Haiti - Not a Curse - it was fear of a Black Nation

I admit, I was wrong – dead wrong on the origin of the destabilizing and debilitating actions of the west - especially America - when it comes to the island nation of Haiti. For a long time I assumed it was because of what the Africans on that island did to France, the humiliation of having to be the first European colonizer to be ejected by African slaves brought upon it the wrath of the west - not the karmic justice that the infantile mind of Pat Roberson brought forth. Now I see things differently, and yes the cultural and ethnic ties that bind the west is often reflected in their uniformity animus toward Haiti - it runs deeper than support of a deposed colonizer nation. What appears as western hatred, is truly fear.

Now I am clear, it is not what happened to France that has evoked two hundred years of fear masked through hatred from the west, but what that revolution meant to the west. The import and impact was loud and clear to another fledging nation seeking to build its wealth on the back of African slaves – The United States of America. Indeed the pressure of the southern slave owners were borne to bare on the 2nd and 3rd American Presidents John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson (himself a slave owner) to enact odious embargoes against the new nation. In the first many hypocritical acts by the United States whose own revolution drew a bevy of armed, diplomatic and financial support throughout the halls of Europe, even before the was over, yet she refused to provide Haiti with the same planetary hand shake of “recognition” until 1862 over 50 years after Haiti achieved independence. By contrast, the United States recognized the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro within a few days after he came to power.

The ripple effect of the Haitian revolution was intense as America could ill afford to allow what happened in Haiti to be reduplicated on their shores. Historian Tim Matthewson whose writings focus on the relationship between the 1800 Haiti and America wrote in great detail about President Thomas Jefferson’s fear of what happened on the island then called Hispaniola could happen here. Cultures just like humans have a form DNA which permeates within the psyche of a people and within each culture there are thousands of subcultures with their own rules, and accepted practices - both best and worse. For black America we often talk about having the so called “slave mentality” that has negatively impacted the black community in America, yet we underestimate the “slave owner “mentality and how it has been passed down from generation to generation. As the civil rights marches forced integration on a recalcitrant America in the fifties and sixties, the unforeseen consequences was the successful assimilation of the sons and daughters of slaves into the American way of life, which accelerated the pace of the black pacification. As a result, the black community has not been able to connect the dots between the west’s treatment of Haiti, and our own failure to launch a successful slave revolution in America. Because black people in America can sip from the cup of American freedoms, we fail to comprehend that the mentality of the slave owner has never left, in short the slave owner mentality reflects the mentality of those who capture and enslave – once having gained an advantage over your competitors, or over another people, the mentality of the slave owner is to hold on to that advantage by any means necessary.

One best way to describe the mentality of the slave owner, those who have captured and enslaved fellow humans for their own advantage may be to consider it in the context of America’s favorite sport football. During a hard fought game there may be a critical moment when the team that is trailing finally takes the lead, the commentators often use the term “capture the lead” to describe the moment. The commentators then speak on the importance of capturing the lead; the cameras show the ecstasy on one sideline and the agony on the other. Next the commentators then tell us, that the team that just took the lead, must now concentrate their efforts to avoid losing it at all cost – and they will discuss the variety of strategies that team will take to prevent a recapture of the lead by the other team. Even in baseball, announcers will conclude their commentary on an inning where a lead change has taken place and mention as they go to commercial break – now the pitcher has to go out there and protect the lead, and not allow the other team momentum. Momentum changes are the most critical elements in sports – and even more so in the life of nations and cultures.

Captured slaves gave America a monumental boast in momentum – the kind of momentum allowed her to become the world’s strongest nation in less than two hundred years. That momentum also brought with it an opportunity for many to build enormous wealth, and by doing so, presented this country with a daunting dilemma of ethics versus economic and greed – there is little doubt which choice prevailed. As a result, what happened on Hispaniola was a clear and present danger to those who benefited from slavery, and American politicians succumbed to the pressure that would give rise to an American policy toward Haiti that has left that country impoverished, yet with the exception of earthquakes, and outbreaks, for most Americans a country many dismiss as irrelevant. Yet the American policy toward Haiti has been devastatingly effective in mitigating the fears of white slave owners who braced themselves for what would happened if the wind of the Haitian revolution blew north and sparked a similar uprising here. Actually only a few slave revolts – relative to the number of slaves took place, and none reaching the white hot intensity needed to break the chains. And at the same time, as a double benefit, American intermingling in Haitian affairs supporting despots, and criminal leaders has left the country on many levels in a near terminal state so much so many Haitians have left. This brain drain was confirmed during my recent visit to Haiti, as I met many young people who feel a strong passion and love for their country, but felt they would be compelled to seek more fertile opportunities in America or Canada. The inability to effectively compete for best and brightest has long standing ramifications.

