- Thread starter Jersey Devil
- Start date
Greatest Dominican President
No, my friend, you're the one to whom that shoe fits, specially when you're woefully ignoring the pernicious influence that regional caudillismo exerted on the country since the end of the Restoration War, when absolutely no government could hope to stand if it didn't have the approval of two or three bandits and their bands.
Presidents...
I'd recommend for you (or everyone, for that matter) to read Soto Jimenez' "Los Motivos del Machete". That way, you'll understand that the DR needed a strong man (or strong party) if it wanted to survive the forces unleashed by the Restoration War, were the regional caudillismos, though successful in their fight against the spaniard, threatened to swallow the country as a whole if someone (or party) didn't appear in order to put a rein to their lawless impulses.
I'd recommend for you (or everyone, for that matter) to read Soto Jimenez' "Los Motivos del Machete". That way, you'll understand that the DR needed a strong man (or strong party) if it wanted to survive the forces unleashed by the Restoration War, were the regional caudillismos, though successful in their fight against the spaniard, threatened to swallow the country as a whole if someone (or party) didn't appear in order to put a rein to their lawless impulses.
....
And it is in this way that society has always justified great evils, by engaging in the failed discourse of "one evil is better than the other." False choice that has brought us, among other things, The Crusades, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and a myriad of other examples, most recently the US financial bailout.
The notion that Trujillo was in some way good for this country, or a better choice than the relevant second option is misleading considering that history only runs one course. For those who can't digest the thought, I mean, we only know one history, the one we have lived. We have no clue what other options could have entailed since we don't have the luxury of parallel existences that would allow us to then compare such results. So we only have what Trujillo did and not what his rivals "would have done." What does this mean? That he massacred his people and his neighbor's people. He was a tyrant.
For those who suggest he was in some way "good" because a void of leadership propelled him to his eventual status only serves to justify the atrocities of the time and the end result, which is the quagmire we know as the Dominican Republic. He massacred 30,000 Haitians and your argument is that it was the right thing to do because it gave the DR its proper share of Hispaniola? Because he brought "stability?" Living in fear, living in constant danger of "el Jefe" is not peace, its anarchy.
Populations under dictatorial rule have "always" lived in "peace," but its because the guns were turned on them and not the "enemy." However, in Trujillo's DR the public was the enemy and the bank.
The cognizant thinker would assume you would have no problem in him killing more people and in so justify the racial, social and sexual undertones which resulted.
The means do not justify the ends. It is not Trujillo's acts that provide the most concern it is the historical judgment based on what our society has become as a result of his actions: The DR, in the horrid state that it is, is Trujillo's legacy, and that, in my opinion can not be justified.
(Note: I understand that it was not just Trujillo, but based on this argumentative stance, he is the focus of my thesis statement).
Domo arigato,
Mr. Lu
And it is in this way that society has always justified great evils, by engaging in the failed discourse of "one evil is better than the other." False choice that has brought us, among other things, The Crusades, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and a myriad of other examples, most recently the US financial bailout.
The notion that Trujillo was in some way good for this country, or a better choice than the relevant second option is misleading considering that history only runs one course. For those who can't digest the thought, I mean, we only know one history, the one we have lived. We have no clue what other options could have entailed since we don't have the luxury of parallel existences that would allow us to then compare such results. So we only have what Trujillo did and not what his rivals "would have done." What does this mean? That he massacred his people and his neighbor's people. He was a tyrant.
For those who suggest he was in some way "good" because a void of leadership propelled him to his eventual status only serves to justify the atrocities of the time and the end result, which is the quagmire we know as the Dominican Republic. He massacred 30,000 Haitians and your argument is that it was the right thing to do because it gave the DR its proper share of Hispaniola? Because he brought "stability?" Living in fear, living in constant danger of "el Jefe" is not peace, its anarchy.
Populations under dictatorial rule have "always" lived in "peace," but its because the guns were turned on them and not the "enemy." However, in Trujillo's DR the public was the enemy and the bank.
The cognizant thinker would assume you would have no problem in him killing more people and in so justify the racial, social and sexual undertones which resulted.
The means do not justify the ends. It is not Trujillo's acts that provide the most concern it is the historical judgment based on what our society has become as a result of his actions: The DR, in the horrid state that it is, is Trujillo's legacy, and that, in my opinion can not be justified.
(Note: I understand that it was not just Trujillo, but based on this argumentative stance, he is the focus of my thesis statement).
