I really enjoyed the opening sections  of the novel. Amabelle is a very interesting character. Her style of speech is what most drew my attention. She seems to flutter between reality and thoughts very quickly. What I enjoy about that is that it makes her seem more real. Each of us do the same thing; think and go. The introduction of her dead parents in the opening drew me in and immediately made me ache for her. She seems to be desperate for love but afraid to commmit to love for fear of loss. Her boyfriend Sebastien is what I would like to call in the grey. He is a smooth talker but an obvious hard worker. He seems to understand her and give her the perfect balance of dependability and love that she is looking for without the fears of losing someone. He is the only one that can comfort her and I immediately became haooy for her in reading that. The birth of the child of senora Valencia gave me chill bumps. I became nervous , excited, and scared all in one emotion, because I immediately connected loos to Amabelle and assumed one of the children or both would die. To my delight they are seemingly healthy. The into to this novel gave me a plethora of emotions.

Shining Light on the Darkness

As I reflect on this week’s readings, I can’t seem to get the word “darkness” out of mind. The comparison of darkness to light was heavily engrained in my mind while I read. I thought about how darkness is portrayed nationally. Darkness is seen as evil, bad-luck, inferior, scary, and ignorant. Light is seen as pure, awakening, intellect, and saving. The saying “shining light onto the darkness.” “What’s done in the dark comes to the light.” Both sayings indicate that darkness is bad and light would provide glory to the dark. This concept implies across many nations and cultures. Dark is bad! Light is good.

The concept of darkness comes up a lot in Farming of the Bones. The baby girl was born with a dark complexion and her mother said that it was negative. She states that her daughter will never be accepted during her lifetime. It is interesting that Amabelle always talk about her and her lover being in the dark.

I also thought how America viewed other nations as dark because they were “lost” and need saving. America wanted to be the light to many nations. America want to teach other nations the “right” way of doing things.

The Marine in Saint Domingue

While reading "Taking Haiti" I realized the marine's response to the rebels is significant to the history of Haiti. Landing in Saint Domingue after being pumped with racist and wildy innacurate comics, products, live shows, etc., the marines were probably expecting an island of wild beasts. I wish I could crawl into the mind of Overley and see things as he saw them. I'd like to think he did some serious rethinking of America's occupation there and his personal stake in it. After meditating on "The White Man's Burden," I don't know how I feel about the U.S. in this "big brother" role. I don't know how I feel about referring to other inhabitants of this earth as a burden. It's a fine line that we're constantly straddling. I think the "world police" notion is built on good intentions but I think sometimes we forget that culture is subjective. Pushing your beliefs on others has rarely been successful and is the perfect recipe for resentment and, moreover, the violence and angry action resentment can breed. It seems to me Haiti might as well have been Mars in the eyes of the American marines. Confused and frightened at every sound of the revolutionary conch, I don't think they knew what they had been sent to Saint Domingue to do.

One of the many things that interested me about this book, were the dynamics of the enlisted military men that went into the Marines.  I found it very interesting the various backgrounds, and places of these men being brought together to occupy an island they knew very little about, much less the people who inhabited it. 

These men each one having a different history, and their own formed ideas from their upbringings, as well as all their own personal baggage to drag along, as Renda writes, “In addition to Quakers (Butler was surely not the only “fighting Quaker” in the Marine Corps), other men came to the corps with marked identities:  German, Irish, Slav, Polish, Serbian, Jewish, and others.” (59).  Renda goes on further to say, “For some, including President Theodore Roosevelt, this combination seemed just right. With a war raging in Europe, and U.S. Cities teeming with immigrants-between 1900 and 1915 alone.”(59).  But needless to say, it does not take long for the military to start being selective in their choices, and there is much more interest in recruiting native-born Americans (African Americans not among them) than recruiting some of these particular ethnic groups that they deem to be undesirable to join the Marines.  This is how we begin an occupation, with emphasis on race, class, and bias.

