[IPSM] The Haitian Revolution and Black History

[aaron at resist.ca]

http://aaron.resist.ca/node/64

The Haitian Revolution and Black History
Patrick Elie speaks for CKUT's Black History Month

Patrick Elie is a long-time poltical and human rights activist in Haiti. While 
he is a chemist by trade, he is also someone who is passionate about his people 
and their history.

We spoke with Patrick Elie in Port au Prince about Haiti's history and the 
slave revolt in the context of Black History Month. Elie asserts that the 
Haitian revolution was not only a momentous event for Haitians, but for people 
all over the world in demonstrating that freedom, not slavery, was the natural 
state of humankind.

Elie elloquently makes the links between Haiti's distant past, and the current 
political situation, as imperialist forces are once again meddling in the 
country's affairs. Just like in 1791, Haitians are today embroiled in a 
struggle against racist imperialism and colonization. The characters and terms 
have changed, but the game largely remains the same.

Interviewed by Aaron Lakoff and Leslie Bagg

-->To download the audio version of this interview, visit:
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=16412

Q: Haiti's history is all too often ignored in terms of its importance and 
significance. Can you talk about this history and what it means to you as a 
Haitian person today?

A: You're right to point out that Haiti's history was a momentous event, and an 
event that has significance, not only for black people, but for all of 
humanity. When the slaves revolted on mass in 1791, and after a long struggle 
against the French army, were able to proclaim Haiti's independence and the end 
of slavery, it was the first time that a whole people extended the notion of 
freedom to everybody. Not only that, they also demonstrated that slavery is the 
unnatural state, and freedom is the natural state of man.

Besides, it was not only an anti-slavery struggle. It was also a struggle for 
self-determination against colonialism and imperialism. I always say that the 
Haitians went beyond what, for example, the Marxists envisioned that the 
proletariat, by freeing itself, would free everybody. It was not the 
proletariat this time . it was even lower. It was the slaves, who were 
considered as chattel. The chattel actually stood up and demonstrated their 
humanity and thus freed everybody. In that sense, the whole world has a debt 
towards Haiti and the Haitian revolution.

Very few people realize what it took for people who were slaves, kept ignorant, 
and 60% of whom at the time of the uprising had been born in Africa. They knew 
of this country here only as a kind of concentration camp. It was a foreign and 
hostile land to them. I always say that it is something that is almost beyond 
comprehension that such an incredible feat could have been achieved. For those 
who are so often very harsh towards Haiti and the Haitian people, saying, .how 
come after 200 years after independence Haiti is still poor?.. I say without 
even going to the hostility that the dominant powers at the time (France, Great 
Britain, the USA) exerted against the new republic, all those colonies who had 
slaves were horrified by the Haitian revolution, and they wanted to contain it 
as much as possible. Don't forget that in Haiti, the slaves liberated 
themselves in 1794. In the USA, it wasn't until 1865. In the French colonies it 
wasn't until 1848. In Cuba and Brazil, it was even later. So the Haitians were 
at least 50 years in advance of the so-called "enlightened" countries of 
Europe.

Also, one has to realize that the Haitians started from zero. It's not the same 
as the other colonies like Canada or the USA where the Europeans who came to 
dominate these countries simply cut the ties with the mother country. They came 
in with all the advances and political structures. Haitians had to invent or 
try to reinvent from zero. So, truly, for Haitians this is the 3rd century, not 
the 21st, because we had to start from scratch. I think although nobody could 
be satisfied with the state of Haiti today, one should never forget it's only 
been 200 years.

Q: One impression that we have gotten from being in Haiti for 3 weeks is the 
amount of public discourse and respect which is paid to some of the characters 
and leaders behind this slave revolt. Can you talk about some of these 
characters and their significance in Haiti then and today?

