- Thread starter Jersey Devil
- Start date
Greatest Dominican President
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about the defenders of Desiderio Arias and Horacio Vasquez, a.k.a. the highway bandits. Are you aware of the fact that the political intrigues and mini wars between their respective factions were among the reasons that the US took for invading the country on 1916?
Last edited:
You can't even support your own arguments. Why is it when an honest analysis of history is offered that people like you call it "defending" someone? You obviously don't know enough about the subject to defend your own positions.
I hope you're just beginning to research your thesis and not at the end of it.
"You can't even support your own arguments. Why is it when an honest analysis of history is offered that people like you call it "defending" someone? You obviously don't know enough about the subject to defend your own positions."
As Homer Simpson said, "Everyone is stupid, except for me."
It seems Ogre feels the same way. No one is qualified to criticize his authoritative narratives. It must be refreshing for Ogre to have exclusive access to knowledge.
I'm sure he and Homer are quite happy and content knowing they alone know the truth.
As Homer Simpson said, "Everyone is stupid, except for me."
It seems Ogre feels the same way. No one is qualified to criticize his authoritative narratives. It must be refreshing for Ogre to have exclusive access to knowledge.
I'm sure he and Homer are quite happy and content knowing they alone know the truth.
...
You are so right!!!!!!! Let me bow at your omnipresence.
I love how its become the norm on DR1 to ASSUME everything about everyone, especially when there is disagreement. Furthermore disagreements on opinions and not facts. From three or four posts in this thread you have been able to discern the extent of my education, my ability to defend on the topic and know the length and depth of my "research." Catcher is right, everyone is stupid, but you.....
Instead of asking why I made such a comment you use your inspector gadget skills to read into my past. Keyboard gangsters.....
Mr. Lu
You are so right!!!!!!! Let me bow at your omnipresence.
I love how its become the norm on DR1 to ASSUME everything about everyone, especially when there is disagreement. Furthermore disagreements on opinions and not facts. From three or four posts in this thread you have been able to discern the extent of my education, my ability to defend on the topic and know the length and depth of my "research." Catcher is right, everyone is stupid, but you.....
Instead of asking why I made such a comment you use your inspector gadget skills to read into my past. Keyboard gangsters.....
Mr. Lu
...
Staying on topic. My comment was about Trujillo not your beloved bandits. I have continually challenged the assertion of Trujillo's greatness not some footnotes in history.
No matter how much "better" Trujillo was than his "potential" rivals is a mute point. Why?
A) We are not able to compare the trajectory of events that never occured.
B) Trujillo (and the events of his 30 yrs) was a product of his time and his greed.
C) One can never justify mass murder of your rivals or your citizenry. In this regard to defend Trujillo is akin to defending Adolf Hitler and the process of militarization of Germany.
Never has dictatorial rule left a positive imprint on societies. Other than the development of infrastructures, which in many cases, especially in the nouveau caudillo era of Latin American politics, was done in order to enhance personal fortunes and increase the grasp of power, the benefit to the proletariat was a tertiary thought and the benefits of these structures were minimal.
Many of the works constructed by Trujillo were in honor of him. Many of the roads were built so that he and his elite could drive their cars. Many of the agricultural reforms were made so that his businesses could prosper.
For those who can't see it, it's fine, but I have tried to argue subtleties, not innate within the common discourse.
Part of judging "greatness" is not the action of the time, but the repercussions, or the legacy. How does this affect the country 10, 20, 30 years later. It is your legacy that makes you "great" or not. So for those who say that Trujillo's effect (his legacy) on the DR today is minimal is contrary to what history has shown us. The events of 40 years ago still influence the decisions we do or don't make today.
If this is not the case, why is it that a few days ago a heard a person being asked, "How are you?" The person answered, "Good thank God and Trujillo." Forty years after his death you still have people speaking of the man as if he died last week, which reflects part of the legacy of such an encompassing figure. The grandiosity of Trujillo, and the negativity of his reign, have been ingrained in the DR society of today. This is part of that legacy. Part of why he is not great.
