In writing a column about the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, it was not my intent to suggest that I don’t care about the fate of Haiti, or that I am not sympathetic to the people who make up the huge numbers and heartbreaking images we see flashed across our television and computer screens.
Instead, my goal was to question the psychology of donating, the way we react to natural disasters and the nature of responsibility leading up to and immediately after those disasters. Regardless of the outcry that followed, I think I did those things.
When I wrote about the responsibility borne by the Haitian people for their circumstances prior to the earthquake, I did not make clear that I understand that outside influences have played a large part in determining those circumstances. However, I maintain that much of the responsibility (not all) for one’s fate – or for the fate of a group of people – lies with that person or with those people. I understand that dire circumstances can make taking the yoke of that responsibility very, very difficult. But to assume that the Haitians’ fate was not at least in part their own responsibility is to insult that group of people even more. It rationalizes much of the United States’ past meddling in the affairs of Haiti. But most of all, it shows even less respect to the Haitian people.
I’m disappointed that some outlets chose to extract segments of my column, framing my opinions in their own. Many readers were going to disagree with my opinions regardless of the context in which they were presented – that was, in some ways, the point of writing them. But when they were enticed into reading the piece by potentially inflammatory bits that were taken out of context, readers had little chance to look at my views with the proverbial clean slate.
While I will not apologize for writing my column, I do accept the repercussions associated with writing it and hope that some good may come out of those repercussions: that people will stop and think about their own motivations for giving and that someone else might be inspired to come up with a better way to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters like the one in Haiti.
Thanks for reading.
Paul
Tweet
Maybe the dogooders can explain why the people of Haiti who have nothing continue to bring kids into the world to have nothing? Each woman in Haiti averages 4 kids to live in poverty. What am I missing here?
I applaud you for having the guts to speak your mind. I sense nothing but common sense and understanding in your posts. It makes me think and evaluate my own confusions. Thank you.
And don’t worry about the haters – they need to learn to think for themselves too.
Chin up =)
As a proud, shamelessly nationalistic Jew, I have to comment on one thing that keeps coming up on this and other message boards: There is a school of thought that says, yes, Jews had a responsibility for the Holocaust in that they were not vigilant against antisemitism when it reared its ugly head in post-WWI Germany. This belief is that Jews, by keeping silent not only in Germany but in free countries such as the US, they allowed the climate to deteriorate. The ultimate lesson (which came at the expense of millions) was that no one looks out for your own fate other than yourself. That doesn’t mean the Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Croats, etc. weren’t to blame for what they did in Holocaust; they were and they deserved the aftermath (and then some), including firebombings of their cities and Soviet oppression for years after. However, it says that Jews needed to not look the other way when they were first targeted by that small ragtag bunch of thugs in Munich beer halls in the 1920s.
Likewise, as Paul Shirley’s piece ultimately brings up, Haitians can’t expect the rest of the world to do anything for them. They have to stand up to their own government, foreign governments, and ALL institutions, social, religious, and economic, and say “we’ve had enough of this shit”. No other nation looks out for Haiti’s well-being any more than they looked out after the welfare of the Jews during the ’40s, Biafrans in the ’70s, Bosnians and Tutsis in the ’90s, or Darfurians in the past few years. Every so often, the world does something nice but, in the end, it really doesn’t give a shit.
What Paul Shirley’s piece basically demands is that Haitians ask themselves how the hell did they get to the point where tens of thousands died needlessly and where thousands die year after year because of poverty and natural disasters despite billions of dollars in aid each year. The constant argument that Haiti is a victim because it had to pay specific “damages” to the French for its independence and faced US occupation for decades is a small piece of the puzzle and actually a weak excuse; Haiti has since become the recipient of billions of dollars more in aid from those countries.
On the other hand, the Haitians do in fact have some say in how it is governed. A dictatorship cannot hold power if its people refuse to populate its army and if its army is socially trained to rebel against those that would seek to exploit its own people. Likewise, foreign occupation doesn’t last very long if the occupied people violently resist (Americans in Vietnam, Israelis in Gaza, French in Algeria, Soviets in Afghanistan, etc. are examples of how well that stuff goes).
Crime victims are not “blamed” for when crimes against them occur. Yet we know there are things victims can do to avoid being victims (locking doors, avoiding high crime areas, etc.). Making a minimal effort to protect oneself from becoming a victim is expected of most people even in the safest of places. No one expects the Haitians to be Sweden overnight but we should expect that they demand of their government more responsibility on how it spends its aid money. We should expect Haitians demand of its religious and cultural institutions that it stops insisting family planning not exist. We should expect Haitians to enforce some type of building code for its country on some level instead of act like natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes never occur. Finally, we should expect that the Haitian people hold its government on all levels be as incorruptible as, say, Scandinavia or Canada. A lot to ask? Yes. But so is a few billion dollars from the outside world in aid.