Imperialism and History

When reading Taking Haiti: Military Occupancy and the Culture of US Imperialism by Mary A. Renda, I was interested in the connection between this text and Michel-Rolph Trouillot's Silencing The Past in the production of history and how silences can be created through holes in fact and truth claims. In Renda's text, we use interviews as part of the archive available to us to interpret the events. In 1973 General Noble, Chief of Staff of the brigade said “You can cut that out later. Doesn't sound good anyway” (p.88)When reflecting on impressions he had made of himself when relieving duty from Haiti – this was an American admittance to ignorance of Haitian feeling towards occupation. Ideas of “paternal guidance offered to a child nation in need”(p.42) was supposed to clarify the situation for marines, but it also signaled a further silencing of a truth claim in Haitian history.

This assertion of authority and control (and inherent ideas of superiority) reminded me of examples that Trouillot argued, since “inequalities experienced by actors lead to uneven historical power in the inscription of traces.” (p.48) This raises issues of whether Haitian resistance to domination was recorded in a fair way in historical memory. American marines were not completely prepared to understand the proud “living”(p.45) historical remaining elements of Haitian struggle, symbolised to them in the pumpkins and couch shells.

I also reflected on how important class was, yet again, in instances of conflict with race and gender, but this time within the marines, as on page 56, the racial immigrant status of marines often defined their place in the military hierarchy  and being the “Boy from nowhere, a good for nothing bum”, and so geographical belonging played a role in disgraced.

"The White Man's Burden"- Moving Forward

As we close a chapter in class of the Haitian Revolution and start a new one we are constantly reminded that racism now more than ever is being up rooted, slaves have taken a stance and revolted, which is making the racism line much deeper and defined, in regards to the spectrum of their freedom. Since expressing their voice they have at the same time created a deeper, darker one for the whites.

Looking at “The White Man’s Burden” poem and cartoon I was curious to do more research into the poem and fully understand it, after reading it several times this is what I was able to dissect from it.

Europe is trying to justify coming into Africa and taking over, the white man’s burden has a duty to send “the best of their country to dark, uncivilized places of the earth.”  His view proposes that white people have an obligation to take over, and show Africans the Western ways.

 Through my research I found there is an argument whether “The White Man's burden" can be interpreted as racist, or taken as a metaphor view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions. Giving the Eurocentric   a “meaningful” purpose coming into Africa because they felt an obligation to help them “better” themselves whether they want to or not.  One could argue that they used the Christian missionary movement, which was active at the time in Africa to give a more religious meaning to what they were doing.

 Written in response to Kipling’s poem in April 1899 H.T. Johnson wrote and published “The Black Man’s Burden.”  . A “Black Man’s Burden Association” was even organized with the goal of demonstrating the mistreatment of brown people in the Philippines as an extension of the mistreatment of black Americans at home.

Pile on the Black Man’s Burden.

'Tis nearest at your door;

Why heed long bleeding Cuba,

or dark Hawaii’s shore?

Hail ye your fearless armies,

Which menace feeble folks

Who fight with clubs and arrows

and brook your rifle’s smoke.

Pile on the Black Man’s Burden

His wail with laughter drown

You’ve sealed the Red Man’s problem,

And will take up the Brown,

In vain ye seek to end it,

With bullets, blood or death

Better by far defend it

With honor’s holy breath.

 If not for the Haitian Revolution and the voice of Toussiant Loverture,  I believe that  African slaves and freed ones during this time  would have been too scared to express their voice. Since TS had paved the way   both groups were not afraid to talk back. Whether it was the revolt or the educated African man talking a stand through writing their voice had been heard and was going to continue to be from now until their freedom. 

It’s interesting to see how someone can hate a certain race or ethnicity so much to try and exterminate him or her. Dominican president and dictator, Raphael Trujillo, ordered the Haitian Massacre of 1937 to kill close to 20,000 Haitian immigrants living in the Dominican Republic. At first, it was believed to only kill those not working on the sugar plantations, but then learned to be the death to any Haitians living in the DR. The determinant for life was the pronunciation of the word prejeli, the Spanish word for parsley.  