Ever heard of the "Chivato?" That's one of Trujillo's many great accomplishments. The idea of personal good above the overall good? Trujillo, again. Societal distinctions based on race? Mr. Goat. Value based on gender? You guess it. Populism over democracy? Yup. The violence and aggressiveness found in this country, the overall demeanor of Dominicans can be tied back to much of what Trujillo did. Not so great is it?
So in keeping with this thought it was the physical/psychological pressure exerted by Trujillo and how it shaped the Dominican psyche which is his legacy. The underlying negative mind frame would be passed on from generation to generation. The concept of the caudillo was passed from Trujillo to Balaguer and so forth and is now reflected in the fact that President Leonel Fernandez has admitted to modeling himself after Balaguer, a disciple of Trujillo. It comes full circle.
There was nothing positive about Trujillo or his legacy.
Mr. Lu
Staying on topic. My comment was about Trujillo not your beloved bandits. I have continually challenged the assertion of Trujillo's greatness not some footnotes in history.
No matter how much "better" Trujillo was than his "potential" rivals is a mute point. Why?
A) We are not able to compare the trajectory of events that never occured.
B) Trujillo (and the events of his 30 yrs) was a product of his time and his greed.
C) One can never justify mass murder of your rivals or your citizenry. In this regard to defend Trujillo is akin to defending Adolf Hitler and the process of militarization of Germany.
Never has dictatorial rule left a positive imprint on societies. Other than the development of infrastructures, which in many cases, especially in the nouveau caudillo era of Latin American politics, was done in order to enhance personal fortunes and increase the grasp of power, the benefit to the proletariat was a tertiary thought and the benefits of these structures were minimal.
Many of the works constructed by Trujillo were in honor of him. Many of the roads were built so that he and his elite could drive their cars. Many of the agricultural reforms were made so that his businesses could prosper.
For those who can't see it, it's fine, but I have tried to argue subtleties, not innate within the common discourse.
Part of judging "greatness" is not the action of the time, but the repercussions, or the legacy. How does this affect the country 10, 20, 30 years later. It is your legacy that makes you "great" or not. So for those who say that Trujillo's effect (his legacy) on the DR today is minimal is contrary to what history has shown us. The events of 40 years ago still influence the decisions we do or don't make today.
If this is not the case, why is it that a few days ago a heard a person being asked, "How are you?" The person answered, "Good thank God and Trujillo." Forty years after his death you still have people speaking of the man as if he died last week, which reflects part of the legacy of such an encompassing figure. The grandiosity of Trujillo, and the negativity of his reign, have been ingrained in the DR society of today. This is part of that legacy. Part of why he is not great.
Ever heard of the "Chivato?" That's one of Trujillo's many great accomplishments. The idea of personal good above the overall good? Trujillo, again. Societal distinctions based on race? Mr. Goat. Value based on gender? You guess it. Populism over democracy? Yup. The violence and aggressiveness found in this country, the overall demeanor of Dominicans can be tied back to much of what Trujillo did. Not so great is it?
So in keeping with this thought it was the physical/psychological pressure exerted by Trujillo and how it shaped the Dominican psyche which is his legacy. The underlying negative mind frame would be passed on from generation to generation. The concept of the caudillo was passed from Trujillo to Balaguer and so forth and is now reflected in the fact that President Leonel Fernandez has admitted to modeling himself after Balaguer, a disciple of Trujillo. It comes full circle.
There was nothing positive about Trujillo or his legacy.
Mr. Lu
"There was nothing positive about Trujillo or his legacy."
Exactly!
Mr. Lu presents a very well written, crystal clear, and definitive post, with no equivocation. Leonel should learn from Mr. Lu's example.
Exactly!
Mr. Lu presents a very well written, crystal clear, and definitive post, with no equivocation. Leonel should learn from Mr. Lu's example.
Actually, I thought you were the one being selective and projecting your own habit onto me. Before you respond to this sentence, read my response to the following part of your quote so you can have a better idea of what I mean by what I have just said.
