- Thread starter mountainannie
- Start date
The Haitian Occupation of the Dominican Republic
- Status
Pedro Santana's family was one of those southern families who fled the town of Hincha (today Haitian territory) on the south, they ended up in Santiago, and finally had to flee to el Seybo, once again running away from the Haitian threat. To me this is ironic, since it would be Santana the main general who would defeat the Haitians in 1844, and in many of the other invasions that followed.
Btw not only southern families have an oral history of these massacres, I've heard many stories about the masacress from Cibaeno families. My great-grandmother who is still alive, has a few stories of people faking their death in some of the churches where atrocities took place, and of people running of to the mountains and staying there for months.
No offense, MA, but I am a deep southerner. I have traveled the south extensively, and lived in many southern cities.
I know of almost NO ONE who calls the civil war the "War of Northern Aggression." Maybe 1-2%, prolly several SD's from the mean, statistically insignificant.
This is an Urban Legend passed on by the "so-much-smarter-than-they-are" northern bigots.
Yes, bigots. Because anyone who would perpetrate such baloney embraces their own flavor of bigotry, even though we think boigotry is what the *other guy* has, but ~our~ beliefs are righteous.
I also lived in large northern cities, specificlly Philly, NYC and Chicago. I found more bigotry & prejudice there than I ever saw in the south.
But then again, some folks LOOK for bigotry to affirm their pre-conceived beliefs as one basis for self-worth. And as I've pointed out often, one generally finds what one seeks.
Once again the Dominican history buff showing us his ignorance, it seems that anything that doesn't fit in your picture of the island's history has to be an invention. Not only did they divided their troops to invade from the south and the north, but both armies also retreated using the same paths. Desalines retreated through the south, and Henri through the north, both committing massacres, and burning down towns in their way, I bet this also smells rotten to you.
Why do you continue to misrepresent my posts? NS and I are/were having a civil discussion and you are always trying to stir up dissent. Again, I never claim to be a history buff of the DR, but being a foreigner, I am open to dialogue. An exchange of information, opinions and ideas. This is all foreign to you due to your arrogance and penchant for drivel.
It's not a given that being Dominican automatically entitles one with supreme knowledge of its history. The latter is proven because you lack what we are trying to impart here; knowledge. You're also rude and uncooth. Please behave like an adult, as I think you are, and not a bumbling bafoon.
I know that, but the Cibao atrocities are well known because there’s much written about it, both from people that suffered in person as well as people that have written about it based on what the sufferers themselves wrote. But there’s not much written material about the atrocities committed in the south and as a consequence of that, much of what is known is, first of all, not known to most people (even to most Dominicans since most Dominicans that know of the massacres not only think it took place only in Cibao, but only in Santiago and Moca, which is false), but also what is known is through family stories that have been passed from one generation to another.
My whole family is also from the Cibao, so I’m well acquainted with the stories from there too, a couple of which hits right at home, if you know what I mean.
One thing that I think that has not been clearly said here is that most of the Dominican population was free at the time of the invasions, especially the one in 1805. Most of the mulattoes were free, most of the blacks were free, and most of the whites were not only free, but didn’t own slaves. As descendants of Canary Islanders, most of whom arrived in the late 1600s and through out the 1700s, these families remained essentially rural and lived from the land. They were too poor to have slaves at all and the slaves were too few in relation to the total population. Plus, most of the minority that was enslaved were found in the cattle ranches (these hardly lived as slaves either due to the great liberty they were conceded given the nature of their work, many were essentially subsistence farmers that also took care of the cattle and other livestock in nearby ranches) and in the handful of sugar estates (nothing like the sugar plantations of today) in the vicinity of Santo Domingo and San Crist?bal (these were not treated in the same manner as the slaves in the ranches, again due to the nature of the work.)
This is why the Haitians were perplexed when the mulatto and black Dominicans began to aid the white Dominicans when they started to impose their atrocities towards them. Most of the mulatto and black Dominicans had been living as free people for centuries and the mulatto group had actually grown quite rapidly due to free consensual unions between poor whites and poor non-whites, who were the vast majority of the population. The indignation that many of the Dominican mulattoes and blacks felt and their decision to side with the white Dominicans and oust the Haitians, simply left many Haitians confused. Often times they were attacking friends, acquaintances, and in many instances even blood related family members.