            Occurring around the same time period, Raphael Trujillo had similar intentions as Hitler did in the Holocaust. The whole purpose was to exterminate a certain race, because people simply did not believe they belonged in society. Still, I found that the most interesting part of this massacre to be the justification many of the Dominican elites used to justify this massacre. They claimed that the Haitian migrant workers were taking poor Dominican jobs and space that should be “theirs” as Dominicans. This massacre was used as a promotion of Dominican national identity.

            I find it astounding that because of the intertwined history of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the construction of race is completely different. Haitians view Africa as their “homeland” while the DR tries to reject most of their African heritage, choosing to relate to European ideals and characters from “their” ancestors of Spain. As we’ve learned the past few weeks, those whose skin tone held more whiteness were given more opportunities and held more power and prestige because of their class status. Colonization helped create the elite classes after the countries gained independence. But you can’t talk about class without talking about race because the two are closely tied to each other. The internalized racism constructed during colonization has been ingrained in post-colonial culture and continues to be persistent today. This massacre stands out because it is an example of how complicated race relations are and how colonial influence still has legacy in many societies. Its especially interesting in regard to understanding what it means to be African American, not just in the United States, but in Latin America, Central America, and South America.

The Public Archive-In Dessalines words...

Caribbean Nations seek reparations

I recently heard about various Caribbean nations seeking reparations from European nations (see link here) and thought it would be interesting for those in the class to see. This link also discusses how some communities have received reparations for specific events, but never entire nations and not for overall enslavement from Trans-Atlantic Slavery. Various Caribbean nations are seeking reparations (i couldn't find a complete list), but the only nations they are seeking reparations from are the British, the Netherlands, and France. I hope Haiti is among those demanding reparations.

The Haitian Revolution: Conquerors vs Overcomers

Often times when I think of slave uprisings I usually think of the (supposedly) unsuccessful attempts in the Americas led by slaves whom are often depicted as "vigilantes" such as Prosser, Vesey, and Turner, but from now on I will think of Toussaint L'Overture. From now on I will think of the Haitian revolution. I was of course never taught that there was indeed an unprecedentedly  successful Slave rebellion against European powers and that this unthinkable rebellion led to the founding of an independent nation known as the Republic of Haiti. It is astoundingly  inspiring to know that these men resisted so strongly against the yolk of bondage that they were indeed willing to organize and lay down their lives to disassemble its evils. Such courage confirms that although slavery had wrought unimaginable havoc on their physical bodies it had not been successful in laying a stronghold of its contamination on their minds. These men, though others viewed them as innate slaves, viewed themselves as free men being illegally held against their own will. This idea in and of itself is phenomenal to me, it is the story of the underdog it is the definition of what it means to overcome. For this reason, I see the Haitian Revolution as a story of two actors: the conqueror and the overcomer. A conqueror is one who has the capacity to destroy and lacks the moral restraint not to, one who seiges/forces victory through great brutality. For this reason it is no great feat to conquer. However, an overcomer is one who rightfully obtains victory without regard (or attention paid) to circumstances or rational limitations. An overcomer is the greatest kind of victor because they are one whom has no reason to believe that success is attainable and nevertheless ventures out to do the insane and gain victory. An overcomer is one who succeeds in the name of what is right an in the face of all the odds stacked against them. To me the Haitian Revolution is confirmation that oppression can indeed be torn down and so called conquerors can be defeated. In the story of The Haitian Revolution the French were conquerors but the African men were much more, they were the overcomers. 