Haiti has suffered a lot the last few weeks and deserves our sympathy. However, Paul Shirley is right to ask the Haitians to ask themselves how did they get to this point and what are they going to do to get out of it so it never happens again. Haiti’s fate is only in the hands of the Haitians themselves. This was the crux of Paul Shirley’s argument. The moment they themselves recognize it is the day they finally turn the corner. And, the moment we stop treating Haitians like little children is the moment our aid money stops being wasted.
Paul,
You are an excellent author, and I love that you have the gall to explain what most of us were thinking(in your original column.) I was already a fan of your prior book and basketball career, as well as your work on ESPN and other websites. I take much delight in knowing that at least one part of the media can display rational thought and common sense.
I’m a fan of yours, Paul, and I think this response shows some of the subtlety of thought and expression that I know you to possess but that was sadly lacking from your original piece. I think you made the mistake of confusing “thought-provoking” with “needlessly inflammatory” and, in your noble pursuit of the former, you strayed too far into the latter.
While your criticism of how the media portrayed your comments is somewhat valid, I’d like to think you’re media-savvy enough to have anticipated that. And I know you’re intelligent enough that you could’ve introduced the sort of historical perspective and nuanced understanding that you hint at here in your original article.
So, more than offended, I was honestly just a little baffled at the whole thing. Because, I feel like I *know* what your point was, and it’s not an invalid point — I just don’t know why you chose to attempt to make it in the most aggressively off-putting terms possible.
Still, keep on writing.
ACM,
Perfectly said.
Keep going Paul.
sir,
even in this article you come accross as an ASS.
well, you are an ASS
Paul, don’t you ever apologize to anyone for speaking your mind!
I wish I could’ve written what you said myself.
Don’t forget Schopenhauer’s comments on Truth:
It passes 3 stages: First it’s ridiculed, then opposed violently;
finally it’s simply accepted because it’s just self-evident.
To hell with anyone that tries to keep others from speaking their mind.
And YES, haiti is a hellhole and they have the government they deserve.
That’s my opinion and it happens to be the truth.
Paul, shutting up now would be your VERY best move. You just jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire with this response. Currently, I am watching Larry King Live and seeing stories of AMERICAN citizens that are coming home alive (amputated or hurt in some way in some cases, but alive nonetheless) thanks in large part to the outpour of support from the entire world. You just spit in their faces… for the second time. Shut up you piece of shit, poor excuse for a human being.
Die a slow disease infested death. Please. You just simply stated that humans should not allow themselves to feel, enjoy and express love due to the fact they don’t have an SUV. People bring children into the world because it is the natural cycle of life. What ever did we do before the airplane was invented. Oh My Gosh! However did we make it THIS far? Jackass!
=============================================================
Jack
Posted January 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Maybe the dogooders can explain why the people of Haiti who have nothing continue to bring kids into the world to have nothing? Each woman in Haiti averages 4 kids to live in poverty. What am I missing here?
And THIS folks, represents the people that are running (read, sabotage) your government, teaching your kids, selling you products that kill you slowly and generally have a foothold on your downfall. To THEM, nothing matters more than bottomline numbers and attainment of the objective even if it means that there is noone left to enjoy the objective once its been attained. Why is it important that we respond to this piece? Because an opinion unchallenged becomes a truth unfounded.
==========================================================
Northerner
Posted January 30, 2010 at 3:41 PM
You people are pathetic! It’s called an opinion for a reason it’s his opinion. If you all hated it so much why did you bother to finish reading it. I’ll tell you why, cuz you were curious to see what he said. He got your attention, which is, to me, what a successful writer wants. Negative feedback is better than no feedback cuz at least it shows his work is being read.
So keep on commenting away at Mr. Shirleys opinion, I’m sure he isn’t minding it one bit…
Paul, I can sort of see your point from you perspective. If Haiti’s problems were because Hatian’s were lazy, irresponsible, wasteful, stupid, and likely to waste any relief effort provided for them, then maybe you’d have a point.
But you’re just totally unaware of the real causes of Haiti’s problems. Haiti is a country that has been dominated by oppressive overlords for a long time. These overlords have crushed the general population. It was the French before 1914. Then it was the U.S. Woodrow Wilson wanted them to pass some measures, and when their parliament refused he sent the marines, who disbanded parliament and set up government to U.S. liking. The U.S. left behind a series of vicious dictators that continued to oppress the people. That’s why you see shanty towns. It’s not their own stupidity and laziness. Nations get poor when they live under brutal governments that terrorize them.
