The Horror of Haiti

[PFZKW88]

The horror of Haiti for Southerners | Southern Nationalist Network

Prior to the slave rebellion the country which became Haiti was one of the most prosperous places on the planet and exported a tremendous amount of goods (including 40 percent of all the sugar and 60 percent of all the coffee consumed in Europe). This was in the 1780s, just prior to rebellion which destroyed the country. In fact, immediately before the French Revolution the small colony of Saint-Dominque accounted for roughly 40 percent of all of France’s exports. Notice that almost immediately African voodoo immediately took hold once the rebellion began. Note that the White population was ‘slaughtered and massacred wholesale.’ Reports of cannibalism are quite frequent from Haiti, even into more modern times. Brutality and violence are a way of life there. Civilisation, except what is brought in through ‘foreign relief workers,’ was extinguished from the country. The economic plight of the descendants of the slave uprising and the White genocide tells the picture. The country lives off foreign aid and money sent back home by Haitians who have fled their homeland for more civilised, prosperous countries:

Why is it that Haiti and other countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa were so prosperous as colonies, yet within generations, reverted to third-world countries under the rule of their majorities? One could say that Haiti has few natural resources, but Japan does not have many resources either, but managed to be a financial and industrial powerhouse, even after being bombed to the ground by the Americans.

Rhodesia was once the breadbasket of Africa; today it still has a wealth of mineral resources, but, is a poverty-stricken nation as an "independent" Zimbabwe. South Africa took much the same route.

 

[Marble]

I don't know about Zimbabwe and South Africa, but Haiti (poor) and the Dominican Republic (rich) are one island.
That one side is poor and the other rich has something to do which the way they gained independency, I think.

 

[roberto]

Majority rules even if wrong.

 

[nnmartin]

as far as I know, South Africa and Rhodesia were prosperous when under white rule.

That sounds very racist I know, but it is certainly a factor worth considering.

take where I'm living now, Cambodia, as another example.

Doing reasonably well under French rule , but then after independence the whole place fell apart!

what does this tell you?

 

[nnmartin]

perhaps I'll answer my own question then.

yes, it looks as if, amongst other things, societies which are tribal based are ineffective at running nation states, due to the system of patronage and nepotism.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The horror of Haiti for Southerners | Southern Nationalist Network



Why is it that Haiti and other countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa were so prosperous as colonies, yet within generations, reverted to third-world countries under the rule of their majorities? One could say that Haiti has few natural resources, but Japan does not have many resources either, but managed to be a financial and industrial powerhouse, even after being bombed to the ground by the Americans.

Rhodesia was once the breadbasket of Africa; today it still has a wealth of mineral resources, but, is a poverty-stricken nation as an "independent" Zimbabwe. South Africa took much the same route.

IDK about Rhodesia, but in Haiti, the type of farming done on the once lush plantations stripped the land. By the time of the revolution, the land was largely barren.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Zimbabwe was wealthy as Rhodesia. In the sme way a company town can be very wealthy. The wealth never got much further than the wite population, but the working natives were well looked after. A colonial economic system does not function in a despotic/communistic way. As the large farms were broken up and the owners disposessed, nothing took its place except anarchy.
The copper and other mines still exist but no longer have a functional management and are in terminal decline.

south Africa Is, on many levels, still a wealthy country, but with an overly large and growing native population to support. It may well find a way to future progress.

Haiti seems to be a totally failed state, that is full of hate and tribal conflict. It is not a situation that will be solved any time soon.

 

[nnmartin]

I don't know too much about Haiti, but it does seem corrupt as hell.

yet, still the aid money pours in , or at least did for a long time.

Just leave them to sort out their own mess!

 

[Jacksnyte]

I don't know too much about Haiti, but it does seem corrupt as hell.

yet, still the aid money pours in , or at least did for a long time.

Just leave them to sort out their own mess!

The aid money poured in to help after a devastating earthquake, not just because they are poor.

 

[nnmartin]

yes, but look what happened to most of it.

siphoned off by cronies as usual!

 

[Jacksnyte]

That's why I don't trust very many charities to do what they claim to with the funds

 

[dust1n]

January 6, 2011
American Donors Gave $1.4-Billion to Haiti Aid

CHF International



A cholera epidemic is one of the major obstacles facing charities that are working to help Haiti recover from its devastating earthquake a year ago.




By Caroline Preston and Nicole Wallace


In the year after a devastating earthquake struck Haiti, Americans gave more than $1.4-billion to aid survivors and help the impoverished country rebuild, according to a Chronicle survey of 60 major relief organizations. Roughly 38 percent of that sum has been spent to provide recovery and rebuilding aid.


The outpouring, while generous, fell short of the $1.6-billion Americans contributed in the year after the South Asian tsunamis and the staggering $3.3-billion they donated in the 12 months following Hurricane Katrina.

Distribution of Funds

The share of Haiti donations that has been spent is roughly the same as the amount spent one year after the tsunamis. A year after Hurricane Katrina, charities had spent about 80 percent of donations.


But the percentage of funds spent in Haiti varies widely among organizations.


While a few charities have distributed all the money they raised, others have big sums still on hand. For example, by the end of November, the American Red Cross, in Washington, had committed $188-million of its $479-million in private donations. It expects to have committed $245-million by the one-year anniversary of the earthquake this month.

Concern About Spending

The unspent funds have fueled criticism that charities are moving too slowly in the rebuilding effort.


“There is a huge amount of frustration and a lot of talk about what is the impact of the hundreds of millions that have been raised,” says Wendy Flick, manager of the Haiti emergency-response program at the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, in Cambridge, Mass, which has spent about a quarter of the $1.9-million it received.


Experts on disaster recovery, however, say the rate of spending has been appropriate. If anything, relief workers may be tempted to spend too fast because of public pressure, they say.


"There are some environments in which you just can’t spend a lot of money quickly. And Haiti is one of them,” says Peter Walker, director of Tufts University’s Feinstein International Center, in Medford, Mass. “If you want to fuel corruption, then sure, go ahead and pump a huge amount of money in.”

Haiti Aid Falls Short of Other Disaster Giving - News - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas [Emphasis Added]