A: Yes, Toussaint (L'Ouverture) is often referred to as the forefather of 
Haiti's independence. He was this black general who took these bands of recent 
slaves and turned them into an army. When he succeeded in actually controlling 
the whole island, he enacted a constitution which abolished slavery. He also 
attempted something which was way ahead of its time. He tried to have blacks, 
whites, and mulattoes living all together in a rainbow nation. All of that of 
course was destroyed by the stubbornness and short-sightedness of Napoleon, who 
by trying to re-establish slavery, truly made it into a racial war. But the war 
was not racial - it was about freedom.

As you know, Toussaint was treacherously captured by the French and deported to 
one of the coldest parts of France. He was murdered, you could say, because he 
was left to die.

But, what happened was that after a period of disarray after the landing of 
Napoleon's expedition and the capturing of Toussaint, pretty soon some of the 
generals that had rallied to the French after Toussaint's exile came to realize 
that they had to come together and not simply have a liberation from slavery 
and autonomy, but true independence if they wanted to keep their freedom. 
That's how (Jean-Jaques) Dessalines, who was a black general, got together with 
(Alexandre) Petion, a mulatto general. Although they had been enemies a few 
years back in the fight for power, they decided to ally themselves so that the 
war of independence could be won. That's how the French were finally defeated 
on November 18, 1803, and all the French soldiers and planters left Haiti.

So we always tend to go back to these heroes, especially Toussaint, but also 
Dessalines and Petion, because they symbolize the Haitian flag and the Haitian 
motto, "l'Union fait la force" ("In union, there is strength").

I think that today at this particular juncture in Haiti we should look more 
than ever to that example. This is a country which is deeply divided. It is 
divided mostly between an elite who has monopolized knowledge and the economy, 
and the vast majority of poor people who toil for less than two dollars per 
day. Such a divide is incompatible with a viable nation. I believe that more 
than ever it is important to look to the example of Dessalines and Petion, and 
try to reach a compromise between these elites and the masses. Otherwise this 
country is doomed.

Q: Throughout Haiti's history there has been racial stratification or racial 
hierarchy, even with mulattoes who had their freedom before blacks. The elite 
that we see in Haiti today, for example the Group of 184, is lead by people who 
aren't what we'd call black. We still have the mulatto elite. How is it that 
this racial hierarchy has been kept throughout the years?

A: As is often the case, when you have a society that is unjust, unbalanced, it 
tends to reproduce itself. It really takes a decision by a collectivity to stop 
that.

However, one should be very careful in describing the split in Haiti in colour 
or racial terms. For one thing, the divide is mostly between people who 
consider themselves Haitian, and people who consider that you only are 
civilized the less Haitian you are. They do not consider themselves Haitian, 
and that has nothing to do with colour. It has to do with a cultural bias. It 
has to do with the "présupposé" (French term). The basic hypothesis that these 
people have made is that we need to bring the Haitians to civilization, and in 
order to do that we need to make them into second-hand copies of the Europeans 
or the Americans.

Secondly, the reason why it is more complex is that the mulattoes no longer 
control this country's economy. You will find if you really do the research is 
that they have been mostly replaced by Haitians of middle-eastern origin. They 
tend to function like clans, inter-marry, etc. This is not conducive to a 
viable country. We have to find a way to integrate this community of 
middle-eastern origin into Haiti. There is resistance on their part, but there 
has not been what I'd call a true effort to integrate them. We need to do that 
or else we'll have a country which is divided, and that's a recipe for 
catastrophe.

The Haitian people have been depicted to the world as having a violent history. 
Look at how little violence there is when you consider the social divide, the 
distribution of wealth in this country. You look at Jamaica (compared to 
Haiti), and despite the incredible rise in violence in the last two years, we 
still have a murder rate which is half of Jamaica's. When you speak of Haitian 
history as being one of the most violent in the world, this is complete 
hogwash. First of all, this is a country which is only 200 years old, and every 
country has a rough beginning. You take the history of France during the time 
of the Kings preceding 1789, it's nothing but revolts here, poisonings 
there....things like this.

But also, what do you consider violence which is part of your history? Is it 
only the violence which has occurred on your soil, or is it also the violence 
which you bring to other countries? And in that sense, I'd say that England, 
the USA, and France have more violent histories than Haiti.

