You also have a history of posting flamebait to HN. Please review the site guidelines and take a lot more care with this place. The ecosystem here is fragile. I'm sure you wouldn't drop lit matches in a dry forest or at a gas station, or toss Molotov cocktails into crowds at parks. So please don't do the equivalent here.
How does that sound to you?
I made no such claim. Also "founding myth" is a term with a distinct meaning separate from "mythology" in that it is not necessarily untrue - romanticizing the truth and excluding any unflattering details is usually enough.
I really wish more people read biographies, especially by multiple people who where belligerents in the same conflict. When you hear the same story told from different perspectives, you begin to question if the history your were taught was in fact, the objective "reality".
What you called "reality" was just a perspective from a single point of view, which I can safely assume was European.
One of my high school history classes presented this view; we used A People's History of the United States as a textbook.
What role did France play in the Boston Tea Party? I'm not aware of any at all. Certainly France jumped in once they saw the opportunity happening, but the idea that the revolution was really part of the conflict with France is just wrong.
The "American" studies class was about the Constitution, various laws, major Lobbying groups (ACLU, NAACP, FOP, NRA), how primaries work, etc. etc. American history was left to grade school.
Without France as a belligerent to England in the years up to the war, the latter would have been far better equipped to defend the colonies.
The David versus Goliath mythology that tells of feisty upstart democratic republic felling the great monarchy taught in school typically doesn't get into a Great Britain heavily depleted and indebted from years of war with France.
The irony from the US perspective is we're taught the superior force was defeated by guerilla tactics and unconventional warfare. Then we completely forgot that when we went to Vietnam. Oops.
Kinda odd you left that part out...
After all, the West still doesn't really care about slavery - there's more slaves today than ever in history. They also do not care about benefitting from slave labour or they would boycott the top countries in the Global Slavery Index: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/maps/#prevalenc... Slavery continues to be a thriving industry in Africa and the Middle East for example, and for the most part concern about this only comes from a few Western NGOs.
It largely seems to be a matter that at some point became politically useful in the US and elsewhere, rather than an actual concern. I wonder if it will ever stop being in political vogue.
It's diabolical. The ruling class, who benefitted the most from slavery, have figured out how to use it to keep people from uniting against them. According to them, it was white people who enslaved black people, not rich people who enslaved poor people, and we should all be upset the former and never think about the latter.
Being forced to work 8-12 hours a day, but free to go about your business the rest of the time is a very different scenario to being owned and having your offspring becoming another persons property.
Chattel slavery goes way beyond forced labor - both are terrible, but not equally so.
“The revolution ended slavery in Saint-Domingue but not forced labor. Louverture and several of the early governments of independent Haiti used the army to impose forced work on the plantations”
nonetheless I'm disappointed; the assertion looked so juicy and worthy of a deep dive. you made it sound like "academia" was conspiring to demote slavery to forced labor under specific conditions. yet no evidence of this is to be found in the linked text.
rather, the summary makes a point of distinguishing slavery from forced labor. granted, it doesn't define either term (as a proper paper would) but it doesn't pretend they are interchangeable either.
Dessalines went around the county killing all (fully white) French males. A lot of powerful Haitians opposed this, especially those of mixed racial background who had white family. The crimes that followed were really pushed forward by Dessalines the man, not the Haitian people in general.
Transatlantic slavery was incredibly cruel, but persecution by "the French" doesn't excuse a genocide of all French people on the island. Ironically, the people most responsible for the crimes against enslaved Africans (the "grand blanc") were largely back in France and so escaped personal harm.
"A contingent of Polish defectors were given amnesty and granted Haitian citizenship for their renouncement of French allegiance and support of Haitian independence."
Update: I generally agree with your revised point, but for the sake of history I believe it's important not to needlessly exaggerate historical events. Let the events themselves stand on their own. My country has an ongoing problem with propagating accurate history, so I am aware of the need to get things correct.
>Philippe Girard writes "when the genocide was over, Haiti's white population was virtually non-existent."
That seems pretty in-line with what OP stated, I'm not familiar enough to know if Philippe Girard is a reliable source but the reference seems legitimate.[1]
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0031322050010619...
This is not what this site is for. No more of this please.