This also explains why the stories of the atrocities committed by the Haitians are not just present in the oldest segment of the Dominican upper class, but also in more humble families as well as in many families of mixed heritage and even in many black ones that can trace their presence in this country to those times.
It was a huge misunderstanding and it appears that the bloody misunderstanding was present on every side.
One of the problems I see with how foreigners, usually Americans, try to understand the Dominican-Haitian issue is that they often project whatever social issues their own countries has had, especially along racial lines, and try to mold the Dominican-Haitian case along their understanding using their own country's experiences. This is why they often don't get it and these types of debates end when we, the Dominicans, simply give up trying to make them understand.
Last edited:
There's no point to say the obvious.
Do you really think this thread would had been created had the creator not thought she could end this on a pro-Haitian note? There's a reason for the creation of this and a few other threads and merely "educating" is not what its truly about; because if it was, then the questioning that they so often make would had been done on both perspectives of the history and yet, its only being done on one side, the side that has been constantly under attack ever since the French landed on Tortuga and began the process of expelling the Spaniards from the main island. It failed, but we see the consequences of that event to this very day.
Its no longer a French vs Spanish issue, its now a Haitian vs Dominican; but, in essence, it really is the same thing. Now there's the added bonus that the former Spanish side has many more resources than the former French side, quite a contradiction considering the history. But this makes the desire by some, in some cases it could be envy while in others it could simply be trying to get as much of the other group's pie as they can, to take a much more committed nature.
To put this another way, if the OP would had thought creating such a thread had a high probability of ending on an anti-Haitian note, this and a few other threads would had never been created.
Last edited:
As I said to CB in a PM, I was only posting that reference to say that I could only empathize a bit with the DR because I have really only lived in areas that have NOT been touched by war. When I moved to the South, as a Northerner, I did sense that the feelings about the Civil War were still there. And reading about the damage that was done here by the Haitian armies, I can certainly understand more of the fear and resentment which the Dominicans feel towards the Haitians.
And certainly I understand the issues with the numbers of Haitians who are coming here etc etc etc.
From a military point of view.. which I certainly do not have, .. it seems that what the Haitians did back in the 19th century is really amazing. But they certainly could not have kept control of the country for 20 odd years without the cooperation of the locals, could they? I mean, most of hte Haitians had no education. They had no external support.
Was it that a lot of the land owners had fled to Cuba and elsewhere? Were there insurrections? Was there simply tacit cooperation? Or was it because the slaves were freed? That must have had a huge impact on the agriculture?
How did this work.. did workers stay on the land and just get paid? Were big plantations cut up?
And certainly I understand the issues with the numbers of Haitians who are coming here etc etc etc.
From a military point of view.. which I certainly do not have, .. it seems that what the Haitians did back in the 19th century is really amazing. But they certainly could not have kept control of the country for 20 odd years without the cooperation of the locals, could they? I mean, most of hte Haitians had no education. They had no external support.
Was it that a lot of the land owners had fled to Cuba and elsewhere? Were there insurrections? Was there simply tacit cooperation? Or was it because the slaves were freed? That must have had a huge impact on the agriculture?
How did this work.. did workers stay on the land and just get paid? Were big plantations cut up?
I forgot to mention in the post before my last one that the lack of racial resentment among the Dominicans is the one thing that certain groups of people, mostly foreigners, want to erode. Or better yet, they want for these resentments to be ignited in order to propel their ultimate goal.
You know NALS WHO LIVES IN CONNECTICUT
sometimes... just sometimes
I get really ****ed off
were it not really for Naked Snake who is, so far, the ONE DOMINICAN that has been consistently posting with an aim to enlighten I would perhaps blow a gasket.
Of course I am pro Haitian. given. Do you think I have to chose? Really? Your trade with Haiti is now 110% of Haiti's trade with the US. It is the only country with whom you have a positive balance of trade. You have a constant flow of illegals and stateless births. I think that you have some problems. I try to help. As far as I can see. You and Picardo.. DO NOT. You BOTH live in the UNITED STATES. And just take pot shots at ME. Who lives HERE. And tries to make peace and say good things about BOTH countries.
Why do you not just go out to one of the lovely US parks that my tax dollars, and those of my ancestors, who have fought if EVERY conflict since the MAYFLOWERl, have provided and still do for you to enjoy,
and GET OFF MY CASE?
sometimes... just sometimes
I get really ****ed off
were it not really for Naked Snake who is, so far, the ONE DOMINICAN that has been consistently posting with an aim to enlighten I would perhaps blow a gasket.