Despite that Haiti accomplished a stunning thing in 1994, sweeping into power through grass roots movements and democracy a priest from the slums. The U.S. was caught off guard. Soon after Aristide was removed in a coup and the oppression continues.
So, more than charity, what they deserve are reparations.
If at the time the people of Hati freed themselves from France’s enslavement, the USA had not blockaded the new country from trading with the outside world to prevent the influence of a free black state on American slaves, and to support France’s claim for reparation to French slave owners, the outcome would be different.
Maybe if President Woodrow Wilson had not sent his forces to occupy Haiti in 1914 to foil German economic investments, and remained in the country to ensure repayment of debts to Citi and the old French debt, just maybe the outcome would be different.
If the dictators who arose in response to the harsh envronment created by constant international siege, the outcome would be different. And if when Haitians voted against their last dictator in favour of an elected president, if he was not deposed by SWashington and deported to South Africa, the ouctomes would have begun to change.
Excellent response letter, I do so admire you. The other negative comments show only what they truly are, cowards, and they follow the standard ‘media news’ shows. The willfully blind leading the ignorantly blind. Ayn Rand had it very right, “Atlas Shrugged”.
I lived in the Caribbean. I agree with what you wrote. Good luck with the consequences, because us humans we love to judge first, then understand after we’ve torn down our victim.
When your utopian America stops putting trailer parks back in hurricane alley after they have been wiped out then and only then can you opine on Haiti. You are a bigot with no concept of reality.
Do not apologize just because certain small-minded philistines think that sending money to some hellhole makes them good people. They’re buying peace of mind and false nobility with dimes and quarters.
Bringing down such a foundation is inevitably going to anger those same cretins.
Throwing money at a problem won’t solve it. Dumbasses.
Paul…don’t worry…Liberals simply don’t understand the difference between INTENTIONS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS, in Liberal land they are the same thing.
http://conservativehideout.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/paul-shirley-haiti-and-the-difference-between-intent-and-accomplishment/
It’s so very easy to say what you say, Paul Shirley, and then lean back in your 1st world cushy basketball-paid armchair.
You are the embodiment of the privileged white man, smugly accusing the Haitians of not helping themselves as you have.
At every turn Haiti has been smacked around by colonialism and a vicious cycle of poverty; to come in with your kind of Randian bootstraps crapola and act as though they have it just as easy as you (not all of us can grow up in a situation where we have the kind of avenues you did, not through our own lack of trying but through them being actively denied to us) is not just ignorant but insulting.
The eugenics stuff doesn’t speak too well about you either.
great double down paul. see you at the teabagger rally. it would be nice if you’d go galt, but they wouldn’t let a 4th rate basketball player or a 12th rate writer in the gulch.
I just love the bleeding heart Liberals on here that support helping Haiti to soothe their own bleeding heart rather than actually help the people of Haiti. To dump more money onto that island without demanding reforms isn’t helping them…they are doing it to make themselves feel good!
http://conservativehideout.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/paul-shirley-haiti-and-the-difference-between-intent-and-accomplishment/
Thank you Paul. You were featured in the Register today and they did only put in the lines that were seemingly over the top. I thought there was truth to them anyway so I copied your link on Facebook to a friend who agreed as well. Only then did I decide to read it and I am a better man for doing so. I know that we must change in our society and allow those with different opinions into our own subconscious or we will forever be doomed to like opinions and corporate groupthink. Thank you Paul for writing a great article.
A new fan
Your original column was refreshing and spot on. Thank you for standing by it.
Also, to those of you who make jabs at Paul Shirley’s basketball career: The guy played in the fucking NBA, a remarkable achievment in its own right, coupled with the fact he’s a writer of growing renown, it’s honestly an inspiration.
You know, I’m not terribly surprised that someone who probably didn’t need to excel in school past the 10th grade to succeed financially wrote these two pieces.
The only thing illogical about this situation is that so much attention is being given to an essay written by a man who doesn’t have anything approaching serious journalistic, academic or humanitarian credentials.
I don’t think that history will look back on Paul Shirley’s fifteen minutes of fame very fondly. There’s a serious ignorance and lack of integrity prevalent in both the original piece and this shallow, callous mockery of a followup.
As someone who has lived in third-world countries for five years, I heartily agree with you. I’ve SEEN first hand where all that money supposedly goes, and don’t think it’s just a corrupt government that throws it away either.
You have a wonderful writing talent, you look at things from your own perspective, instead of just sharing the mind of the masses, and I encourage you to keep writing your opinion.
