undoubtedly... but in this situation it's like a hungry guy that finds out an empty ketchup bottle...

If instead of one there's two... what difference does it make?

This is an old problem... and a constant one, with no real way to measure impact.

 

[Texas Bill]

Texas Bill you can only be described as hatefull against the Haitians.



But I know I was harsh here, I know what I just said was not the truth. As we speak Texas Bill is writing to his Senator and the letter probably looks something like this . . . .



-Lee

Lee;

Reference your POST #74;

I think you're trying the worn-out political tactic of putting false words into the mouth of your opponent in an effort to discredit him and at the same time anger him into making a completely emotional response.

Shame on you for lowering yourself to such an antiquated and transparent device of debate.

For the record, I neither hate Haitians nor hate anyone. What I feel for Haitians is a profound pity for having, since their gain of independence, allowed their country to be denuded of their forests, reduction of their territory to a virtual desert, having allowed themselves to be subjugated to the point of abject poverty and reduced themselves to the position of animal existance within their own borders.

Each successive "government" that has existed in that country has the ultimate responsibility for the country's present condition and the Haitians themselves have allowed that. Each "revolution" has left the country in worse shape than before.

Some people blame such conditions on outside "forces". I blame it on the successive leaderships of the past (and of the present, if current indicators prove to be accurate) who have not solved the basic underlying problems of the society.

We must take into consideraton that the society sprang from " slavery" and that the level of the true meaning of a democracy (or any form of government) was an alien concept not fully understood by that society.
That is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and is subject to a debate in another forum.

Some have inferred that the UN/US/Europe must see to it that the ENTIRE COUNTRY's infrastructure be rebuilt from scratch. It may be that is wistful thinking in light of the cost of doing so from a purely benevolent position. I would guess that cost would be in the neighborhood of several HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. A figure I find to be completely insupportabe in view of the condition of the world economy. I just imagine it would lead to world bankruptcy, or at the very least, would reduce the standard of living worldwide. Are YOU willing to make such a sacrifice for the sake of the Haitians? I don't really think so. You appear to be entirely too realistic for such altruistism.

And, BTW, if you're going to write letters in my name, at least try to use my style of writing, use correct verbage, punctuate correctly, and don't use run-on sentences. JEEZ! it was an effort to read that!

:laugh: :speechles :

Have a good day and laugh a lot.

Texas Bill