Of course I am pro Haitian. given. Do you think I have to chose? Really? Your trade with Haiti is now 110% of Haiti's trade with the US. It is the only country with whom you have a positive balance of trade. You have a constant flow of illegals and stateless births. I think that you have some problems. I try to help. As far as I can see. You and Picardo.. DO NOT. You BOTH live in the UNITED STATES. And just take pot shots at ME. Who lives HERE. And tries to make peace and say good things about BOTH countries.
Why do you not just go out to one of the lovely US parks that my tax dollars, and those of my ancestors, who have fought if EVERY conflict since the MAYFLOWERl, have provided and still do for you to enjoy,
and GET OFF MY CASE?
They had the cooperation of some notables, like Buenaventura Baez and even the old separatist politician, Tomas Bobadilla, both of which had seats at the Senate in Port Au Prince. There wasn't big plantations in the French/British/Dutch meaning of the word, but vast extensions of cattle ranching, which were usually tended by entire families (terrenos comuneros) as well as the lands of the Catholic Church. This was mainly in the south and east, while in the north you had small tobacco plots, which again were cultivated by entire families and not just the slaves, the latter which, being as handful as they were, had to be leased from one plot to the other, in order to not have some plots entirely without cultivation. So one could say that the labour was very mobile.
I would like to suggest to ALL of you that being pro-Haitian and pro-Dominican are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One CAN be both.
Annie straddles a wobbly fence, and while she leans over on the pro-Haitian side a bit more, there's another side of her that loves her Dominican neighbors and friends. I have to admire her 'stick-to-it-tiveness', in the face of this being DR1 and not Haiti1.
Continuing with the exposition, what Boyer did was essentially take the lands of the Church, and many of the ones dedicated to cattle ranching, and basically divided them among some of the freed slaves and personnel from his army (specially the ones that used to be rank and file in Christophe's army). This, not surprisingly, would alienate him with the abovementioned sectors (Church and ranchers), which began to plot from then on. As for the relationship between the Haitian state and the Church, it deserves a whole other thread, but we would have to be very circumspect, given the prohibition here. Suffice it to say that it passed from being excellent under Toussaint and the other insurgent chiefs of the initial stages of the revolution (Jean Francois and Biassou), to being very bad under Dessalines, Christophe, Petion and Boyer. In the case of Christophe, though, it might have come from his Anglophilia, due to the fact that he would invite Methodists into the country, and you know how anti-Pope those Brits can be.
I'm sure if they are living in the states they are paying tax dollars themselves and so are entitled to go to the park of their choice and enjoy. Why is it a given that you are pro-Haitian, after-all you choose to live in the DR, taking advantage of he lower cost of living and affordable healthcare.
Do you really think NALS is on your case, and what difference does it make where he lives. A small army of professional soldiers who commit enough terror can control a large population for years, Trullijo did it, Castros are still doing it in Cuba. The Haitians were not welcomed with open arms and they committed to many excesses to stay in control. Different cultures and different aspirations were against them.
The twenty-two years of Haitian occupation witnessed a steady economic decline and a growing resentment of Haiti among Dominicans. The agricultural pattern in the former Spanish colony came to resemble the one prevailing in all of Haiti at the time-- that is, mainly subsistence cultivation with little or no production of export crops. Boyer attempted to enforce in the new territory the Rural Code (Code Rural) he had decreed in an effort to improve productivity among the Haitian yeomanry, but the Dominicans proved no more willing to adhere to its provisions than the Haitians had been. Increasing numbers of Dominican landowners chose to flee the island rather than to live under Haitian rule; in many cases, Haitian administrators encouraged such emigration, confiscated the holdings of the ?migr?s, and redistributed them to Haitian officials. Aside from such bureaucratic machinations, most of the Dominicans' resentment of Haitian rule developed because Boyer, the ruler of an impoverished country, did not (or could not) provision his army. The occupying Haitian forces lived off the land in Santo Domingo, commandeering or confiscating what they needed to perform their duties or to fill their stomachs. Dominicans saw this as tribute demanded by petty conquerors, or as simple theft. Racial animosities also affected attitudes on both sides; black Haitian troops reacted with reflexive resentment against lighter-skinned Dominicans, while Dominicans came to associate the Haitians' dark skin with the oppression and the abuses of occupation.