Domo arigato,
Mr. Lu
I don't know where to begin with all of this. I'll just discuss a couple of things.
I think naked snake made valid points about the kind of people Trujillo was fighting when he took power in 1930-31. The caudillos Trujillo fought were nothing but rival warlords. 1930-31 was a case of warlords fighting warlords.
Arias was nothing but a self serving caudillo.
He brought disaster down on both sides of this island. It was Arias who helped bring down a string of Haitian governments which lead to the American invasion and occupation of Haiti. Arias' political games lead to the American occupation of the Dominican Republic. The American occupation of this island was brutal. Arias was horrid. That some people celebrate him as a hero is mystery to me. Arias was one of many caudillos-a pack of worthless political adventurers.
Trujillo crushed the regional Caudillos and brought order to the Dominican house. Don't pretend that these warlords were kind hearted souls. If Trujillo hadn't it is possible that the DR could have gone back to what it was before WW1-a patchwork of rival caudillos. Dominicans were war weary people. Trujillo brought peace to the average Dominican.
Don't minimize the damage the caudillos inflicted on this country.
As far as the best president goes,I suppose its a matter of opinion. If you judge the presidents on their accomplishments-Trujillo was the most successful. Other posters have already outlined many of his accomplishments. I don't need to repeat them.
As for blaming the DR's current problems on Trujillo-I disagree. Can't people just accept responsibility for their mistakes and stop placing blame on others?
What exactly do you consider "Trujillo's legacy" today to be? It's certainly not balanced budgets and paying off the national debt. It's not an efficient civil service, fully operational public utilties and a positive trade balance(Things Trujillo accomplished). What do you see in the DR today that reflects Trujillo's governmental policies?
People often write and blame Trujillo for the DR's problems, but what exactly did he do that continues to this day? Don't tell me about corruption-that went before Trujillo was even born in this country. And it was far worse and more destructive to the national infanstrucure before Trujillo(and after).
Last edited:
"Don't minimize the damage the caudillos inflicted on this country."
"Don't tell me about corruption-that went before Trujillo was even born in this country. And it was far worse and more destructive to the national infanstrucure before Trujillo(and after)."
"What do you see in the DR today that reflects Trujillo's governmental policies?"
Hummm... sounds like someone had roast goat for breakfast.
Let's see, first you tell us that Trujillo 'cleaned up' all the corruption caused by the caudillos. Then you say the corruption existed long before Trujillo arrived on the scene, and he is not to be blamed. The question is, did he clean it up, or just institutionalize it?
All the "great" dictators of the world (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Batista, Pol Pot, etc.) have their current supporters, who can supply us with lists and lists of accomplishments. However, when examining the pluses and minuses of these dictators, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand that their so-called contributions were little more than their own public relations fantasies.
Trujillo may have brought an end to the caudillos, but if he did it was only to consolidate his own power, so that he could then plunder the country unchallenged. He was just the biggest and baddest gangster. The money he stole from the DR ran into the hundreds of millions US dollars, and that was when a dollar was a dollar.
It is not the first time we have seen Ogre defend the honor of the goat, and it probably won’t be the last. But please, at least come up with something new next time. Your old arguments are stale and tiresome.
"Don't tell me about corruption-that went before Trujillo was even born in this country. And it was far worse and more destructive to the national infanstrucure before Trujillo(and after)."
"What do you see in the DR today that reflects Trujillo's governmental policies?"
Hummm... sounds like someone had roast goat for breakfast.
Let's see, first you tell us that Trujillo 'cleaned up' all the corruption caused by the caudillos. Then you say the corruption existed long before Trujillo arrived on the scene, and he is not to be blamed. The question is, did he clean it up, or just institutionalize it?
All the "great" dictators of the world (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Batista, Pol Pot, etc.) have their current supporters, who can supply us with lists and lists of accomplishments. However, when examining the pluses and minuses of these dictators, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand that their so-called contributions were little more than their own public relations fantasies.
Trujillo may have brought an end to the caudillos, but if he did it was only to consolidate his own power, so that he could then plunder the country unchallenged. He was just the biggest and baddest gangster. The money he stole from the DR ran into the hundreds of millions US dollars, and that was when a dollar was a dollar.
It is not the first time we have seen Ogre defend the honor of the goat, and it probably won’t be the last. But please, at least come up with something new next time. Your old arguments are stale and tiresome.