I understood that from the first time I read it in your original response. However, can you quote the exact sentence I wrote where I gave the slightest indication of believing that the present situation in Haiti is due to one factor?catcherintherye said:
Isn't that a perfect example of being selective in summarizing the argument of someone else? Better yet, an example of assuming things based on fallacious thought? :ermm:
There you go again jumping ahead based on fallacies.catcherintherye said:
I never said nor alluded towards a belief that Haitians are incapable of creating a state, but rather that Duvalier did not improved the economy of Haiti.
Also, I never said nor alluded towards a belief that Trujillo epitomized good governance, but rather than Trujillo did improved the economy of the Dominican Republic.
Why is there such a disconnect between what I actually said and what you felt free to conclude upon fallacious thinking?
Multiply that by 100 and now you know how hard it is for me to remain serious in any discussion I have with you.catcherintherye said:
Its extremely difficult to discuss anything with someone that consistently try to defend an argument via ad hominem.
And there you go with more ad hominem.catcherintherye said:
Well, regarding that tangent, I think we should all follow the lead of the Haitian government.catcherintherye said:
Here is an interesting fact. On the left is Trujillo, in the center an American diplomat, and on the right the Haitian minister Lescot. This photo was taken two years after Trujillo ordered the massacre.
Hm, the Haitian government minister sure does seem too happy, taking into account what happened 2 years before.
And if you are thinking of using this last response to spew more ad hominem arguments, then don't.
I called Trujillo a great-terrible, despite he having one Haitian grandmother, and Hereaux a great-terrible as well, despite he having been 50% Haitian.
If you are thinking what I think you are, then don't even bother.
-NALs
No matter how much "better" Trujillo was than his "potential" rivals is a mute point. Why?
A) We are not able to compare the trajectory of events that never occured.
But we can compare the trajectory of the goverments that were on foot before him, and believe me, they were not a ride in the park.
B) Trujillo (and the events of his 30 yrs) was a product of his time and his greed.
I agree wholeheartedly, but it was also the product of the incompetence and lack of foresight of the people that preceded him (Vasquez et al.) and the petty ambitions of the other politicos (Arias and the other conniving bandits).
C) One can never justify mass murder of your rivals or your citizenry. In this regard to defend Trujillo is akin to defending Adolf Hitler and the process of militarization of Germany.
But one can't also defend endless disorder and anarchy in the name of democracy. As the French Revolution and other processes have shown, if the price of stability, order and well-being have to come in the sense of a few heads having to roll, then so be it.
Ever heard of the "Chivato?" That's one of Trujillo's many great accomplishments. The idea of personal good above the overall good?
That idea preceded him, the most glaring example being the mini wars of the caudillos on our country, the reasons behind them being the caudillos putting their personal ambitions above the well-being of the entire country.
Trujillo, again. Societal distinctions based on race? Mr. Goat.
This also preceded him. Haven't you heard about the history of the refusal of the aristocracy of Santo Domingo to the idea of having him, the goat, as part of the most famous of their clubs (I don't remember its name now, but I promise to come with it later).
Value based on gender? You guess it. Populism over democracy? Yup.
This also preceded him, or are you forgetting the fact that women could not vote on the eras BEFORE his rule.
The violence and aggressiveness found in this country, the overall demeanor of Dominicans can be tied back to much of what Trujillo did. Not so great is it?
Pal, you seriously need to read a book about dominican history, because, if there's a fact that can't be denied is that dominican society, ever since the spaniards ordered the devastations of the western provinces in 1605-1606, have always been a militaristic, uber-violent society. Specially considering that the economic activity that prevailed on the country before the modern sugar industry, the cattle-ranching, demanded for individuals to be phisically fit and utterly disposed to violence in order to survive the harsh environment and poverty that characterized the country. Also, one have to take into account that, for its strategic position, the country was destined to ever be the prey of the ambitions of the countries that were enemies of Spain (France, England, the Netherlands), so the country always needed to be on a war footing on a regular basis. Haven't you heard about the cincuentenas?
