Massive earthquake hits Haiti

Dirk · Jan 22, 2010

deanhills said:
Come off it Dirk, at some or other point the people have to take responsibility for their own existence. They can't keep blaming it on others. I would not even dream to compare Rwanda with Haiti, the people of Rwanda are completely different to those in Haiti, and as far as I can see for this present time anyway, much more willing to take responsibility for their own country. The energy that they have put into getting themselves on track after those awful wars, is far ahead of any of what I have seen in Haiti, people of which seem to be waiting for hand-outs most of the time, unwilling to take charge of themselves.

Well, you could take the example of most of the continent of Africa. Much of it was colonised, the people enslaved etc. It's now one of the worst-off continents on Earth, if not the most.

Rwanda, to use the example you chose, became independent when its colonial masters, the British, withdrew. They helped build some of the infrastructure - hell, there was already a lot of structure still there from Brtish ownership, to build on. Britai has taken special interest in Rwanda to help them. It hasn't been brilliant, but Rwanda got help.

I agree with you, it is indeed foolish to compare Rwanda with Haiti, which liberated itself from France - which has taken extra special care to make sure they remember it. It got no aid, no help in restructuring... There is a gulf of difference. But they both, of course, remain steadfastly third world countries.

deanhills · Jan 23, 2010

Dirk said:
Well, you could take the example of most of the continent of Africa. Much of it was colonised, the people enslaved etc. It's now one of the worst-off continents on Earth, if not the most.

That may have been true, quite a number of decades ago, but not any longer. Presently I would say the "enslavement" is more on a black on black brutality basis, than your typical colonists of more than a century ago. I refer to the Congo, I refer to Zimbabwe, I refer to Sudan as a few examples. Power struggles, corruption and oppression that have nothing to do with colonization.

Dirk · Feb 1, 2010

deanhills said:
That may have been true, quite a number of decades ago, but not any longer.

Remember that there was a US-backed coup in '04 and the implementation of "free market" reforms, so it's no wonder that poverty is so widespread and the infrastructure is such a mess.

deanhills · Feb 2, 2010

Dirk said:
Remember that there was a US-backed coup in '04 and the implementation of "free market" reforms, so it's no wonder that poverty is so widespread and the infrastructure is such a mess.

I imagine you are referring to Haiti? How can you blame everything on the US? If Haiti had been self-sufficient before a US coup, they would have had the kind of backbone which could have weathered the coup? People from Haiti have to find their own soul first, genuinely look out for one another, before they can be able to move into any direction. Probably going to take a revolution to get that right. Think it was David who reminded us that they had done that a while back in their history and had been successful at it. Hopefully they will be able to get to that position again one day.

Dirk · Feb 2, 2010

deanhills said:
I imagine you are referring to Haiti? How can you blame everything on the US?

Certainly not everything. But don't you know it's difficult to get over political upheaval - especially when militarily enforced? Well, actually, i suppose the US hasn't properly experienced that any time recently. But i think the economic inequality is quite suffocating - particularly for poor people.

If Haiti had been self-sufficient before a US coup, they would have had the kind of backbone which could have weathered the coup?

I doubt it. No more than if there were a coup in Algeria, certainly.

People from Haiti have to find their own soul first, genuinely look out for one another, before they can be able to move into any direction. Probably going to take a revolution to get that right. Think it was David who reminded us that they had done that a while back in their history and had been successful at it. Hopefully they will be able to get to that position again one day.

I think that Haitians do need to concentrate on rebuilding the county from the bottom up. That's why it's important that we give to non-state groups, like Batay Ouvriye and CTH. Revolution is one good way, yeah, but a revolution needs funding.

deanhills · Feb 3, 2010

Dirk said:
Certainly not everything. But don't you know it's difficult to get over political upheaval - especially when militarily enforced? Well, actually, i suppose the US hasn't properly experienced that any time recently. But i think the economic inequality is quite suffocating - particularly for poor people.

I do feel compassion for the poor, but then again for me economic inequality is a majority choice of the people of the United States. If economic inequality were as suffocating as you say it is, then people would have stood up a long time ago to overturn the Government system that is responsible for that. Instead the poor try to get out of being poor by wishing for and focussing on how to get rich. And the rich are focussed on getting more rich and to protect the riches they have. Whether we want it or not, when we are born we are born unequal as the potential, commitment and drive, and natural talents we have are different from one person to another person. Inequality is a given.

Dirk · Feb 3, 2010

deanhills said:
I do feel compassion for the poor, but then again for me economic inequality is a majority choice of the people of the United States. If economic inequality were as suffocating as you say it is, then people would have stood up a long time ago to overturn the Government system that is responsible for that. Instead the poor try to get out of being poor by wishing for and focussing on how to get rich. And the rich are focussed on getting more rich and to protect the riches they have. Whether we want it or not, when we are born we are born unequal as the potential, commitment and drive, and natural talents we have are different from one person to another person. Inequality is a given.

In Haiti, the Government, which instated these "reforms", was opposed by many. But as i said, you can't fund a revolution when you can't feed yourself. In the US, where the propaganda model of the news is integral to the structure of society, you won't find as much opposition to economic inequality as you would find in, say, Europe or South America. Though i'm starting to be a bit worried about Europe, to be honest.

Oh, and economic inequality is one of the base causes of social ills.

deanhills · Feb 4, 2010

Dirk said:
In the US, where the propaganda model of the news is integral to the structure of society, you won't find as much opposition to economic inequality as you would find in, say, Europe or South America. Though i'm starting to be a bit worried about Europe, to be honest.