There are some who hypothesize that one of the reasons for American interest and intervention is the possibility of oil off the coast of Haiti – my gut says if there was oil there, the US has had several opportunities to do a snatch and run with Haitian oil rights during their many invasions. My gut also says its human wealth, not mineral wealth that has the Americans and the west on the edge. And why? In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “When in the course of human events, it may become necessary for people to break the political bands that connect one another” that eloquence ironically coming from a powerful slave owner is illuminating on multi levels. Mr. Jefferson was no dummy, and his worldly experiences and studies helped him understand that human history was ripe with those whose understood that “in the course of human events” there would be those who were enslaved, would ultimately rise up and overthrow their captors. As the bands that bound slaves and slave owners would need to give way to a new order. However the key to that formulation is that clear understanding by those enslaved that they were indeed captives. In 1804 the year of the Haitian revolution, the Africans in this country had no illusions that they were physically free, they had no illusions that white people had their best interest at heart, therefore the echo of freedom continued to reverberate through their bones, and for some in their hearts and minds. Those whose freedom beat through the later, would always have the potential to lead a revolt, either an organized one, or an ad hoc one.

What happened in Haiti was not pretty, the Haitian Revolt was not one that was “tweeted” about or “liked” in the 18th century world, word travelled much slower, but it did travel, because word always has travelled, and always will. While one may assume the mere fact of being in chains would light a fire that would lead to a revolt, but sometimes you need inspiration, a template, something to say – “hey maybe this can work.” Perhaps those in chains in America needed an event that they can connect with, an energy they could bond with, and be charged by. It may begin in fits and starts, then street protests morph into something different, became reactive, and a critical mass unfolds in a manner which forces the status quo to respond, or capitulate. Often as that force grows, it loses an appetite for the one carrot the status quo has been successful in throwing – compromise. Post Civil Rights America has been especially keen in watering down real opposition with the illusion of inclusion and assimilation. It’s an unseemly game where the ruling class appears to give in with dramatic concessions, but they often gained more in return than they gave. I can only imagine what would have happened if a critical mass started in this country on a grand scale – while there were numerous mini revolts, they never sparked or ignited a galvanizing flame until perhaps Emmitt Till – but by then, the Americanization of the African was in full effect, and when the bullets stopped flying in the sixties, it seemed like our leaders were now amenable to march for the crumbs coming from the master’s table rather than burn “master’s house” down.

It is hard to quantify the connection between reign of terror waged on Haiti and the pacification of the American Negro, but instinctively I have little doubt they are intertwined. When I was in Haiti, I felt this was the closest to being in Africa without being there, ravaged as that country is, corrupt as its government has been, a nation that seemingly bounces from desolation to isolation has an amazing spirit. I have no illusions that the next President of Haiti be it popular singer Michel Martelly, or former First Lady Mirlande Manigat can singlehandedly reverse two hundred years of dysfunction both rooted internally and externally, much the same way Barack Obama cannot in four years reverse, hundred years of American imperialism, and neocolonialism. But what I do see, is an opportunity, albeit a fleeting one, that there are enough members of the African Diaspora despite our differences in hues, language, national origin, who can put the kind of political pressure on our government, the Organization of American States (OAS), and others to begin to seek real change. – Clearly if the west and America still feels that a strong Haiti will plant the seed for an African American uprising in 2011, they are clearly mistaken. The 21st Century passivity of the American black is so deep, so profound, and so disconnected with our modern day slave position that even an empowered, and enlighten Haiti, may not be able to spark an awakening.

Imagine if the genius of Haiti was allowed to foster unfettered by Europe and American manipulations, for the last two hundred years, and spread organically throughout this hemisphere – perhaps our connection to Africa would not have been lost, and we would not have to say we are African Americans, our lives, and our energy would simply reflect it. What the Haitian Revolution meant was that this nation must never allow real black revolution to ferment and cement on this soil – mission accomplished! We can only hope a new nation of black thinking in America can help liberate herself, and help bring about a new Haiti.

Yet my desire for this type of an awakening by black folks in this country, smacks against the reality that too many of us are Africans “in name only” and therefore are utterly incapable of such an undertaking the kind of liberating movement– that took place in Haiti. The revolution in Haiti and the unsuccessful revolts in America were led by true Africans endowed with the spirit of our ancestors - ancestors who provided support, guidance, and protection - which begs the question whether a people so disconnected from the true spirit of Africa can regain their inner urge for freedom because I believe only those with Africa in the hearts – not in “surname” only can lead a revolution.

The truth of Haiti has always rested in its African spirit. Haiti perhaps the only nation in this hemisphere that can truly lay claim to the greatness of Africa had to be brought to its knees to prevent their victory to augment or kickstart a bloody and final slave revolt in America; and buy America the needed time to extract Africa from its slaves so that their progegny would resemble Africa only in appearance. Now in 2011, the present mind set of the American black provides chilling and cruel testimony of the unique foresight of American founding fathers who understood the survival of their country and its slave culture depended on whether or not Haiti thrived or not. Far from being a curse - the pain of Haiti comes from a fear of a Black Nation.