The concept of the caudillo was passed from Trujillo to Balaguer and so forth and is now reflected in the fact that President Leonel Fernandez has admitted to modeling himself after Balaguer, a disciple of Trujillo. It comes full circle.
As I told you before, the concept of caudillismo was one that preceded Trujillo. In fact, it has been the backbone that kept the Republic on foot when this was threatened by haitian and spanish ambitions, but would also be the one that would come close to destroying it altogether, with the lawlessness that regional caudillismos brought with them after the end of the Restoration War. One can say that caudillismo has been a double-edged sword, or, in our case a "double-edged machete".
There was nothing positive about Trujillo or his legacy.
Man, not all in this life is black and white, because, more often than not, it has been the people who have thought that way the ones which would bring the more strife and harm into humanity's history. Keep the arguments coming.
A) We are not able to compare the trajectory of events that never occured.
But we can compare the trajectory of the goverments that were on foot before him, and believe me, they were not a ride in the park.
B) Trujillo (and the events of his 30 yrs) was a product of his time and his greed.
I agree wholeheartedly, but it was also the product of the incompetence and lack of foresight of the people that preceded him (Vasquez et al.) and the petty ambitions of the other politicos (Arias and the other conniving bandits).
C) One can never justify mass murder of your rivals or your citizenry. In this regard to defend Trujillo is akin to defending Adolf Hitler and the process of militarization of Germany.
But one can't also defend endless disorder and anarchy in the name of democracy. As the French Revolution and other processes have shown, if the price of stability, order and well-being have to come in the sense of a few heads having to roll, then so be it.
Ever heard of the "Chivato?" That's one of Trujillo's many great accomplishments. The idea of personal good above the overall good?
That idea preceded him, the most glaring example being the mini wars of the caudillos on our country, the reasons behind them being the caudillos putting their personal ambitions above the well-being of the entire country.
Trujillo, again. Societal distinctions based on race? Mr. Goat.
This also preceded him. Haven't you heard about the history of the refusal of the aristocracy of Santo Domingo to the idea of having him, the goat, as part of the most famous of their clubs (I don't remember its name now, but I promise to come with it later).
Value based on gender? You guess it. Populism over democracy? Yup.
This also preceded him, or are you forgetting the fact that women could not vote on the eras BEFORE his rule.
The violence and aggressiveness found in this country, the overall demeanor of Dominicans can be tied back to much of what Trujillo did. Not so great is it?
Pal, you seriously need to read a book about dominican history, because, if there's a fact that can't be denied is that dominican society, ever since the spaniards ordered the devastations of the western provinces in 1605-1606, have always been a militaristic, uber-violent society. Specially considering that the economic activity that prevailed on the country before the modern sugar industry, the cattle-ranching, demanded for individuals to be phisically fit and utterly disposed to violence in order to survive the harsh environment and poverty that characterized the country. Also, one have to take into account that, for its strategic position, the country was destined to ever be the prey of the ambitions of the countries that were enemies of Spain (France, England, the Netherlands), so the country always needed to be on a war footing on a regular basis. Haven't you heard about the cincuentenas?
The concept of the caudillo was passed from Trujillo to Balaguer and so forth and is now reflected in the fact that President Leonel Fernandez has admitted to modeling himself after Balaguer, a disciple of Trujillo. It comes full circle.
As I told you before, the concept of caudillismo was one that preceded Trujillo. In fact, it has been the backbone that kept the Republic on foot when this was threatened by haitian and spanish ambitions, but would also be the one that would come close to destroying it altogether, with the lawlessness that regional caudillismos brought with them after the end of the Restoration War. One can say that caudillismo has been a double-edged sword, or, in our case a "double-edged machete".
There was nothing positive about Trujillo or his legacy.
Man, not all in this life is black and white, because, more often than not, it has been the people who have thought that way the ones which would bring the more strife and harm into humanity's history. Keep the arguments coming.