Oh, and economic inequality is one of the base causes of social ills.

I don't see the media as the main reason for lack of opposition. I don't see opposition period. People in general don't blame their being poor on "economic inequality".

Dirk · Feb 4, 2010

deanhills said:
I don't see the media as the main reason for lack of opposition. I don't see opposition period. People in general don't blame their being poor on "economic inequality".

I think i only need to quote.

Batay Ouvriye said:
The severe deterioration of the working classes' life conditions in Haiti, mainly due to the domination they are subjected to and the general falling standards of life, is a harsh reality which is steadily growing. After the three years of coup d'Etat-embargo in which the imperialist super-powers literally attempted to strangle the popular masses, the very ones who had orchestrated the coup d'Etat and inflicted the embargo landed to occupy the country directly. The situation fell further back. Despite the minimum wage's adjustment from 15 to 36 gourdes ($US 1 to US$ 2,40) in 1995 and from 36 to 70 gourdes in 2003 (US$1.60), the working classes' living conditions haven't stopped losing ground.

in real terms, the salary has decreased of half and continues to decrease today. Worse, this wage adjustment has been largely fictional for many workers. The degree of exploitation continues to grow in all the production centers, without exception.
To ensure this situation, an atmosphere of permanent repression is maintained. The carceral factory atmosphere has been reinforced: the new police force, scrupulously organized and equipped to its teeth to garantee this exploitation, is functionning in an increasingly systematic manner...
At the same time, although the Lavalas government has largely demobilized the combative impetus shown by the popular masses during the last decade, it's accomplished splitting apart is visible to the naked eye. A new conscience is emerging.

David · Feb 4, 2010

deanhills said:
I do feel compassion for the poor, but then again for me economic inequality is a majority choice of the people of the United States. If economic inequality were as suffocating as you say it is, then people would have stood up a long time ago to overturn the Government system that is responsible for that. Instead the poor try to get out of being poor by wishing for and focussing on how to get rich. And the rich are focussed on getting more rich and to protect the riches they have. Whether we want it or not, when we are born we are born unequal as the potential, commitment and drive, and natural talents we have are different from one person to another person. Inequality is a given.

1960-'68. They failed.

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

David said:
1960-'68. They failed.

Can you give a little more info? I know there were "Make love not war" signs up at that time, and student unrest, was there something of greater substance than this?

David · Feb 5, 2010

deanhills said:
Can you give a little more info? I know there were "Make love not war" signs up at that time, and student unrest, was there something of greater substance than this?

The US Army was shooting at Americans, Massive marches were taking place across the country, there was rioting in the streets, solders and marines killing their own COs during combat. In short civil war but of the kind you see in 3rd world countries.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

David said:
The US Army was shooting at Americans, Massive marches were taking place across the country, there was rioting in the streets, solders and marines killing their own COs during combat. In short civil war but of the kind you see in 3rd world countries.

How can one call that civil war? I thought civil war was like the one when Lincoln was still President? The above were instances of people taking the law in their own hands and breaking the law?

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
How can one call that civil war? I thought civil war was like the one when Lincoln was still President? The above were instances of people taking the law in their own hands and breaking the law?

The War of Southern Secession was an odd 1. Civil wars are rarely so clear cut. I made that distinction in my post.

The US Army was shooting at Americans, Massive marches were taking place across the country, there was rioting in the streets, solders and marines killing their own COs during combat. In short civil war but of the kind you see in 3rd world countries.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

David said:
Civil wars are rarely so clear cut. I made that distinction in my post.

David said:
The US Army was shooting at Americans, Massive marches were taking place across the country, there was rioting in the streets, solders and marines killing their own COs during combat. In short civil war but of the kind you see in 3rd world countries.

But the US is not a third world country? There were Americans breaking the law, and the US army had to deal with it. I see it as civil unrest, not civil war.

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
But the US is not a third world country? There were Americans breaking the law, and the US army had to deal with it. I see it as civil unrest, not civil war.

Civil unrest was Dr. King marching on Washington (who was part of the overall uprising incidentally). The more militant revolutionaries however were just that, revolutionaries working to overthrow the gov't. Had a few things gone different, we wouldn't be a capitalist country anymore. Shame the Left was unorganized, pulling in different directions is why they lost.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

David said:
Civil unrest was Dr. King marching on Washington (who was part of the overall uprising incidentally).

I can't agree. That was a peaceful protest. Civil unrest is when people start throwing fire bombs at cars, and the army has to restore order. Civil war will be when one formal organization or State/s for that matter embark on a war with the United States, usually following a declaration of war.

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
I can't agree. That was a peaceful protest. Civil unrest is when people start throwing fire bombs at cars, and the army has to restore order. Civil war will be when one formal organization of State/s for that matter embark on a war with the United States, usually following a declaration of war.

Why would a civil war be declared? Who are you going to declare on, yourself?

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

David said:
Why would a civil war be declared? Who are you going to declare on, yourself?

So how did the Southern States then enter into a war with the United States Government? Did they declare war on themselves?

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
So how did the Southern States then enter into a war with the United States Government? Did they declare war on themselves?

They declared independence and ordered the Feds to vacate their bases. The war started with the Northern invasion, though the attack on Ft. Sumpter, which was located on land owned free and clear by the Feds, was off base and shouldn't of happened.

Massive earthquake hits Haiti

Similar threads