If we start the clock in 1804 and follow the histories of France, the USA, 
England, and Germany alongside that of Haiti, I think Haiti is going to finish 
dead last in terms of violence.

This (violent) way of describing Haiti is extremely prejudicial to the country 
and to the people because a lot of friends we could have in Canada, the USA, 
etc., are completely led astray by these descriptions of Haitian history. The 
violence in Haiti should be ten times what it is given the economic 
difficulties and the terrible social divide. You have 5% of the population 
controlling upwards of 70% of the wealth. And if you took that 5% and segmented 
it, you'd find that the top 1% controls about 50% of the country's wealth. In 
any other place in the world, if you found this data you'd have yourself a huge 
confrontation of Rwandan proportions, but you don't have that here.

Q: It seems that Haitian history also defines itself as being a history of 
struggle against white supremacy. One story we find interesting is the story of 
the creation of the Haitian flag. Can you share this story with us?

A: It has been said that before May 18, 1803, when really it was decided to go 
and fight for Haitian independence, the Haitians were fighting against the 
French flag. As you well know, this flag has red, white and blue. It is said 
that at the Congress of Unity in 1803, Dessalines ripped the white part from 
the French flag and united the blue and red, saying that the red symbolized the 
mulattoes, and the blue symbolized the blacks. Since Toussaint's project of a 
rainbow country had been rejected by the whites, they were taking the whites 
out of this.

But yet, it was not an anti-white, but rather an anti-French and anti-Napoleon 
gesture. Some whites, and especially a Polish regiment, actually sided with the 
Haitians in a war against Napoleon's army. They were made Haitians by 
Dessalines. Dessaline's constitution said no matter what the colour of your 
skin, you were considered a black person in Haiti. So, really it was mostly 
symbolic rather than racial.

The Haitian revolution was one which was very, very generous. For example, it 
stated that any slave or anyone of Indian (indigenous) descent who set foot in 
Haiti would automatically become free. This generosity again manifested itself 
when Bolivar and Miranda, Latin American revolutionaries who fought for the 
independence of countries in South America, came here for help. They were given 
money, weapons, and even Haitian volunteers went with them to help free Latin 
America from the Spanish yoke. They did that more than once on the condition 
that Bolivar would abolish slavery once he had declared independence.

Q: You had mentioned before that the world owes Haiti a debt for the examples 
it has set. However, in one of the cruel ironies of history, Haiti was forced 
to pay a debt to the French for property which was lost during the slave 
revolt. When Jean-Bertrand Aristide was in power centuries later, he made a 
very clear connection with history and he demanded slave-era reparations from 
the French. Can you talk about how this debt affected Haiti from its onset, and 
the more modern side in Aristide's demands for reparations?

A: I think that Aristide's demand for reparations was completely just, even if 
it had very little chance in succeeding in concrete terms. It was also a very 
dangerous demand from the French point of view. As we know, Haiti is not the 
only country that the French have devastated and looted. So the French would be 
facing the same demand from all their ex-colonies in Africa, Asia, and 
elsewhere.

In Haiti, this demand was doubly just. We were not asking for reparations from 
slavery itself, which France has (since) declared as a crime against humanity. 
We couldn't ask for reparations for slavery. We simply asked for reparations 
for the money which was forcefully extracted from Haiti to repay the 
slave-owners that Dessalines had kicked out. And this played a tremendous role 
in stunting Haiti's growth, because that debt took more than 100 years to pay. 
Imagine another country starting by having to pay something that represented 
more than the total Gross National Product at the time. It was paid as always 
by the Haitian peasant.

Q: How was that money forced from the Haitians, and why did they pay it?