Naked snake-Well said. Lu doesn't know what he's talking about. You're right, he really needs to pick up a book on Dominican history and read it.
NALS-Spot on with regards to catcher.
Lu-I can only judge you by your posts that you have made on this thread and others. What I've read so far has left me unimpressed. You throw temper tantrums on threads all over this board. You need to grow up.
NALS-Spot on with regards to catcher.
Lu-I can only judge you by your posts that you have made on this thread and others. What I've read so far has left me unimpressed. You throw temper tantrums on threads all over this board. You need to grow up.
NALs you're beautiful.
First of all, an ad hominem argument is a superfluous attack on a person's character, not related to previous argument. Since both you and Ogre continue to dismiss all criticism from anyone with a few condescending words, my pointing out that fact does not constitute an ad hominem argument. It is simply a statement regarding your form.
But you certainly free to categorize it anyway you like, as I know you will, regardless.
Secondly, not that it will sink into your already constructed schema, but for the sake of any still neutral observers, your gratuitous photo indicates absolutely nothing.
What we are shown in your photo (out of your Trujillo memorabilia case perhaps?) are three diplomats yucking it up over some money given to appease public opinion. You could have shown any group of diplomats from any era, during any conflict, and the same smiling faces would be substantially the same. The effect certainly would be.
Lastly, you can continue to define your blatant worship of Trujillo however you please, but you should know your smokescreen terminology is quite transparent, and really rather unsophisticated.
Anyone who wants to understand how revisionist historians, intent on rewriting history to their own advantage, ply their trade, really should pay close attention to your quasi-ingenious subterfuge. It is very enlightening.
Spot on.
First of all, an ad hominem argument is a superfluous attack on a person's character, not related to previous argument. Since both you and Ogre continue to dismiss all criticism from anyone with a few condescending words, my pointing out that fact does not constitute an ad hominem argument. It is simply a statement regarding your form.
But you certainly free to categorize it anyway you like, as I know you will, regardless.
Secondly, not that it will sink into your already constructed schema, but for the sake of any still neutral observers, your gratuitous photo indicates absolutely nothing.
What we are shown in your photo (out of your Trujillo memorabilia case perhaps?) are three diplomats yucking it up over some money given to appease public opinion. You could have shown any group of diplomats from any era, during any conflict, and the same smiling faces would be substantially the same. The effect certainly would be.
Lastly, you can continue to define your blatant worship of Trujillo however you please, but you should know your smokescreen terminology is quite transparent, and really rather unsophisticated.
Anyone who wants to understand how revisionist historians, intent on rewriting history to their own advantage, ply their trade, really should pay close attention to your quasi-ingenious subterfuge. It is very enlightening.
Spot on.
....
Done and done. Thanks Catcher, for that summation. That's what this thread has become, a revisionist's dream. Let's see what they say of Fernandez in 10 years. May we call him God?
And to Ogre, I have a few choice words for you, but for the sake of civility I'll keep them to myself. In short, you have shown your true colors. In calling me immature, insulting me and interpreting my posts as you see fit only serves to reveal your truest of nature.
I haven't been on this board for long, but in my short time here I feel I have gained the respect of fellow DR1ers for the passion with which I post. I have engaged in heated debates with other posters, at times stepping over boundaries, but having recognized that I've always apologized. Never have I resorted to name calling and insults on a public forum, this one in particular, and I would guess that in asking some of the people on this board they will unanimously agree that my participation on this site has been for the benefit of discourse. Responding with vigor is not a temper tantrum, it is only labeled so when the debater has failed to conjure up a legitimate response and therefore lowers the nature of the discourse as a way to sway course for an "advantage."
Should I be concerned if you are impressed by me? No. Could care less of your opinion. But I do have a room full of plaques, degrees and awards of other, more important people who are impressed with me. It's mighty easy hurling insults from behind a PC, eh?
Mr. Lu
Done and done. Thanks Catcher, for that summation. That's what this thread has become, a revisionist's dream. Let's see what they say of Fernandez in 10 years. May we call him God?