Sit a million wild monkeys at a million computers, and they’ll produce the sound of a million wild monkeys. A Shakespearean sonnet? Mr Shirley could barely mention a summer’s day before the million wild monkeys shrieked their outrage and swarmed like a plague, screeching and gibbering and flinging their filth.
Affirmative Action gave those million computers to those million wild monkeys. Now they strut and preen and hoot and holler, and dream themselves equal to men.
Victims of Hurricane Katrina? There were none. The same government that clothes and feeds and houses you, disarms your victims and wipes your ass, paid to move people to a place of safety, away from the path of the storm. Any human being could understand the danger, but other ideas were at play.
Nature and her forces do not listen to monkeys. The ones flushed away were not victims of nature, but of their own simian mindlessness. They were victims of that from the day they were born, and will remain its victims forever.
I completely support you and your article. All in our house do. I am from a third world country, Colombia, and I perfectly understand your point. It doesn’t help just to give things, and not solve the problem at it’s root.
I oppose my current government because of that. Our president likes to go to the poorest regions of our country and give away food and groceries. While some people may say “What a generous man he is”, the truth behind such generosity is that he is not doing anything to fix the poverty on the areas he visits. Therefore, everything becomes an exercise in hypocrisy that is nothing more than despicable.
I find the so called humanitarian efforts on Haiti similar. Sure, we will pour money into the country, and food and supplies, but after the crisis is averted, I’m pretty sure that all of those who wrote here to vituperate you, Paul, will forget about the thing altogether, and go back to their happy lives, with a calm conscience because they sent tuna cans or money to the island.
But that is only a short term solution. Somebody here wrote that Haiti has been crushed by “a series of vicious dictators that continued to oppress the people”. That same someone said it was the US that did that. It seems to me that, as that same person said, Haiti needs more reparations than donations. We are not helping if all we are doing is feed a bunch of refugees. We are helping if we teach them how to feed themselves, and that is something quite possible inside the capabilities of the US.
And I would like to dedicate a space in my comment to Knowledge Bone’s comments. While all of us have the right to dissent, we have the duty to express such dissent in a polite, civilized manner. Otherwise, you are trying to impose your truth, which is in no way, THE truth. You said yourself that an opinion unchallenged becomes a truth unfounded. I don’t think challenging an opinion involves insulting the one who names it. If I started writing names at you, I’m pretty sure your answer wouldn’t be an appropriate, thoughtful opinion, but more of a rage blinded argument. Much like the “You just simply stated that humans should not allow themselves to feel, enjoy and express love due to the fact they don’t have an SUV.” argument. He never said anything like that. There is something called condoms, and they are free in a basic government. I know they are free here, and we are not a rich country. Therefore, I politely recommend you to think things through before posting, and do so in a civilized manner.
That said, I want to congratulate Mr. Paul Shirley for having the bravery of voicing an awkward truth, that, while we surely wouldn’t want to see, still exists. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I came here to read the comments left by folks, and to comment specifically on a few that either spit venom or accuse racism…but after reading Pablo Lamrea’s comment, I could not have said it any better myself. Well done Pablo, and thank you for your insightful followup.
People like WM and Knowledge Bone have a valuable place as well, and thats to show us that we still have a long way to go.
Paul,
I’ve always been a fan of your writing and although I didn’t agree with most of what you wrote in your original piece, I still support your right to say what’s on your mind.
“… and that someone else might be inspired to come up with a better way to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters like the one in Haiti.”
I find it interesting that the man stressing personal responsibility is asking SOMEBODY ELSE to find a solution.
That being said, as a human being, I believe I have a personal responsibility to help those who are suffering. Perhaps my efforts are sometimes hypocritical, as I do not help every suffering person in the world, but when such obvious situations of suffering arise (Haiti, New Orleans, etc.), I, as a human being, feel obligated to help. Was the infrastructure and government in Haiti terrible to begin with? Of course it was. But to withhold necessary aid from these people just because you believe they’ll go back to their old ways is ludicrous. There is no doubt that Haiti is in need of long term solutions, and it is possible that these relief efforts will only end up being a quick-fix. But sometimes the quick-fix is what’s necessary. The people need help NOW! Speculations about Haiti’s future shouldn’t prevent them from receiving that help.
I would simply like to state that donating to the Red Cross is a way to assist that organization in getting much needed food, medical supplies, and assistance to the people of Haiti. I’m not sure what Paul Shirley has against the Red Cross or its motives. I’m not sure why he would think donating to this charitable organization would do more harm than good for the Haitians. Mr. Shirley has the right to express his opinions(just maybe not on his employers dime) and I won’t fault him for that but I do believe his opinion to be misguided at best and cruel at worst. While there will be a time for a political and social conversation on Haiti and how to avoid a disaster like this in the future, that time has not come.