And during the Trujillo era, Trujillo brought unprecedented development to the country in various spheres such as economic, infrastructural, governmental, etc.
The base Trujillo built for the country is the main reason the DR is not like Haiti.
Now Haiti, look at what the Duvaliers did. Its safe to say they did nothing for the Haiti. Michelle Duvalier, the wife of one of the Duvaliers (can't remember if it was the wife of Papa Doc or Baby Doc) spent millions of Haiti's money buying fur coats all so she can wear them in Haiti's National Palace on her many lavish parties. In order to wear such coats and still be comfortable, they used to put the AC at freezing temperatures so they can recreate a cold winter.
All the while, Haiti felt into misery beyond belief.
It can't be denied that while there were many bad things about Trujillo, he had an intense love for his country to the degree that he imposed modernization down its throat and eliminated anyone who could had challenged this modernization process.
As for the creation of the modern Dominican state from which Trujillo launched the modernization of Dominican society, that can be attributed to that other dictator by name of Ulises Hereaux; another great terrible, although Trujillo was better!
About three quarters into this video, listen well to what the late Dominican sociologist Te?filo Barreiro had to say about the modernization of the DR:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mDmaZSWaJs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mDmaZSWaJs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Trujillo is very much like every dictator who loves his country and believes in the greatness and possibilities of his country. The only problem was that he was a true dictator, a dictator that loved his country and this love manifested itself in the efforts he dedicated towards the development of such.
The same can't be said of all dictators.
The Duvaliers are a close example for the DR, but lets look at more contemporary dictators like Robert Mugabe, current dictator of Zimbabwe.
Hm, judging by the intentional collapse of Zimbabwe, its safe to say Mugabe for sure does not love Zimbabwe like Trujillo loved the Dominican Republic.
-NALs
Last edited:
"The base Trujillo built for the country is the main reason the DR is not like Haiti."
How can you substantiate this statement with any viable historical facts?
There are many factors that influenced the devolution of Haiti, not least of which being US policy, past and present.
Your statement, presented as if it were accepted fact, is disingenuous at best. At worst, it is calculated disinformation, used as support for a fascist thief, and to revise the historical events that actually lead to Haiti's present situation.
It looks as though we have a couple of goat worshipers on board.
How can you substantiate this statement with any viable historical facts?
There are many factors that influenced the devolution of Haiti, not least of which being US policy, past and present.
Your statement, presented as if it were accepted fact, is disingenuous at best. At worst, it is calculated disinformation, used as support for a fascist thief, and to revise the historical events that actually lead to Haiti's present situation.
It looks as though we have a couple of goat worshipers on board.
From my point of view it's better to be a goat worshipper than to be an admirer of a corrupt and disorderly administration as the one of Vasquez, just because of the false assumption that it was "more democratic", and that, had it been let to run its reelectionist course, would have let the country to its dissolution, or at worse, to live on a perpetual state of civil war. No offense, but I find it more disturbing the fact of some people romanticizing an era which brought nothing for the country but unrest and unending strife.
Last edited:
Bob Saunders,
I agree that some improvements were made during Trujillo's and Balaguer's administrations, but it is impossible to say if someone else could have accomplished more. We just don't know, and can never know, what other leaders or administrations would have done.
I think we can determine that the improvements that were made pale in comparison to the harm that was done.
As far as Leonel needing to be stronger, perhaps that is also true, but again, we don't know what he would do with that additional power. He might become the benevolent dictator that neither Trujillo nor Beleaguer ever were. However, there is a very good possibility he would abuse whatever power he had at his disposal. Is it worth the risk to find out?
Without proper checks and balances, even the most conscientious leader runs the risk of loosing sight of what is actually in the best interest of the country as a whole. We have learned through history that leaders without certain constraints usually end up persuading themselves they can do no wrong, or feel their wrongs are justifiable.
I agree that some improvements were made during Trujillo's and Balaguer's administrations, but it is impossible to say if someone else could have accomplished more. We just don't know, and can never know, what other leaders or administrations would have done.
I think we can determine that the improvements that were made pale in comparison to the harm that was done.
As far as Leonel needing to be stronger, perhaps that is also true, but again, we don't know what he would do with that additional power. He might become the benevolent dictator that neither Trujillo nor Beleaguer ever were. However, there is a very good possibility he would abuse whatever power he had at his disposal. Is it worth the risk to find out?