Mr. Obama's Vision

In the days leading up to the State of the Union Address my first thoughts was, does President Obama see the same broken, country that I do, and my second thought was if yes, will his articulation of that vision will bring about comparisons to the Jimmy Carter “malaise” speech from the summer of 1979. A speech that helped doom his one term Presidency. Last night I got my answer. Yes Mr. Obama sees the same America that I see, but from his – and America’s perspective a “woe is me “speech was not what the doctor ordered. Instead Mr. Obama laid out his vision for America in a way that mirrored his campaign themes, but from a perspective of a man two years into governing this country as opposed to spending two years trying to be elected to govern. The distinction is critical and important. What is said on the campaign trail is often ethereal and often gives way to the bump and grind of inside the beltway politics. Progressives have hammered at President Obama since he was President Elect Obama for moving to the center, or in the words of former MSNBC host Keith Olberman, at times, capitulating to the right. Yet I have often wondered if many of those on the left simply don’t get the distinction between campaigning and governing. To be fair to his critics, Barack Obama has made some mistakes along the way, but then again who among us has been error free since January 20th 2009? Yet this address is coming from a man chastened by mistakes, and challenged by the political ramifications of his mistakes – and the political ramifications of a nation filled with fear. In November 2008 I wrote in my final support of Barack Obama’s candidacy for President that the 2008 election was about “big things” and that in my opinion Barack Obama – not John McCain would be able to deliver on an agenda that required bigness. Looking back, I have no doubt that I was correct in my assessment – Obama stumbles notwithstanding.

What was said in the State of the Union was an important and blueprint for the way forward. Let me be clear on one thing – those who want to fact check this speech on the details of policy initiatives can go to hell, because they are misdirecting the message. A few years ago I read American Theocracy by former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips who saw the combination of American dependence on foreign oil, American debt, and Christian conservatism as a clear and present threat to American democracy. I agreed with that assessment, and wondered if President Obama had the same perspective. I have never met Barack Obama so I can not say with clarity if he read Mr. Phillip’s neither book, nor have I engaged him in a conversation on the most salient points of that book, but it is clear listening to his speech that President Obama is aware of the consequences that Mr. Phillips laid out. In his address, President Obama evoked some of the key “talking points” of the book – speaking on energy reliance, debt, social liberalism and war.

Elections have consequences, and the 2008 election of Barack Obama brought with it , changes in health care, the finance industry, don’t ask don’t tell in the military, and an alterative to “no child left behind”. Likewise the 2010 midterm elections had consequences – one of the best lines in Mr. Obama’s speech was when he reminded both parties that the mandate of the 2010 election was for both parties to work together to solve serious problems. Sitting to behind him to his left was the man the US Constitution puts third in the line of succession to be President – Speaker of the House Congressman John Boehner. Congressman Boehner wanted to lead; now Speaker Boehner has that responsibility. Republicans can ill afford to misread their fall midterm victory, and behind the strategy of being the party of no, because now they are governing partners. Which means if President Obama is on his game, it will be the Republicans who pay a political price in 2012 for obstructionism. And that is the heart of the Obama challenge. Barack Obama won the White House on the wave of progressive initiatives, but his two years have shown that issues that are dear to conservative’s especially fiscal responsibility need to be addressed, secondly while Wall Street seems to have rebounded from the near collapse in 2008, Main Street – especially the middle class main street still struggles. Why? Jobs. Budgets reflect a nation’s priority, and the priority of a nation in debt, and a nation that is underperforming has to reflect seriousness in resolving both problems. Therein lays the heart of the Obama challenge – and the Obama opportunity. The State of the Union is one of a President’s biggest stage, where he can be both politician, and statesman. President Obama laid out a Statesman like vision for America – a vision for big things, while issuing a political challenge. But he must do more.

Yes we need to tighten our bootstraps, our national debt is unsustainable. Yet resolving our debt requires choices, and President Obama in his address was clear and concise in where his budgetary battle lines were drawn: education, clean energy, infrastructure, consumer regulations and social security. Moreover, Mr. Obama clearly articulated why each of those areas should be provided the needed funds in order to secure America’s future. This is critical. In 2008 candidate Obama laid out a rationale for health reform – a rationale that melted under the hot glare of Washington politics. President Obama simply can not afford to lose control of the budget narrative - his own presidential reelection hopes and more importantly, the future of this country depends on his ability to manage the debate on debt, jobs and energy. The same can be said for our international agenda especially in Afghanistan, where it is clear our partners are shaky at best, and duplicitous at worse – and where history cruel to invaders. President Obama reiterated his July 2011 timeframe for drawing down in Afghanistan, and he must not allow any pressures to change his mind.

Finally, President Obama talked about the hundreds of thousands of children of immigrants who are in America because of the choices made by their parents, and alluded to their plight as an opening salvo for a cogent and meaningful immigration policy. These are all part an ambitious agenda and will require bigness on the part of all of us. We can ill afford to waste energy micromanaging President Obama’s speech on the details, but rather we should embrace it as a challenge to America to live up to its ideas, its history, and its potential. The challenge for President Obama is to not allow his vision to be a one night “State of the Union” stand, but a predicate for change that he is willing to make the centerpiece of his second term. I listened and was impressed; as this was not malaise “Part II” but a blueprint for the restoration of American greatness. Well done, and well said!