The Haitian Revolution: Conquerors vs Overcomers

Often times when I think of slave uprisings I usually think of the (supposedly) unsuccessful attempts in the Americas led by slaves whom are often depicted as "vigilantes" such as Prosser, Vesey, and Turner, but from now on I will think of Toussaint L'Overture. From now on I will think of the Haitian revolution. I was of course never taught that there was indeed an unprecedentedly  successful Slave rebellion against European powers and that this unthinkable rebellion led to the founding of an independent nation known as the Republic of Haiti. It is astoundingly  inspiring to know that these men resisted so strongly against the yolk of bondage that they were indeed willing to organize and lay down their lives to disassemble its evils. Such courage confirms that although slavery had wrought unimaginable havoc on their physical bodies it had not been successful in laying a stronghold of its contamination on their minds. These men, though others viewed them as innate slaves, viewed themselves as free men being illegally held against their own will. This idea in and of itself is phenomenal to me, it is the story of the underdog it is the definition of what it means to overcome. For this reason, I see the Haitian Revolution as a story of two actors: the conqueror and the overcomer. A conqueror is one who has the capacity to destroy and lacks the moral restraint not to, one who seiges/forces victory through great brutality. For this reason it is no great feat to conquer. However, an overcomer is one who rightfully obtains victory without regard (or attention paid) to circumstances or rational limitations. An overcomer is the greatest kind of victor because they are one whom has no reason to believe that success is attainable and nevertheless ventures out to do the insane and gain victory. An overcomer is one who succeeds in the name of what is right an in the face of all the odds stacked against them. To me the Haitian Revolution is confirmation that oppression can indeed be torn down and so called conquerors can be defeated. In the story of The Haitian Revolution the French were conquerors but the African men were much more, they were the overcomers. 

Christophe and his Sans Souci

I decided to write my post on tomorrow's readings in Silencing the Past. As I was reading I became enthralled with Henry I (Christophe) and the significance of Sans Souci. Intended as a symbol of a successful revolution, Sans Souci was more than that. I found it a bit ironic, too. For one, Trouillot comments on how Christophe employed Haitians night and day to build this elaborate palace, some even dying from the intense labor. After such a brutal war, why cause more death at such a trivial expense? Christophe was consumed by wealth and creating visual and concrete structures for the West to interpret as Haiti's progression. He put palaces over people; the very people he was fighting for in the revolution.

Some historians believe Sans Souci is a French term meaning 'no worries.' Others believe Christophe named his palace after a man that he murdered during the revolution, named Sans Souci. This would follow more with his supposed nature. The fact that the most renowned structure in Saint Domingue after the revolution was named after someone Christophe murdered is something else entirely. It puts the revolution in a whole different light, for me. It shows how it was shaded by those, like Christophe, who sought power rather than equality. Power he sought, most of the time, at the expense of other black soldiers like him. Trouillot talks about the 'war within a war,' that pitted native island blacks against congo-born blacks. I didn't know that there was an internal struggle during the Haitian revolution. It reminded me of a quote by Abraham Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

     Tuesday in class we discussed a couple parts of Avengers of the New World that got me thinking, one specifically being the Code Noir. I get that this provided 'a set of rules' and, perhaps, 'structure' to slavery, however, I can't help but wonder, is it just a way of almost 'justifying' an act of inhumanity in the first place? These same so called men that was have already discussed that had the ability to record history in any bias, one sided view would have been of the same political position and social status to write the laws the country would go by. To me, yes, the Code Noir might have provided structure to a chaotic slavery, but I just can't help but wonder if having laws about slavery justified the unjustifiable in the eyes of the slave owners. If they were truly there for structure, they would have been 100% abided by and acts such as burning of slaves legs would not have gone unpunished.
     Today, September 11, when I was in town, I passed white man running and carrying a flag pole with an American Flag on it. About at hour later, in town again, I passed an African American man walking with a bookbag, looking as if he had just left campus and was waking home. He sported a red shirt that read in bold letters across the chest 'Proud to be an American' with an American Flag in the background.
     These two things and our discussion about Haiti and slavery, made me think how similar our country was to this not very long ago and how far we have come. Thanks to some very important people and events in America's past, blacks and whites can both be proud to be American and have the ability to enjoy the same rights as equal citizens.

More problems with history and the Code Noir

Taken together, i think the readings from Tuesday and tomorrow really drive the point home just how shaky a ground the term "history" is founded upon. Truillot's book, Silencing the Past has strongly reiterated the issue as well. 