I believe in free speech and I would be the first one to defend it. I also believe that free speech has to be somewhat intelligent to be understood, preached and followed. That’s where you’ve lost me Paul.
Nonsense.
To any idiot complaining that anyone who criticizes Shirley is someone an anti-free speech fascist:
You have the right to be free from the Government interfering with your free speech. The people criticizing Shirley here are not the Government – no one has suggested that Paul be thrown in jail for saying any of this. Instead, people are simply exercising their right to free speech by, quite rightfully, vigorously criticizing his backwards, racist, poorly constructed views.
By the same token, no one has any “duty to be civilized” in their comments – not only is the tone and substance of the article itself anything but civilized, but the viewpoints in the article themselves are inseparable from the author. If Paul Shirley wrote an article describing why he was in favor of reinstating anti-miscegenation laws, he would be roundly denounced as being despicable and ostracized from anyone with half a brain.
There would be no calls that his critics weren’t being “fair”, or weren’t being “thoughtful” enough – just the swift, unequivocal denouncement by all.
He deserves no more here.
I really like your articles, especially A column about the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake. I’m posting the link in my email, blog, twitter, and sending it to my family and friends. My friend told me not to do so – he said even if I agree with you, it’s not a good idea to make that view known – just look at all the hate messages you got. But you know what, there are enough *cough* you know what *cough* in this world already. If someone share my opinion and can be as eloquent as you are, there’s no reason for me hold back and show other people your piece.
Is there anyway I can subscribe to your blog?
Oh my goodness, do we have a Casey Jacobsen sighting?
An opinion is just that…an opinion. As a matter of fact, so many people in America SHARE this same opinion, they are just too scared to say it. After reading the first article, there is absolutely no way that the you can’t see the point Paul was trying to make. No way! He might have made a few crude statements along the way, but he stated the truth throughout the article. Only ignorance would cause someone to believe otherwise.
As many have previously stated, If you don’t agree with what the article, there’s a simple solution: DON’T READ IT!
AND FOR ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN BASHING PAUL’S INTELLIGENCE…..He scored a 36 on his ACT. Damn. It must be so hard to be so stupid.
Read ‘Dead Aid’ by Dambisa Moyo….an african woman from Zambia
Harvard educated who basically makes the argument that the world
has to stop aiding Africa ‘to make themselves’ feel better, it
is making things worse.
I thought the same thing as Paul Shirley when Katrina happened.
That stadium was ‘filled’ with all black people ‘waiting’
for the government to save them. Why didn’t white people need
saving….they couldn’t all be rich. What made these people in
the ninth ward poor anyway…they weren’t working. We have to
start asking ourselves why all US innner cities are filled with poor black people.
You’re an asshole!
I believe in free speech and having your own opinion, but you’re an asshole!
What you are Mr. Shirley is a Right-wing Anarchist—nothing new to Western culture, but almost certainly destructive to it if gone unchecked.
See… the basic survival of the ‘cave-man’ depended upon the support of everyone in the community. Otherwise the human race would not have been able to fend for themselves against not only the elements, but predators as well.
There was no such thing as ‘every man for himself’ back then because isolation from the protection of the tribe meant certain death.
This is why banishment was considered the harshest penalty before death for millenniums, because it would surely lead to death, only slowly and more miserably.
So…actually Mr.Shirley, I think equating yourself to the early human was actually an insult to humanity as a whole.
REAL TRUTH: You could learn something from the caveman about what it is to be human.
p.s.Here’s a quick education from someone with actual credentials on the truth about Haiti’s plight.
This answers the questions:
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES is in the process of
> conceiving how best to deliver a major conference on the theme
> Rethinking And Rebuilding Haiti.
>
> I am very keen to provide an input into this exercise because
> for too long there has been a popular perception that somehow the
> Haitian nation-building project, launched on January 1, 1804, has failed
> on account of mismanagement, ineptitude, corruption.
>
>
> Buried beneath the rubble of imperial propaganda, out of both
> Western Europe and the United States, is the evidence which shows that
> Haiti’s independence was defeated by an aggressive North-Atlantic
> alliance that could not imagine their world inhabited by a free regime
> of Africans as representatives of the newly emerging democracy.
>
> The evidence is striking, especially in the context of France.
>
> The Haitians fought for their freedom and won, as did the
> Americans fifty years earlier. The Americans declared their independence
> and crafted an extraordinary constitution that set out a clear message
> about the value of humanity and the right to freedom, justice, and
> liberty.
