Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 19
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I was reading a bit about the slow-moving disaster in Haiti today, thanks to Jimmy "Barbecue" Chérizier's declaration:
I'm only vaguely familiar with the events that got Haiti where it is--unchecked rise in gang power, assassination of the President by "foreign mercenaries"--Columbians and Haitian-Americans--apparently hoping to win contracts under a new regime). Apparently Haitians are now in general "angry" with the U.S.:
Because I am hopelessly pedantic, the thing that bothered me most about what I was reading was the notion of "genocide." Now, this is of course a loaded and often contested word. What most people mean by "genocide" is the extermination or perhaps only expulsion of a race or ethnicity, at minimum within certain geographic boundaries. But the internet tells me that Haiti is 95% African, and almost all the rest "mixed European-African." Furthermore:
And from Wikipedia:
So I'm left wondering--what's the "genocide" on offer, here? Is the Haitian gang leader threatening to just... murder everyone? The French speakers? The Protestants and/or Catholics? The infinitesimal population of non-blacks? The country has spent basically its entire existence lurching from crisis to crisis, prompting academics to for some reason describe its history as
and
It would probably be double-pendantic to point out that the inhabitants of Haiti are colonizers, for all their ancestors were brought there on slave ships; descendants of the island's earlier inhabitants are still reportedly out there--just not in Haiti. I say this in part because I have a lot of problems with "colonization" rhetoric, and Haiti helps to illustrate some of the central absurdities. But more than that, I want to drive home the idea that there doesn't seem to be an ethnic minority for Mr. Barbecue to cleanse.
It's possible he intends for "genocide" to simply mean "lots and lots of killing," but of course--he seems to be the one threatening to do the killing.
Civil war, I understand. Military-versus-gangland would be ugly in a so many ways. And given Haiti's history, I can even understand why "international interference" is a sore spot, despite the fact that Haiti seems to do much better under the rule of others than it does when left to its own devices. I am also aware of the urge some readers of this post will doubtless feel to start talking about "magic soil" or the like. But when it comes to Barbecue's prediction-slash-threat of genocide, I find myself quite at a loss. Whose race or tribe ("genos") is supposed to be under threat, here?
Ok, internet search was no help here - what does "magic soil" mean?
Yeah, sorry, @ArjinFerman is correct, though I've certainly seen both versions. "Magic dirt" is a shorthand way of criticizing arguments that seem to be about places when they should be about people, on account of there being nothing magical about the specific dirt people live on.
More options
Context Copy link
I think "magic dirt" is the more common usage, but it might not yield any results since it's a term used by deplorables. It's a sneering term for how some people think our elites look at assimilation - if you bring, say, a million Syrians to Germany, they'll become culturally indistinguishable from Germans just through osmosis / occupying the same approximate location / the magic dirt will make them German.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh man I have sort of a dread reaction whenever someone mentions Haiti. I've listened to some wicked podcasts about the colonization of the Caribbean, oddly the best one was about Napoleon and the French revolution.
The conditions on the sugarcane plantations were basically the 9th circle of hell and the Tainos were not able to handle it and a good chunk of them were murdered straight up or died from disease, the rest made "poor slaves" and most died on the plantations.
The Spanish & French imported african labor as they could stand up to the harsh conditions a bit better. It was one of the most brutal places on earth at the time, it wasn't all race related, a lot of mixed race, Tanios and africans also became tied up in the terrible society that developed there.
"The inability to maintain slave numbers without constant resupply from Africa meant that at all times, a majority of slaves in the colony were African-born" It was so bad they couldn't even maintain the attrition rates without resupply. But it was worth it as vast fortunes were made and it was the jewel of the empire cash flow wise. Turning human pain into coin on a vast scale.
It isn't a puzzle to me that they have had problems ever since. Mississippi and other deep south states are still the lowest ranked in our country, and that is with the backing of the rest of the great US of A. It takes hundreds of years to recover from that type of shit human society.
More options
Context Copy link
Genocide is just the magic word that gets Westerners all excited and interventiony. Hey, it worked in Libya.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is a barbarian chieftain using big words he doesn’t really understand except that the romans really care about them to make vague threats.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link