It's not at all surprising that this made the flamewar worse—a neutral observer would expect precisely that, and that means you're responsible for the effects, whether you intended them or not. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
If you don't see how that's the case, I can understand why you might feel like a victim, but such perceptions have a lot of cognitive bias in them. It's hard for people (I mean all of us) to see the provocations contained in our own comments, and all too easy to see the negative contributions of others. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
As for downvoted comments, which ones are you talking about specifically? When users do the kind of thing you're describing, we often remove downvoting rights from them. I didn't see it when I took a quick look, though.
The article says "By the end of April 1804, some 3,000 to 5,000 people had been killed and the white Haitians were practically eradicated, excluding a select group of whites who were given amnesty.". Someone else posted a link to an academic article that states that former slaves "eradicated Haiti's white population in 1804".
Pointing out that a few polish troops were spared in order to try to discredit me and my summary of the article that all the white population was massacred (which is accurate on the whole and not a "drive-by one-liner") is a nitpick to prevent discussion, and it worked.
It's disappointing that you're siding with that behaviour and that you're accusing me of flamewar, or even of provocation. That's a sad testament to how much the scope of possible discussion has narrowed. As mentioned, I really only posted it for historical purposes on the messy past, and present, of Haiti as part of, I thought, a mature discussion. I didn't even think that this was an inflammatory topic, and in fact I still don't that's why I'm very unpleasantly surprised.
> As for downvoted comments, which ones are you talking about specifically?
All my comments that were downvotable (so less than 24h old, no matter what discussion) were downvoted in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, some time after I posted the comments in this thread.
Using World War 2 as an example, the Army Air Forces immolated Japanese cities with white phosphorus and napalm before the atomic bomb was available. In Tokyo alone, hundreds of thousands of people were reduced to ash, and the glow of the firestorm was visible from hundreds of miles away. Those actions, followed by the atomic bombing, are marginally controversial today but largely accepted as “ok”.
Because the allies won, those actions are rationalized, and those rationalizations have merit. Had Japan won, events like the rape of Nanking would have been rationalized by their standards, and actions of the US Army Air Forces would have been viewed very differently.
With respect to Haiti, the colonialist mindset focuses on the individual tragedy of slaughtered Europeans living their life in the colony. But from the perspective of the rebel slaves, those individuals were complicit in systematic barbarous conditions in the cane fields that killed thousands of slaves horribly, every month for a century or more. The wife of the banker who financed or leased slaves is the same as the overseer. Those rebels won the battle, but ultimately did not win the war nor write the history.
War by its nature breaks the norms of morality and civilized behavior. When Lincoln called for Americans to embrace the “better angels of our nature”, he did so knowing that war is where you break the glass and do whatever is necessary to prevail.
With respect to civilian victims of war, that’s just reality.
Post US Civil War military doctrine is that the whole of a mobilized society is part of the war effort. That’s why Sherman burned everything in his March to the sea. That’s why the meat grinder of WW1 continued until German society collapsed. That’s why open bombardment of cities was the WW2 norm. The era of field armies duking it out for king and country died with Napoleon.
We can argue about definition or scope of genocide is. But I think at the end of the day the tragedy of Haiti from 1493 on speaks for itself, and looking for good guys and bad guys is a waste of time. I’m naive, but I think Lincoln’s appeal is more relevant than ever, and doing the hard work of settling differences without warfare is how we all improve.
What's the difference when the target is the civilian population, as was the case with the bombings of Japan (and many of the cities in the European theatre of the war as well)? Other than the fact bombing cities from a B-29 flying high is more impersonal for the perpetrators.
" In January 1945, General Curtis LeMay arrived in the Mariana Islands to take over the problem-plagued B-29 command. For two months, his crews flew similar high-altitude missions over Japan with little more success. His job on the line, General LeMay decided on a risky new strategy: his pilots would fly daring, dangerous bombing missions at altitudes as low as 5,000 feet, low enough to be within range of anti-aircraft weapons. Robert Rodenhouse was shocked:
"We thought they could throw the kitchen sink up there and hit us. Can you imagine flying a big four-engine bomber at 5,000 feet? Why that was just unheard of, absolutely unheard of. And like my crew says, I think those generals lost their marbles. They weren't thinking straight."
The low-altitude bombing runs turned out to be highly successful. The planes carried much larger bomb loads. Crews flew at night to avoid enemy fighters. And flight personnel were kept to a minimum. Most of the gunners were removed to make room for still more bombs -- incendiary bombs."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pacific...