>
> In the midst of this brilliant discourse, they chose to retain
> slavery as the basis of the new nation state. The founding fathers
> therefore could not see beyond race, as the free state was built on a
> slavery foundation.
>
> The water was poisoned in the well; the Americans went back to
> the battlefield a century later to resolve the fact that slavery and
> freedom could not comfortably co-exist in the same place.
>
> The French, also, declared freedom, fraternity and equality as
> the new philosophies of their national transformation and gave the
> modern world a tremendous progressive boost by so doing.
>
> They abolished slavery, but Napoleon Bonaparte could not imagine
> the republic without slavery and targeted the Haitians for a new, more
> intense regime of slavery. The British agreed, as did the Dutch, Spanish
> and Portuguese.
>
> All were linked in communion over the 500 000 Blacks in Haiti,
> the most populous and prosperous Caribbean colony.
>
> As the jewel of the Caribbean, they all wanted to get their
> hands on it. With a massive slave base, the English, French and Dutch
> salivated over owning it – and the people.
>
> The people won a ten-year war, the bloodiest in modern history,
> and declared their independence. Every other country in the Americas was
> based on slavery.
>
> Haiti was freedom, and proceeded to place in its 1805
> Independence Constitution that any person of African descent who arrived
> on its shores would be declared free, and a citizen of the republic.
>
> For the first time since slavery had commenced, Blacks were the
> subjects of mass freedom and citizenship in a nation.
>
> The French refused to recognize Haiti’s independence and
> declared it an illegal pariah state.. The Americans, whom the Haitians
> looked to in solidarity as their mentor in independence, refused to
> recognize them, and offered solidarity instead to the French. The
> British, who were negotiating with the French to obtain the ownership
> title to Haiti, also moved in solidarity, as did every other
> nation-state the Western world.
>
> Haiti was isolated at birth – ostracized and denied access to
> world trade, finance, and institutional development. It was the most
> vicious example of national strangulation recorded in modern history.
>
> The Cubans, at least, have had Russia, China, and Vietnam. The
> Haitians were alone from inception. The crumbling began.
>
> Then came 1825; the moment of full truth. The republic is
> celebrating its 21st anniversary. There is national euphoria in the
> streets of Port-au-Prince.
>
> The economy is bankrupt; the political leadership isolated. The
> cabinet took the decision that the state of affairs could not continue.
>
> The country had to find a way to be inserted back into the world
> economy. The French government was invited to a summit.
>
> Officials arrived and told the Haitian government that they were
> willing to recognize the country as a sovereign nation but it would have
> to pay compensation and reparation in exchange. The Haitians, with backs
> to the wall, agreed to pay the French.
>
> The French government sent a team of accountants and actuaries
> into Haiti in order to place a value on all lands, all physical assets,
> the 500 000 citizens were who formerly enslaved, animals, and all other
> commercial properties and services.
>
> The sums amounted to 150 million gold francs. Haiti was told to
> pay this reparation to France in return for national recognition.
>
> The Haitian government agreed; payments began immediately.
> Members of the Cabinet were also valued because they had been enslaved
> people before independence.
>
> Thus began the systematic destruction of the Republic of Haiti.
> The French government bled the nation and rendered it a failed state. It
> was a merciless exploitation that was designed and guaranteed to
> collapse the Haitian economy and society.
>
> Haiti was forced to pay this sum until 1922 when the last
> installment was made. During the long 19th century, the payment to
> France amounted to up to 70 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange
> earnings.
>
> Jamaica today pays up to 70 per cent in order to service its
> international and domestic debt. Haiti was crushed by this debt payment.
> It descended into financial and social chaos.
>
> The republic did not stand a chance. France was enriched and it
> took pleasure from the fact that having been defeated by Haitians on the
> battlefield, it had won on the field of finance. In the years when the
> coffee crops failed, or the sugar yield was down, the Haitian government
> borrowed on the French money market at double the going interest rate in
> order to repay the French government.
>
> When the Americans invaded the country in the early 20th
> century, one of the reasons offered was to assist the French in
> collecting its reparations.
>
> The collapse of the Haitian nation resides at the feet of France
> and America, especially. These two nations betrayed, failed, and
> destroyed the dream that was Haiti; crushed to dust in an effort to
> destroy the flower of freedom and the seed of justice.
>
> Haiti did not fail. It was destroyed by two of the most powerful
> nations on earth, both of which continue to have a primary interest in
> its current condition.
>
> The sudden quake has come in the aftermath of summers of hate.
> In many ways the quake has been less destructive than the hate.
>
> Human life was snuffed out by the quake, while the hate has been
> a long and inhumane suffocation – a crime against humanity.
>
> During the 2001 UN Conference on Race in Durban, South Africa,
> strong representation was made to the French government to repay the 150
> million francs.