"Silences are inherent in history because any single event enters history with some of its constituting parts missing. something is always left out while something else is recorded. there is no perfect closure of any event, however one chooses to define the boundaries or that event. thus whatever becomes fact does so with its own inborn absences, specific to its production. in other words, the very mechanisms that make any historical recording possible also ensure that historical facts are not created equal. they reflect differential control of the means of historical production at the very first engraving that transforms an event into a fact." (pg. 49)

Later on in the same chapter, Truillot also discusses the concept of archiving and how that plays into the inherent issues of "history" and recording history as well. He then goes on to mention some of the points he left out in his retelling of the story of Sans Souci and how certain things were necessary and other unnecessary for the reader to get the gist or the story. more so, he also points out how certain points are left out or added depending on the reader - be that, Americans, Haitians, etc. and how the historian or the one re-telling a historical event is generally cognizant of these other facets outside of the story itself. 

one of the earlier posts commented on how certain "good" parts of history should also be told about slavery as well as the bad parts. but i suppose it depends on who is telling the story and who the audience is. from my perspective, the horrific events that happened during slavery aren't told enough. i didn't learn about the commonality of rape (to both Black men and women), of violence against women, of some women inducing their own abortions or killing their own children to keep them out of slavery, of the castration of Black men (and severing of ears, noses, fingers, etc. after or prior to lynching), of the breaking of ankles and the severing of leg tendons (detailed in DuBois' book), the molestation of children, etc. etc. etc. (and that's not even getting into mental/cultural/familial degradations) ...in any of my grade schooling or even college courses. whippings and arduous labor were the worst parts of slavery that i learned in school. And if i were to tell someone else of slavery, i would more and likely leave out the Code Noir due to my feeling of its insignificance. in the larger scheme of things, i don't see it as influential, important, or a testament to the supposed morality of those who put it in place and enforced it (on whatever small scale that may have been). Although, if i was speaking to a crowd who had a more than novice understanding of slavery, and we were specifically on the topic of enslavement in Haiti, it might be mentioned in passing. other than that, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. a Black Code that says 'one can beat their slave...but not too bad' isn't all that revolutionary, from my perspective. 

“By creating a society in which all people, of all color, were granted freedom and citizenship, the Haitian Revolution forever transformed the world” p 7

Growing up, I never really knew much about Haiti. I knew that it was in the Caribbean, it was a third world country, and that an earthquake devastated the island a few years ago. Now, I’ve been exposed to the cultural side of Haiti and the Dominican Republic from friends, but I don’t know anything about the history and it’s relevance to America. My parents never taught be because we have no connection to Haiti. But the more I started reading, the more I realized how closely connected the Haitian Revolution is to American history, especially when dealing with race relations and silencing history.  

              In Silencing the Past, Trouillot states, “ As sources fill the historical landscape with their facts, they reduce the room available for other facts.” The importance of an event or figure doesn’t always receive the amount of attention it deserves when it is written about because others overshadow it. In the Americas and Caribbean, “colonization transformed European ethnocentrism into scientific slavery”, creating a culture that will be based on race and class distinctions to determine citizenship. I thought it was interesting how in American history, slave rebellions are rarely mentioned let alone that they have been successful. Yet, the Haitian Revolution was one of the biggest slave rebellions, acknowledging that Blacks are people. Trouillot says, “ to acknowledge resistance as a mass phenomenon is to acknowledge the possibilities that something is wrong with the system” (p 84). 

            This got me thinking why this history was never discussed in the US. Slave rebellions in the US were often kept a secret or described in a way to make whites the victims. This often cause slave owners to become stricter with their slaves so their slaves won’t partake in the rebellion or believe that rebellion will not accomplish anything.  Rebellions grow because the leaders are able to connect to oppressed people through a mob mentality. Because the Haitian Revolution was a success, if the Americans got wind of this, it might give the slaves hope and motivation that they can overthrow power there. I wonder if slaves in America new about this rebellion, mobilizing and the mindset of slaves would have been different. Would whites view slaves as capable beings that can govern themselves-which a justification for slavery was that Blacks were incapable of being “civilized”? If whites viewed Blacks in a different way would stereotypes and perceptions of Blacks be different? No one knows, but it would be nice to get a history that is relevant to all my identifiers except one, American.