And to Ogre, I have a few choice words for you, but for the sake of civility I'll keep them to myself. In short, you have shown your true colors. In calling me immature, insulting me and interpreting my posts as you see fit only serves to reveal your truest of nature.
I haven't been on this board for long, but in my short time here I feel I have gained the respect of fellow DR1ers for the passion with which I post. I have engaged in heated debates with other posters, at times stepping over boundaries, but having recognized that I've always apologized. Never have I resorted to name calling and insults on a public forum, this one in particular, and I would guess that in asking some of the people on this board they will unanimously agree that my participation on this site has been for the benefit of discourse. Responding with vigor is not a temper tantrum, it is only labeled so when the debater has failed to conjure up a legitimate response and therefore lowers the nature of the discourse as a way to sway course for an "advantage."
Should I be concerned if you are impressed by me? No. Could care less of your opinion. But I do have a room full of plaques, degrees and awards of other, more important people who are impressed with me. It's mighty easy hurling insults from behind a PC, eh?
Mr. Lu
ad ho⋅mi⋅nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]catcherintherye said:
?adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Dictionary
The photo does shows something, it shows how quickly the Haitian government forgave the Dominican government over the incident, and simultaneously, how you -trying to make an unjustifiable claim- attempted to appeal to the readers emotion in order to gain an edge in this argument without having to respond to the content of my response.catcherintherye said:
BTW, I have yet to see any government official from any government in the world smooch themselves with the head of state of another country that a mere 2 years prior massacred their people. Its unimaginable, incomprehensible and yet, that's just what the Haitian government did. You'd think they would had cut all relationships with the DR or something at least. 2 years later, they were still smooching.
But, that's a tangent on the argument of this thread, which is ridiculous since the thread asks people to say who they think is the greatest Dominican president and not what catcherintherye and Mr. Lu thinks of Trujillo and anyone that brings to light his positive side.
I understand human nature prevents many people from recognizing both, the virtues and faults of people they don't like. The problem is that everyone, absolutely everyone has virtues as well as faults, including the "evil" dictators of the world, and any neutral analisis of each dictator would pin point such virtues and faults as oppose to blatantly claim that anything a dictator did is wrong.
If Trujillo was to come back from the dead and say that 2+2=4, guess what? It doesn't matter how much your distaste for the man is, 2+2=4 and that's final.
Ahem...catcherintherye said:
ad ho⋅mi⋅nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
?adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Dictionary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please answer the questions I've posted in the various responses. Every discussion I start with you almost always starts on topic and ends way off topic. It almost always starts as an argument about a subject to an argument that shifts to something that has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.
Case in point, look at your last response to me for which this post is attempting to address. Its all about me, my "flaw", etc. You have yet to address the substance of my argument.
I will not respond to any other post you make here until you answer my questions in the previous posts.
-NALs
"I say this was the best Dominican president, ever."
FernieBee,
Have you read "The Americano"? It's a great book about an American who fought in the Cuban revolution, became a national hero, and was eventually shot, on orders of Fidel. It is a factual novel, and it relates a story that is not widely known, and is extremely interesting.
Anyway, the book explains how the relationship between Fidel and Trujillo turned particularly sour, and then describes the unsuccessful invasion of the DR by Cuban agents, directed by Fidel and the Americano, another bit of little-known Caribbean history.
In other words, if things had turned out a little differently, your funny Friday statement might have turned out to be a reality.
FernieBee,
Have you read "The Americano"? It's a great book about an American who fought in the Cuban revolution, became a national hero, and was eventually shot, on orders of Fidel. It is a factual novel, and it relates a story that is not widely known, and is extremely interesting.
Anyway, the book explains how the relationship between Fidel and Trujillo turned particularly sour, and then describes the unsuccessful invasion of the DR by Cuban agents, directed by Fidel and the Americano, another bit of little-known Caribbean history.
In other words, if things had turned out a little differently, your funny Friday statement might have turned out to be a reality.