>
> The value of this amount was estimated by financial actuaries as
> US$21 billion. This sum of capital could rebuild Haiti and place it in a
> position to re-engage the modern world. It was illegally extracted from
> the Haitian people and should be repaid.
>
> It is stolen wealth. In so doing, France could discharge its
> moral obligation to the Haitian people.
>
> For a nation that prides itself in the celebration of modern
> diplomacy, France, in order to exist with the moral authority of this
> diplomacy in this post-modern world, should do the just and legal thing..
>
>
> Such an act at the outset of this century would open the door
> for a sophisticated interface of past and present, and set the Haitian
> nation free at last.
>
> Sir Hilary Beckles is pro-vice-chancellor and Principal of the
> Cave Hill Campus, UWI.
i’m not saying that paul is a racist. i’m just saying that he is a failed basketball player and failing writer who is lashing out at anyone else of color when opportune. its tough that they were better than him. for example, he said:
“I have dealt with the issues of race in athletics all of my life. It is very difficult to make it in the world of basketball as a white person.”
and
“I’m no great spokesman for race relations; many of the black men around whom I’ve spent time shared a seething dislike for me that had me checking my pockets to make sure I hadn’t stolen something from them.”
because the big black men were better than him, he can only understand other people’s suffering through his own experience. consider:
“As I’ve finished this column, it has occurred to me that this will be posted the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I hate Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I think it’s a divisive holiday. Instead of celebrating an intelligent man who happened to be black, there are those (and they are many) who would have us celebrate MLK because he’s a black man who happened to be intelligent.”
or maybe this was considwered funny to him. his white friends laughed, why won’t the rest of the world?:
“As such, by the time my family had finished tiding its collective yule, my cache of music was as depleted as a UN rice truck after six hours in a Sudanese refugee camp.”
so in conclusion, i am not calling him a racist at all. i just think that his parents had a responsibility to ensure that he turned into a human being but failed miserably.
Hmm, this all deals with quite a bit of what ifs. What if we do this, what if they had done so, then all would have been better.
Fact remains we got a country that is devastated by a earthquake with several hundred thousand dead, a lot more wounded and homeless. Are we going to sit back and say ‘to bad for you all, but if you had been richer you wouldnt be in this mess. Now, good luck with rebuilding your country’
Paul your the man.. F all these left wing savages who think throwing money at clowns is going to help anything… I bet my life that in 12 months all is forgot.. and ALL the money and supplies have been stolen and traded for trinkets umong the gangsters Now running Haiti… You think the taliban is corupt.. you should see the savages in Haiti. Also, kalifani6 is a retard…. ANY HUMAN who decides to be a SAVAGE makes a personal choice.. Poverty, is NOT an excuse to be an animal.
Paul:
Call Me!
700 Club
Have posted this twice previously, only to have it disappear after your “moderation”.
What’s the problem with this comment and question? Would appreciate an answer to my question.
Mr. Shirley:
This drivel is just further evidence of your propensity to whine and complain and ultimately hold yourself unaccountable for your failures. Your propensity to do that was made eminently visible by those who read and reviewed your book about the time you spent in the NBA.
Link here:
http://www.amazon.com/Can-Keep-Jersey-Countries-Basketball/product-reviews/0345495705/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
The overwhelming consensus from those reviews is that you are a whining complainer who seems to be undeservedly impressed with your own intelligence and opinion. That consensus is further borne out by a line in this latest attempt to deny responsibility and justify your views. It’s when you say this about the Haitian conditions:
“I did not make clear that I understand that outside influences have played a large part in determining those circumstances.”
Any objective reading of what you originally wrote would reveal that it was not a matter of “not making clear” that you understand this vital component of the circumstances in Haiti. Rather, any such reading would show that you failed to make any mention of the role of “outside influences”. Even for a man of your writing skills, it would be difficult to “make clear” an understanding that is never, in fact, detailed.
If you do understand the role of “outside influences”, why do you now choose to further defend what you wrote instead of discussing that understanding in this piece?
In case you were just “blowing smoke”, here’s your chance to gain some real perspective:
http://www.nationnews.com/story/guest-column-hilary-beckles-copy-for-web
You’re a young man with some obvious talent. Try opening your mind and growing a little.
Thanks for the history lesson, Kalifan6. Those are bitter truths. But if France is to pay reparations to Haiti imagine the debt incurred by the United States not only to Haiti, but also the Philippines, Chile, Iran, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. We’d be the same slave state that Haiti was to the French. But I agree that they should get billions in reparations from both France and the United States.