A: It was done with what we call the "gunship diplomacy", but I think also that 
one of the reasons that this debt was paid was because the Haitian leadership 
at the time was at odds with its own population. So rather than face the French 
and face their own population at the same time, I think they made a deal with 
France so that the French would not represent a threat to Haiti, and they could 
concentrate on trying to control their own population who were agitating for a 
better distribution of wealth in the country at the time. I don't think that at 
that time France could have truly retaken the island. I think it was a threat 
of violence, but also weakness and wickedness from the Haitian ruling elite.

Q: One of the reasons why Canada supported the coup d'etat against Aristide in 
2004 is because we have a foreign policy objective called "Responsibility to 
Protect". What R2P says is that Canada has a responsibility to protect and care 
for failed states. But it seems what you're trying to get at is that if we were 
to call Haiti a failed state, we would have to look at its history, and 
certainly these external factors. What has led Haiti to be a failed state?

A: It's a bit hasty to call Haiti a failed state. Or, if it is a failed state, 
it is a state that has been failed by a number of very powerful countries, 
amongst which France and the USA are the two worst examples. It is a country 
which was never allowed to evolve by itself and from forces within itself. The 
most recent example was the coup d'etat in the name of protection against 
President Aristide. I am not defending the policies of Aristide, because this 
is a moot point. What I am saying is that the man was twice elected freely by 
his people, and he had a mandate. So, how can you engineer his overthrow and 
actually participate in it in the name of the duty or the right to protect?

Anyways, you judge a tree by the fruit it bears. What they've done is unleashed 
violence in this country, unleashed political repression. President (George W) 
Bush is probably one of the worst presidents that the USA has had, but nobody 
has suggested that the Canadian army should go secure Andrew Airforce base, 
have (Bush) forcefully taken from the White House, and sent to Siberia.

If you took polls in other countries after the first Bush presidency, they 
would all be saying that this guy is very bad. Yet the whole world accepted 
that the American people re-elected him, and that was that. Why can't it be the 
same for us? I think it is deeply racist that some countries can decide that if 
we don't pick right, they have the duty to correct our choice. This is very, 
very dangerous, and deeply racist.

The reason why I say it is racist, for example when it comes to France, from 
the left to the right, the whole French political class is united on Haiti. 
Just today I heard that some ex-French socialist prime-minister came out and 
said that the Haitian people should vote for a certain candidate. Would they 
ever do that in an American, Italian, or Japanese election? No. They feel that 
in their paternalistic, racist way that they can tell the Haitian people who is 
the best president for them. Haitians are incapable of doing that, it seems.

Q: On January 1st, 2004, Haiti celebrated 200 years of independence with 
massive celebrations across the country. Then, not even two months later, a 
coup d'etat led by the USA, France, and Canada happened against the 
democratically-elected president of Haiti. It seems that the fact that this 
happened so close to the bicentennial is significant. Can you reflect on that?

A: Yes, I think it is no coincidence that it happened exactly in the year of 
our bicentennial. You see, the dominant powers can hold a grudge for very long. 
Haiti is still a hated symbol for people who want to dominate the world or 
dominate other people because of their race or their colour. It was important 
that Haiti be humiliated in the very year of its bicentennial.

Also, these two terrible years we have lived have shown something else which is 
worth taking note of. You have a people who are incredibly resilient and who 
know very well what they want, just like their ancestors back in 1791. And 
despite the economic and police repression, you see these people standing up 
again and demanding their rights.

In Haiti, you have a people that despite the fact that 50% of them cannot read 
or write, have a level of political consciousness which I have rarely seen in 
any other country. This is an asset, and given the chance can be turned into a 
real force for change.

But the Haitian people can't do it alone, because we have strong enemies . this 
has already been demonstrated. We need to be able to inform the international 
public opinion, especially in these countries which have interfered so grossly 
in our lives and our affairs. That's the important thing about the work that 
you do, and other people in the USA or Canada are doing in actually trying to 
tell the truth about Haiti, the Haitian people, and the current political 
situation.

[Aaron Lakoff and Leslie Bagg are two activists and independent journalists 
from Montreal who travelled to Haiti for the month of January, 2006. They can 
be reached at montrealtohaiti at resist dot ca.]