They didn't claim only the Allies engaged in this behavior, nor that Japan was blameless. Their claim was in the first sentence, and let me quote it verbatim:
> "That type of behavior is a consequence of war. It happens, and the victors define who is worthy of punishment or praise."
And it goes on to elaborate:
> "Because the allies won, those actions are rationalized, and those rationalizations have merit. Had Japan won, events like the rape of Nanking would have been rationalized by their standards, and actions of the US Army Air Forces would have been viewed very differently."
To spell it out, the argument is that it's silly to single out the Haitians when they murdered their oppressors (and people in the same social caste as their oppressors), because this kind of stuff tends to happen in war regardless of who the involved parties are. Western powers engage in it in their own wars and conflicts, it's just that since they are usually considered the victors, this behavior is less often singled out as barbarous (it is, but less often). Conversely, nobody identifies the former Haitian slaves as part of a victorious West -- especially since Haiti is a failed state and decidedly not part of "us" -- and therefore it's easier to single them out as barbarous and genocidal.
Things not claimed in the other post:
- That Japan wasn't guilty of similar crimes.
- That it was just Allied behavior.
- That the US was worse than Japan or viceversa.How else would you deal with an enemy that would not give in? Most people fail to understand that the axis was all in, in every way, shape and form. When it comes to the Japanese, they flat out were not going to give up. Their will had to be broken, somehow, someway.
> “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”
- Plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy
> In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Truman’s political advisers overruled the military in determining how the end of the war with Japan would be approached.
> "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan"
- Truman's chief of staff
> “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
- Commanding general of the US Army Air Forces
> “[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia’s postwar behavior…[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”
- Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, talking about Secretary of State James Byrnes
It doesn't seem like dropping the bombs served any military purpose.
The military capability being broken was not the goal, and it also not what decided the war.
> made little impact on the Japanese military
That would matter if the goal of the bomb or impact had been about 'material' but it wasn't, and its not how the war was decided.
> the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air
Again, that doesn't matter. Their position was hopeless literally the second they started the war. They literally started the war knowing they couldn't win.
The bomb was not there for military impact as militarily japan had already been beaten along every possible measure of such things. Japan was surrounded, had no food import its navy and air force were done.
> It doesn't seem like dropping the bombs served any military purpose.
The military purpose was ending the war. And in fact it did exactly that. You can actually go read about the highest level of Japan decision making. This is well researched now. Not a single member of the high highest decision council was for ending the war or even negotiation. Literally nobody. Despite starvation, fire bombings and military defeat.
After first bomb fell the they were starting to have meeting where they discussed the situation and the waste majority of them still were absolutely against ending the war.
After the second bomb the mood shifted, multiple members changed there position and with support from the emperor managed to overrule the still considerable opposition to peace from many of the military leaders.
The idea that this would have been possible without the bomb is simply not historical. Some people claim the Soviet invasion was the deciding factor, but just like losing territory to the East and South, losing territory in the West would not have changed them.
Here are the alternative options:
- Surround Japan for extended period of time
- Full invasion of Japan
The first option would have been essentially a 10+ year genocide of much of Japans population and transforming it back into an agricultural society. The government would simply not have given up, they knew about the starvation that would happen in Japan and they were perfectly willing to endure that.
The second would have cost the US 10s to 100s of men, and the Japanese likely 10x as much.
There were 1000s of civilians suicides even in some of the outer islands, and 10-100s of soldiers who essentially committed suicide by attack. What do you think would happen when a US army went from village to village, city by city threw Japan following a retreating Japanese army and government north right across all of Japan.
The Japanese army was willing to turn every city int Stalingrad. Endless bonsi charges where US soldiers would have to basically mass execute 1000s of Japanese soldiers who had run out of ammo.
So what would your solution have been?
Also, of the first leader of “liberated” Haiti, Dessalines:
“Dessalines marched into Port-au-Prince, where he was welcomed as a hero by the 100 whites who had chosen to stay behind. Dessalines thanked them all for their kindness and belief in racial equality, but then he said that the French had treated him as less than human when he was a slave, and so to avenge his mistreatment, he promptly had the 100 whites all hanged.”
Off to a great start…