Wow. I am astonished. I suppose that an Einsteinian maxim would be appropriate about now. Everything is realtive people! Being in a privilidged position often has an adverse effect when dispensing criticism, sarcasm and irony. But often even an opinion will be judged harshly.
Note that the irony of people calling the original author (Paul Shirley) names and being judgemental really drives it home. People telling him that he threw the first stone, then proceed to pick up their own.
It is as if we will only accept criticism from people that make us feel guilty. We all have something to feel guilty about and personally my guilt is not for sale today.
And this goes to really basic psychological question: Is any altruism real. Or do we always do things to satisfy our own agendas or to be rid of guilt.
And since we are all different people we all deal differently with our feelings, there is no factual or basolute answer. So we have to live with a “vive la différence” attitude, if we are to get along, at all.
I have discussed the issue at lenght with several people and the four basic themes that occur time and time again are these: Guilt, Sympathy, Greed and Pride.
We are quick to forget that it matters not what the problem is and who we are, we are all humans. As complicated as we like to make things, it usually boils down to something much much simpler. We all feel these same 4 things, but the varying degrees (among other things) is enough to make us different.
But I believe the wisest opinion I got so far was from a concerned parent: if we set all cultural background aside, I mean origin, race and history and we were to consider someone as our own (a sibling, or even a child) how far would we go supporting them until we notice that the support is not what is needed.
As a metaphor, think of a brother that is battling a personal problem. Just throwing money at him probably won’t help much.
I think this was the crux. “Probably.” But what if it does? What if he just snaps out of it once he has the finances? Doesn’t that phrase just sound odd? We may hope this would work but if history teaches anything, money is not a cure all. For sure if he needs urgent aid, money may just be what he needs. But in the long run it seriously depends on what and where the money is spent in order for it to be productive.
i.e.:My brother wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place if he was apt to help himself though.
So how does this play out now?
Greed
Putting money in the hands of a government that is already power hungry, will just strenghten their grip by building a better army to keep the people oppressed. And in this sense the people in Haiti are no different than many people across the world. They would surely like to live better but they have several obstacles in the way, money is actually funding it so it get’s worse.
The flipside of this is people that can never have enough, probably wouldn’t give under any circumstances whatever it was. So no point in counting on them or badgering them, time is a wasting.
Sympathy.
Sure right now, the rest of the world are trying to feed clothe and help the immediate need. But all that effort will be vain if we don’t do the responsible thing.
If I translate this in my own terms, if my brother drinks and it’s a problem and I am dedicated to help. Next time he picks up a bottle I’ll slap it out of his hand or at least make sure he doesn’t buy iit with my money. I’d go out and buy what I judge is needed (food, clothees, pay the rent) but never give cash that can be misused.
In Haiti’s case we can’t buy them a new (better) government but we can send goods and services. The only two that come to mind are: education and building materials at this point. I mean how about the means to build basic but sturdy homes and then the education to allow people to make better decisions, build their own fate. Once the rescue effort is done, what we just take off and say good luck next time?
Pride.
At some point when someone is in trouble, the pride has to bite the bullet temporarily, admit their flaws and vow to do better. And of course do better.
This in time will restore the pride. I do not believe in people that cannot change their fate around, given the proper tools unless they are afflicted with an endemic pathology. And no one will disagree that Haitians are not endemically doomed more than any other people. They have to define their own needs and see how they can come to purvey it. But before we get there there’s a slow and painful road where they have to discover the areas where they need to work on themselves.
Guilt.
For us “weatlthy westerners” it is a card that is played on us every day. So much so it has made us a bit callous. And in effect caused a lot of harm in situations where we could do so much good.
I am a “country boy” so to speak and in some of my first adventures in the big city (I live in the burbs now) I rapidly discovered how manipulative people would be to get charity, where in fact it was undue. Punks buying tatoos and drugs with money given for rent. A bum calling you names because you give him food instead of money and so on. This does not bode well the the charitable heart.
Guilt is often used to make us act without thinking. And now that I have become a bit more callous, I have to think before I give and almost never give cash. Especially not to a 3rd party.
So I do understand the so called bleeding hearts or liberals, but at the same time I can identify with Mr. Shirley’s article: If we need to give we need to give right.
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish… well okay a cliché. But appropriate I think.
However the point that seems to be missed is the “IF” in the IF we need to give. No one here can say if we do or not.
To coerce help it is *taking*. Whether you use guilt, sophistry or pedantic rhetoric, I don’t care. And by definition when we say “we need” it’s from within not from without. Reflect on that before you get all high and mighty.
On a personal Note:
And when I tried to donate clothing and food last week I was rebuffed.
Cash or checks only.
hey! there’s a dead horse!! let’s beat it some more!