Without proper checks and balances, even the most conscientious leader runs the risk of loosing sight of what is actually in the best interest of the country as a whole. We have learned through history that leaders without certain constraints usually end up persuading themselves they can do no wrong, or feel their wrongs are justifiable.
What I mean by stronger is not be given more power, but to act stronger. Sort of like Jaime David Mirabel has done with environment. Tell people what changes are coming, give them enough time( like a warning shot) to prepare, then act. I guess the Military has taught me this way of thinking. This is the sort of action he needs to do with electricity. Problem is after he cuts all the poor people off, and makes all the rich people that are stealing electricity - will he survive? This has to be one of the foremost thoughts in every Dominican politician - can I do the right thing ethically and live to see another day.
"can I do the right thing ethically and live to see another day."
Probably the thoughts of every politician, DR or otherwise.
I absolutely agree with you, in order to turn things around, someone has to act decisively.
Leonel is faced with some very difficult choices. He must show more integrity than he has shown to date in this term. He was close to being on the right road during his first term, but I think he began to like the perks of office too much. He also began to see other possibilities, such as a position in the UN. Now, it seems he is simply campaigning 100% of the time.
First of all, he needs to reevaluate who he is, and what he stands for. If he is able to find the right course, then he can more forward. He will need to build strong alliances with those who really want what's best for this country. And then, as you have pointed out, he must act quickly and decisively. If he can do all those things there is a chance for some meaningful change.
I'm not sure any of this is possible. There are many within his administration with vested interests, who have no desire for change. We shall see.
Probably the thoughts of every politician, DR or otherwise.
I absolutely agree with you, in order to turn things around, someone has to act decisively.
Leonel is faced with some very difficult choices. He must show more integrity than he has shown to date in this term. He was close to being on the right road during his first term, but I think he began to like the perks of office too much. He also began to see other possibilities, such as a position in the UN. Now, it seems he is simply campaigning 100% of the time.
First of all, he needs to reevaluate who he is, and what he stands for. If he is able to find the right course, then he can more forward. He will need to build strong alliances with those who really want what's best for this country. And then, as you have pointed out, he must act quickly and decisively. If he can do all those things there is a chance for some meaningful change.
I'm not sure any of this is possible. There are many within his administration with vested interests, who have no desire for change. We shall see.
catcher,you don't even know what you're talking about. You don't know DR history that well-your past statements have shown me that. So don't pretend like you do.(Nor do you understand Haitian history-just the Noam Chomsky version)
First of all I was not defending the "honor" of the goat. I never have. I simply point out the facts, as opposed to the TV movie version of Dominican history. I did not claim that Trujillo "cleaned up " corruption. Where did I write that? Trujillo did steal money,but under Trujillo the DR was built up into a relatively modern country. I agree with some other posters,without Trujillo the DR today would be a slightly better off Haiti. Even Trujillo's opponents, like Jesus Galindez, granted Trujillo his accomplishments(along with critizing him).
The point I was trying to make about the caudillos that Trujillo crushed is that they were not the healthy alternative that some might make out. The fight between Trujillo and the warlords was not a clash of democrats vs fascists. It was just a clash between rival warlords. Trujillo won. He consolidated power in a way that previous caudillos had failed to do. Instead of JUST looting the country he choose to build it up.
Yes, Trujillo was cruel. I've never denied that. But don't prertend that a caudillo like Arias was somehow a better man, because he wasn't. He was backstabbing political operative. Haitian history books leave no doubt as to Arias' true nature. Arias received his comeuppance at the hands of Trujillo's soldiers. It's too bad Arias wasn't killed 20 years earlier, perhaps a lot of misery could have been avoided. The American occupation of this island was nightmarish. Anyone can read about it.
I've grown weary of people making excuses for the current state of Dominican politics by blaming everything on Trujillo. He's been dead for almost 50 years. It's pathetic. Trujillo stole, but he also built the country up. He didn't kill the cash cow. It's not a question of defending Trujillo; it's simply a question of laying out the facts. It's simply stating what actually happened.
We live in an age of political midgets. We have corruption, and not much else.
Trujillo was an effective president. A lot of bad things happened under him. One of Trujillo's generals wrote about this in his memoirs. He talked about Trujillo's accomplishments, but he wrote that the price "in human blood and dignity became too high." And so Trujillo was killed. Reality is not always so black and white. It seems to me that people want to only focus on Trujillo's negatives. But if that were everything, he never would have gained the support of the Dominican people(and he had it almost until the end). A honest analysis of Trujillo is provided in many history books. Why not read a few of them?