Religious and cultural life also suffered under the Haitian occupation. The Haitians, who associated the Roman Catholic Church with the French colonists who had so cruelly exploited and abused them before independence, confiscated all church property in the east, deported all foreign clergy, and severed the ties of the remaining clergy to the Vatican. For Dominicans, who were much more strongly Roman Catholic and less oriented toward folk religion than the Haitians, such actions seemed insulting and nihilistic. In addition, upper-class Haitians considered French culture superior to Spanish culture, while Haitian soldiers and others from the lower class simply disregarded Hispanic mores and customs.
Dominican Republic - HAITI AND SANTO DOMINGO
On another point, France decided the Haiti was no longer as important after they sold Louisiana to the USA, so they decided to cut their losses.
Political and Economic History of Haiti
Political and Economic History of Haiti
If they wouldn't have considered them important any longer, the French would have recognized their independence from the get go, wouldn't they? According to Lepelletier de St Remy (Saint Domingue, etude et solution nouvelle de la question Haitienne), the monetary value of the slaves and animals lost to the revolutionary process (which for the colonists, might as well being grouped under the same category) amounted to 1,145,340,000 livres of 1789, which, with reductions here and there, was translated in 150,000,000 francs, which was the prize the surviving colonists asked Charles X to impose the Haitian state as the price for recognition.
The Hitian Occupation
Napoleon decided that his major interests were not in America, but in Europe, so he cashed in by selling Louisiana to the Americans in order to finance his domination of Europe. France wasted a lot in America and got little out of it. It fought with the British in Canada, and lost, it financed the American revolution, and got very little out of it, and finally, the attempt to retake Haiti also was a disaster. It made sense to Napoleon to take the money and run.
Napoleon decided that his major interests were not in America, but in Europe, so he cashed in by selling Louisiana to the Americans in order to finance his domination of Europe. France wasted a lot in America and got little out of it. It fought with the British in Canada, and lost, it financed the American revolution, and got very little out of it, and finally, the attempt to retake Haiti also was a disaster. It made sense to Napoleon to take the money and run.
Not only that, but it was also some sort of comeuppance against the Brits, which still had some territory in the midwest, and were preparing themselves for war against the American states for the unresolved borders there as well as the Indian question (the Brits wanted to establish and Indian state as a buffer between their Canadian holdings and the US).
First of all, I don't live in Connecticut, but when I did it was for educational reasons. But do you know what's the most interesting part of this? I have never been anywhere in this world ILLEGALLY. I know its inconvenient, but you have to accept that your ad hominem is quite a joke!
That's what happens when others see right through someone else and lets them know it!mountainannie said:
We know that...mountainannie said:
What does this has to do with illegal immigration? That trade of balance will remain so with or without the illegals. LOLmountainannie said:
Good to see you are aware.mountainannie said:
And the solution for that also exist, but I guess its not in your interest to recognize this either.mountainannie said:
I
I don't, but I don't know about "Picardo." Either way, if he is living in the USA, I highly doubt he's there ILLEGALLY. What is so hard about understanding this? You can't equate a person that goes somewhere LEGALLY with others that do so ILLEGALLY. As such, a person that does things according to the rules has all the right to complain about those that DO NOT!mountainannie said:
In fact, that's part of human nature. One person does something the right way and then they see someone else gets privileges and guess who will start to complain?
You are still a foreigner and pro-Haitian to boot and this is VERY obvious. Nothing will change it.mountainannie said:
Maybe because they are too far? Just a thought.mountainannie said:
I did noted that you never mentioned that any of your ancestors were slaughters as if they were pigs for simply living on their land and minding their own business. No, because it never happened, so you simply don't know what its like to read history books and historical books and not just imagine what happened, but know that you even have a blood connection to all of that. You simply don't know what its like to be in this type of situation. For you, reading these things is just a story and that's it.
Now, why don't you go over to that country that you love and defend so much, to the degree that you put blinders in order to just see what you want to see, say what you want to say, and then hope it all ends on a pro-Haitian stance. There are other foreigners living there as we speak, you should join them.
I was never on your case, but if seeing right through you and then letting you know of that is what you consider being "on your case," then I guess by your standards I am. In that respect, get used to it.mountainannie said:
Last edited:
- Status