Last edited:
Look Ogre-boy, it is really sweet of you to stick up for your little buddy all the time, but it's getting a tad old. Your silly ideas about what history is and is not has no basis at all with what actually happened.
So take a deep breathe and remove those little bottle caps from your vest, it's time you faced the truth. Trujillo was a power-hungry crook, who cared for no one but himself, and attempted to compensate for his questionable sexuality by exploiting little girls who were given over to him by his obsequious minions.
It's really quite alright if you want to live in your little play world, but please don't confuse it with real history. Trujillo's delusions of self-importance got the best of him. Be careful the same doesn't happen to you.
So take a deep breathe and remove those little bottle caps from your vest, it's time you faced the truth. Trujillo was a power-hungry crook, who cared for no one but himself, and attempted to compensate for his questionable sexuality by exploiting little girls who were given over to him by his obsequious minions.
It's really quite alright if you want to live in your little play world, but please don't confuse it with real history. Trujillo's delusions of self-importance got the best of him. Be careful the same doesn't happen to you.
Another one of your school boy taunts. You obviously don't know the history, so you can only come back with pathetic jibes. I don't take anything you write seriously. You haven't got a clue about Dominican or Haitian history. I think that's quite obvious to anyone who has ever really studied it.
"I don't take anything you write seriously."
I'm deeply hurt. Couldn't you just take the funny stuff seriously? Just for old times sake?
Seriously!
I'm deeply hurt. Couldn't you just take the funny stuff seriously? Just for old times sake?
Seriously!
Are you serious?
The DR and Haiti both have been under the yolk of the great northern neighbor. Both countries had their dictatorships supported by the U.S. and yet, the Dominican dictator did things differently from the Haitian dictator.
When Trujillo was removed from power, the DR was light years ahead in all aspects compared to the DR he had acquired in 1930.
Yet, when the Duvalier era ended in Haiti, that country was in worst shape than it was when the dictatorship started, much of the fault falling on the laps of the Duvalier's themselves.
Hm, let's see.
Trujillo rules the DR from 1930 to 1961 (31 years) and the DR drastically improves, is modernized, and is left with a foundation that helps sustain and propell the further modernization, greater economic development, growth, and diversification; and increasing standards of living since then.
The Duvaliers ruled Haiti from 1957 to 1986 (29 years) and yet, Haiti's quality of life was on a deterioration slide from the start, the state was nowhere near being modern and/or was even planned to be modernized, there was no foundation from which Haiti's development could had taken off from. In 1986, Haiti lacked the very same thing it lacked 29 years before!
You can blame whomever you want for Haiti's ills, and I'm sure many governments had their hands in Haiti's cookie jar, but none was greater than that of the Duvaliers.
Pick up a history book of both countries, check development data of both countries and see how despite having dictatorships that lasted about the same length, the DR was modernized and from that continues to be modernized while Haiti went backwards and has been stuck in extreme backwardness.
The results speak for themselves!
-NALs
NALs, as usual you are selective in your summary of my argument, and equally selective in the "facts" you use to support yours.
I said there are many factors which produced the present situation in Haiti.
Your argument amounts to a simple "Trujillo good, Duvaliers bad."
You might as well just come out and say what you are implying, that Haitians are incapable of creating a state, and that Trujillo epitomized good governance.
Yes, it is extremely difficult to remain serious in any discussion with you. You and Ogre should just have your 'Trujilloistas' coming out party, and be done with it.
You two can mug it up, and congratulate each other on the marvelously selective law and order that was preserved by your iconic lord, and joyously celebrate the transformational cleansing he brought to the righteous East Side. Oh, and don't forget the parsley.
The results speak for themselves!
I said there are many factors which produced the present situation in Haiti.
Your argument amounts to a simple "Trujillo good, Duvaliers bad."
You might as well just come out and say what you are implying, that Haitians are incapable of creating a state, and that Trujillo epitomized good governance.
Yes, it is extremely difficult to remain serious in any discussion with you. You and Ogre should just have your 'Trujilloistas' coming out party, and be done with it.
You two can mug it up, and congratulate each other on the marvelously selective law and order that was preserved by your iconic lord, and joyously celebrate the transformational cleansing he brought to the righteous East Side. Oh, and don't forget the parsley.
The results speak for themselves!